| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 29 Jul 2010 : 18:43:00
Enjoy True Beleivers!!!
http://io9.com/5599556/check-out-the-full-thor-trailer-and-get-hammered |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 14:08:50
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
Now, if you have never read an X-men comic in your life, most of these points won't matter to you.
I don't read comics for reasons I already mentioned. But I watched the animated series: the original, Evolution, and Wolvie and the XM. There are things that I don't like in the movie and things I'd rather see... I prefer to see a cooler, younger Magneto; Rogue and Storm should have had more exposure; Rogue should have been a confident woman able to fly (not a seemingly helpless kid); Jean should have been more beautiful; Leech's role should have been significant....oh, the list is endless...
But as a whole, the movie was good. Hugh Jackman was convincing in his role. The story was fine for me. Not the best for a movie adaptation, but fine and worked well nonetheless.
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
I'd say that it is a lot like saying the 4th ed is better, without having ever read the sourcebooks/novels from before (simple analogy, I'm not starting an edition debate).
I read FR novels regardless of edition, and I care not about the "edition war." There are things I detest in the current edition, but so are there in the previous ones. In my FR books collection, the 4e books are fast outnumbering the books from the other eds.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 13:39:34
quote:
Originally posted by dennis
I like X3. It would have been better had we seen the real Phoenix, with all that fire destroying the entire city...But the their version is good enough. And it also makes sense, since it only based on Jean's power, not on an outside force.
The Phoenix is not was bothered me the most, I understand that they can't fit he whole saga in a 2 hours movie. Here's a few things I hated about it:
1- They got Magneto's character completly wrong, dressing him as a simple villain who uses other mutants as meat shields to allow him to have his revenge on the humans he hates. Oh, and when he just drops Mystique who just saved his life, because she got 'cured'... No way Magneto would have done that.
2- Juggernaut, Vinnie Jones' worst performance ever. 'I'm the Juggernaut, B****!', is amongst the worst movie quotes ever, IMO.
3- The plot, I hated the vaccine, which is basically an RSE-marvel-equivalent (you can 'cure' mutants? Really?)
4- The need to kill Cyclops at the beggining (since the actor prefered to play in Bryan Singer' new movie instead, Superman). Not that I love Cyclops, I just didn't think his death was plausible (kinda).
5- What other character did the do wrong? Well, Rogue, Xavier, all the villains, Colossus (hard to say since he does't talk), Angel (who was frontpage for the movie, and completrly useless after all) and Iceman.
There's probably more, but I don't really wanna think about it. The less I remember about this movie, the better.
Now, if you have never read an X-men comic in your life, most of these points won't matter to you. I'd say that it is a lot like saying the 4th ed is better, without having ever read the sourcebooks/novels from before (simple analogy, I'm not starting an edition debate). |
| Dennis |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 12:40:34
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
I think X3 was the worst of the lot, followed closely by Spidey 3: the Emo-Wrath. Wolverine wasn't so bad... until the adamantium bullet, that was just wrong. Good thing they are resetting both those franchise in incoming movies (not sure about the X-men new one, might be just a prequel and not an actual reset)
As for the Thor/Captain America trailers, I can't find them anywhere, as they have been taken off.
I like X3. It would have been better had we seen the real Phoenix, with all that fire destroying the entire city...But the their version is good enough. And it also makes sense, since it only based on Jean's power, not on an outside force.
|
| Dennis |
Posted - 05 Aug 2010 : 12:35:23
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Dennis I must point this out because I cannot help it. And in a lighthearted way
You claim to not like to read comics, yet you say the adaptation of Venom was done well (I agree). BUT. If you only read novels and not comics the conundrum is how would you know? 
