The plot looked fucking retarded though. ^

 

The ripped men fighting the hordes in a cape and underwear was something the first time, but for a follow-up, doesn't strike me. 300 the Frank Miller comic seemed enough for a movie with the main focus on holding the line. Barely. Do people care enough a few years down the line about 300?

And Cersei is on Game of Thrones. She's moved up to a new level where the actress is interesting and puts in work, where in 300 her character fucks Leonidas, fucks the traitor Spartan played by the guy from The Wire who lies about supporting her and she then kills, proving he's a traitor and gets the Spartans riled up. That's enough to have her in the 2nd chapter?

I'm waiting for Spartacus:War of the Damned to come out in a few months on DVD. That raised the standard for Greek/Roman/Ancient world type on film for me. This is just jerking and hoping something viable comes out.

 

There wasn't a comic sequel to 300, so they're pretty much making it up entirely on their own. I wonder if Frank Miller's contributing at all.

 

I'm not saying it was going to be a stunning success but there's some certain appeal to visual production. Having said that, I'm going to pull a Roy Hibbert and issue a no homo.

 

Just got back from World War Z, I really have no idea what to think of it.

Visually it was solid, and the acting was pretty good too. Pacing was alright for the first half, then it ran into some issues, also the script/writing in general had issues.

I've read the book, so it's not too surprising that I found it lackluster. From what my friends thought though, they enjoyed it. I'd only really recommend watching it in theaters if you haven't read the source material, otherwise wait to rent it.

 

Having read the book as well, I was a bit disappointedly with the movie adaption. They changed several key plots, making the origin of the virus in India instead of China, (due to fears of lost revenue if China decides to ban the film) and making the zombie plague as something biological in nature, when in the book they still can't explain it, even 10 years after the first outbreak.

 

I actually came here to talk about Man of Steel, but after reading back a bit, I'm going to get to that in a minute. I know this technically ended some time last month, and nobody probably wants to hear about it again, but it's still in theaters, so fuck it. We're going to talk about Star Trek for a second, because I feel this needs to be said.

I'm a fan of the old Star Trek series, and I liked the old movies. My least favorite things about them? When they got preachy and up their own asses about how perfect Star Fleet and the United Federation of Planets, and particularly Earth, were. I'm not a fan of utopian stories, because I don't believe they're realistically possible. I believe that we should strive for such goals, and should never stop pushing ourselves to reach that point, but I also do not believe we will ever actually achieve it or get there, because actually getting there isn't the point. I'm willing to tolerate visions of utopia to a degree in fantasy, because it's supposed to be innately fantastical, but it's a lot harder to swallow in science-fiction, which is supposed to be at least partially based on rationality. Utopias are not rational, and I reject the idea that one could be obtained if only we had the correct bureaucracy in place.

The UFP, and Earth, were perfect, Mary Sue communist-socialist paradises, and that was simultaneously extremely irritating and boring when it came up. Particularly so because of the Prime Directive, which, when taken together with the utopia, sends an implicit message of "we've already solved every possible problem that can be had, and we are benevolent and caring, but we're not going to solve your problems for you, because really, who has that kind of time?" The Prime Directive makes sense in the context of a future society or intergalactic UN that is aware that they haven't solved all the problems, and doesn't want to affect the evolution or development of a species that might turn out differently than they themselves did. If the people in charge are already perfect, though, this rings pretty hollow, especially when compared against the backdrop of how many pre-beyond-lightspeed societies must be out there that are suffering from poverty, war, famine, tyranny, and potentially curable diseases.

Star Trek was at its worst when it pretended that the society it was based around stood head-and-shoulders not just above everyone else, but the very muck and grime of daily existence. It was 'better' than crime, 'better' than poverty. Some days, it'd have you half-convinced that a combination of genetic engineering and innate moral superiority had rendered everyone on the Enterprise devoid of a back-passage entirely. There were no toilets on the Enterprise, because they were not needed.

