M3GAN W33K3ND THR3AD | ACTUALS - DADDY CAM3RON'S MAGNUM OPUS 45.8M | DOCUM3NTARY ABOUT KILL3R DOLL 30.4M | ORANG3 PANTH3R 13.5M

[Brainbug]

5 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

I think what’s incredible is that most of the actors actually did their own stunts and that is very commendable, but it doesn’t make it anymore awe inspiring to watch unless you’re telling yourself in your head the whole time “omg they actually did this”, which I think is what happened with most people. And that magnified the spectacle in people’s mind. But in sheer unbiased what’s more jaw dropping on the screen terms, I can’t see how it compares w A2s greatest spectacle whatsoever. 

 

I think right here is where people just have different personal feelings what they find more spectacular/awe-inspiring. Because yes i agree Avatar 2's action setpieces are much bigger, much heavier and louder than Top Guns, but i was FAR less impressed by them because i know its all just CGI. Amazing, breathtaking CGI, but CGI.

 

With Top Gun, you know (and see) that its real. Thats far more impressive to me personally.

 

Disclaimer, just to be sure: This is not intended to downplay Avatar 2's action. Just my explanation why i found Top Guns action scenes to be even more impressive and engaging.

[Alexdube]

14 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

I mean all of that is fair because its your opinion. I disagree with pretty much everything you say here as well (apart that the Mission Impossible films are amazing, because they are).

 

Top Gun ofc profits from people having nostalgia for it and because the story is quite simple and basically just serves as setting the necessary groundwork for the action scenes. But those action scenes are some of the best practical action cinema of the century thus far and even with that kind of action, the movie wouldnt have had the succes it had without the emotional connection audiences hat with the characters.

 

Because yeah, Top Gun Maverick has great character writing, the only thing about the story/characters that i would criticise is Jennifer Connellys character because that whole love interest-storyline felt a bit like checking boxes. But the dynamic between Maverick and Gooses' son, the heart and center of the film, just works. It helps that the third act of Maverick is the best blockbuster third act in years.

Ah... so you haven't watch A2 yet!

I wouldn't mind TGM getting BP though, I think the movie industry is overdue to award a big popular movie. Idc if it's not Avatar

[MovieMan89]

I also have never argued A2 is BP worthy either bc that screenplay is rocky. Probably still the most BD worthy of the year though. 

[Mr Roark]

20 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Why? I mean a lot of great movies have been released in 2022, but Top Gun doesnt have to hide from any of them quality-wise. When it comes to blockbuster filmmaking, it doesnt get much better than Maverick. Though i dont think it will happen since the Academy rarily gives awards to movies that are massively popular.

 

Because Maverick is overrated.

It’s no TLOTR, TDK, Avatar etc etc material.

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

I don't really disagree in Maverick's simple plot/characters working (well, if you ignore the fact that the core of the mission as has has been presented is probably illegal, but let's not talk about that), but I don't think it even has the best blockbuster third act of the year.

 

Very good film, great crowdpleaser, BP worthy? Definitely not imho, especially with the academy moving away from blockbuster BPs for a long time now, and I don't think Maverick is what bucks the trend. If they really wanted to, their best chance was probably Mad Max.

 

Thats very fair, Mad Max - despite its 6 (i think?) wins - should have won Best picture. If i remember right, Spotlight won for 2015 and come on, who actually saw or remembers Spotlight?

[Menor the Destroyer]

2 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

I think right here is where people just have different personal feelings what they find more spectacular/awe-inspiring. Because yes i agree Avatar 2's action setpieces are much bigger, much heavier and louder than Top Guns, but i was FAR less impressed by them because i know its all just CGI. Amazing, breathtaking CGI, but CGI.

 

With Top Gun, you know (and see) that its real. Thats far more impressive to me personally.

 

Disclaimer, just to be sure: This is not intended to downplay Avatar 2's action. Just my explanation why i found Top Guns action scenes to be even more impressive and engaging.

Of course, you know a certain other blockbuster series has many third acts that are CGI. 

 

[TwoMisfits]

1 minute ago, Mr Roark said:

 

Because Maverick is overrated.

It’s no TLOTR, TDK, Avatar etc etc material.

 

That's true, but its competition this year is also wildly subpar vs those other years...

 

You take the best pic of the year, not the best pic you wished released that year,,,

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, Alexdube said:

Ah... so you haven't watch A2 yet!

I wouldn't mind TGM getting BP though, I think the movie industry is overdue to award a big popular movie. Idc if it's not Avatar

 

I saw it twice actually. 2nd time was much better for me, i think i was not in the right mood for it the first time. I really like the movie actually and yes, the third act is great.

 

But for me, Mavericks is better I certainly wont stop you from disagreeing with me here.

[MikeQ]

Edit: Nevermind, don't want to stoke anything - momentary lapse in judgement.

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited January 7, 2023 by MikeQ

[Menor the Destroyer]

I didn't think A2's third act was anything amazing, honestly, the action was well-done but I didn't find it anywhere near as thrilling and propulsive as TGM.

