Why Is There So Much Negativity on these Boards? - Avengers: Endgame (2019) Discussion

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

Isn’t this post negative, too?

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Sigh. No point in explaining anything to someone as dense as you, so I'll just agree

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Actually, it's the opposite. You were the dense one.

You complained about negative critics, but your complain is a negative critic by itself. Of course, you don't perceive your own critic as 'negative', you perceive it as 'reasonable', you perceive it as 'true', how could somebody label it as negative?! He must be dense!!

But actually, you were the dense one.

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

Yep. cyberbob created a brand new thread just to complain about how the “crybaby” attitude of others was turning him off the site.

Talk about a lack of self-awareness...

LOL

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Critique*, not critic, I'm not gonna waste time arguing with someone with such a weak vocabulary, it would be too frustrating. Besides, based on the posts of yours I've seen on here, you are way too biased against this film to have a reasonable discussion with. You might actually be worse than Bruno, who regularly gets dunked on on any thread that he makes

And I added the Dollars trilogy because I figured I should add at least one action franchise, since these Avengers movies are action movies

And I mean negativity TOWARDS the movies. I don't care if you guys flame me or anyone else. This is the internet, I'm used to it and can take it

I'm talking about needlessly picking apart every little detail of the film. Be negative to me and others if you want, but treat the films with a little respect. Y'all seem to have a weird agenda against the movie. It was not a masterpiece by any stretch, but it was definitely not as bad as the overall sum of the threads on this board would have you believe

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Aha.

So you complain about negativity towards the movies while you keep insulting people, because you think that negativity towards movies is morally bad while negativity towards people is morally good. It's OK to insult people but don't say anything bad about a movie!! Well, whatever.

But this is the best part:

I don't care if you guys flame me or anyone else... Be negative to me and others if you want

After insulting people here, you portray YOURSELF as the potential victim of being flamed. No kidding. As Dark Helmet would say, your lack of self-awareness is disturbing.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Unfortunately with great success, sometimes comes great negativity and jealousy. It's human nature, so you better get used to it.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

You're right, and it's sad

I'm used to whiny fans that are never satisfied. It's a necessary part of geek culture. But usually it is balanced somewhat by the reasonable fans. It just seems like there is an unusual concentration of bitter haters on this particular website, and I wonder why that is

reply

[–] Satan2016 (24008) 5 years ago

RT percentages are meaningless. It has a metacritic score of 78, the average of 56 reviews. 1/14th of those were not positive.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

That's still a pretty good score for Metacritic

And RT % is meaningless only to the most pedantic of incels. Most moviegoers put way more weight and importance on RT scores than Metacritic. It is a success by pretty much ever metric other than "neckbeard loser approval". You have 5k comments, so I doubt I can fathom the level of loser that you can permeate onto the universe, but yeah, you're wrong plain and simple

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Insulting people doesn't make you right. And it's even worse when (as it happens here) you aren't.

RT has been deleting reviews and tweaking the algorithm to get a politically correct outcome. You like it? Fine. But once you start cooking up the outcome, it's not dependable anymore.

reply

[–] HushPuppy (142) 5 years ago

You don't think 95% critic score is a little too enthusiastic for a poe-faced comic book movie? Critics like movies with lots of emotion and lots of holocaust or AIDS, Oscar bait. This doesn't seem like their thing. Something is up. Remember how badly they used to trash these kinds of movies, that old Punisher movie from the 80s, or even X-Men, X-Men 3? Why is there so much positivity? The negativity is an attempt to restore balance. I think these movies are flat out unwatchable. Even the CGI is ugly.

reply

[–] Moonglum9 (10852) 5 years ago

? Critics like movies with lots of emotion and lots of holocaust or AIDS, Oscar bait.

I guess that would explain why my favorite movie is Camp 35 about how the Nazis invented the HIV virus during WW2 and introduced it into the Jewish population of a concentration camp. Sigh...”The Jew Who Died of AIDS” really tugs at the old heartstrings. (That’s the secondary title)

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

These movies will never stand up to greats like... the Dollars Trilogy

Have you seen these movies lately? They don't belong on a list of greats. I'm not saying they don't have some worthy elements, but they're hardly great Westerns, let alone great movies. They don't stand the test of time, although the score to "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" is certainly superlative and Eastwood was perfect for the roles.

