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

[DlAMONDZ]

22 hours ago, Napoleon said:

David Ayer now started sharing pictures of never before seen scenes of Suicide Squad, and started talking about the experience of directing that movie. He's clearly jealous of the Snyder Cut movement, and want one of his own. 

Good for him

 

More people need to know how badly WB fucked both JL and SS

[MrGlass2]

Scorsese gets it:

 

Quote

He credited Joaquin Phoenix’s performance with helping to turn the film into “a remarkable work.” He said that “Joker” did not count as a superhero film

 

[HeadShot]

7 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

What was the last movie that inspired more think pieces than Joker?

 

 

Last Jedi and Captain Marvel come to mind.

 

 

[Ororo Munroe]

52 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

Scorsese gets it:

 

 

 

[dudalb]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 9:22 PM, Ororo Munroe said:

The constant need to compare everything to the MCU (as opposed to CBMs in general) is both hilarious and ironic. It's the highest compliment to the MCU, really. 

What is ironic about comparasions being made all the time to something that is the most successful in it's field? Guaranteed, next year every team in baseball is going to be compared to the Nationals?

And, at least in terms of box office, the MCU has easily been the most successful  Comic BookMovie Franchise.

[dudalb]

6 hours ago, TMP said:

Watch Godfather Part II, it's quite a bit stronger than the first one imo

If someone  found the First Godfather boring, I would bet he would find Godfather 2 even more boring.

Besides, I think we are dealing with a troll here.

[WittyUsername]

Is it weird that I kind of miss the days where there was endless speculation about BvS? 

[Zakiyyah6]

3 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

What was the last movie that inspired more think pieces than Joker?

 

 

Batman v Superman for sure. People were blaming BvS for the 2016 election.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Zakiyyah6

[WittyUsername]

8 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Batman v Superman for sure. People were blaming BvS for the 2016 election.

Wait, what? 

[MrGlass2]

23 minutes ago, Zakiyyah6 said:

Batman v Superman for sure. People were blaming BvS for the 2016 election.

Outside nerd circles...

 

Don't think you had Michael Moore or Slavoj Zizek weighing in on the meaning of BvS or Captain Marvel. Or something similar to all the think pieces related to mental illness and its treatment, for any real issue possibly mentioned in those movies.

Edited November 4, 2019 by MrGlass2

[dudalb]

Nerds often forget exactly how small a percentage of the population they are, and think a fight among nerds it some world shaking event.

[WittyUsername]

18 minutes ago, MrGlass2 said:

Outside nerd circles...

 

Don't think you had Michael Moore or Slavoj Zizek weighing in on the meaning of BvS or Captain Marvel. Or something similar to all the think pieces related to mental illness and its treatment, for any real issue possibly mentioned in those movies.

There was quite a bit of political discourse surrounding TDK and TDKR. 

[TMP]

3 hours ago, Ororo Munroe said:

 

lmfaoooo, "I liked it until he becomes an abstraction [comic book character]". King.

33 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

There was quite a bit of political discourse surrounding TDK and TDKR. 

Yeah but Moore is a famous political commentator and Žižek is an incredibly famous philosopher.  

[Napoleon]

No one outside of the nerd community whined about Batman v Superman; general audiences either liked it or not and moved on with their lives. As much as it was groundbreaking for the comic book movie genre, it didn't get the same hysteric reaction outside of the community. Even I admit that my experience and my reaction to it wouldn't be as positive if I were not a big fan of Superman, and didn't have previous knowledge of the comic book history. I think the movie would still work great, but the reason I loved it as much as I did is because I'm a fan.

[John Marston]

Scorsese writes Op Ed where he continues to bash Marvel films

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

[cax16]

[CoolioD1]

 

[Ozymandias]

10 hours ago, HeadShot said:

breaking bad is better than godfather!

this is a fact

On 11/2/2019 at 6:35 PM, Napoleon said:

 

at this point whenever I see napoleon posts propping up the canceled snyderverse I just hear "eye of the tiger" playing in the background

[Darth Lehnsherr]

Since behind a pay wall I'll copy the whole thing

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

 

Spoiler

When I was in England in early October, I gave an interview to Empire magazine. I was asked a question about Marvel movies. I answered it. I said that I’ve tried to watch a few of them and that they’re not for me, that they seem to me to be closer to theme parks than they are to movies as I’ve known and loved them throughout my life, and that in the end, I don’t think they’re cinema.

Some people seem to have seized on the last part of my answer as insulting, or as evidence of hatred for Marvel on my part. If anyone is intent on characterizing my words in that light, there’s nothing I can do to stand in the way.

Many franchise films are made by people of considerable talent and artistry. You can see it on the screen. The fact that the films themselves don’t interest me is a matter of personal taste and temperament. I know that if I were younger, if I’d come of age at a later time, I might have been excited by these pictures and maybe even wanted to make one myself. But I grew up when I did and I developed a sense of movies — of what they were and what they could be — that was as far from the Marvel universe as we on Earth are from Alpha Centauri.

