Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Water Bottle]

15 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

 

Anyway...

 

Markus and McFeely just gave yet another interview on killing off characters.  They think it's lazy way to raise stakes and import consequence.  I agree.

 

 

Clearly Markus and McFeely are not big fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Vampire Diaries/The Originals. It CAN be a lazy way to raise stakes and import consequences but it could also be the right move (especially if one of your former protagonists is now an antagonist and you want to show the threat is real). Having said that, there's a difference between killing people to raise stakes and have death be temporary causing audiences to wonder why they should care about life and death issues.

[TalismanRing]

Just now, Daniel Dylan Davis said:

 

Well, Ford has no problem playing Indy again.

 

It's not all about Harrison.   The question is do I have the will to watch him do it?

 

Seriously, he's a decade plus older now than Connery when Connery played his father.   They already tried foisting his son on us with ugh Shia. They gave us Marion back and reunited them in a not too satisfying way (better than Star Wars: TFA though)  Where is there for him to go now as a character?   Will they move into even more of a mentor role and who will he mentor?  Whats the point then?   I think Han as a character had more places left to go since all his relationships except with Chewy were still in flux and there was still a cause/fight.  And as less physical character he could have believably played him longer.

[RandomCat]

3 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Clearly Markus and McFeely are not big fans of Buffy the Vampire Slayer or the Vampire Diaries/The Originals. It CAN be a lazy way to raise stakes and import consequences but it could also be the right move (especially if one of your former protagonists is now an antagonist and you want to show the threat is real). Having said that, there's a difference between killing people to raise stakes and have death be temporary causing audiences to wonder why they should care about life and death issues.

 

Not being a big fan of Buffy, or Whedon in general. His killing of characters never felt like raised stakes, but more, I can so I will.

 

But I do think some death, especially close death to our heroes, does need to occur in Infinity War. Since the slate is pretty clear after the Avengers movies, it shouldn't be "Why do we care, he's just going to show up in the next movie" problem. Especially if they give Cap a Heroic sacrifice, it'd work wonders.

[TalismanRing]

5 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Because some actors will get too old to play the part believably anymore, and killing them off to resurrect them provides an in built excuse why Captain America doesn't look like Chris Evans anymore, and you get the punch of actually killing an actor.

 

Too old as in mid to late 30s?  Both Chrises at the end of Avengers 4 will be younger than Cumberbatch, Boseman and Rudd are now. 

 

It makes no sense to kill your popular characters off unless the actors don't want to make the movies any more.  One can always try recasting in the future, or replacing them with another iteration but success to the same degree is not guaranteed with a new actor - see Bond or Bourne.  Hollywood for some reason seems to be risk averse when spending hundreds of millions of $$s  Go figure. 

 

You cross the bridge when you come to it, don't burn the bridge before you have to.

 

 

 

 

 

[TalismanRing]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Not being a big fan of Buffy, or Whedon in general. His killing of characters never felt like raised stakes, but more, I can so I will.

 

But I do think some death, especially close death to our heroes, does need to occur in Infinity War. Since the slate is pretty clear after the Avengers movies, it shouldn't be "Why do we care, he's just going to show up in the next movie" problem. Especially if they give Cap a Heroic sacrifice, it'd work wonders.

 

Whedon was too kill happy.  Death is part of life and sometimes intrinsic to the plot.  Joyce's death while gut wrenching not only gave maybe the best episode but also an aftermath that affected Buffy and her journey and life.   Other deaths not so much and the last episode just had meaningless death.  Though in comparison to Angel, Buffy wasn't too bad. Angel was a death factory for it's cast.

 

Cap has already "died" as a heroic sacrifice.  Sure he was defrosted almost 70 years alter but he was dead to the world and himself.  If they killed him off in IW he wouldn't stay dead anyway.  They could replace him with a lame Cap substitute but Steve Rogers is the only Cap that matters, so they'd just re-cast.

[Fancyarcher]

18 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

It's not all about Harrison.   The question is do I have the will to watch him do it?

 

Seriously, he's a decade plus older now than Connery when Connery played his father.   They already tried foisting his son on us with ugh Shia. They gave us Marion back and reunited them in a not too satisfying way (better than Star Wars: TFA though)  Where is there for him to go now as a character?   Will they move into even more of a mentor role and who will he mentor?  Whats the point then?   I think Han as a character had more places left to go since all his relationships except with Chewy were still in flux and there was still a cause/fight.  And as less physical character he could have believably played him longer.

 

I dunna. That's up to Spielberg and co to decide. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if Indy's in a nursing home or something.

[Water Bottle]

19 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Not being a big fan of Buffy, or Whedon in general. His killing of characters never felt like raised stakes, but more, I can so I will.

 

But I do think some death, especially close death to our heroes, does need to occur in Infinity War. Since the slate is pretty clear after the Avengers movies, it shouldn't be "Why do we care, he's just going to show up in the next movie" problem. Especially if they give Cap a Heroic sacrifice, it'd work wonders.

