[movies] General Movie Chat

124»

Comments

  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Yeah, I realized that much, but the movie poster shows a Superman logo, and also a Cyborg logo. But where's Superman?
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member edited November 2017
    Rumpy wrote: »
    Yeah, I realized that much, but the movie poster shows a Superman logo, and also a Cyborg logo. But where's Superman?

    I'm going to quote myself here: "Whether Superman is in this Justice League movie or not is one of the weakest spoilers in movie history, IMO. It's to the point of wondering why they're even bothering."

    They don't know what they're doing at DC. They have his logo, but not the character. The trailers only show the back of a person before Alfred says, "He said you'd come." But the same entertainment shows that ran the trailer also reported that Cavill had a mustache for reshoots that they had to digitally remove.

    "He was dead at the end of BvS. Except a hand came out of the ground. Will he appear in JL...WHO KNOWS, WINK WINK?!?!" - DC Marketing team.



  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member edited November 2017
    Haha, thanks. I figured maybe something like that was going on, but it's hilarious to hear that was the case. So, in other words, I'm not the only one feeling confused by this.

    Edit: And from what I can gather, Supergirl seems to be conflating two characters: Cyborg and Cyborg Superman? At least that's the gist that I'm getting via Supergirl. Because the real Hank Henshaw got transformed into Cyborg, but he keeps saying he's Cyborg Superman. Hmm, like I said, I'm not up-and-up on these things, so I may actually be complicating things.
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    Rumpy wrote: »
    Haha, thanks. I figured maybe something like that was going on, but it's hilarious to hear that was the case. So, in other words, I'm not the only one feeling confused by this.

    Edit: And from what I can gather, Supergirl seems to be conflating two characters: Cyborg and Cyborg Superman? At least that's the gist that I'm getting via Supergirl. Because the real Hank Henshaw got transformed into Cyborg, but he keeps saying he's Cyborg Superman. Hmm, like I said, I'm not up-and-up on these things, so I may actually be complicating things.

    Hank Henshaw in the comics is Cyborg Superman.

    Victor Stone in the comics is Cyborg.

    Two totally different characters. I can't speak for the Supergirl show, but considering how much they are pushing Cyborg everywhere else, It would be odd that they would merge the two for the show.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    Supergirl diverged from the movies at the start of last season anyway when they cast a totally different actor as Superman.

    I would say you're right about not wanting to muddy the waters with another Cyborg, but this is DC we're talking about.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    uxFOOL wrote: »

    Hank Henshaw in the comics is Cyborg Superman.

    Victor Stone in the comics is Cyborg.

    Two totally different characters. I can't speak for the Supergirl show, but considering how much they are pushing Cyborg everywhere else, It would be odd that they would merge the two for the show.


    Thanks. That does clear it up. It's easy to see why one who's not invested into the history of all this would be confused though. The Justice League poster further confuses the issue by making Cyborg look more like what Cyborg Superman appears like in Supergirl.
  • uxFOOL
    uxFOOL
    GT Manager
    Rumpy wrote: »
    uxFOOL wrote: »

    Hank Henshaw in the comics is Cyborg Superman.

    Victor Stone in the comics is Cyborg.

    Two totally different characters. I can't speak for the Supergirl show, but considering how much they are pushing Cyborg everywhere else, It would be odd that they would merge the two for the show.


    Thanks. That does clear it up. It's easy to see why one who's not invested into the history of all this would be confused though. The Justice League poster further confuses the issue by making Cyborg look more like what Cyborg Superman appears like in Supergirl.

    In the comics, Hank Henshaw is caucasian, not African American.

    Mike Dunn
    Executive Producer & Editor-at-Large
    GAMING TREND

  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member edited November 2017
    uxFOOL wrote: »
    In the comics, Hank Henshaw is caucasian, not African American.

    Yes, I figured as much. But what I'm referring to is the look they gave Cyborg in the Justice League poster, which resembles Supergirl's version of Cyborg Superman. They're nearly identical looking.
  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    Minor divergence - why are ALL the Martians in the TV series African American lol?

    Back to Justice League, which I guess we are discussing here? I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, luckily my expectations were low. Now when I say enjoyed, I should be clear. Sadly I fell asleep for about 20 minutes or so lol near the beginning, but my partner assured me I missed some pretty decent backstory (is it true I even missed some Green Lantern stuff?!?). Honestly I really didn't care for the main plot/villain at all, just seemed like a lot of aliens/robots to give an excuse for the heroes to bash. Which of course we've already seen in The Avengers.

