The Marvel/Sony Superhero Movies Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Yeh and Kevin Feige produced that movie too. That movie was shitty because Ratner didn't understand the source material.

---

To be fair, as shitty a movie as it was, Ratner did only come onto the project two months before shooting after Matthew Vaughn had been with it for a long time before bailing. Vaughn said he walked away because he knew he wouldn't have had the time to make something worthy of following X2, so the whole thing was kinda doomed before it ever went into production.

Also Kinberg wrote Days of Future Past and Apocalypse, which should be way more relevant than The Last Stand, and he's basically Fox's closest thing to Feige in overseeing the connected creative side of Fox's Marvel stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grouchy

I thought you were talking about Jee-Woon Kim.

---

Would watch.

Kim hated his time in Hollywood and how he was treated so we'll never see that.

Sad that Hollywood does that to people. Commercial directors enjoy so much more freedom in South Korea.

How is it that Fox can get Deadpool and Wolverine right in their own movies, but shit the bed when it comes to the teams they have the rights to?

Mutant Massacre. Genosha. Broodfall.

Or if scaling it down like Logan: Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix. Storm/Forge in Africa.

:sigh:

Watch them do some convoluted timeline fuckery again to justify having Dafne Keen be a part of the Apocalypse line-up for future movies.

Mixed Reviews for GotG2??

Seems like this movie may have rode the hype train into disappointedville?

90% tomatometer is mixed now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

90% tomatometer is mixed now?

---

I suppose it is tracking higher on a top critic level. I've just been watching youtube videos of Marvel fans. They keep using the words "different than the first movie" which tells me they were not happy with it.

The first fresh review on RT: "For all its wit, speed and wacky cameos, this second instalment still feels like a disappointment." -

Spelling errors from critics is rare no?

Most of them feel mixed (these are all fresh and from top critics):


It's still a good Marvel movie (at times, a very good one), but it's a come down from the dizzying highs of the first installment.

Vol. 2 is filler, to be sure, but if you like the flavor of these movies, you'll enjoy this second bite.

The cliched "difficult second album". Sure, the first one will always be your favourite, but you know you'll grow to love this one almost as much.

Where the original Guardians felt fresh, Vol. 2 now feels familiar -- sometimes pleasantly so and sometimes not.

Stuck on rewind in space.

Installment with two Ls is the way Americans spell it. It's spelled with one L in every other English-speaking countries.

Good to know.

Any thoughts on my other posts about it feeling mixed?

No.

There is nothing critics love more than giving a pass to another generic Marvel movie. Except maybe trying to find ways to pretend the latest Malick movie isn't a bunch of pretentious wank. Or that James Gray is some kind of cinematic genius.

Can we please stick a fork in the Tomatometer? When a B- film gets 90%, no matter how many caveats or explanations are offered, the wrong impression gets generated.

[I'm not directing that at anyone here specifically. It is a long-running frustration with how the Tomatometer functions.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up

Can we please stick a fork in the Tomatometer? When a B- film gets 90%, no matter how many caveats or explanations are offered, the wrong impression gets generated.

[I'm not directing that at anyone here specifically.]

---

Are you referring to the first GoTG? Where's this coming from?

I think words like "mixed," "overrated, and "underrated" give much more of a wrong impression than the Tomatometer. To me saying a movie gets "mixed reviews" means the critical consensus is split on it, and since the Tomatometer is a measure of consensus, it's still the best way to gauge whether a movie is getting good reviews, bad reviews, or mixed. I didn't take the actual grade they gave the movie into any consideration. That's more what metacritic is for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dukefrukem

Are you referring to the first GoTG? Where's this coming from?

---

This new film is getting a lot of B- and 3/4 ratings, but its Tomatometer score will be high-80s, low-90s at the end of it (also, we're at the spot right before a lot of the younger less-known bloggers/sites turn this all into a race for who has the most inflated reaction (and therefore earns the most pageclicks)).