[MovieMan89]

7 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

I think right here is where people just have different personal feelings what they find more spectacular/awe-inspiring. Because yes i agree Avatar 2's action setpieces are much bigger, much heavier and louder than Top Guns, but i was FAR less impressed by them because i know its all just CGI. Amazing, breathtaking CGI, but CGI.

 

With Top Gun, you know (and see) that its real. Thats far more impressive to me personally.

 

Disclaimer, just to be sure: This is not intended to downplay Avatar 2's action. Just my explanation why i found Top Guns action scenes to be even more impressive and engaging.

To me it’s the same thing as like if two people were in a bodybuilding contest and one of them is very clearly in better shape than the other, but said person relied mostly on genetics while the other worked their ass off to look like they do. The latter would be more commendable, but at

 the end of the day it would still be the former that takes the win bc they have the more impressive body. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by MovieMan89

[Brainbug]

1 minute ago, Menor Reborn said:

Of course, you know a certain other blockbuster series has many third acts that are CGI. 

 

 

This is true, but i never said that i dont find CGI-heavy third acts (or action scenes in general) not impressive. I do, but when the rare action setpiece nowadays is mostly or even completely practical, i just find that more commendable and impressive from a filmmaking and directing standpoint.

 

Spoiler

Doesnt change the fact one bit that Jurassic World (2015) has the best third act of the 2010s and Godzilla: King of the Monsters has the 2nd best.

 

Spoiler

And now nobody takes me seriously anymore as usual just because i like big tooth movies too much

 

[MovieMan89]

Also not to discount either the insane work Cameron and crew put into making the VFX a reality in A2. That’s really just as commendable as what the TGM cast did in its own right. 

Edited January 7, 2023 by MovieMan89

[JustLurking]

8 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

I think right here is where people just have different personal feelings what they find more spectacular/awe-inspiring. Because yes i agree Avatar 2's action setpieces are much bigger, much heavier and louder than Top Guns, but i was FAR less impressed by them because i know its all just CGI. Amazing, breathtaking CGI, but CGI.

 

With Top Gun, you know (and see) that its real. Thats far more impressive to me personally.

 

Disclaimer, just to be sure: This is not intended to downplay Avatar 2's action. Just my explanation why i found Top Guns action scenes to be even more impressive and engaging.

Hmmm. A bit of a weird take for me personally. Not because you like TGM's third act more, that's perfectly fine from you, but just the fact that knowing a scene is or isn't CGI changes your perceived value of it. A scene looks how it looks and I don't really care how the result was reached myself, not while I'm watching anyway.

[Dragoncaine]

9 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

Thats very fair, Mad Max - despite its 6 (i think?) wins - should have won Best picture. If i remember right, Spotlight won for 2015 and come on, who actually saw or remembers Spotlight?

I love Spotlight (though I agree Fury Road should have won). Those were my top two films of 2015!

[Menor the Destroyer]

2 minutes ago, Brainbug said:

 

This is true, but i never said that i dont find CGI-heavy third acts (or action scenes in general) not impressive. I do, but when the rare action setpiece nowadays is mostly or even completely practical, i just find that more commendable and impressive from a filmmaking and directing standpoint.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Doesnt change the fact one bit that Jurassic World (2015) has the best third act of the 2010s and Godzilla: King of the Monsters has the 2nd best.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

And now nobody takes me seriously anymore as usual just because i like big tooth movies too much

 

Honestly, I disagree on this. I frankly think that whether a set piece is CGI or practical isn't relevant. What looks good should be what matters, not how it was made to look that way. 

[Firepower]

2 hours ago, XXR the Conqueror said:

God I hope A2 finishes the day the way it started it. 

 

Hint!

[Mr Roark]

3 minutes ago, TwoMisfits said:

 

That's true, but its competition this year is also wildly subpar vs those other years...

 

You take the best pic of the year, not the best pic you wished released that year,,,

If we talk about blockbusters released this year IMO both A2 and The Batman are superior. A2 is filmmaking 10 years in the future about anti war/pro nature and they should give the award to Maverick and its military “makes us proud and measuring dicks” filled with nostalgia rhetoric?

 

I liked Mav for what it is.

[Brainbug]

5 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

Edit: Nevermind, don't want to stoke anything - momentary lapse in judgement.

 

Peace,

Mike

 

I saw what you wrote and it made honestly chuckle, but without any numbers, i think its fair to talk about topics such as which movies are more impressive to us and why. Especially when its not anywhere near a toxic discussion

[Brainbug]

2 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Hmmm. A bit of a weird take for me personally. Not because you like TGM's third act more, that's perfectly fine from you, but just the fact that knowing a scene is or isn't CGI changes your perceived value of it. A scene looks how it looks and I don't really care how the result was reached myself, not while I'm watching anyway.

 

2 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:

Honestly, I disagree on this. I frankly think that whether a set piece is CGI or practical isn't relevant. What looks good should be what matters, not how it was made to look that way. 

 

Im totally fine with beeing in the minority here! I just love for example to watch behing-the-scenes material for movies like Maverick or Mad Max Fury Road where they show how they filmed these action scenes and thats just a factor which cant be seen in the actual movie that i try to recognize in my ratings a little bit. And just to be clear, i have nothing against CGI or action that is realized completely by CGI, i dont want to be misunderstood here 😄