But Star Trek was at its best when it was being philosophical. This seems contradictory, but it's actually not. The distinction comes from something important.

Star Trek was good when it was bringing up interesting philosophical questions and problems of morality and ethics that would exist in the future.

Star Trek was bad when it pretended that the future has absolutely all the answers, which conveniently happens to align perfectly with what the writer believes is correct, and everyone is smug and up their own ass about it.

Going back and looking through a lot of the old Star Trek episodes and movies, I have to confess; they are very dated. Star Trek did not age well if we are honest with ourselves, and a lot of what I saw then that I liked at the time, I see now as being mediocre at best, and terrible at worst. But there are still things to like, and there are still things to enjoy. You can still have fun listening to people chat and argue philosophy. You can still watch cool, shiny ships flying around using extremely good for the time special effects that still have a palpably future-chic feel even today. Entertainment can still be had in the old series.

But I, at least, can palpably identify when Star Trek was at it's best, and when it was doing poorly.

So what's going on during Into Darkness? Is there anything to recommend it?

Well, let's look at what it's doing. Star Trek Into Darkness is a mostly action-orientated plot based around a (mostly) younger crew of highly talented individuals. I won't go into spoilers, but the plot is interesting and solid, the visuals are nice, and various other things that are present are deserving of being there.

Here's the three most important things to me, though.

Into Darkness proudly carries the trend of philosophy being important to Star Trek by having the majority of the underpinning plot be a contest of various moral and ethical ideas that oppose one another.

There are lots of shiny ships, well-choreographed fights, and cool scenes where THEY'RE TEARING US APART CAPTAIN.

Into Darkness DOES NOT tell you who is in the right or wrong when it starts slipping philosophy in. It's left up to you to decide.

I want to dwell on that last one in particular, because I think it's the most important. I'm going to go ahead and spoiler this next part, but it's not that terribly important to the overall plot, so you can probably read it and be safe if you still haven't seen the movie.

Spoiler

The beginning of the movie opens with the crew of the Enterprise trying to save an indigenous sentient species from being rendered extinct by a volcanic eruption. Spock has gone into the volcano alone to arm a device that will detonate a kind of cryo-blast, which will stop the volcano from erupting. He's in there doing it himself, because the remote detonator failed. The plan is for him to arm it, and then be beamed out again. The rest of the crew are monitoring his progress from off-shore under the water, because the Enterprise cannot be seen without breaking the Prime Directive (again), as they technically aren't even supposed to be saving them to begin with.

Long story short, drama happens, and they can't beam Spock out of the volcano from their position. Spock resigns himself to death, and tells the Enterprise to leave, but Kirk gives the command to break cover, and the Enterprise emerges from the sea, flies over the volcano, and with the better angle, is able to beam Spock out through the interference just as the device detonates, snap-freezing the volcano. The last shot of that scene is the Enterprise flying off into the sky, and the indigenous people replacing their sacred pictures with images of the Enterprise that they're sketching in the dirt.

When they return to Starfleet Command, Kirk is summoned to talk to Admiral Pike, who chews him out for his actions. Surprised that Pike knows, Kirk asks how, only for Spock to admit that he told the truth in his log report, while Kirk did not. Kirk tries to defend his actions, but Pike admonishes him, and hears nothing of it. The fallout of this is the start of the actual plot of the story.

That's the synopsis. Now here's the interesting part.

-Was the crew of the Enterprise right in breaking the Prime Directive to save a sentient species from extinction? Keep in mind that they are primative, and while they are moderately evolved, their entire species is fitted to this single island, which, while not small, is not terribly big, either. This only makes sense if they are either in the process of being ravaged by a disease, could not adapt to enviromental changes, were too warlike and killed each other off, or some other reasoning that would get their numbers down this far.

- Was Kirk's decision to break the Prime Directive a second time, even more severely, to perverse Spock's life, the correct choice? Appearing before a primitive people who do not understand what they are seeing could have vast effects on their culture, should they survive. Was that change worth saving a life over?

