OncomingStorm93
-
Posts
1,962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by OncomingStorm93
-
-
15 minutes in, I came to the realization that this was one of the most genius marketing campaigns of all time. An hour in, I knew I'd never see a marketing campaign this good in a very long time.
-
1
-
1
-
4
-
-
Eh. First trailer was better. I'm a big fan of Kumail Nanjiani, but he's already irritating me as a small CGI alien sidekick that spits out one-liners. Looks very cookie-cutter, lacking MiB's inherent weirdness.
That said, I very much enjoy how they set up Tessa's character.
-
Looks like saving the title for the first trailer is the big play these days for finales...
-
I really didn’t like the first trailer, with its early focus on the sci-to villain and really bad pacing, but this trailer is a goldmine. Sure it probably gives the third act away but that’s never mattered with these films. This one is much better edited for sure. More cohesive. Much less exposition.
-
The only thing worse than the people who are attacking Brie Larson and Captain Marvel are the people who seek to put that actress and character on an untouchably high pedestal.
-
I thought 2019 was supposed to have another 8-9 months left?
-
2
-
-
Caught the early Fandango screening. Eh.
The script is the film's best element, followed by the performances of Levi and Grazer (the foster brother). The second act was the film's best (funniest) section.
Everything involving Mark Strong and the Sins was awful. Strong did his best, but the material was lacking. No wonder they kept all that content out of the marketing.
From a direction standpoint, Sandberg was competent. I like the dozen or so times he flexed his horror muscles with jump scares, or impact moments (bolstered by surprisingly good sound design), but otherwise the film lacked any sense of style. Unmemorable cinematography & music composition. Can't remember a single unique action beat. Those decisions make the film more palatable for wide audiences, but left me wanting more.
This film was fun, but it felt shallow. Billy's quest to find his mother was meant to add depth, but it felt tacked on and inconsequential. Doesn't affect Billy's character arc at all. The scene is just an excuse to get Billy out of his house (after just returning) so Mark Strong can arrive in the interim.
6.5/10. When it was funny, particularly in the second act, the film was rolling full throttle. When it dived into Billy's past and Mark Strong being possessed by 7 horrible CGI monsters, I was bored. Don't think I'll be revisiting this film at all.
-
15 hours ago, filmlover said:
Any news on what the budget for Artemis Fowl is? Since that's obviously the upcoming Disney project that screams "flop city" the most.
Amazingly, 135m. How in the hell. Based on the first trailer it looks like it cost 70m. At most, at most, it should have been 100m. I say that as a huge fan of the book series. Read every one the weekend it released throughout the school years. Eager to hear there was going to be a film. Sad to hear it was going to be Disney. Curious with the choice of Branagh as director (he is above this material). Unenthusiastic with the direction it appears they are going. Optimistic the next trailer will be better.
Anyway, how long until Disney starts rolling out the live action Pixar remakes?
-
Nothing went wrong, except for the budget. Made for 125m this would have been a success. If that means you reduce the CGi and some action, so be it.
-
1
-
-
I can't believe Disney poured 170m into Dumbo. That's astonishing. I don't recall Dumbo being perceived as a classic along the lines of their 90s lineup. Or at least, those who held Dumbo in such prestige have aged out of the main movie-going demographics.
-
I think Disney made a mistake by grouping Dumbo, Aladdin, and Lion King within essentially a four month span. Too many animated-remakes to keep in mind at once. Dumbo feels offered up as an appetizer, with a side-salad and main entree still to come.
-
3
-
-
47 minutes ago, TMP said:
Monster Scrabby is up there with the CGI mummy from Courage as far as scary things go for 5 year old me.
Did you return the slab?
-
1
-
-
92% at 66 reviews. Captain Marvel was 91% at 68 reviews. IMO this is still on track to settle in the 75%-80% range.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
-
94% at 47 reviews
For comparison, Captain Marvel was at:
85% at 35 reviews
91% at 68
85% at 178
81% at 253
79% at 326
78% at 432
We have a long ways to go for Shazam. At this point, I'd expect it to settle in around 80%-85% on RT at the end of the day.
-
1
-
-
My screening just ended. It was good. Just basically good. Nothing interesting about the film’s direction outside of a dozen jump scares-impact moments that are in David Sandberg’s wheelhouse. Script was very good in all regards except for how it handled the antagonist and the final confrontation. Mark Strong has absolutely nothing to do. The script makes up for that though with a funny second act, which is the higlight of the film. No visual style or memorable action. All the child actors outside of Billy and especially Freddy were baaad at line delivery. I’d say 7/10, probably ends up 75-80% range on RT.
