Steve Rogers Birthday Bash Weekend Thread | 5-Day #s: Indy 83.4, Elemental 18, Spidey 17.65, Sound of Freedom 14.2, No Hard Feelings 11.3

[grim22]

I haven't seen Indy yet but from a few comments I read online it sounds like audiences might be tired of legacy characters being portrayed as sad, depressed and living a shut-in hermit like existence in the 30 year later sequels. 

 

I get why most legacy sequels do this, it's so they can show the hero accepting the call to adventure again, but it's becoming a big trope unto itself now and most viewers who grew up with those movies aren't as disillusioned with the world as the character becomes.

 

Creed actually did this well. Rocky is estranged from his son but he's still a part of the world of the movie, may not be in boxing anymore but he doesn't look back at it in disappoinment, instead he's embraced his role as the old timer telling stories of the good old days.

[JohnnyGossamer]

1 hour ago, LegionWrex said:

Now I'm just imagining a Bong Joon-ho Bioshock movie and ascending.

I'm imaging how furious I'd be in Bong wasted his time on anything like that... I want a Barking Dogs Never Bite companion piece. Snowpiercer might be his worst movie. Now, saying that, all of his movies are really good even at their worst but that and Okja didn't work nearly as well for me as everything else he's done. It's why I'm skeptical about Mickey 17.

 

Now, this Tron news... No Kosinski? Then, Disney gets a Pirates director NOT NAMED GORE? Wtf are they thinking? If you can't get Kosinski, at least get Gore. Sure Lone Ranger (misunderstood masterpiece) bombed but he delivered enormously for them with Pirates. Give the dude a shot. Ax this second rate other dude.

[AJG]

Indiana Jones is one of those franchises that I feel had a lite reevaluation or re-contextualisation after a sequel released. The freak out over that 4th movie was so over the top (remember the South Park episode?). I think it made people realise the franchise where a man survives a nuke by hiding in a fridge, is the same franchise where a man survived a waterfall in a toys’r’us inflatable boat. It’s silly.
I was young when Indy 4 came out. Seeing adults lose their mind over that film, and later watching all 4 myself, was probably my first instance noticing adults and internet nerds have the ability to be morons. The original trilogy is enjoyable, yet flawed.

The movies get placed on a pedestal because they’re the best at delivering its style of adventure. Aside from the occasional Mummy or POTC, most Indy imitators are horrible. It’s 2023, I think people are pretty content with their original trilogy blu-rays and have moved on.

[John Marston]

17 minutes ago, grim22 said:

I haven't seen Indy yet but from a few comments I read online it sounds like audiences might be tired of legacy characters being portrayed as sad, depressed and living a shut-in hermit like existence in the 30 year later sequels. 

 

I get why most legacy sequels do this, it's so they can show the hero accepting the call to adventure again, but it's becoming a big trope unto itself now and most viewers who grew up with those movies aren't as disillusioned with the world as the character becomes.

 

Creed actually did this well. Rocky is estranged from his son but he's still a part of the world of the movie, may not be in boxing anymore but he doesn't look back at it in disappoinment, instead he's embraced his role as the old timer telling stories of the good old days.

Top Gun Maverick seemed deliberately written to go against this. Heard similar things about Picard Season 3 as well

[JohnnyGossamer]

As for Indy... Sigh. Box office aside, that one just left me flat. It gives a heck of try for sure but the action exhausting rather than fun. It lacked much invention. It swung for the fences but struck out a lot. I do not see that having very word of mouth. Not terrible just very, very forgettable. I don't think we'll see another Indy movie for a long, long, long while.

[JohnnyGossamer]

Just now, AJG said:

Indiana Jones is one of those franchises that I feel had a lite reevaluation or re-contextualisation after a sequel released. The freak out over that 4th movie was so over the top (remember the South Park episode?). I think it made people realise the franchise where a man survives a nuke by hiding in a fridge, is the same franchise where a man survived a waterfall in a toys’r’us inflatable boat. It’s silly.
I was young when Indy 4 came out. Seeing adults lose their mind over that film, and later watching all 4 myself, was probably my first instance noticing adults and internet nerds have the ability to be morons. The original trilogy is enjoyable, yet flawed.