- Was Kirk's decision to lie to hide what they did, and Spock's decision to tell the truth anyway even though it was his life they saved, the correct choices? Were they wrong? How, and why?

The movie, wait for it. Does not tell us. It is left up to us to decide who was in the right and who was in the wrong, here. It doesn't expressly side with anyone. It shows all sides of this equally, the appropriate disciplinary actions are taken from a Starfleet perspective, and the plot moves on without ever bothering to come down definitively on one side of the fence or the other.

This is not the last time the movie does this. Throughout the film, there are may different points where characters do things or behave in manners that are at best morally grey, or which otherwise bring them into conflict with other characters on moral, ethical, and philosophical grounds. Each time it happens, the film pointedly avoids siding with anyone. Even the ultimate 'villain' has a logically sound reason for doing what they are trying to accomplish, though it can be easily argued that there are better ways, or that the world should not work that way, even if logic dictates that as the 'right' course of action.

Into Darkness doesn't just have Star Trek philosophy, it has the best kind of Star Trek philosophy. It has the kind where everyone is painted with the same brush more or less equally, and the viewers are left with a lot of things to amiably argue or chat about over dinner afterwards.

But that's not the reason I'm going to recommend Into Darkness to you. I'm not going to tell you to go watch it because it got all the best parts of the old Trek right, while cutting away all the bad and replacing it with blockbuster special effects and visually stimulating action. I'm not even going to tell you that you should go watch it because the UFP is a hell of a lot more morally grey, and has their own dark side and fair share of skeletons in the closet.

I'm going to recommend Into Darkness to you because it's a good movie, and it's worth the ticket price to see in theaters. I'm going to recommend it to you because overanalyzing is bad, and it's a great movie even if it had nothing to do with Star Trek. Even if it didn't have a legacy to build upon, it's a good story and a good movie. With that legacy behind it, with all the references and in-jokes and callback lines from the old movies, it's a real treat, especially to a Star Trek fan.