Take the machine gun in "A Fistful of Dollars," for instance. The Earth has never seen such a gun with multiple muzzles, like a Gatling gun, yet nothing revolves.

That sequence is followed by a gunfight near a graveyard where members of the factions are absurdly fooled by two motionless corpses placed there earlier by Joe (Eastwood). Why sure! The final act is marred by another unbelievable scene where Joe boldly faces the main antagonist in a showdown. He has total faith in something that protects him with zero concern that any other part of his body besides his central torso might be hit. Someone might argue that Joe KNEW Ramón Rojo would only aim for the heart, but there were several other lethal heavies present. How did he know they weren't going to shoot?

Other problems include bad English dubbing, cartoony gore, the camera's curious infatuation with close-ups of sweaty, maniacal countenances and no female character of note.

There's this myth going around that Leone's Dollars trilogy introduced the concept of the antihero, otherwise known as the "good (or likable) bad man." Actually, the antihero had been around for decades when "Fistful" was released in '64. Take, for example, John Wayne's Ringo Kid in "Stagecoach" (1939) or Richard Widmark's Comanche Todd in "The Last Wagon" (1956) or Anthony Quinn's Bob Kallen in "The Ride Back" (1957) and, particularly, Brando's Kid Rio in "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961). These are just off the top of my head.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Not that good, but not that bad. Leone was no John Ford or Howard Hawks, but he was still a good director. The Dollars Trilogy is a fun ride (even though I still prefer Two Mules for Sister Sara from Siegel, same style, but better and funnier). And 'Once Upon a Time in the West' is a great western, I'd say the only great western Leone did, but hands down a great one.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

Not that good, but not that bad. Leone... was still a good director.

I agree. I can put on those three Leone-Eastwood flicks and enjoy them for what they are -- Spaghetti Westerns from the mid-60s. But, like you, I think "Two Mules" is the superior Western, along with those other four I mentioned. At the same time I want to stress that Morricone's score for "The Good..." is an iconic masterpiece. The film itself is iconic, of course, but that's not the same as being a great movie.

While certainly mesmerizing at times, the picaresque flick is overlong and has some slow stretches, not to mention amoral & one dimensional characters and a story that idolizes lucre above everything; it also has campy and goofy elements, which kills any realism. But, if the viewer can handle all that, Eastwood is the coolest Westerner, Lee Van Cleef is the ultimate bad axx, the score is exceptional and the film pulsates with hip style (for 60s/70s, that is). In short, there's some good in the movie, even greatness, which explains the gushing of some reviewers; but, to be honest, there's also some bad and ugly.

Leone strained to explain the theme: "We all have some bad in us, some ugliness, some good. And there are people who appear to be ugly, but when we get to know them better, we realize that they are more worthy." One reviewer took this and claimed that each of the three protagonists embody the three parts of human nature with Tuco representing the id (i.e. the "flesh") and Blondie representing the ego (i.e. the mind with its power of volition). Okay, that fits. But then he tried to argue that Angel Eyes (Van Cleef) represents the superego, which goes to show that he didn't understand this structural model of the psyche seeing as how the superego is the idealistic, heroic side of human nature (aka the "spirit") and Angel Eyes in the movie is anything BUT.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

Now you're talking about this... I just thought there's a parallelism between Leone and Shyamalan.

- Both have very personal styles.
- Extremely influential.
- Box office successful.
- They struggle to give a deeper meaning to their movies, without getting it. At the end, they're cataloged as 'stylish' directors.
- Both hit the nail in terms of quality at least once, 'Sixth Sense' and 'Once Upon a Time in the West'.
- Overpraised and, as a reaction, unfairly put down. The truth is somewhere in between, they're no genius, but both are actually good directors.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

I know that the movie (along with the previous two), like any movie, has its flaws

The characters definitely are one-dimensional and the movie is definitely campy, but I don't necessarily think that those things are bad. Many bad films are campy and include paper-thin characters, but that does not mean that they are bad only because of those things

What I'm trying to say is I don't believe in dissecting a film and looking at its parts individually. Film, like any other art form, can be done in many artistic styles, and none are necessarily better than the others. In this case, movies like the Dollars trilogy or Tarantino's imitations are not meant to be realistic, they are "impressionistic" to use fancy art lingo. The dogma that all characters should always be well-rounded and have a classic arc is BS, imo. That is a beginner-level screenwriting course platitude like "write what you know". There are no set rules for what makes great characters

