Crainy
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Crainy
-
-
Whats the deal with people jumping on the "its not R rated so its has to suck" train? I dont see how an R rating would improve a Venom movie in any significant way. The Dark Knight was PG-13. Theres nothing in Venom that has to be more raw or brutal than anything that was seen in that movie.
-
If you take the recent controversy into account, its hard to take critics seriously on this movie. In todays movie culture, most critics seem to be more interested in "going with the flow" when it comes to rating movies. Its pretty obvious that the scores they give out are less about the movie itself, but more about how the movie is viewed in the public eye and they try to appeal to that. Not just for "The Predator", but for most Blockbusters really.
Not saying this movie is going to be of great or lesser quality, I think its hard to tell based on the trailers, but make up your own mind instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think of a piece of art.
-
2
-
-
On 8/29/2018 at 5:49 PM, The Futurist said:
This is lame cinephile hot take 101 at its finest.
Only because you dont agree with an opinion doesnt make it a hot take. And about the "cinephile" bit: Now I dont know how you view movies, but you dont get to dismiss something as a hot take either only because someone might care more about movies as quality art and as such will have a more nuanced opinion on the topic than you. Infact, what you posted there is a great example of a lame comment dismissing an opinion simply because you dont understand it. Cut it out, it adds nothing worthwhile to any discussion.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, PANDA said:
Has Cameron really done anything greater than anyone else?
He’ll also die, and all of his work too is ensure to be destroyed with the heat death of the universe or the expansion of the sun (or even climate change in as little as a few hundred years).
Like the rest of us, James Cameron is microscopic and insignificant in the full view of the universe.
Thankfully that doesnt matter and whats important is the culture that we live in now.
-
1
-
-
Looks pretty good, I´ll definitely will see it in cinemas.
-
2 hours ago, Krissykins said:
I’m not sure but I’m willing to bet on a very rotten RT score somewhere below 30%.
I dont know why, I just have a really bad feeling about the quality of this.
Everything has a RT score somewhere below 30%.
-
Okay I guess. Could be a good marketing move, even though I dont personally care about it.
-
20 hours ago, IronJimbo said:
Scotty hasn't replied to me 😭
He also hasn't replied to the top comment, which is calling him out.
Oooooh nice. Good one. Calling him out on starting this bullshit, I love it.
-
1
-
-
I despise Rotten Tomatoes so much. Its a congregate of everything thats wrong with movie critique today and a detriment for meaningful discussion about art. I expect these changes will make it even worse.
-
2
-
-
On 8/26/2018 at 2:27 AM, Napoleon said:
Valerian was better than all MCU movies.
Thats not really a high bar, though. You might have well have said "Valerian is an above average movie".
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, SnokesLegs said:
I’ve seen many films in the format, and none of them should be anyone’s initial viewing of a film. It’s a distraction, nothing more.
As Crainy correctly stated, if the director didn’t plan on it being part of their film, then it is just a pointless gimmick, and none of the films presented in 4DX have been made with moving chairs and other effects in mind. The 4DX company make up the motion/effects files after the film has been completed, and often it doesn’t even correspond properly with what’s happening. Case in point, Independence Day Resurgence (awful film anyway) has moments in space where the chairs lazily listed from side to side, presumably to simulate zero G, it was awful and didn’t correspond with the on screen movements.
The fans that simulate the wind effects are also loud enough to be heard over the film, the strobe lights just take your eyes away from the screen, and the 3D is just regular old Real D 3D, complete with all the ghosting that you tend to find with that form of 3D, only it’s made worse because you’re actually moving.
People should temper their expectations a bit, it’s absolutely not the future of cinema, and neither is that terrible Screen X that Cineworld are currently pushing.
By all means, people should try it, but don’t expect anything groundbreaking.
Honestly, this kind of stuff is just trying to ape virtual reality. But movies arent the right medium for that and we have real virtual reality now. Which will, once fully realized, be probably the biggest cultural revelation since I dunno, photography. And just like books dont have to be movies, movies dont have to be virtual reality.
-
The question you have to ask yourself with stuff like 4dx is: Has the artist, the director, made the movie with this stuff in mind? Are the additional "features" properly integrated into that artists vision?
If the answer is no, then its a gimmick. Can be fun, but should not be considered a primary way of appreciating a movie.
-
1
-
-
I really need to get back to Disney World at some point to check it out.
-
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:
No no, he's back for all 4 films and is the main villain.
Lang said Jim told him how Quaritch will come back to life in 2009.
I´ll believe it when I see it lol.
-
My guess is on flashbacks or something along those lines. Perhaps video footage. I dont think its James Camerons style to reuse villains in such a manner.
-
2 hours ago, JB33 said:
Avatar and Star Wars have completely different themes and focuses. Cameron's message in the film was very much about the beauty of nature and the environment so a lot of attention was paid to setting of Pandora.
On the flip side, the characters of Avatar don't hold a freaking candle to the characters of Star Wars.
There is alot more to Avatar than "beauty of nature", which is literally the most superficial thing you can take away from that movie.
And I dont agree, Avatar and Star Wars are very different movies that require very different characters. Both Star Wars and Avatar have characters that are perfect for the movie they are in.