It's a good movie. You should go see it. End of story.

```

Right. Now we can get to the reason I actually wanted to post here, which is Man of Steel.

Now, this is the part where I'm going to be a hypocrite, because I just finished explaining what it's bad to over-analyze things with the Star Trek thing, and here I'm going to do it to a degree. But stay with me here, because I'm going somewhere with it.

I'm actually spoilering all of this, because I'm going to make some comparisons with a bunch of different movies and comics, and then talk about the movie pretty frankly. Grant you, Man of Steel is an origin movie, so it's not like there are many huge plot twists you didn't see coming, but still, spoilers are spoilers. If you want to know what I think of the movie without spoilers, skip down to below the spoiler box.

Spoiler

Man of Steel is a great movie. In fact, in many ways, it is a near perfect Superman movie. It has everything it needs to have; sufficient intellectual discourse to keep people interested, blockbuster styling, and some amazingly over-the-top fight scenes that will probably set the high water mark for superhero fights from this point onwards. I'd recommend watching it just for the sake of the flashy-flashy smashy-go-boomedness that is present here. It's impressive as hell. It also makes the decision to go with a lower-powered Superman that is more like his Golden Age incarnation, as opposed to Silver Age Superman. In fact, the only actual difference between Golden Age Superman and this Superman is that this Superman can fly, while Golden Age merely did large leaps. And even then, Superman favors leaps to flight in the movie, for the most part. Superman seems (mostly) bulletproof, but they still apparently hurt like a bitch, and he can get knocked for a hell of a loop. He's not invincible, he's not immortal, and when Zodd shows up, he's not the strongest kid on the block, either. It's Superman done right. Namely, with as little overpowering "Super" as possible.

I'd tell you to go watch it based purely on the kaboom factor. I wasn't kidding when I said this is the new high water mark as far as hero action sequences. Every action sequence Marvel and DC puts out after this will be judged by "it was good, but was it Superman[/i good?" This is literally going to change how the Avengers and the Justice League fight in the movies yet to come. You will see the difference. The new benchmark has been set, and it's goddamn epic.

That being said, this movie has some problems. And one of the biggest is in fact a bit of a recurring problem with the 'franchise' of superhero movies, so I'm going to go on a tangent for a bit.

If I had to choose the 'worst' Marvel superhero movie, objectively. . . actually, I'd probably go with the Hulk movies, because even the Marvel movie franchise seems to be trying to forget them. But ignoring the badness of the first two Hulk movies for a bit, because that's not something that gives me a lead-in to my point, let's focus our search a bit more. Which Marvel movie was the worst, barring Hulk?

I'd say Thor. Why Thor? Because Thor couldn't decide what it was trying to be. Allow me to explain.

The Marvel movies are different from the Marvel comics. In some ways, radically different. As a long-time fan of the comics, I see this as being an amazing, excellent thing. A lot of writers are afraid to break the mold, and those that are willing usually aren't allowed. It's honestly difficult to get permission to permanently alter a hero or known icon in some way. Status quo is god. Even if you manage it, someone will just retcon it later. DC is the same way. They tried to retire Bruce Wayne as Batman and make the cowl a legacy character. You'll note that Bruce Wayne is still canonically Batman. There's still a run or three where it holds true that Bruce isn't the Batman, but in general, that attempt failed.

But the movies don't have to follow the status quo of the comics. They can go off in completely different directions.

Case in point, Iron Man. There are two huge differences between comic Iron Man and movie Iron Man, and those two differences completely change the narrative and direction of the story.

The first is Jarvis and Pepper. In the comics, Jarvis is Tony's butler, and Pepper is Tony's secretary. Jarvis and Pepper are in a relationship. Tony is alone, more or less perpetually so, and he clings to severe alcoholism to deal with his inner-demons. He doesn't really have anybody, and he's more or less an extreme loner.

This is a sharp contrast to the movies, where Jarvis is a friendly AI that Tony created to serve as a troubleshooter and mission control, and Pepper is single to begin with but eventually gets involved with Tony. This is a radical departure from the comics, and it has changed Tony's character in drastic ways as a result. He never had anyone to lean on in the comics of heyday's past, and he rarely had anyone he was willing to fight to protect that meant something to him on a personal level.

