3 years ago
@Tawg: Really sorry to hear about that, I had a similar scare with my grandfather (who didn't make it) so I can understand that. My grandma had a hospital scare around the same time, but thankfully she's good now.
@HP: It's all in the placement. DW's sig is centered, Tawg's isn't, and mine is forced to the far right because it's the weirdest place to have a sig other than at the bottom-right of your browser window where it stays no matter where you are on the page. I couldn't figure that one out but that's probably a good thing since I'd maybe have to ban myself for doing that, even if the rule I'd be breaking is making you look at the greatest sig ever made.
@DW: As far as "bad but entertaining" goes, I'm not sure it was even really bad--it was great in the music and effects departments, good in the action department, and just adequate enough in every other department, so I really wanna call it a good movie. It's like, it just barely crosses the line between good and bad.
DW, why is ASM1 your favorite? HP, what reasons do you have for hating the rest of the MCU?
I don't wanna start a flame war, I'm just interested in what you guys have to say because I disagree with both of you in that I didn't really like ASM1 as much as I wanted to (still enjoyed it) and I don't hate the MCU (even though the writing is plagued by certain things--things that you see full-force in Age of Ultron, arguably the worst MCU film so far).
HP, I think it's pretty dangerous not to try and understand the legitimate reasons people had for disagreeing with you. Even though I liked BvS (and I DO like grittiness when it's done right), I'm not going to pretend it was a flawless movie and that all the haters are Andrew Garfield-loving dipshits with asses for hands. And the fact that you hate the MCU for being lighthearted isn't necessarily a criticism of the quality of the movies, it's just a personal preference. For example, Age of Ultron, a terrible movie, was lighthearted, but so was Guardians of the Galaxy, which was a much, much better movie.
Iron Man 1 and the Dark Knight are polar opposites when it comes to superhero films about a rich dude who uses money to beat guys up, yet they're both fantastic movies. It's not the lightheartedness that makes MCU films bad, it's how it's used. The same characters in Ultron are the same ones in Civil War, and Civil War is arguably the best movie in the MCU. And that's not necessarily because Civil War was darker, it's because Civil War's directors knew when to stop making jokes. In Civil War, Iron Man still makes jokes, he just doesn't make them like he did in Ultron.
Jokes are not the problem, the problem is timing.
The reason Guardians of the Galaxy was so much better than Age of Ultron is because it knew when to stop being funny and start being serious. And yeah, that includes the ridiculous dance scene in the climax. That scene never felt out of place because it was completely in-character for both Peter Quill and the film in general to do that. Had literally anyone else but Deadpool done that, it would have been Ultron-bad. (OH YEAH, Deadpool is another good example of "knows when to not be funny." Remember that fight scene in the burning building? Great movie.) But the jokes made by Ultron (and almost everyone else)? Completely out of place 90% of the time. Terrible writing, bad execution.
Darkness and grittiness don't automatically make a movie better, either. Just look at any of the Punisher movies. It's not the tools you're working with, it's how you use them.
To be completely honest, I really enjoyed Man of Steel, but more for the action and music. The action and especially the music were so good, you guys.
Even the story was kind of interesting. But the dark and gritty atmosphere? Not really. They could have had the amazing action without all the gloominess. That doesn't mean you couldn't make a serious Superman film, but you don't have to make it so washed out and gray. You can make a fun serious movie; the Spider-Man and Captain America movies are good proof.