    One review I read mentioned it was almost like two different movies, one a Zack Snyder effects-laden dark film, and the other a Joss Whedon one. I remember (forget the details now) multiple scenes where I could "feel" a Joss moment. Most of them worked, but a few might have been too derivative of his Avengers work. I kind of feel bad for him that it seemed like he was forced to essentially re-create the kind of humor/conflict energy he had in Avengers knowing people would probably criticize him for it.

    Gal Gadot was fun to watch again, I love watching her fight. I wasn't sold on Aquaman and I felt like Flash's "gee whiz" shtick was only about half-effective. I mean seriously do you really want to bring a completely untrained hero on his first real mission to something that's supposedly so dire? I think they could have achieved much of the same without making him a total novice, they could save that crap for his solo movie. Obviously someone wanted to re-create the Spider-Man energy in the Civil War movie.

    It's really a shame these guys can't seem to get their shit together and on the same page. Stop trying to copy/mimic Marvel and just do your own thing. The times they do that (Wonder Woman movie, Suicide Squad) they get good results. Portions of the Superman/Batman/Justice League are really decent and fun to watch, but there's just too much that smells of desperation and trying to play catch up, where they honestly don't need to. They've got tons of great stories and characters to draw upon, just relax and find your own identity. Look at the TV shows, while they vary in quality, they've all seemed to find their own niche, and they are so much fun when they join together, while the Marvel shows continue to stink it up.
    I'll keep this spoilered since even though as Bullwinkle mentioned everyone knew Superman would be in the movie, just how much he would be a part of it was not clear. I mean, his name in the credits was second so you knew he had to do something fairly significant. My fear was that they would bring him back only at the very very end. Luckily the one thing they did right was rez him fairly early in the movie, or at least it felt that way since I slept through so much lol. Henry Cavill is so freaking hot I could barely contain myself when he finally shows up and spends five minutes with his shirt off. Well worth the price of admission. His scenes were still a bit too few for my taste, but once he shows up kicking ass, it just made me happy. Also enjoyed his brief scenes with his mom and Amy Adams.


    P.S. Where the heck was Green Lantern in all this?!?!?! Too busy getting his Deadpool costume on I guess.
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    See, I feel like they need to do more following of what Marvel has pulled off so successfully and stop trying to do their own thing.
  • Purge
    Purge
    GT Member edited November 2017
    Problem is, DC is LTTP.

    The take on an immature Flash feels like a borrowed Days of Future Past Quicksilver. If dark and broody is what Cyborg is going for, he works out to be a beefy metal Scarlet Witch / Black Panther mix.(because, hey, how do we solve this? Cyborg can do it!)

    Ben Affleck in this movie was less asshole-ish, and didn't make me hate it, but I don't like the whole thing because let's face it, this is Batfleck : Recruitment Edition. At least he was shown to be out of his league in combat, and maybe they can develop that weakness into a proper plot point in the next movie (hopefully without Ben).
    Superman was a welcome addition, but the whole him not wanting to see Batman? It was Batman with the chip on his shoulder, and those issues were kinda resolved before supes died.
    Also, the whole "we need you to do this thing" and him going "oh, sure. Wait, gotta save some folks even though stopping boss is saving EVERYONE" is kinda dumb.

    As to Lex Luthor, I hope he's more genius and less lunatic in the next movie(s). I don't particularly care
    for this version of him.

    Steppenwolf isn't likely dead, he's an underboss for Darkside. He's going to need a new helmet though - this one has been taken to be stored in Asgard ;)

    The movie is a disjointed patchwork mess with inserted funny moments (like the TV bit in the lunch room). It survives a viewing, but I have zero reason to watch it again - and I'm really hoping that this is the last of the movies that carried this tone.
  • rittchard
    rittchard
    GT Member
    Bullwinkle wrote: »
    See, I feel like they need to do more following of what Marvel has pulled off so successfully and stop trying to do their own thing.

    It depends on which part you are talking about. In terms of general strategy, I'd agree. But trying too hard to mimic/copy specific details without following the strategy is a mistake. It's the rush to create a super team-up movie that more or less crippled both BvS AND Justice League.

    Instead of rushing JL, they should/could have done solid individual movies with at least one or two more of the characters (e.g. Aquaman and Flash) prior to doing JL. Imagine how much more impact a JL movie would have if it were coming off of strong individual movies. Plus you get the added benefit that both BvS and JL would be less burdened with extraneous origin work. Avengers only worked as well as it did because we were already familiar with the majority of the main characters.
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    I was talking overall strategy, mostly, but I think they should even study how each Marvel character that has its own movie and how each of those movies has its own tone and style while still staying true to both the character and the overall MCU.

    For example, DC shouldn't be trying to turn Superman into Batman.

