I am tentatively excited. Seeing Miller is still attached as the director is a big positive. He clearly has a vision for the Mad Max universe that has elaborated over time. Anya Taylor-Joy is a good actress and she passes for a young Charlize Theron.
I am mildly worried by some of the visuals, which have a more floaty and obvious CG look to them. A few shots look more ‘300’ than ‘Fury Road’. Might just be bad context and/or early visuals that aren’t fully cleaned up yet.
Edit: I just realized what the visuals really remind me of. 2011’s ‘Priest’ starring Paul Bettany. Concerning.
Possibly very much like that, with series meaning episodes will be adjusted for action in each of them instead of working with a nice film flow of 2-3 hours.
A couple War Boys shots with some of the vehicles and environment effects look promising, but I’d put this one on a skeptical box then be surprised if it comes out good, rather than experience the opposite for the nth time.
“Universe shaking” is what fits more to the whole disastrous influence and hamfisted policy Kennedy and crew had since episode 7. It just got worse and worse after that, creativity and quality was bled out because certain concepts had to be forcibly injected in the product. And it is clear they can’t leave things alone as they are, everything has to change from the success it was.
Both the IP and the fanbase were shaken violently by a rabid dog like a small bunny it preyed on.
Ashoka was okay, but to be honest, the light saber battle scenes felt like the camera was WAY to close.
I couldn't appreciate the battle choreography because the camera was pointed at whatever facial reaction they made every time their lightsaber got stuck.
Which also gives the impression you are watching a light saber fight from a keyhole.
The night sister battle was much better because of the wider camera angle.
Writing was fine, characters were fine, Thrawn was rushed out a little fast, most of my family didn't know who he was and it didn't feel like they had time to process him before he was yanked out of the story again.
I realise there might be confusion, I meant Episode 7 the movie (The Force Awakens), ever since that management has been molding star wars into what it is not. Even if succesful a show gets twisted into stupidity later on.
I liked Ahsoka for the attempt it was, though it was badly rushed from the start, and the ending was rushed as well. I feel the show needed at least 2 more episodes to flesh out the path to the ending. Baylan’s story could have used more time, as did Ezra and Sabine meeting, even Thrawn could have used some more spice.
What are these ‘certain concepts’ ? I was able to enjoy Andor even though you could call it '“less star wars-ey”. It felt like it had an intersting story to tell and not just trying to fanservice.
“all men are evil and/or incompetent” “Star Wars must get strong female characters” “all existing original characters must be diminished in favor of new ones”
Add to that plain stupidity and illogical actions are always introduced due to very lousy writing … For example the Armorer from The Mandalorian, all hyped up that she had to go to the legendary forge, only to moments before seeing that forge she “must” go back to the ship in space… It made no sense. Horseback riding and blowing up things on a Star Destroyer’s outer deck while it was in space/outer atmosphere… “Somehow uncle Palpy came back”, and apparently had a cosy family and grandchildren whom he hoped to bounce on his lap one day…
Andor is almost an exception to the rule, as was Rogue One, I find it refreshing and surprising it knew to evade most outside influence. I would never call either of them less Star Wars, they embody more the spirit that is Star Wars than what was done to Boba Fett, or Obi Wan, both core characters to Star Wars.
But even Andor was pushing towards incompetent and evil men. And Cassian Andor was changed from what he was portrayed as in Rogue One, a ruthless Rebel assassin/sniper: Show had him almost just wander around and stumble into situations.
As for Ahsoka, it mostly felt like Star Wars and I liked it for what it was, just rushed… And stupid concepts were introducted later on (like that “jump” that could just have been so much better with just a bit of thought behind it.)
In closing, I refuse to believe the blame lies just on incompetent writers hired on all those different projects, the decision makers clearly have a hand in releasing the finished products.
while i loved Andor, my main problem was in rogue one cassian heavily implied he had spent his life in the fight (pretty sure he even says something to those words) but then we see 2 years ago he couldn’t have been fucked
We get details of tentative agreements from all kinds of other labor action before those deals are ratified. When the actor were unhappy we sure knew what details they were unhappy about, and they never ratified anything.
Why the need for secrecy now it’s all said and done?
It’s a tentative agreement. Meaning they have a general framework for the contract, but nothing is signed as certain details are still being worked on. Negotiations are still ongoing.