If you personally demand realism in a movie, then that's on you. But that does not mean that the movies aren't great. Ultimately, it's just a matter of opinion. I don't think yours is any less than mine

That's why I would never write a formal movie review, and rarely read full reviews by critics. As much as I love talking about movies, there is something about art criticism that necessarily attempts to intellectualize (now I must be sounding very pretentious) something that cannot be deconstructed in an intellectual way

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

The dogma that all characters should always be well-rounded and have a classic arc is BS, imo. That is a beginner-level screenwriting course platitude like "write what you know". There are no set rules for what makes great characters

I agree that -- in a sense -- there are no rules in art and you have to adapt to the piece of art in question in order to find something worthy (which is not to say there isn't bad art). But, with movies, smart filmmakers know the "rules" of compelling storytelling in order to break them when appropriate, and hence improve it. "Pulp Fiction" is a good example.

There are a lot of worthy things in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," which make it an iconic 60's Western, but it's definitely drags and the characters aren't that interesting IMHO, with Tuco being the best. Put it's somewhat mesmerizing and the score is exceptional.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Yup, Pulp Fiction is a good example of a lot of things that are done well because it's such a good movie.

And though I love the Dollars trilogy, I'm not obsessed with it. In general I rarely watch Action movies. I only used those movies as an example because it seemed appropriate to name a classic Action franchise when talking about an Action movie like Endgame

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

"Gerry" (2002) is a good example. It can be enjoyed as a piece art with its spectacular desert cinematography and mesmerizing score. But story-wise it's abysmal. I gave a screening of it to several friends & family as an experiment years ago and by the 35-40 minute mark they all rose-up refusing to watch any more, except to maybe FF through the rest. I've literally used it as a sleep-aid on a few occasions.

As far as realism goes, it depends on the genre and the "rules of reality" that the film itself sets-up in the world of the story. Leone's three Eastwood Westerns, for instance, are set in the historical Old West, but with mythic or exaggerated elements. So if, for example, a wizard or giant bunny suddenly appears you could legitimately criticize it for not being realistic. Yet if Eastwood guns down five people in 5 seconds no sweat that's acceptable since it's Western myth and, I suppose, it's somewhat plausible if the character was really an expert gunfighter. However, that eye-rolling gunfight sequence in "A Fistful of Dynamite" wherein members of the two factions are fooled by two motionless corpses placed there earlier by Joe (Eastwood) definitely deserves criticism.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Ohhh, LMAO, that story about you screening Gerry to your friends is hilarious

Yeah, I saw that movie a couple of years back. I'm the type that will watch anything, regardless of how out there it might be, if it stars actors that I admire. So I sat through the whole thing just to watch Damon and Affleck work. I don't think I'd ever have the guts to show it to my friends though. But that's because I don't associate w/ too many people irl who are into arthouse culture

But yeah, that's definitely not a film for everyone. It is the movie equivalent of abstract art. I do respect Gus Van Sant's willingness to do experimental stuff, though. A teacher showed us Elephant in high school (I guess as some kind of awareness thing). It really stayed with me for days. It's very creepy to see a school shooting depicted so graphically. It'd be harder to make that movie today, now that mass shootings are such a taboo topic

And yes, that scene with the dead bodies is kind of dumb. The first film in the Dollars Trilogy is definitely the weakest, IMO. If it weren't for Eastwood's charisma and presence then it would have maybe even been a bad movie. I know some people don't think actors are all that important in making a great film, but I've always felt differently. Writing and directing are, obviously, hugely important. But I've always felt that actors are the ones who make an audience connect with a movie, even when the actors are amateurs or non-professionals

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

I agree completely about "Fistful"; and the importance of the right actor for key roles.

I learned to try to adapt to what the artist is serving, regardless of art form or genre. For instance, when I was a teen I'd buy an album and, if it wasn't what I thought it should be or what I wanted, I'd reject it and not listen to it. But I'd eventually revisit it and, if it was worthy, I'd acclimate and eventually enjoy it and respect it. In some cases these types of albums would become my all-time favorites.

This applies to film too, of course. For instance, I wasn't impressed with "No Such Thing" (2001) the first time I viewed it; neither was my wife. But a few years later I gave it another chance, using the subtitles so I didn't miss any key dialogue. This time I 'got' it and saw its profundities, which gave me a healthy respect. "Wendigo" (2001) and "Black Death" (2010) are other examples.