You can disregard my comment about Venom,  since I only based it on the pictures/drawings/sketches I saw in mags and comics I happened to pass by in malls and bookstores... I got tempted once to buy a copy of that comics and the movie adaptation of S3 because of him, but I passed. Sorry to the comics readers, but honestly, I consider comics grade/high school stuff (and though I am just in my early twenties, I'm still way past high school---at least here in our place). Why do I think it high school stuff when even I didn't bother to read even a single comics in high school? Well, for one thing, I noticed several schoolmates of mine back then would only hit the bookstores to buy comics. (I would know because my best friend's parents own the largest bookstore chain here.) Also, now, my high school cousins are addicted to them, and most of them would give me a constipated look every time I hand them a novel, no matter how attractive the cover.
Sci fi books (not movies) usually bore me because of the authors' attempt to explain things in the context of science----often sounds absurd, knowing it is "fiction." At least in movies, they explain the science behind any phenomenon so concisely that it sounds less absurd...
But then again, not a few scientific advancements we have now were mere science fiction ages ago, so to put it quite plainly, sci-fi lit just does not suit my taste buds.
|
| Kilvan |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 19:11:23
I think X3 was the worst of the lot, followed closely by Spidey 3: the Emo-Wrath. Wolverine wasn't so bad... until the adamantium bullet, that was just wrong. Good thing they are resetting both those franchise in incoming movies (not sure about the X-men new one, might be just a prequel and not an actual reset)
As for the Thor/Captain America trailers, I can't find them anywhere, as they have been taken off.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 18:17:16
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Dennis I must point this out because I cannot help it. And in a lighthearted way
You claim to not like to read comics, yet you say the adaptation of Venom was done well (I agree). BUT. If you only read novels and not comics the conundrum is how would you know?
Video games? |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 04 Aug 2010 : 17:59:04
Dennis I must point this out because I cannot help it. And in a lighthearted way
You claim to not like to read comics, yet you say the adaptation of Venom was done well (I agree). BUT. If you only read novels and not comics the conundrum is how would you know? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 03 Aug 2010 : 02:43:40
Wolverine was very disappointing. Hugh Jackman's talent fee requires more than that.
S3, though, is great. I like their adaptation of Venom.
|
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 23:14:14
Not to mention that it was taken out of context. We really have no idea from the trailer what brought that comment on. Though it looked like Thor was criticizing Odin's rule. Besides, Norse gods seem a lot more approachable than most pantheons- they feast in Valhalla with the fallen warriors!!
As to the Wolvie issue(s), granted they kind of mangled Deadpool, but they did a pretty good job on Gambit (minus the slight in-and-out of his accent, but I can live with that...) Emma appearing kind of made sense, if one knows that in the recent years, she and Scott ended up married. (Or whatever, still not too sure on that front.) At least it was a good excuse to intro her as later being with Summers, which will probably happen at some point. in anycase, Deadpool is up for a re-boot soon, so maybe that mistake will be corrected. We'll see.... I was also sorely disappointed with the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix debacle, though I give them props for trying to do it without using all the Shi'ar stuff that only the real fans would have understood.
Spidey 3 was not as good as I'd have liked, the way they made Pete out in that was just hideously dumb. I agree that the lizard would have been great to use, but I was relatively happy with Venom- at least they stayed true to the character. Would have been better if they had had him using "we" instead of "I", though, like he does in the comics. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 22:19:51
But Razz...Odin IS old.
Remember that the Asgardians/Aesir (whatever you want to call them) have a lifespan...they know they will die one day. Odin is older than Thor...by a LOT...and so Thor, being a young and hot-blooded god might very well call Odin an Old Fool. |
| Razz |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 21:35:39
Yeah but just because something was done in the 60s doesn't mean we need to repeat that cliche over and over. I'd like to believe storytelling in a movie has PROGRESSED somewhat over the decades.
Just because Jane Foster was a connection to Thor's love for humanity doesn't mean we need to use the mushy, cliche, love interest in the movie to explain it. That kind of storytelling is really dull nowadays, there're better ways to create a concept in a movie without resorting to the cliches.