For me, for the filmmakers I came to love and respect, for my friends who started making movies around the same time that I did, cinema was about revelation — aesthetic, emotional and spiritual revelation. It was about characters — the complexity of people and their contradictory and sometimes paradoxical natures, the way they can hurt one another and love one another and suddenly come face to face with themselves.

Quote

It was about confronting the unexpected on the screen and in the life it dramatized and interpreted, and enlarging the sense of what was possible in the art form.

And that was the key for us: it was an art form. There was some debate about that at the time, so we stood up for cinema as an equal to literature or music or dance. And we came to understand that the art could be found in many different places and in just as many forms — in “The Steel Helmet” by Sam Fuller and “Persona” by Ingmar Bergman, in “It’s Always Fair Weather” by Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly and “Scorpio Rising” by Kenneth Anger, in “Vivre Sa Vie” by Jean-Luc Godard and “The Killers” by Don Siegel.

Or in the films of Alfred Hitchcock — I suppose you could say that Hitchcock was his own franchise. Or that he was our franchise. Every new Hitchcock picture was an event. To be in a packed house in one of the old theaters watching “Rear Window” was an extraordinary experience: It was an event created by the chemistry between the audience and the picture itself, and it was electrifying.

And in a way, certain Hitchcock films were also like theme parks. I’m thinking of “Strangers on a Train,” in which the climax takes place on a merry-go-round at a real amusement park, and “Psycho,” which I saw at a midnight show on its opening day, an experience I will never forget. People went to be surprised and thrilled, and they weren’t disappointed.

Sixty or 70 years later, we’re still watching those pictures and marveling at them. But is it the thrills and the shocks that we keep going back to? I don’t think so. The set pieces in “North by Northwest” are stunning, but they would be nothing more than a succession of dynamic and elegant compositions and cuts without the painful emotions at the center of the story or the absolute lostness of Cary Grant’s character.

Spoiler

The climax of “Strangers on a Train” is a feat, but it’s the interplay between the two principal characters and Robert Walker’s profoundly unsettling performance that resonate now.

Some say that Hitchcock’s pictures had a sameness to them, and perhaps that’s true — Hitchcock himself wondered about it. But the sameness of today’s franchise pictures is something else again. Many of the elements that define cinema as I know it are there in Marvel pictures. What’s not there is revelation, mystery or genuine emotional danger. Nothing is at risk. The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes.

They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way. That’s the nature of modern film franchises: market-researched, audience-tested, vetted, modified, revetted and remodified until they’re ready for consumption.

Another way of putting it would be that they are everything that the films of Paul Thomas Anderson or Claire Denis or Spike Lee or Ari Aster or Kathryn Bigelow or Wes Anderson are not. When I watch a movie by any of those filmmakers, I know I’m going to see something absolutely new and be taken to unexpected and maybe even unnameable areas of experience. My sense of what is possible in telling stories with moving images and sounds is going to be expanded.

So, you might ask, what’s my problem? Why not just let superhero films and other franchise films be? The reason is simple. In many places around this country and around the world, franchise films are now your primary choice if you want to see something on the big screen. It’s a perilous time in film exhibition, and there are fewer independent theaters than ever. The equation has flipped and streaming has become the primary delivery system. Still, I don’t know a single filmmaker who doesn’t want to design films for the big screen, to be projected before audiences in theaters.

That includes me, and I’m speaking as someone who just completed a picture for Netflix. It, and it alone, allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful. We have a theatrical window, which is great. Would I like the picture to play on more big screens for longer periods of time? Of course I would. But no matter whom you make your movie with, the fact is that the screens in most multiplexes are crowded with franchise pictures.

And if you’re going to tell me that it’s simply a matter of supply and demand and giving the people what they want, I’m going to disagree. It’s a chicken-and-egg issue. If people are given only one kind of thing and endlessly sold only one kind of thing, of course they’re going to want more of that one kind of thing.

 

Spoiler

But, you might argue, can’t they just go home and watch anything else they want on Netflix or iTunes or Hulu? Sure — anywhere but on the big screen, where the filmmaker intended her or his picture to be seen.

In the past 20 years, as we all know, the movie business has changed on all fronts. But the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk. Many films today are perfect products manufactured for immediate consumption. Many of them are well made by teams of talented individuals. All the same, they lack something essential to cinema: the unifying vision of an individual artist. Because, of course, the individual artist is the riskiest factor of all.

I’m certainly not implying that movies should be a subsidized art form, or that they ever were. When the Hollywood studio system was still alive and well, the tension between the artists and the people who ran the business was constant and intense, but it was a productive tension that gave us some of the greatest films ever made — in the words of Bob Dylan, the best of them were “heroic and visionary.”

Today, that tension is gone, and there are some in the business with absolute indifference to the very question of art and an attitude toward the history of cinema that is both dismissive and proprietary — a lethal combination. The situation, sadly, is that we now have two separate fields: There’s worldwide audiovisual entertainment, and there’s cinema. They still overlap from time to time, but that’s becoming increasingly rare. And I fear that the financial dominance of one is being used to marginalize and even belittle the existence of the other.

For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.

 

[cdsacken]

Lol man he is whiny bitch. Great director, whiny bitch though