Thanks for the heads-up about "Elephant." I've heard of it, but haven't seen it yet. I'm putting it on my watchlist.

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

Sergio Leone seems to be a popular name to drop by those who think that knowing what a Spaghetti Western is makes them a film critic.

Leone’s impact on the Western genre is undeniable, but directors like Peckinpah and Ford don’t get mentioned nearly enough by people when they are bragging about the “cinematic masterpieces” they’ve watched.

reply

[–] kuku (3510) 5 years ago

but directors like Peckinpah and Ford don’t get mentioned nearly enough by people when they are bragging about the “cinematic masterpieces” they’ve watched.

That's called the 'Kurosawa curse' (I just made up the name, but it fits).

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Meh, I know the Dollars trilogy is not actually in the same league as the other two films I mentioned. I could have obviously dropped the names of films from Kubrick, Hitchcock, Bergman or something like that, but I've always found the B-movie style and bad dubbing as things that add to the charm of the films

Obviously they are still very popular with critics and audiences, so I added it

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

You described the Dollars trilogy as a “cinematic masterpiece” because of ... “B-movie style and bad dubbing”?

LOL

You added it because your taste in film is incredibly basic, despite your pretensions. Be honest.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Sigh. I don't know why I bother responding to your low-IQ posts

It is not a masterpiece BECAUSE of its flaws, those flaws are just things that I personally find charming and add to MY personal enjoyment

Whether you personally think it is a cinematic masterpiece or not, history has proven it to be an extremely well-respected and influential trilogy. Many, many well respected critics would describe the movies as masterpieces of, if not movies as a whole, at least of the Western genre

You are trying so hard to pick apart my comments, and yet you are so laughably bad at it. While your posts are easily dismissed by me and several other posters.

reply

[–] BrunoAntony (1198) 5 years ago

Your posts are either full of contradictions, ad hominem or merely simplistic observations on film.

Nobody has to try too hard to pick those kinds of comments apart, dude LOL

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

You made a thread bitching about a minute-long scene that included Fortnite and another one ridiculously postulating that Captain America murdered Peggy's boyfriend, yet you call my posts simplistic. Your threads (which you make quite frequently) border on mentally-handicapped

And I resort to ad hominems because having a discussion with posters like you is like trying to have a formal debate with a child throwing a tantrum in the grocery store

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

Stop being so negative. I don't understand why you don't like things and want to say it.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

I'm negative to people who are negative towards me. Bruno comes onto these boards because he's looking for a fight (more accurately a childish shouting match). He knows what he is doing, I just give him what he wants because I enjoy seeing him try to be witty and acerbic

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 5 years ago

All Bruno said was "Isn’t this post negative, too?" and you tore into him.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

He and I have a history that goes beyond this one thread lol. Just look at his post history if you don't believe me that this guy is a prick

reply

[–] Wuchak (8305) 5 years ago

It's all good, Bob.

reply

[–] ddd116 (3) 5 years ago

There is so much negativity because

1. no movie was ever going to live up to the hype people created in their minds for the conclusions to a 22 saga franchise

2. it's "hip" to act like you dislike something that you are "supposed" to like and something that is so popular

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Yeah, this is pretty much what I fgure

That, plus there seems to be a lot of users on here who legit display terrible social skills

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

I'm a huge movie fan and love classic movies.

Back in the 30s and 40s there were many serial films typically starring one character. Usually they were about a detective. One was called The Thin Man and it was the ongoing adventures of A husband and wife detective team. Another was called Andy Hardy all about this boy, played by the same actor, as he ages and goes through life.

Serial movies probably turned into TV. Now, since no one knows anything, you think that TV turned into movies, lol.

Negative:

The film is kind of negative in many ways.

The first is that comics are typically about people winning. Superheroes are metaphors for types of people who are awesome and get things done. They do not do selfish things, die, etc. That is real life, not heroic life, and so when people who like comics see out of character behavior, they get annoyed.

1. Feminism, SJW stuff: Equality and fighting for everyone has been a theme in comics since forever. Superman wouldn't snub a black person, a women, or anyone. We all know this, so you don't have to directly put that in the movie. It's preaching to the choir.

2. Killing beloved characters: They shouldn't kill characters, they should reboot them.

3. Stick to source material: The source materiel has gotten fans excited for decades and maybe even 50 to a 100 years worth of people. What they did with the gauntlet is a cheap plot hole, plot device. That really annoyed me.