It’s only the tentative agreement. This is how it goes every time. Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details. It could still be reversed at this stage.
You just want to argue, don’t you? They never announce the details right away. The details may come out but the official announcement won’t be until after it’s finalized. Same thing happened with the writers strike. The article says the details may emerge, not be officially announced.
No, not at all. I thought we were having a conversation.
Once they finalize it and all everyone has signed, then they will release the details.
I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …
The union is so far being mum on the details of the agreement, which will likely emerge in the next few days prior to the union’s ratification vote.
, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.
If someone’s seeking a correction doesn’t automatically mean they want argumentative combat with you, they just want to resolve the discrepancy.
Sometimes someone will argue a technicality just to try to appear the smarter person. You’re just being a pedant at this point.
You’re making assumptions on my intentions without any actual knowledge of me as a person to base them on.
My life is not so minimal that I feel the need to prove my intelligence to strangers on the Internet. All I was looking for was social interaction and conversation (and in this case, clarification) which you know, is what Lemmy is supposed to be about.
I mean that’s what you said, which just seemed the contradict what was said in the story, …
But it doesn’t, though. The article says the details will likely emerge. Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA. The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.
, so I mentioned that in the hope that you would elaborate on that, by either saying you’re incorrect, or that the story was incorrect for some reason.
Exactly, you’re looking to win an argument. Neither what I said nor the article are incorrect. They are different statements.
So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.
I’m really not trying to argue with you, so please don’t put intentions into my mouth that I didn’t have.
Again, that doesn’t mean announced or released by SAG-AFTRA.
Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.
The writer of the article is not a spokesperson for SAG-AFTRA.
Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?
I mean, this is really blowing all out of intention/proportion. I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.
Edit: I just got the information I needed off of CNN, where they listed what was in the agreement.
So you didn’t quote the part where I said I was just looking for clarification, and not attacking.
Why would I quote the part I’m not responding to? And it’s not like your comment is hidden. It’s right above my comment for anyone to see…
Does it mean it’s not either. I’m making the assumption that they’re going to announce days beforehand so their base knows what they’re voting for.
Yep, you’re making assumptions. This is also not like an election. There’s no 'base" to tell. The people that vote will be told what they need internally.
Because writers never ask questions of spokespersons, either on or off the record, and get information that’s accurate that they would put in their story, right?
Yes, they ask questions and the spokesperson tells them what they need/want to. And off the record wouldn’t be published. What are you not understanding?
I was just trying to find out if you were some kind of insider who knew what you were speaking about, to learn something new and different about the subject being discussed. I wasn’t trying to publicly embarrass you, was just seeing that what you were saying was different than what the article was saying.
If you were trying to learn something new, you wouldn’t be trying to prove people wrong with your comments. Come on, man.
You’re not being intellectually honest, because your response was to negate mine.
The context is literally right above, nothing’s being hidden. What are you talking about? Also, and your initial post wasn’t? Give me a break.
And, CNN broadcasted today, days early, what I was asking about.
SAG-AFTRA has still not put out an official public statement, only a statement to their members. The details came out despite this, exactly what I said.
EDIT: You know I can see you downvoting right? I didn’t downvote any of your comments.
Maybe. What makes the thing scary is how unstoppable and inevitable of a force it is, no matter what you do and no matter where you go. I’ll be disappointed if they somehow find a way to kill it in the sequel.
Until it happens to befall a depressed or suicidal person who just goes “fuck it” and let’s it catch up. What then? The curse cannot be passed on so it’s essentially just over forever, right?
Understanding it or figuring out where it came from would be even worse than killing it. The characters knowing almost nothing except what they observe directly is what makes it so terrifying.
It also functioned well as a metaphor for growing up/loss of innocence. I’m not sure how well it will go trying to explore that theme further using the same metaphor.
They didn’t even get through an entire movie without ruining that mystique. It wasn’t very “unstoppable and inevitable” when it was just standing on the roof of a house, or when it just grabbed that girl by the hair but failed to do any damage.
This is almost always the case with sequels and IS always the case with reboots and remakes. Nobody can come up with original material anymore apparently.
I do like BB version of the song but it’s too old to be used in a new movie. It has to be the OG version or a new cover to be used in a new movie, that’s been the formula.
it could be interesting in that the grown 'karate' kid befriends a chinese kung fu artist and theres all kinds of nuance learned between the japanese artform he knows and this new, foreign form, artist and its history.