 

I disagree with that point but sure: then Game of Thrones? Game of Thrones also proves my point.

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

I disagree with that point but sure: then Game of Thrones? Game of Thrones also proves my point.

 

GOT functions as a horror movie.  Just assume everyone is going to die except one or two who will make it out alive long enough to to make a sequel (in this case next season) they'll then be killed ff in.

 

 

[RandomCat]

9 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Too old as in mid to late 30s?  Both Chrises at the end of Avengers 4 will be younger than Cumberbatch, Boseman and Rudd are now. 

 

It makes no sense to kill your popular characters off unless the actors don't want to make the movies any more.  One can always try recasting in the future, or replacing them with another iteration but success to the same degree is not guaranteed with a new actor - see Bond or Bourne.  Hollywood for some reason seems to be risk averse when spending hundreds of millions of $$s  Go figure. 

 

You cross the bridge when you come to it, don't burn the bridge before you have to.

 

 

I could just be talking hypothetical and used Chris Evans as an example. It's a reason to kill off a character only to revive him, not necessarily when the character should die.

 

The only Bond Actor to make less with their debut film that the previous film was Lazenby, and even then, with replacing the first Bond, it's no surprise. The reason he never returned was because of his hippy agent convincing him otherwise. Otherwise, every replacing actor did more with their debut film, than the previous' film. (Also it goes to remember that Bond movies aren't apart of Hollywood, they are British films.)

[RandomCat]

8 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

I disagree with that point but sure: then Game of Thrones? Game of Thrones also proves my point.

 

What I've read of Game of Thrones, albeit only the first book, I hold the same opinion that I do of Whedon. It feels more like "I can, so I do."

 

 

17 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Whedon was too kill happy.  Death is part of life and sometimes intrinsic to the plot.  Joyce's death while gut wrenching not only gave maybe the best episode but also an aftermath that affected Buffy and her journey and life.   Other deaths not so much and the last episode just had meaningless death.  Though in comparison to Angel, Buffy wasn't too bad. Angel was a death factory for it's cast.

 

 

I can't speak too much on Buffy, since I really did give up on the show, but Angel was very kill happy. And Serenity was the worst offender of the lot. There was no rhyme or reason to those deaths, just "Look what I can do! These are my toys so I can kill them!" I truly do not like Whedon.

 

20 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Cap has already "died" as a heroic sacrifice.  Sure he was defrosted almost 70 years alter but he was dead to the world and himself.  If they killed him off in IW he wouldn't stay dead anyway.  They could replace him with a lame Cap substitute but Steve Rogers is the only Cap that matters, so they'd just re-cast.

 

Which is why you'd kill anyone in the MCU, to do a sly recast, especially with Avengers 4.

[robertman2]

8 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

I could just be talking hypothetical and used Chris Evans as an example. It's a reason to kill off a character only to revive him, not necessarily when the character should die.

 

The only Bond Actor to make less with their debut film that the previous film was Lazenby, and even then, with replacing the first Bond, it's no surprise. The reason he never returned was because of his hippy agent convincing him otherwise. Otherwise, every replacing actor did more with their debut film, than the previous' film. (Also it goes to remember that Bond movies aren't apart of Hollywood, they are British films.)

The British seem to like regularly recasting instead of reboot. Like with Doctor Who

[RandomCat]

Just now, robertman2 said:

The British seem to like regularly recasting instead of reboot. Like with Doctor Who

 

I'm not going on that rant. It's not good for me.

[Water Bottle]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

What I've read of Game of Thrones, albeit only the first book, I hold the same opinion that I do of Whedon. It feels more like "I can, so I do."

 

 

 

I can't speak too much on Buffy, since I really did give up on the show, but Angel was very kill happy. And Serenity was the worst offender of the lot. There was no rhyme or reason to those deaths, just "Look what I can do! These are my toys so I can kill them!" I truly do not like Whedon.

 

 

Which is why you'd kill anyone in the MCU, to do a sly recast, especially with Avengers 4.

 

But that's not true, especially in the first book (or first season) of Game of Thrones! Admittedly, I've only seen the show but I understand the first season is pretty loyal to the book and the deaths in the first season all served a huge purpose. Ned Stark's death told the reader that this wasn't going to be like Lord of the Rings, this is a world where the good and the honorable don't make it. It also shows the readers that people will die in the series. The death of Robert the King also has a purpose: it sets off the titular Game of Thrones as they jock around it. Those are like the two big deaths of S1. They didn't just happen for the lolz.

 

I disagree with Buffy as well, I think a lot of the deaths there were done for good reason.

[Kalo]

16 hours ago, Daxtreme said:

 

This.

 

One of the original 6 Avengers would be enough to make him a legitimate threat, engage the audience, and give enough gravitas to the story.

 

I say Cap. He's 100 years old anyway

 

 

Not Cap.

 

 Iron Man, Hulk, or Thor. Hawkeye or Black Widow could work too. 