4. Thor: Don't make characters goofy. He can be witty and innocent, because he's supposed to be very loving, but don't put stupid comedy stuff in a serious film.

Sometimes I think they write these films on drugs. Most of us in the audience can see glaring problems, but they cant? It happens so frequently it's weird.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Ok, well I thank you for providing an actual counter-point and not just saying "your negativity is negative itself, hur dur", like many of the other children in this thread. So I will provide you with a civil answer

1. The SJW annoys pretty much anyone who isn't a journalist, professional critic, or SJW. It IS annoying, but it happens because modern culture gets pretty rabidly angry at anyone who does not bow to inclusion. When you are investing millions and millions of dollars into a franchise, it would be dumb to take a chance on bad publicity. Every major franchise is doing it now. DC is creating a (probably lame) Birds of Prey, all-girl, team up movie. Star Wars is obviously all-in on the feminist bandwagon. The new Terminator is focusing on women. There are many other examples of tentpole films pandering to the diversity agenda. I don't like it, but I understand why they do it. Movies are extremely expensive to produce and are pretty risky, since box office bombs happen every year. Hollywood is a business, first and foremost, do not expect these big corporations to change this trend

2. Characters in comic books die ALL THE TIME. They bring them back, definitely, because they can always make more money out of them. But they definitely do die, which I assume you know as a comic book fan. In movies, actors age. They get rich and burned-out and don't want to keep making these movies. Plus killing characters has been a tried and true way of creating drama in movies since forever. They are two different mediums, so they have to diverge in some ways

3. The comics are great, sure, but the population of people who regularly read comics is tiny compared to those who watch movies. Most of the money made off of the MCU movies does not come from comic book readers, it comes from random people who like action movies. I do like when they stick close the comics, but I understand why they do it sometimes. I am not the one paying for or making these movies..

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

...so I know that I am not going to get my way every time. Ultimately, movie studios do tons of marketing research, so they know much better than we do, how to make movies that will make a lot of cash. And that will ALWAYS be their top priority. So there will always be creative decisions that make the hardcore fans unhappy

4. This was a creative decision that they made. I don't know exactly why they did it. I know Hemsworth wanted to do it. I personally found it pretty funny, and I don't usually find the cheesy humor in these movies funny at all. But I get why some people hated fat Thor. But the fact is that we don't know where the character is going from here. Maybe they have something planned with the character, and the fat Thor will pay off in a good way in the future. Or maybe they just wanted some cheap laughs. Who knows. But ultimately these creators make creative decisions, and sometimes they don't work. I LOVE Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but the Batman voice was embarrassing. I won't let one ridiculous thing stop me from enjoying an otherwise good film

And yeah, I'm sure they do do a lot of writing on drugs. Writers are notorious for drug use, Hollywood is notorious for drug use. Wouldn't be surprised if drugs didn't play a part in the making of these movies. But ultimately you cannot make everyone happy. They succeeded in their mission, by their own standards. They got good reviews, and more importantly (to them), made huge profits. So they will continue down this creative direction as long as it continues to reap big profits

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

You're incorrect about marketing research.

That is done sometimes with some films. Some films are made based on the idea that the filmmaker is an "artist" and will come up with their own vision.

The first Fantastic Four was made like that. The director said he never read any of the comics and just did what he wanted. Fans were unhappy. The latest FF film did terribly and I refused to watch with with the black character and all of that crap.

Many films are developed in a room full of people, likely related somehow because they're jews, and probably many of them are intoxicated. If the case was anything different, we would likely have a lot better films.

Back in the classic movie days they would get real writers, who wrote novels, to write the scripts for movies and come up with ideas. Now, it's Seth Rogan in a room with his buddies and whatnot.