Watched it. It is a pretty OK. Typical forgettable marvel movie. There is a villain and heroes do something, and the day is saved. That is all I expect from these movies t.b.h. Mild entertainment.
I don’t understand the hatred received for it though. Most of them either seem to be on either their expectations not being met or they are tired of these superhero movies.
Well if it didn’t meet your expectations, don’t keep it so high for these movies. And if you don’t like superhero movies, don’t watch them. Solved.
Well if it didn’t meet your expectations, don’t keep it so high for these movies.
I’ve been seeing this sentiment a lot and it’s such a shitty take.
Basically you’re saying, “If a movie isn’t liked, it’s the fault of the viewer.” since the only option it leaves is, “Continue lowering your expectations until you’re happy with whatever you end up getting.”
Do you think they make movies without caring if it would be good ? All those people, all that money invested and they don’t care for returns. Obviously not. They want returns and they try to make a good movie.
In the case of Marvel movies people keep their expectations so high that even decent movies like The Marvels is shit to them. That’s definitely the fault of the high expectations.
Again, I’m not saying it is the best movie. But it definitely doesn’t deserve the hatred it is getting.
On the other hand, do you think every movie is made with love and attention to detail or do you think some are shoved out there because they think people are dumb enough to just hand money over? Obviously not, in my opinion—many movies are phoned in. Many sequels, and evidence suggests all known “cinematic universes” tell a ramshackle and uninspired story in hopes that viewers of the original material are attached enough to the characters that they come back for more, instead of trying a new story with new characters.
Nobody is obliged to appreciate a movie simply for existing. It wasn’t a gift.
I mean, if you keep watching these movies, and you keep getting disappointed by them, it is your fault. You’re still giving them money to make a movie you basically know you’re not going to like, based on recent data. Either stop watching, lower your expectations, or just always be disappointed.
Idk. It’s a little bit of both right? I mean if you go see Pride and Prejudice because you want to see some epic fight scenes, you’re going to be disappointed.
Nah that seems like more of a strawman or moving the goalposts than anything remotely reflective of the actual situation.
Nobody is criticizing this movie because they went into it expecting an oscar-bait period romantic drama. Nobody.
Literally every single person knew what the movie was supposed to be: a superhero movie. An action/adventure movie with excitement, a few mild scares, some laughs, explosions, fights, etc. Sure, within the genre there can be “light-hearted, mostly comedy romp” and “dark, gritty, shades of grey” tones of film within it, but zero people are walking into this one expecting Pride and Prejudice, and it’s silly at best to suggest otherwise.
So when we’re talking about expectations, we’re not talking about the overall genre or tone expectations, we’re talking about expectations as to how well executed, well acted, well written, and well thought out the various elements were.
So yeah, when people say they found it disappointing, not being up to their expectations, they mean as a superhero movie. Further, given the steady diet they’ve been fed of the same, they mean, specifically, "up to the expectation set by many, many other similar films in the genre, in the same umbrella IP, from the same studio, released in the same broad time period.
It really doesn’t get a whole lot more apples-to-apples than expectations for a Disney/Marvel superhero movie in the 2020s.
So no, sorry, I can’t buy the angle that “if the film didn’t meet your expectations, it’s your unreasonable expectations that are to blame because you didn’t know what kind of movie it was supposed to be”.
Further, even if that were the case, that wouldn’t be so much lowering expectations as changing them. So when we see people specifically use the word “lower”, it suggests that’s not what they’re thinking at all.
No it’s more like “I don’t need it to be a goddamn Oscar winner to enjoy it”. It’s not blaming the viewer, it’s just saying that it still has good reasons to exist and if you have higher standards, off you go instead of just shitting on it in its entirety
For me it’s the way Captain Marvel was shoehorned into the MCU without any real development, and existed as what was basically a walking plot hole. Marvel movies have never been perfect but their whole thing was building characters into it over years. By Infinity War we’d been watching these characters for years and we wanted to watch the end of their stories. Then they just plopped Captain Marvel down into the series at the last second, had the existing legacy characters tell us the audience how to feel about her because the writers knew we wouldn’t care organically, made her disappear in Infinity war and most of endgame because they didn’t actually have anything for her to do except be a deus ex machine at the end of Endgame.
It also doesn’t help that Brie Larson just phones it in any time she’s on screen.