The movies get placed on a pedestal because they’re the best at delivering its style of adventure. Aside from the occasional Mummy or POTC, most Indy imitators are horrible. It’s 2023, I think people are pretty content with their original trilogy blu-rays and have moved on.

Audience freaked over kinda dumb stuff with Indy 4. That said, it's really not very good in many ways. Pretty forgettable. Needed more John Hurt.

[grim22]

1 minute ago, AJG said:

Indiana Jones is one of those franchises that I feel had a lite reevaluation or re-contextualisation after a sequel released. The freak out over that 4th movie was so over the top (remember the South Park episode?). I think it made people realise the franchise where a man survives a nuke by hiding in a fridge, is the same franchise where a man survived a waterfall in a toys’r’us inflatable boat. It’s silly.
I was young when Indy 4 came out. Seeing adults lose their mind over that film, and later watching all 4 myself, was probably my first instance noticing adults and internet nerds have the ability to be morons. The original trilogy is enjoyable, yet flawed.

The movies get placed on a pedestal because they’re the best at delivering its style of adventure. Aside from the occasional Mummy or POTC, most Indy imitators are horrible. It’s 2023, I think people are pretty content with their original trilogy blu-rays and have moved on.

I watched the fridge scene recently and I think the mistake in that scene is having the car. That car leaves Indy behind leading to him taking refuge in the fridge, then when the blast actually happens, the car is pretty much destroyed when they are driving away but the refrigerator is unharmed. The contrast between those two does not work. If it was just the refrigerator and we don't ever cut back to the car we could have assumed the car got away and Indy survived the fridge, that car unfortunately gives us a frame of reference for a real world object reacting to the bomb.

[Boxx93]

The original trilogy may have had goofy moments but the practical effects and the onscreen stuntwork made those set pieces believable. The raft in Temple Of Doom for example, was a real raft dropped from a real plane with dummies on it to make it look like Indy, Wille and Short Round are there and it works, you believe it.

 

An old Indy surviving a nuclear bomb inside a fridge without a single scratch is a bit too much even by Indy standards, and it doesn't help the overuse and abuse of CGI that makes the whole movie (and the fridge scene) look too fake and artificial.

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Boxx93

[John Marston]

 

[JohnnyGossamer]

5 minutes ago, John Marston said:

 

This would be a lot more fun if people photoshopped stuff like this behind them as the movie posters...

[LonePirate]

30 minutes ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

As for Indy... Sigh. Box office aside, that one just left me flat. It gives a heck of try for sure but the action exhausting rather than fun. 

I saw Indy today and exhausting is a good summation of the action scenes. Almost every one of them went on for too long and seemed to exist solely to fill time rather than entertain. Not only that, but the film contained the most implausible team up as there is no way a group of Nazis would ever work with X. Granted, the film did hit a massive home run with that one nostalgia scene. Still it wasn't enough to raise the film beyond mediocre. Overall I liked the film less than I like The Flash.

[JohnnyGossamer]

4 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

I saw Indy today and exhausting is a good summation of the action scenes. Almost every one of them went on for too long and seemed to exist solely to fill time rather than entertain. Not only that, but the film contained the most implausible team up as there is no way a group of Nazis would ever work with X. Granted, the film did hit a massive home run with that one nostalgia scene. Still it wasn't enough to raise the film beyond mediocre. Overall I liked the film less than I like The Flash.

Yes. And, they're all BIG action scene. There's no variety. It's nice to have a huge action, a smaller one, a medium sized, a tension filled one... It's just all never ending go for broke monotonous action. Kinda like the Hobbit trilogy when it was at its worst.

[TomThomas]

2 hours ago, Barnack said:

Some movie almost already exist a bit like the Bioshock movie, it was already made and it was call Snowpiercer.

No

[Eric Quinn]

15 minutes ago, LonePirate said:

I saw Indy today and exhausting is a good summation of the action scenes. Almost every one of them went on for too long and seemed to exist solely to fill time rather than entertain

Hopefully I'll feel different when I get to it, but this was a big concern of mine with that 2:20 runtime. I've marathoned through the Indy movies, as well as the early Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible movies, and it's really made me miss when these blockbusters were only 2 hours give or take 10 minutes. Not all of these movies are perfect, with Crystal Skull and Fast and Furious 4 in particular still feeling overlong despite their runtimes, but these movies all do well in giving you what you want without tiring you out or forcing the story to plod along with stuff you don't care about. Feels like it's filmmakers trying to make these more "big screen worthy" or something, but it just kind of makes things exhausting and hurts these movies when it comes to showtimes anyways. You look at how effective Fast Five is compared to Fast X with 10 minutes less of movie, and it's night and day.