The second difference is the origin story. In the comics, Tony Stark maintains a secret identity by claiming that Iron Man is a bodyguard under his employ, and that he's loaning Iron Man out to fight to protect the world as a public service. He's not Iron Man; he just employs the guy. So the rule of the day is that no one knows Tony Stark is Iron Man (though again, there are runs where it was publicly revealed at some point).

The movies, though, are completely different, as you're probably aware. SHIELD hands Tony a card with the spiel that I outlined above about a bodyguard, Tony takes a look at it, starts talking, looks at it again, and goes "fuck it, I am Iron Man." And the crowd goes wild.

Again, you have to understand, this was never done before. There is no run of Iron Man I am aware of before this point that ever started with Tony publicly being Iron Man from the word "Go." That has never, ever happened before, to the extent of my knowledge.

Both of these changes, in the characters and the origin? They changed Tony Stark. They made the Tony Stark of the movies a distinct, seperate entity from the one in the comics, one that simultaneously has more depth while being, in a way, more heroic. Movie Tony is at once more stable and also more desperate, for the same reason; he has people he cares about deeply now, people he's willing to protect at all costs. He wants to protect Pepper, he wants to protect his friends, and he wants to protect the people around him who get caught in the crossfire when everything goes to hell.

This is comic movies done right. You change the origin in a way that is both novel and compelling, creating a unique deviation that is still true to the spirit of the character.

Yes, I just rambled a lot about Iron Man. But I told you that to tell you this (which I'm telling you to tell you something else, stay with me now).

There are two general origin stories for Thor, and both are variations of each other. The first, there's a normal guy, who does normal things, and then an accident happens (usually involving being struck by lightning). When this happens, he suddenly gains the ability to benchpress trucks and can inexplicably take a punch to the face like someone poked him with a feather. Over time, memories start to surface, and it comes to light that he's become Thor, Norse god of Thunder. Thor's 'spirit' or 'essence' has entered him, along with Thor's memories, and this guy and Thor are basically the same person now.

The second origin for Thor is a little more direct. Thor is a dick in Asgard, Odin gets fed up with his shit, and sends him down to Midgard to learn a lesson in humility. He does this by taking away Thor's memories and replacing them with those of a normal guy that Odin created (Donald Blake), who is someone that was crippled from birth with a bum leg. Donald Blake is angry at his fate of being bound to a wheelchair for life, but eventually gets over himself and learns humility and the ability to laugh at himself. He becomes a medical student that dedicates his life to helping people, and after ten years of being Donald Blake have passed, Odin decides that Thor has learned his lesson, and pulls strings to put Blake in direct contact with the spooky side of things while also dropping the hammer (usually disguised at first as a cane or crutch) in his path. Blake picks up the hammer, boom, instant Thor.

The first origin is the older of the two, while the second one is the default Thor origin in more recent years. You will note the common factor in both of these origins, however. In both of them, Thor is not always Thor. There is a period of time where Thor is not only mortal, but has no memories of being Thor, and has a completely different mortal identity. This is important, because it justifies the relationship he has with Jane Foster, the traditional romance interest for Thor. In the first origin story, Jane Foster is Normal Joe's fiancee/girlfriend/childhood friend, and she has to deal with the fact that her loverboy suddenly has memories of a god and can benchpress bulldozers. In the second general origin story, Jane Foster is Blake's fiancee/girlfriend/childhood friend who he either met or was was reunited with in nursing school, and they work together and fall in love with each other (fall in love with each other again, if they had a past relationship), and then Odin drops the hammer on the side of the road and boom, instant Thor. Again.

In both of these scenarios, Jane Foster's presence and her status as a love interest is wholly justified. She has a stake in Thor and his alter-ego.

The movie Thor is different, though. In the movie, Thor doesn't have an alter-ego to begin with. He's just Thor. Odin's plan is a lot less elaborate this time. He just drops Thor's hairy ass into the middle of Midgard with no powers and a hammer that he can't lift, Excalibur-style, with the instructions to either shape up and be less of a jackass, or learn how to drive stick-shift and be a trucker for the rest of his life. Or something. Thor doesn't strike me as a flannel kind of guy, but whatever.

Jane Foster is here in the movie narrative not because it makes sense for her to be, but because tradition dictates that she should be.