What I mean by dumbed down is just that --- using over-the-top cliches to get a point across really quickly. It all feels contrived. Let it build, let it hit home to the audience, let the audience connect with Thor as Thor is connecting to the humans/audience. Make it relative to the audience, I believe.
I mean, come on, calling Odin an "old fool" is just not the way deities speak to one another. They shouldn't even be using words involving a concept of time itself, being immortal and all. Though if they're trying to conceive this father/son relationship to hit the audience, I hope they do that well also. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 14:17:25
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm a fan of Wolvie from the comics, though not so diehard that deviations from canon would bug me in a movie (I'm not even all that up on Wolvie canon!).
The thing is, I *can* explain how the canon for the film relates with established comic-canon for Wolverine. His past has been the subject of such debate and alteration by Marvel for so many years, that it's almost entirely possible that what occurred in the film could've also happened in the comics as well.
The ONLY real and deliberate discontinuity, as I see it, was the "memory wipe" with the adamantium bullet to the head at the end of the film. We've past instances in the comics that strictly underline the fact that an injury like that would not have the same effect as we saw in the film.
The comic explanation for the Logan/James mind-wipe would've been far more appropriate for the film, and it wouldn't have taken too much of a deviation from the established plot, in order to carry it out, either. 
Well, again, it wasn't the canon aspects that bothered me; I expect comic movies to deviate from canon. The movie was just plain bad. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 07:03:57
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm a fan of Wolvie from the comics, though not so diehard that deviations from canon would bug me in a movie (I'm not even all that up on Wolvie canon!).
The thing is, I *can* explain how the canon for the film relates with established comic-canon for Wolverine. His past has been the subject of such debate and alteration by Marvel for so many years, that it's almost entirely possible that what occurred in the film could've also happened in the comics as well.
The ONLY real and deliberate discontinuity, as I see it, was the "memory wipe" with the adamantium bullet to the head at the end of the film. We've past instances in the comics that strictly underline the fact that an injury like that would not have the same effect as we saw in the film.
The comic explanation for the Logan/James mind-wipe would've been far more appropriate for the film, and it wouldn't have taken too much of a deviation from the established plot, in order to carry it out, either.
Maybe for Wolverine ALONE. You know that part of the movie was going real well. Than they introduced DEADPOOL or a mangled version of him. Emma Frost was TWO different characters in that movie, wolvies GF and the diamond girl. Wolverine fails for its OTHER characters not Wolverine himself.
|
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:58:00
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
X-Men 3 was another letdown, though it wasn't as painful as Wolverine. Spidey 3 I kinda liked, but it was still the weakest offering of the lot, by far.
I think Spider-Man 3 would've worked much better if they'd dropped the whole "Venom-saga" adaptation [though, I do applaud them for the attempt, just not the end result] -- and simply slipped the Lizard into the plot. He's one background character that had already been introduced as one of Peter Parker's lecturers in the Spidey-film universe after all. And it probably would've made more sense.
Don't forget the music numbers... I remember seeing it in the theater with my brother-in-law. We both realized it was going to be a looooong movie when they did the full song by MJ. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:43:33
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
X-Men 3 was another letdown, though it wasn't as painful as Wolverine. Spidey 3 I kinda liked, but it was still the weakest offering of the lot, by far.
I think Spider-Man 3 would've worked much better if they'd dropped the whole "Venom-saga" adaptation [though, I do applaud them for the attempt, just not the end result] -- and simply slipped the Lizard into the plot. He's one background character that had already been introduced as one of Peter Parker's lecturers in the Spidey-film universe after all. And it probably would've made more sense. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:38:34
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm a fan of Wolvie from the comics, though not so diehard that deviations from canon would bug me in a movie (I'm not even all that up on Wolvie canon!).
The thing is, I *can* explain how the canon for the film relates with established comic-canon for Wolverine. His past has been the subject of such debate and alteration by Marvel for so many years, that it's almost entirely possible that what occurred in the film could've also happened in the comics as well.