[grim22]

2 minutes ago, Eric Jones said:

Hopefully I'll feel different when I get to it, but this was a big concern of mine with that 2:20 runtime. I've marathoned through the Indy movies, as well as the early Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible movies, and it's really made me miss when these blockbusters were only 2 hours give or take 10 minutes. Not all of these movies are perfect, with Crystal Skull and Fast and Furious 4 in particular still feeling overlong despite their runtimes, but these movies all do well in giving you what you want without tiring you out or forcing the story to plod along with stuff you don't care about. Feels like it's filmmakers trying to make these more "big screen worthy" or something, but it just kind of makes things exhausting and hurts these movies when it comes to showtimes anyways. You look at how effective Fast Five is compared to Fast X with 10 minutes less of movie, and it's night and day.

 

I was rewatching the Men in Black movies on Max this week. The thing that struck me was how short and efficient the movies are while building a huge universe. MIB - 92 minutes, MIB2 - 96 minutes, MIB3 - 102 minutes. Then we have MIB International which is 117 minutes. Half an hour longer than the first movie and 15 minutes longer than MIB3 and is by far the worst paced of the franchise.

[VanillaSkies]

1 hour ago, grim22 said:

PVOD is not AVOD or SVOD. PVOD has actually been shown to be better for movies in theaters because it adds the premium of "still in theaters but now at home" pricing to get customers who weren't going to go to theaters but without sacrificing revenue by going on AVOD or SVOD.

 

Fast X has been on PVOD for 3 weeks now, Mario went to PVOD 5 weeks after release.

Difference is those stayed in theatres. flash lost 30% of screens this weekend. By July 17th it will have close to nothing left. So it truly will be out of theatres in a month as the user said. Can’t see it being huge on PVOD either judging by its reception.

[ListenHunnyUrOver]

16 minutes ago, Eric Jones said:

Hopefully I'll feel different when I get to it, but this was a big concern of mine with that 2:20 runtime. I've marathoned through the Indy movies, as well as the early Fast and Furious and Mission Impossible movies, and it's really made me miss when these blockbusters were only 2 hours give or take 10 minutes. Not all of these movies are perfect, with Crystal Skull and Fast and Furious 4 in particular still feeling overlong despite their runtimes, but these movies all do well in giving you what you want without tiring you out or forcing the story to plod along with stuff you don't care about. Feels like it's filmmakers trying to make these more "big screen worthy" or something, but it just kind of makes things exhausting and hurts these movies when it comes to showtimes anyways. You look at how effective Fast Five is compared to Fast X with 10 minutes less of movie, and it's night and day.

Are studios demanding longer runtimes so movies can compete better with 8+ hour seasons of TV shows on streaming? I am so sick of these long movies. 

[JohnnyGossamer]

14 minutes ago, ListenHunnyUrOver said:

Are studios demanding longer runtimes so movies can compete better with 8+ hour seasons of TV shows on streaming? I am so sick of these long movies. 

I mean, it's not like movies like Pirates, Lord of the Rings, Hobbit, Potter, Dark Knight, etc. didn't have pretty long runtimes. This has been a thing a for a while now... Like 20+ years. I get that it's more common now but it's not exactly new.

Edited July 1, 2023 by JohnnyGossamer

[poweranimals]

Yeah, I mean there are some movies that could benefit from a longer runtime but in general I don't understand why every movie needs to be around 2 and a half hours or more. It never used to be that way.

Edited July 1, 2023 by poweranimals

[JohnnyGossamer]

1 minute ago, poweranimals said:

Yeah, I mean there are some movies that could benefit from a longer runtime but in general I don't understand why every movie needs to be around 2 and a half hours or more. It never used to be that way.

This started becoming more common after LotR and HP did their thing. Aren't the Hunger Games movies 2.5 hours too? Nolan's Batman films are 2.5 to nearly 3 hours too. 

 

I don't love the trend either but it's been a thing for a little while now.