And I'm actually okay with that.

Yes, surprise, I'm fine with that. I know you were expecting me to say I'm not, but I am. A character being present in the narrative but playing a different role is refreshing and interesting. I honestly like Jarvis a whole lot better as an AI than as a butler. I can't be mad that Jane is a meteorologist intern. I'm perfectly okay with that. It would have been interesting to watch Jane serve a role different from what she normally does, or for her to slowly fill her traditional role in a natural sense as the plot progressions across the various movies.

But that's not what happened. You can probably guess where I'm going with this now.

Jane didn't become fascinated with Thor and follow him around, helping him and teaching him about mortals, and then eventually fall in love with him two movies later in a realistic relationship. What happened is that Thor smashed some of Loki's bullshit, Jane immediately fell madly in love, and Thor inexplicably reciprocated like a blushing virgin, even though he's the son of the King of the Motherfucking Gods, and would have been swimming in Aesir bitches back in Asgard, and there's absolutely nothing special that would make a random fucking intern look like something that isn't background scenery or a one-night romp to him.

"But Lord Raine, that's movies for you!" you say. "Of course the romance is like that. Why would you expect it to take more than one movie for them to fall in love?"

Because it took more than one movie for Pepper Pots. In fact, it arguably took three. Neither of them openly admitted it until Avengers. And Pepper had more reason to fall faster for Tony than Jane did. She's been around Tony for years, and he's a known charmer. Jane just met Thor like three days ago in the plot of the Thor movie, and he's a hairy barbarian guy with barely any manners that occasionally slips into spiels about puny humans and quaint mortal culture.

The romance isn't just token. It's illogical. It's broken. It makes no sense. A character plays an important role in the plot not because the narrative dictates it, but because tradition does.

Now let me bring this all the way back around by repeating myself, this time in the context of Man of Steel.

The romance isn't just token. It's illogical. Broken. It makes no sense. A character plays an important role in the plot not because the narrative dictates it, but because tradition does.

The big flaw with Man of Steel, which you may have guessed by now, is none other than Lois Lane. She is the weak link here, and I'll explain why by using an example.

Lois Lane is an aggressive investigative reporter for the Daily Planet. She's following a sequence of urban legends that all seem to be interconnected, about some kind of angel or strange man that seems to drift through society doing random acts of superhuman good. She thinks there's more to it than just stories, and she has enough evidence to be convinced that she's right. Naturally, she is. It's Superman, before he was Superman, drifting through the world and trying to find his place in it.

Stuff happens, and he eventually dissuades her from spilling his secret, but more stuff happens that I won't go into, and it gets out anyway.

Fast forward. Zodd shows up, and demands that Kal-El turn himself in or be turned in by humanity, or else Zodd is going to start blowing shit up until he finds him (again, Zodd's motivations I won't go into now, it's not really relevant to the example). Superman turns himself in, and they go to do the exchange. The military is there, and so is Lois Lane, and as Superman goes over to the other Kryptonians, one of them says "wait," points to Lois Lane, and says "we're taking here, too."

As soon as she said that, two things happened in my mind. The first is Darth Vader saying "I am altering the deal; pray I do not alter it further." The second was "why."

Fortunately for what little shreds of sanity I have left, one of the marines present thought the same thing, and stepped in front of Lois, saying something to the effect of "yeah, no, fuck off." But Lois (HEROICALLY!) agrees to accompany Superman to the Kryptonian ship, and puts on a breather mask.

She then plays an instrumental, utterly vial role in saving Superman's life (and by extension saving all of humanity) by being the classic "prisoner that wasn't secured as well as they should have been." Though in this case, it was actually more like "prisoner who apparently wasn't searched, like, at all," but I won't go into that, because again, it's not important for this example.

What matters is this:

1.) The Kryptonians wanted Lois Lane to accompany Superman to their ship for absolutely no goddamn reason whatsoever. They don't know who she is. They don't know what her job is. They don't know if she has any relationship with Superman or not (and even if they did, there is no reason they would care). She's a random fucking face in the crowd, just another NPC milling about.

2.) Lois Lane being present on the ship was absolutely and utterly vital to the plot of the movie. If she had not been, the movie would have ended there as Zodd's win. Game over, please try again in another dimensional iteration of these same general events.