Evidence of that here is fat Thor. A test audience did NOT approve that. That's something Seth Rogan would come up with because he's fat, Harvey Weinstein types are fat, and neurotic, and so forth.

reply

[–] Hoosthere (36) 5 years ago

Why did you go see this one you knew it would be the same crap

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

I knew nothing about Endgame when I went to see it.

reply

[–] Hoosthere (36) 5 years ago

Ok that's cool

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

If you take nostalgia out of it, the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films aged very poorly. They were good for the time, but I wouldn't venture to say that their superior to majority of the MCU.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Sure, obviously the third one was really bad, and yeah they aged somewhat poorly, especially since Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst are not A-listers anymore (if they ever were)

It's just my personal taste. I prefer superhero movies that give the villains a lot of focus and let them shine. The MCU has rarely done this

The first few X-Men movies aged even more poorly, IMO. They butchered so many characters and the costumes being all black showed how little directors thought of the superhero genre back then. It also doesn't help that the director is most likely a pedophile

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

I understand. Arguably the MCU is getting better about representing their villains though.

Yeah I know you're not an MCU fanboy, but I really can't wait til they finally decide to do something with the X-Men because that franchise has been really hit or miss.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Oh yeah, I'm super stoked to see X-Men and Fantastic Four with the MCU. X-Men, Spider-Man, and Batman were my favorite superheroes as a child, so I will always watch their movies, but Fox's direction has had me frustrated for over a decade

Even though X1 and X2 were solid, they changed way too much about the characters. And Origins: Wolverine, X3, and Apocalypse all sucked. The only one in the franchise that I genuinely love is First Class, because Matthew Vaughan is a very talented director and didn't allow the producers to screw everything up. Days of Future Past, while a pretty decent movie, annoyingly puts all the focus on Mystique just because of Jennifer Lawrence's starpower. And the sentinels were pretty crappy

And Fantastic Four, don't get me started. Galactus, visually, was one of my favorite villains. He is giant with a big purple helmet. That would be so awesome to see in live-action. And instead they gave us a freaking cloud

And finally, my last beef with the Fox movies is their use of villains. Unlike the MCU, they do spend a bit more time on them, but they only focus on very few characters. They fight Magneto in literally every single film. William Stryker, a lame boring human, gets two films. Juggernaut was only sort-of redeemed in Deadpool 2. Mister Sinister, a major villain, was only teased after like 15 movies, and we never got to actually see him. Dark Phoenix was butchered twice. Apocalypse was butchered beyond belief, he should have been on the level of Thanos. Instead we got a weak blue midget. Sabretooth was butchered in X1. I could go on and on. Fox-Men was just an embarrassment, IMO

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

As far as X-Men goes, I just want better representation of other characters. They don't balance the focus among the characters very well at all. I love Wolverine as much as anyone, but the first three movies were essentially Wolverine and friends. Now they put a lot of their focus into Mystique for some reason.

They completely misrepresented Cyclops and people I know who have only seen the movies don't like his character at all.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 5 years ago

Cyclops was my favorite X-Man as a kid. Mainly because I thought his costume and power beams were cool. He is one of the main reasons why I have an almost irrational hatred for the Fox films. Cause I know they did do some things well and are not terribly made movies, but they butchered characters that I grew up obsessing over. So I have one of those salty fanboy vendettas against Fox. Disney buying Fox, to me, felt like Child Protective Services removing a child from an abusive home lmao

reply

[–] EvilPinata (1186) 5 years ago

Quite honestly he was my favorite too among others like Nightcrawler. 😅

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

The first Spiderman is still good.

People can't just say "It's not good anymore" without reasons why.

Even the third one isn't bad if you take into account that Venom was making him act bizarrely. It ended up looking stupid because that wasn't made clear enough and the bizarre behavior was more comical than insane. The themes and general storyline were good.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

"The first Spiderman is still good.
People can't just say "It's not good anymore" without reasons why."

1) Poor casting. (Yeah, I SAID IT!!!!) I'm still mad they cast Toby as Pete, and what's her name as Gwen. He's creepy looking w/a weird mouth; she has a fat face
2) Organic webbing. This is so incredibly bad on so many levels I have to resist writing an entire essay. I'll restrict it to two issues: Spiders DON'T "shoot" webs, and one of the most amazing things about Pete is that he was able to create webbing and a device to shoot it. It's a BIG part of his character; in a sense, the webshooters *are* another character. The creators missed the ball and did a tremendous disservice to the character, with this decision.
3) Making MJ his love interest. I predicted to everyone who would listen that this was absurd, because Peter was All About Betty initially, then Gwen, THEN MJ. Again, a disservice to the character/story: they were *clearly* prisoners of the moment, simply because MJ was Peter's current partner in the comics. Again, I predicted that this wouldn't last in the comics, and that Marvel's decision would therefore not age well. This is EXACTLY what happened.
4) Visuals: The Spiderman suit was cool, but the Goblin was so awful I've made a concerted effort to scrub it from my mind. Toby doesn't really look like Peter, What's her name doesn't look like Gwen, Willem Dafoe and Franco look NOTHING like the Osborns. (Interestingly, the peripheral characters are SPOT ON. Aunt May was good, Robbie was great, and JJJ was essentially peeled right off the page. Even Betty Brant was amazing piece of casting.)
5) Villain: Again, they went obvious/greatest foe, instead of developing the story organically & creating a series that reasonably built to a watershed moment. Putting the Goblin in this first movie was terrible for pacing, thematic, fanservice, source faithfulness, and a Host of other reasons.