-
1
-
-
I’m looking forward to catching an early screening of Shazam this afternoon
-
1
-
-
Better than the first trailer by leaps and bounds. Also clearly Guy Ritchie's visual style in the opening chase. Less so when the special effects kick in. I remain skeptical of Ritchie's ability to develop the characters. Jafar still terribly miscast. It seems Will Smith's comedic elements are more forced than Robin William's natural motor-mouth.
-
39 minutes ago, JGAR4LIFE said:
This and the Lion King should’ve had way more marketing. Hell this year seems extremely big for Disney, they should be going all out on their slate. I understand their method of restraining Endgame footage but this should be an event as well. I guess they wasted all that on Captain Marvel’s marketing.
Lion King hasn't needed more marketing. It's the freaking Lion King. First off, it still doesn't release until July. I can assure you that the second trailer will debut with Endgame late next month.
The teaser for Lion King is the third most watched trailer of all time, behind Infinity War and Engame's debut trailers.
Give me a break.
-
3 minutes ago, dakus said:
People genuinely believe it’s going to be massive. The outlandish predictions are obviously just jokes though
At this point, what is considered "outlandish" for Detective Pikachu?
-
3 minutes ago, Avatree said:
none of the marvel films have any directorial style apart from guardians of the galaxy. all of the others are exactly the same.
So Thor Ragnarok and The Winter Soldier are essentially the same stylistically?
-
7
-
2
-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
But that would be nonsense to do so. Its an intro, she is not finished, ... a part 1 of something to come, in a way the first act. As are in my POV more or less all solo origins of the MCU.
It would confuse the heck the audience of future parts too. With so many titles its for some already a bit difficult / overwhelming, especially if jumping late on the wagon
I think you look way too strongly at it like a closed story thing. The MCU has in my POV some rules that do not apply to the usual stand alone movies
Its maybe bcs we never had something similar that ppl still try to approach it that way?
I think you pick to much the conditions for what you see as acceptable as reasons or possibilities and what not, way too focused on it has to be here and now, no tolerance for anything else.
I’m not saying this movie needed a different name. I’m saying it needed to explain the name it had. I’m not saying Danvers needs to be called “Captain Marvel” outright, but as it stands the title of this movie makes 0% sense.
I don’t care about future movies that haven’t happened yet. “They’ll explain it later” is not a valid reason. “Part 1 of something to come” is an excuse for bad writing.
The ‘conditions for what I see as acceptable’ in regards to the film’s title are, as I have said several times, the title of the film needs to make sense within the context of the film. Not future films. Not other mediums the story was adapted from. THE FILM.
So since you want to keep arguing about my apparently unreasonable standards, I will ask again:
Can you explain to me the title of this film, within the context of this film? What does “Captain Marvel” mean?
I’m waiting...
-
1
-
2
-
-
27 minutes ago, Macleod said:
Films can be ambiguous, nuanced, sure...I want more of that. But they should make some kind of logical interpretive sense with their title...not just be fan-pandering.
Based on the character in the movie, the movie should be actually be called "VERS."
This is the point I'm trying to make.
-
12 minutes ago, kitik said:
The title of the film makes perfect sense since it stars a well-known comic character named Captain Marvel. A character inside the film may not be aware of why Captain Marvel was an appropriate name, but certainly every single person in the theater watching the film would know why and recognize the name as appropriate. And of course, movie titles are made for those of us who watch the movies, not fictional characters inside their own movies.
Unless you're Deadpool. Then you might care what the movie you're in was called.
Uhh... what? I was inside the theater, and I have no idea why the name is appropriate.
So please explain to me, within the context of the film I watched and not the comic it was adapted from, why the title makes sense.
Can anyone explain to me why this movie is called what it's called, without having to reference a comic book? Adaptations of other mediums don't get a "get out of jail free" card for not explaining things that are in said other medium. That's lazy writing.
-
6 minutes ago, Captain Craig said:
That is the complaint logged by one that has received multiple replies and retorts?
If that is all you got then what you got is nothing.
I do not appreciate my criticism being misconstrued by so many.
For at least the 5th time, I don't care that the words "Captain Marvel" are never uttered in the film. I care that the title of the film makes 0% sense within the context of the film.
Wonder Woman didn't need to be called "Wonder Woman" directly for the title of the film to make sense.
Is that really too much to ask for? I guess so...
AVENGERS: ENDGAME WEEKEND THREAD l Actuals: $357.115M | $866.526M OS, $1.223B WW l Russos true box office kings l *** NO SPOILERS - Even Tagged ***| SALE NOW LIVE: 50% Off Gold Montly, 25% Off Gold Annually
in Numbers and Data
Posted
Still digesting the film. Currently think IW is better overall, mostly due to the relentless pacing throughout, but IW will probably overtake it in time.
Glad to see it back up to 97%