But Lois Lane saves the goddamn day by being there in a pinch. And why was she there at all? Just fucking because, apparently. There was no reason for this. It makes no goddamn sense. Lois Lane is Thor: The Movie's Jane Foster, only worse, because not only is the romance random and forced, but Jane to my recollection never saved Thor's life and the lives of everyone on Earth because Loki decided to kidnap her for shits and giggles and then couldn't keep a hold of her, and allowed her to run all over his base-ship-thing with a [BLANK].

Lois Lane is the low point of the Superman movie. It is annoying, contrived, and serves no purpose beyond "we can't have a movie where she isn't present, and hey, wouldn't it be nifty if she saved everyone just because?"

Still though, in spite of all of that, I'd like to clarify that while Lois Lane is the low-point of the movie, she is also pretty much the only one, and that in spite of the occasional stumble,

I think Man of Steel is not only an excellent Superman movie, but is worthwhile on it's own merits alone, and is well worth the ticket price.

Also, it's shiny, and Superman and Zodd break a lot of things.

 

I very much agree on the old Star Trek's seeming air of superiority over everything. TNG was a lot worse about it in my experience than TOS, though I didn't see that attitude in Enterprise. I haven't watched Deep Space 9 or Voyager that much, but I heard Deep Space 9 was a lot different than the other shows. I've also heard that it was Gene Roddenberry who pushed that "we're better than you" aspect into Star Trek with TNG, and it sort of died away eventually. I haven't watched enough to say for myself.

I actually forgot all about Star Trek, since I watched Man of Steel just days after and that kind of took precedence for me. I definitely liked Into Darkness, more than the 2009 movie and more than pretty much any other Star Trek series or movie besides Wrath of Khan.

Spoiler

And Into Darkness was, in a lot of ways, a remake of Wrath of Khan, so it seems fitting.

Spoiler

My only overt complaint was Cumberbatch as Khan. Cumberbatch is like the whitest and most British guy you could pick out of a pool of potential actors, and they choose him to play a Middle-Eastern/South Asian warlord originally played by a Mexican? I loved Cumberbatch and how viscous he portrayed Khan, but he really doesn't look the part. Maybe if they'd had a throwaway line about giving him some plastic surgery and vocal training so no one would recognize him from Earth's history.

As for Man of Steel,

Spoiler

I had thought that Lois was chosen because of the article she'd written about Clark and the research she'd done on him, but now I don't remember if the Kryptonians knew about that. I still have to watch it again. I do think the romance was pushed a bit too far with the kiss. I'd have liked them to just be friends in this, and pursue the romance more later.

Still, my biggest complaint remains how they portrayed Jonathan Kent. I'll refer to the dedicated Man of Steel thread for that rather than regurgitate that here.

Also, Zod with one D.

 

I liked both of what you guys said, but about Lois...

Spoiler

The Kryptonians knew about her because she was the one who knew where Superman was -- and then they did the mind steal thing on her to find out more details so they could find the codex. Other reasons are implied, but that's the only one spelled out.

 

Yeah, I really have no idea what the writers were thinking. Changing the origin isn't a giant deal, it could've worked with some extensive twisting. I was talking with my buddy about it today, he mentioned what he thought should've been the plot and it was a pretty good idea. Pretty much what he said was, "If they were going to change everything so much to fit a story in, they should've shortened the scope and made it about Todd Wainio and the Battle of Yonkers/Hope."
(Edit: Apparently, for those that have seen the movie, it was supposed to end as described here.)


Also just saw The Purge & This is the End. The Purge was disappointing; pretty much every conflict throughout the movie was due to stupidity. It played out like a B-rated horror flick instead of a thriller and that's upsetting because I really enjoyed the idea. I'd avoid it in an expensive theater and wait for it to come on Netflix or something.

This is the End on the other hand, was probably the best movie I saw the weekend. It was enjoyable and definitely a good time, 'bout all I can say about that. What Silens said was true, I'll tag on that if you didn't like Pineapple express/Superbad/whatever you'll probably want to avoid it.

 

Maybe a little off topic but I really enjoyed Ang-Lee's Hulk movie. It had a few bad gfx designs but it had real character development and some trippy psychodelic style which felt special to me. Not to forget it had a great cast with Eric Bana, Connelly, Sam Elliot, Josh Lucas and Nick Nolte.

The 5.7 on imdb is a disgrace for that film but then it didn't really fit into the usual narrative style of superhero films. For me that movie just craps on the 2nd one.