Most of us at MC are smart enough to parse that the Tomatometer measures consensus, but most casual visitors to the Tomatometer think a high percentage means high quality, just like their elementary school grades. It doesn't help that RT judges films below a 60% as "rotten," which aligns with the border between D- (passing) and F (failing) in American school systems. I suspect this is also why fanboys get so damn antsy when a film they want to love gets nearly 100% and why they so aggressively brigade any anti-majority reviews, because to them 100% RT means A+ (but it doesn't, since a film that everyone agrees is B- quality would necessarily "earn" 100%).

If RT has any value, it's in how visitors to the site can find critics they might enjoy reading, but that isn't what's happening. That's never been what happened. People look at the Tomatometer percent and use that to decide how good a movie is. No matter how many times the nuances are explained. No matter how many caveats are given. It's been the same misunderstanding, over and over, for nearly 20 years. Either RT needs to put "this does not measure quality, only consensus" on its fucking masthead image, or they need to flop out the percentages for the average rating.

To clarify my previous post: I think quantifying a movie's critical reception is useful when assessing its legacy, and film historians will still do so side by side with box office, even without the Tomatometer (it just makes it easier to lay it out in numbers). So the debate should be less about the usefulness of measuring consensus and more about why we all continue to use the language of ratings and consensus when talking about film criticism/film quality. I suspect this has been a longstanding reason for why I get the heebie-jeebies when someone calls a movie "overrated" or "underrated." It's a desire to correct or tip a consensus that I think should be a completely different conversation.

I was thinking about my dream movie if they ever give Mark Ruffalo a solo Hulk outing, and I think my ideal one would just be a complete rip-off of Crank. Banner gets injected with poison and can't stay alive for more than 1 minute at a time. So the entire movie is like, Hulk going on a rampage to find whoever did this to him, but whenever he gets winded he'd change back to Banner, and that's when the screen flashes a 60 second countdown and we watch Mark Ruffalo desperately picking fights and purposefully getting into annoying situations. He'd rush into a Target and pick a fight with someone who has more than 10 items in the express line or something. The entire movie is just wall-to-wall Mark Ruffalo going insane on randos and Hulk carnage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

I was thinking about my dream movie if they ever give Mark Ruffalo a solo Hulk outing, and I think my ideal one would just be a complete rip-off of Crank. Banner gets injected with poison and can't stay alive for more than 1 minute at a time. So the entire movie is like, Hulk going on a rampage to find whoever did this to him, but whenever he gets winded he'd change back to Banner, and that's when the screen flashes a 60 second countdown and we watch Mark Ruffalo desperately picking fights and purposefully getting into annoying situations. He'd rush into a Target and pick a fight with someone who has more than 10 items in the express line or something. The entire movie is just wall-to-wall Mark Ruffalo going insane on randos and Hulk carnage.

---

I will personally finance this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

I was thinking about my dream movie if they ever give Mark Ruffalo a solo Hulk outing, and I think my ideal one would just be a complete rip-off of Crank. Banner gets injected with poison and can't stay alive for more than 1 minute at a time. So the entire movie is like, Hulk going on a rampage to find whoever did this to him, but whenever he gets winded he'd change back to Banner, and that's when the screen flashes a 60 second countdown and we watch Mark Ruffalo desperately picking fights and purposefully getting into annoying situations. He'd rush into a Target and pick a fight with someone who has more than 10 items in the express line or something. The entire movie is just wall-to-wall Mark Ruffalo going insane on randos and Hulk carnage.

---

Either that movie will be 15 minutes long, or be the most expensive movie ever made.

I'd watch it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ivan Drago

I will personally finance this.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by number8

I was thinking about my dream movie if they ever give Mark Ruffalo a solo Hulk outing, and I think my ideal one would just be a complete rip-off of Crank. Banner gets injected with poison and can't stay alive for more than 1 minute at a time. So the entire movie is like, Hulk going on a rampage to find whoever did this to him, but whenever he gets winded he'd change back to Banner, and that's when the screen flashes a 60 second countdown and we watch Mark Ruffalo desperately picking fights and purposefully getting into annoying situations. He'd rush into a Target and pick a fight with someone who has more than 10 items in the express line or something. The entire movie is just wall-to-wall Mark Ruffalo going insane on randos and Hulk carnage.

---

Put a pitch together, I'll talk to some people about concept art.