[Kalo]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Harrison Ford is

 

1) in his 70s

2) hadn't played the character in over 30 years

3) demanded to be killed off in order to come back and had been begging to be killed since ESB

4) we're getting a Young Indy Han Solo series so he's not even gone as a character

5) we don't know if people will accept a new Indy actor  Han

 

He was also killed in fucking lame way with almost zero emotion except that driven by nostalgia because they never bothered to show or establish him with his family in any meaningful way or even explain the family dynamics in any depth.  Why show him with Leia for more than a few stiff unsatisfying minutes when when we can show him with the newbies?   Even the aftermath sucked, Chewy his life long friend and partner didn't even get a hug.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't like TFA??!! 

[RandomCat]

6 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

But that's not true, especially in the first book (or first season) of Game of Thrones! Admittedly, I've only seen the show but I understand the first season is pretty loyal to the book and the deaths in the first season all served a huge purpose. Ned Stark's death told the reader that this wasn't going to be like Lord of the Rings, this is a world where the good and the honorable don't make it. It also shows the readers that people will die in the series. The death of Robert the King also has a purpose: it sets off the titular Game of Thrones as they jock around it. Those are like the two big deaths of S1. They didn't just happen for the lolz.

 

I disagree with Buffy as well, I think a lot of the deaths there were done for good reason.

 

None of the death's had weight to me, most those who died, in the first book at least, felt like paper dolls moving across to serve purpose. The only death that had weight on me was Stark's death, but that was the only time I saw a character die and not a prop. I can't really compare to LoTR since I don't remember the movies, and the books were a boring drudge of a read.

 

But this is something we can disagree on.

Edited September 2, 2016 by RandomJC

[TalismanRing]

59 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

I could just be talking hypothetical and used Chris Evans as an example. It's a reason to kill off a character only to revive him, not necessarily when the character should die.

 

The only Bond Actor to make less with their debut film that the previous film was Lazenby, and even then, with replacing the first Bond, it's no surprise. The reason he never returned was because of his hippy agent convincing him otherwise. Otherwise, every replacing actor did more with their debut film, than the previous' film. (Also it goes to remember that Bond movies aren't apart of Hollywood, they are British films.)

 

 

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm&adjust_yr=1&p=.htm

 

Bond is British and Fleming certainly was but Cubby was from Queens, NYC , Saltzman was from Canada and the studios that financed them were American based.  They're Hollywood.  Sure they use UK studios but so do Marvel and Star Wars movies.

 

The only reason Dalton's first movie made more than Moore's last is because Moore's seventh made so little, aside from Golden Gun it was the nadir of his Bond career.  Even then Living Daylights sold fewer tickets in the US than AVTAK.  Lazenby and Dalton account for 3 of the 4 lowest attended Bond films and they only made three total.

 

The global market has expanded drastically since Connery as Bond and every decade since so comparisons over 50 plus years are really difficult especially when we also add in inflation..  But as regards the US, in terms of admissions Craig's first did less business in the US than Brosnan's last, of Craig's tenure only Skyfall sold more tickets in the US than than DAD (or TND).  QOS and Spectre both sold fewer in the U.S. than all of Brosnan's films.   Only Skyfall and it's 50th Anniversary reaches and passes Connery's second tier level of YOLT. 

Lazenby was a self inflicted wound.   The Lazenby change was a disaster financially, it dropped 50% from YOLT which had just dropped about 50% from TB.  Then they scrambled to get Connery back.  If they'd had a choice (or maybe weren't so greedy) they wouldn't have let Connery go in the first place.  In terms of admissions in the US, none of the films after Connery's tenure are even close to his high points and only a handful match his lowest, even WW it's a challenge.    Now Connery's tenure by the end was also sloping downward after the GF and TB peak but YOLT still ranks 4th in US admissions and even Diamonds (post Lazenby experiment) is top 10.   Parallels could be made between Connery/Lazenby and Damon/Bourne, with the drop off and the the bounce up but not as up as it was before the change.  Hmm....maybe that means someone Roger Moore -like is the next Bourne.

 

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by TalismanRing

[DMan7]

Maybe all the Chris's (Star Lord, Cap and Thor) will die in Infinity War to avoid all the confusion on set when calling their names.

[TalismanRing]

37 minutes ago, Kalo said:

 

You didn't like TFA??!! 

 

It was fine although overly dependent on nostalgia.  Better than the prequels -  better acted, paced and plotted and more fun if not as imaginative, but no where near the first trilogy.  It made me appreciate ROTJ more and I was always considered that the weakling of the OT. (bleeping ewoks)

 

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by TalismanRing

[Water Bottle]

30 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

None of the death's had weight to me, most those who died, in the first book at least, felt like paper dolls moving across to serve purpose. The only death that had weight on me was Stark's death, but that was the only time I saw a character die and not a prop. I can't really compare to LoTR since I don't remember the movies, and the books were a boring drudge of a read.

 

But this is something we can disagree on.

 

Just because they didn't have weight for you doesn't mean they were just killed willy nilly or that their deaths didn't serve a purpose to the narrative.