Before Avengers only the Ironman films really worked for me. Thor, looked nice, but the story felt hollow. Captain America looked like a deserving homage but it missed a real dramaturgy and plot depth. But most of these character introduction films lack on the plot side.

For Marvel films you must have forgotten Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer and Green Lantern. They all were boring. Films I don't really think to be better than the Incredible Hulk which I thought was a disappointment.

 

Green Lantern is DC :/

F4 isn't part of the Marvel cinematic universe, just like spiderman and Xmen, different studio.

 

The 2003 Hulk seemed like it was more of a psychological examination of Banner, which is probably what threw off people expecting a fugitive story and Hulk Smashing (well, there was some of that at least, but only towards the end). It was interesting in parts, but some dumb stuff killed it: the split screens and the parts where they tried to emulate comic book panels on the screen, the mutant dogs, the sheer length and the weird combination of the Absorbing Man with Bruce's father. I for one preferred The Incredible Hulk, which I'd give around a 7 or 7.5 vs. the 6 or 6.5 I'd give the Ang Lee Hulk.

Still wish Edward Norton could've been Banner in The Avengers, for consistency's sake, but Ruffalo did a good job.

 

Went to see Much Ado About Nothing earlier, and it's really good. It's actually quite shocking to see how good (most of) Whedon's regulars are at really selling Shakespeare; not everyone's a natural (Fran Kranz for instance seemed a little forced in his more dramatic moments), but Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof are perfect. So's Nathan Fillion as Dogberry; I was genuinely in stitches.

 

Agreed, great movie.

 

I really want to watch this. Arnie and Stallone together. This might be some good fun.

 

So watched World War Z. It only shares the the title with the book but once you get over that it is an really entertaining Zombie movie.

 

The film was far too aseptic and felt more like a collage of scenes than a film. The family element felt meaningless to me. IMHO a project ruined by script, director or both. Sure you can watch it and it doesn't really bore you. But it never ever blew my mind. Zombies running around like werewolves appeared more like a gimmick and excuse for some special effects.

I've never really felt that this is the apocalypse. Sure, some scenes are meant to send that message(Israel and in the city) but it doesn't really get personal and gritty. The Walking Dead episodes in the first season(city and visit to the military epidemic institute) were far better directed and that was TV. So I would say I was disappointed. I expected more from a high budget zombie film.

 

Actually, I think the movie did an awesome job with the initial panic of an apocalypse. The supermarket scene had like five interactions/moments that barely touch/affect the main plot, but you still get the impression that there's a whole story there for each part i.e. the man in the hoodie, the cop, the two supermarket employee rapists et cetera. That stuff and the initial highway escape was amazeballs to me, 'cause it just dropped and oh shit oh shit oh shit. In a perfect world the focus would've stayed on the nitty gritty on the ground stuff, instead of being saved by military connections and being taken out of the worst of it, but this is an action movie with zombies, so bah, leave the grittier dark stuff to the books and your imagination based on moments in the movie.

The film was basically like a video game, going from level to level, and the nagging sense that everyone in the film knew that Brad Pitt was the main character and went out of their way to make sure he got to the next destination. But it was still pretty cool if you kick back, suspend some disbelief. For all the "it doesn't follow the book" talk, it still managed to show how different parts of the world reacted, and hinted/brushed a bunch of little things (Canada safe zone, nukes going off, dead President) that made it feel whole enough. And it wasn't as dumbed down as you'd think, the whole thing, which adds to the entertainment value. Actually makes me hopeful for a sequel that covers a bit more or varies up the character stories; we'll never get a direct WWZ adaptation outside of some awesome TV series, but I could get behind a series of films like this one: easy ride if you suspend some disbelief, some great tense moments, and occasional shoutout to the book. Yeah it's not perfect, but it was still fun.

 

But a real director would have used these elements to make them count. Here they were just a collage of scenes. They had no deeper impact at all because it created no emotional feedback with the audience.
The same issue when they joined that mexican family. No real interaction or discussion. No planing. No uncertainties/doubts. And then after what happened there was no emotional exchange with the child.

I doubt these issues would have happened with a good director.