I agree that of the three lead roles I felt only Miss Marvel (Iman Vellani) seems to be the most developed character. And her portrayal alone is one of the positives of the movie too.
But as a movie it is still enjoyable like any other Marvel movie. It is a light hearted fun movie.
The level of hatred it received even before it got released is so cringy. Just borrow someone else’s opinion and spew it elsewhere.
I agree that of the three lead roles I felt only Miss Marvel (Iman Vellani) seems to be the most developed character. And her portrayal alone is one of the positives of the movie too.
But as a movie it is still enjoyable like any other Marvel movie. It is a light hearted fun movie.
The level of hatred it received even before it got released is so cringy. They seen to just borrow someone else’s opinion and spew it elsewhere.
There are all the anti-women wackos out there but more than hate, I think there are a lot of us that just aren’t interested. And it’s not because we don’t want to watch a movie with female leads, it’s because the characters are just half baked. I have regularly heard from people that they only saw it for Ms Marvel, and then you had to have watched the show. Lots of people don’t want to engage with all the shows.
You have to think of the general public and their patience for subpar serialized moviegoing experiences. Marvel hasn’t had a standout movie since Endgame and the final movie of the Spiderman Home series. The last one I saw in theaters was Doctor Strange 2, but that was only because it was the “ending” for Wandavision. The last four movies since then have not been great, and Captain Marvel doesn’t exactly get crowds excited. I’m not even going to bother because I’ve learned from the Marvel movie experience that is so serialized and there are so many references that I’ll probably need to slog through the ones I missed to fully enjoy it without being confused. I have mild interest but not enough to change the position I’m in.
The MCU Golden Age is over. We’ll have to get past Phase 5 and see where we end up, because Phase 4 only had a few enjoyable films, and Phase 5 so far has been pretty bad.
I’m gen x and find that this transition started happening earlier. Once online smut was accessible in early 90’s, what little sex shown on the silver screen became less sought after and just became something we had to sit through awkwardly with family.
Y’all need to go fuck some more. Films like La La Land are really missing something without a sex scene, the chemistry feels really fake and the relationship isn’t believable.
Sex is normal. Sex is good. Sex in films is necessary to convey intensity which a pan from bed shot can never achieve.
Great example: Terminator. Without this scene the whole franchise fails. The film doesn’t have the gravitas when John does die without it. And it’s a highly charged emotional reaction to the harrowing events they have both just been through.
sex isnt necessary for an intense relationship, and if your romantic pairing requires the characters literally porking onscreen to be believable or to read as having any chemistry you did a shit job writing it
99% of sex on film is casual sex and to claim that “casual sex” is normal and good is not straightforward to me.
For example most of the time with a macho male protagonist, they will show him using women for sex like disposable condoms. Another worrying trend on the rise is plot lines that basically glorify cheating.
I am not bothered by the sex or the nudity per se, but Hollywood loves to glorify characters with very problematic characters.
I’ve also never watched it but I’m on the fence about being glad I haven’t spent the time and curious about just how bad it was. Especially considering I liked Lost (including the end) and while the later seasons of Dexter had some flaws, I still enjoyed them.
It's the only time I think it's happened at that scale as well. It was a cultural force. A real Watercooler show in the age of streaming.
We'll probably never see something so big again, and it's largely forgotten. I can't even recommend it even though it's got some of the best episodes of any show.
I’d say that’s different from a bad sequel or prequel. A plot driven TV show is selling a promise that it’s going to tell a compelling story, and when it falls at the end, it’s like a film falling apart in the third act. Still, man didn’t suck.
It’s easier to extract profit for the shareholders from an established IP, rather than trying to build value through building your own IP. Catching lightning in a bottle is difficult, so it’s easier to just sell replicas of the bottle.
I never understand this shit. Like even if you have absolutely no morals, you’re Vin Diesel. You can pretty much have consensual sex whenever you want to. Why do you have to resort to assaulting people?
This right here. Rape is not about arousal, it’s about power. I highly recommend Roy Hazelwood’s books on the matter if anyone, like me, has a morbid curiosity about why people commit certain violent crimes.
My uneducated guess would be that if you can have “normal” women at any time you want; or more generally have any needs met at any time because you are rich and famous, the things you cant have are much more appealing. A “no” or “not for sale” becomes “you don’t offer enough yet”.
movies
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.