    Also, for all the crazy colors and spectacle of Thor: Ragnorok, it all made coherent sense and fit the storytelling. It wasn't just dazzling special effects meant to only dazzle.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    Speaking of X-Men, I find some of the movies have aged terribly. I loved First Class when I saw it in the theatres, but I watched it again last year and it didn't work quite as well for me anymore, and that's only after a few years. I feel that in general, comic book or superhero movies age faster than most because they tend to rely so much on dazzle.
  • Purge
    Purge
    GT Member
    Bullwinkle wrote: »
    I was talking overall strategy, mostly, but I think they should even study how each Marvel character that has its own movie and how each of those movies has its own tone and style while still staying true to both the character and the overall MCU.

    For example, DC shouldn't be trying to turn Superman into Batman.

    Also, for all the crazy colors and spectacle of Thor: Ragnorok, it all made coherent sense and fit the storytelling. It wasn't just dazzling special effects meant to only dazzle.

    Except from the Commodore. ;)
  • Bullwinkle
    Bullwinkle
    GT Member
    Purge wrote: »
    Bullwinkle wrote: »
    I was talking overall strategy, mostly, but I think they should even study how each Marvel character that has its own movie and how each of those movies has its own tone and style while still staying true to both the character and the overall MCU.

    For example, DC shouldn't be trying to turn Superman into Batman.

    Also, for all the crazy colors and spectacle of Thor: Ragnorok, it all made coherent sense and fit the storytelling. It wasn't just dazzling special effects meant to only dazzle.

    Except from the Commodore. ;)

    I had to look that up to remember, but LOL!

  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited December 2017


    My brother was just back from Europe yesterday,, so we grabbed an early dinner and caught "The Shape of Water," which is gradually expanding into more locations/theaters, but afik is still not in any sort of wide release.

    We liked it, and it's very moving at times, with really spectacular imagery from Guillermo Del Toro and company.

    We did find one somewhat graphic sex scene seemed out of left field, and we were briefly wondering if we'd walked into the wrong movie or something. :o =)

    Also, for a movie with a such a touching "Hellen Keller Falls in Love with the Creature from the Black Lagoon" theme at its core, it gets quite graphically violent and heavy on the gore/blood at times. I can understand the gradual release because I think you need to get good word of mouth on this out there. I mean I'm not sure everyone who'd want to see it for the moving romance at its core, will necesssarily want to sign up for the violence/gore.

    And for the love of God will someone give Michael Shannon a three-dimensional, rounded character instead of a raving one-note maniac to play? imho, his character in this at times almost makes Zod in Man of Steel seem restrained. :# The older I get as a moviegoer, the less interested I am in one-note raving maniac bad guys. It takes a legendary performance (say, Heath Ledger in TDK) to make that kind of character interesting imho.
  • Blackjack
    Blackjack
    GT Member edited January 11
    Finally caught Darkest Hour:


    While Gary Oldman's a revelation, to me it's less about the seamless prosthetics than about the voice and the body language he uses. I only recognized him as Gary Oldman because he has such piercing blue eyes. B) A cynic would say "oh yeah, I'm wearing rubber face and 'fat suit,' give me my Oscar!,' but I would say he deserves it for drilling down into a historical character and giving him humanity and flaws and down to earth life. And to me it doesn't matter what in the movie was probably a "dramatic device" or if it has some characters that are 'compilations' (which seems common to historical docu-dramas). It just felt real and I lost myself in it.

    If it sounds like too much of a dry history lesson movie, ignore that false concern and go see it. I loved it, and like Noland's Dunkirk, it feels suspenseful to the last minute, even if you know your WWII history. :)

    While a double feature with Nolan's Dunkirk makes sense -- Darkest Hour is more of a up in the clouds view literally/figuratively on Dunkirk, while Nolan's Dunkirk movie more you are there on the beaches and in the boats at ground level -- I'd think it's also a good watch with Spielberg's Lincoln. Which is to say bringing an iconic country leader down off his sort of pedestal to a human level where you more understand his flaws and regrets and self-doubt, and then see how that person came together in crisis with others to keep his country together.

    And it's surprisingly funny at times too. :)

    The movie is only focused on Churchill in 1940 up to the time of Dunkirk. It's perhaps sad that he was ultimately voted out of office after the war -- perhaps the public thought he was the perfect wartime leader but not the ideal post-War prime minister.
  • Rumpy
    Rumpy
    GT Member
    I've wanted to see that, so thanks for the review! :) At the time I first heard about it, I felt like I didn't really want to see it as I'd already seen so much Churchill stuff as of late (He's really a hot property right now it seems!). There was a TV Drama from awhile back, plus his depiction in The Crown, one movie that was at our local movie festival and now this one. I think you've convinced me :)
Sign In or Register to comment.