-
1
-
-
On 8/13/2018 at 10:29 PM, meriodejaneiro said:
Thought the sequels would expand the universe and other planets, moons and whatever ... but the 4 movies will take place in Pandora? Kind of risky. The story telling has to be really incredible and hooking ... otherwise can be boring.
Can you imagine a Star Wars trilogy happening only in Tatooine?
The majority of all movies ever made take place on the same planet.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 8/10/2018 at 10:03 PM, Nova said:
Some movies benefit greatly (in terms of quality) when they're allowed to have an R-rating. This is one of those films. I think Sony really really dropped the ball on this one and big time by making it PG-13. I also believe Sony has limited the box office potential for this by making it PG-13.
Lastly are people seriously questioning Will Smith's drawing power against Tom Hardy's? I mean Tom Hardy is a great actor but Will Smith was one of those actors who was getting folks to go to the theater aka he is the definition of what a movie star is. Wouldn't be surprised if you went to the dictionary and saw his picture next to the word movie star.
As a Venom fan, I dont think this movie would benefit all that much from an R-Rating. Venom isnt known for swearing or alot of sexual jokes and R-Rated violence can only add so much. A venom film can work perfectly well on a PG-13 rating, he isnt Deadpool, he doesnt need the R-rating.
-
1 hour ago, GirafficPark said:
Sorry, but this talk of Black Panther being a legitimate candidate for Best Picture has to be a joke, right? On what grounds? Its a decent Marvel movie, but its hardly Oscar worthy in any category.
I agree, the lack of self-awareness many fans of the MCU display is hilarious. Its perfectly fine to like the movies, but it really becomes obnoxious when they act like these movies are the objective definition of quality, when most of them are nothing more but perfectly mediocre movies that have very little to them.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Wow, he looks amazing. Sweet slight redesign aswell.
-
14 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:
MC has very strong correlation to Best Picture. No winner in the last decade has scored lower than 85 on metacritic. It's also just a sign of overall critical acclaim since it only includes top critics, which ultimately plays a huge role in which movies get money for campaigns.
MC is indeed the lesser evil of the two, but I simply disagree with the concept of ratings in general, which is why a site devoted to it will always be a joke to me. RT on the other hand is a site that seems to be actively at odds with actual critical, worthwhile analysis and appreciation of film and I despise it for that.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Rebeccas said:
BP currently has a higher RT and Metacritic score than The Dark Knight. The Academy is clearly afraid that if their old white membership snubs a highly rated blockbuster again (especially if it's in favor of mediocre Oscar bait like The Reader again), it'll just be TDK backlash all over again and they're trying to get ahead of the curve by doing this.
Both Metacritic and Rottentomatoes are jokes of a site and I dont think their scores should be taken seriously when considering the quality of a movie. To say that a movie is the best picture of the year just because it has an arbitrary high number on a site that equates movies with spoiled fruit is ridiculous. Especially seeing how trying to boil down a piece of art into a number is complete nonsense.
The oscars have many flaws, but not listening to scores isnt one of them.
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, filmlover said:
Black Panther was arguably the first comic book movie since The Dark Knight 10 years ago that had actual Oscar buzz and it's been assumed that this change was done so that they had a "sorry not sorry" approach to awarding the movie without having to nominate a comic book movie for Best Picture.
But the more that's been revealed about this, the more clear it has become that these changes were only done to please Disney/ABC.
Considering the voting base of the academy, I dont think that would have been a concern, theres no way they would have given the Oscar to Black Panther. Your latter point makes alot more sense.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Valonqar said:
Nope, not even close. cause that year, they awarded the least watched movie of all times, yes THL had the smallest boxoffice of any winner ever, a truly abysmal 16M, and they made a big point about "David beating Goliath" which is to say that the very first year where they expanded the field to give big movie a fair chance, they used it to mock the biggest movie that was in serious contention to win. And no wonder that very shortly after, they came up with "preferential ballot" that shortened the field to 7-8 nominees and made the win for genre movies just as tough as when there was 5 nominees. Cause the AMPAS preferences certainly aren't with CB movies.
Nominations aren't the point because they are consolation. Winning is the point and it's been very tough for genre to win. The Shape of Water win came 14 years after ROTK win. 14 years for another fantasy movie. And now they are blocking sci fi and fantasy and horror and action by giving them Popular category.
So why is this shit happening? Are they afraid that Black Panther wouldn't make preferential ballot for blockbuster slot in the regular Best Picture line-up or are they afraid that it could - gasp - win? A CB movie, the winner? Cause this change is 100% about Black Panther, not about popular movies in general.
I dont quite follow, what does this change have to do with Black Panther? I´d argue no Marvel movie so far should be anywhere close to a "best picture" award, oscars or not.
-
2
-
Venom | 5 OCTOBER 2018 | Sony | Tom Hardy is Venom. Social Media reactions coming in
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
You act like you have seen the movie and know how it handles things. You havent seen it, making your concern an unfounded assumption at best. Venom for the largest part is a big element of a mostly immature comic book series. Sure, you could go with an R-rating for the character, but unlike something like Deadpool, its not something that is intrinsic to the character. And the question wether or not you would like an R-rated take on the character more is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the quality of this movie.