I could keep going. . .but this site limits posts ;)

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

Those details didn't make the movie bad for me. The acting was very good and the gravity of the story was good as there was no comedy, which I hate in superhero films The film itself was good, but you didn't like the details.

I massively HATE when Hollywood has a smart character and dumbs them down. Him ejaculating webs versus inventing webfluid and shooters made him an average person, not a genius. Also, organic webs are gross as he's shooting like mucus at people that would smell, etc.

MJ has been his love interest for decades and that was fine. The actors were both good. You not liking their faces is invalid.

Willem Dafoe looked like the character from the comics mask. He fact that he wore a helmet with no expression was dumb since the actor looks like the character! That's a product of trying to make the character "realistic" which is stupid. He's insane, he can wear an evil rubber mask, it's okay. Plus it would have given the actor a chance to act more.

Overall, details shouldn't ruin a movie though.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

"Those details didn't make the movie bad for me."

Clearly. So you liked the movie (shrug). The concept "there's no accounting for taste" is sufficiently elemental that it's not really worth discussing. . .yes?
Your post made it seem like you were looking for legitimate issues w/the film. So I gave you a bunch.

"The acting was very good"

That's overstating it. The acting was for the most part competent. "Very Good" is elevated. Your opinions don't substitute for proven fact.

"the gravity of the story was good as there was no comedy, which I hate in superhero films"
Again, you're conflating Your personal preferences with quality. The fact that "there was no comedy" does NOT mean the movie was therefore improved. It just means *you* liked it better.

"The film itself was good, but you didn't like the details"
LOL. . .if by "details" you mean respect for the source material, effects, acting, story arc, framing, subtext, costuming, casting, and script. . .then, yeah. Other than those "details," the film "itself" was fine.

"MJ has been his love interest for decades and that was fine."

I've already explained why it's Not. You can ignore the explanation, but you asked for one and I gave it to you. Shrug. Maybe I should've been more obvious that I was joking about their faces. . .clearly, that doesn't matter.

"Willem Dafoe looked like the character from the comics mask."

NO, he didn't. Again, your opinions don't substitute for fact, and this is easy enough to disprove. Dafoe as the goblin:
"https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/found_sam_raimis_original"
The way the Green Goblin is *supposed* to look:
"https://archive.nerdist.com/amazing-spider-man-800-green-goblin-return-red-goblin/"
NOT w/armor. NOT with a faceplate. NOT with those colors. This film suffers, like so many, from the "But but but you COULDN'T make it look like the comics/even if you did, it'd look silly" attitude. Which is nonsense. Pffft.

reply

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Goliard (1413) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hoosthere (36) 5 years ago

Couldn't stand Toby Maguire face over time and voice but that's just me on aging poorly

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

I liked him but he was more of the depressed and conflicted Spiderman than cheerful witty Spiderman.

I like serious superhero films but if you look at them as science fiction where the events are real, it would be a very heavy situation and scary. So, I liked Spiderman for that.

I like the new ones too because the character has the cheerful wittiness from the comics.

reply

[–] Hoosthere (36) 5 years ago

Can't stand the wink wink jokes they put into every movie now, a serious silver surfer would work

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

I was just explaining Surfer to a friend of mine yesterday.

My view of the story is that of a guy who was bored with life, really wanted to explore space and leave home, then got what he wished for because Galactus basically turned him into a living spaceship. After that, all he wanted to do was go back home.

That would be a good intro to a quality Fantastic Four movie then a big multiple hero Galactus event.

reply

[–] Hoosthere (36) 5 years ago

Leaving home being branded as Galactus for destroying planets hated by everyone, didn't read the comic just watched the cartoon not sure of his whole story

reply