The ONLY real and deliberate discontinuity, as I see it, was the "memory wipe" with the adamantium bullet to the head at the end of the film. We've past instances in the comics that strictly underline the fact that an injury like that would not have the same effect as we saw in the film.
The comic explanation for the Logan/James mind-wipe would've been far more appropriate for the film, and it wouldn't have taken too much of a deviation from the established plot, in order to carry it out, either. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:34:01
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
I was sorely disappointed with The Last Stand. As a long-time X-Men fan, I felt completely let down when the butchered version of the "Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga" was presented on the big screen as a backdrop for the third X-Men film.
Having said that, I usually rank X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Spider-Man 3 ahead of X-Men 3. That film, has the lucky position of "last" in my ranking of Marvel Comic film adaptations.
X-Men 3 was another letdown, though it wasn't as painful as Wolverine. Spidey 3 I kinda liked, but it was still the weakest offering of the lot, by far. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
You're far more generous than I am, with regards to Wolverine. I'm a fan of Wolvie from the comics, though not so diehard that deviations from canon would bug me in a movie (I'm not even all that up on Wolvie canon!). But that movie was just plain bad. I saw it with my wife, my stepmom (she's big into stuff like that), and my dad. I felt bad that they'd dragged my dad into that -- the subject matter wasn't his thing, he doesn't even get out to movies that oft, and then one of his rare outings was that pile of rothé droppings. The females liked it, but I thought it was simply painful. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:15:17
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
I was sorely disappointed with The Last Stand. As a long-time X-Men fan, I felt completely let down when the butchered version of the "Phoenix/Dark Phoenix Saga" was presented on the big screen as a backdrop for the third X-Men film.
Having said that, I usually rank X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Spider-Man 3 ahead of X-Men 3. That film, has the lucky position of "last" in my ranking of Marvel Comic film adaptations. |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 06:06:59
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I just feel as if the plotlines have been dumbed down...really dumbed down, to try and appease to the masses. But I think they might accidentally do themselves in. At best, I can see this movie being average. I have no high hopes of it being as good as Iron Man.
Iron man certianly was not dumbed down.
Iron Man 2 focused on the 1970's issues with Tony Stark's problems, and it pretty much merged Crimson Dynamo with Titanium man.
Hulk was very well done, I, as a serious comic fan have trouble seeing where the plotlines have been dumbed down.
XMEN 3, Wolverine:Origins, and Spiderman 3 have been dumbed down, but none of those movies were Marvel Studios. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Hulk I would give A+, A-, and A respectively. I fail to see, given the record of the last three marvel movies why we should expect Thor to be bad.
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
My only complaint about the MArvel movies is Samuel jackson the worst Jedi Actor ever playing Nick Fury.
Of course, it's also true that Samuel Jackson is the GREATEST Jedi Actor to ever play Nick Fury.
(and he's a lot better than the non-Jedis that have played Nick Fury)
You and your technicalities |
| Ashe Ravenheart |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 05:59:38
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I just feel as if the plotlines have been dumbed down...really dumbed down, to try and appease to the masses. But I think they might accidentally do themselves in. At best, I can see this movie being average. I have no high hopes of it being as good as Iron Man.
Iron man certianly was not dumbed down.
Iron Man 2 focused on the 1970's issues with Tony Stark's problems, and it pretty much merged Crimson Dynamo with Titanium man.
Hulk was very well done, I, as a serious comic fan have trouble seeing where the plotlines have been dumbed down.
XMEN 3, Wolverine:Origins, and Spiderman 3 have been dumbed down, but none of those movies were Marvel Studios. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Hulk I would give A+, A-, and A respectively. I fail to see, given the record of the last three marvel movies why we should expect Thor to be bad.
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
My only complaint about the MArvel movies is Samuel jackson the worst Jedi Actor ever playing Nick Fury.
Of course, it's also true that Samuel Jackson is the GREATEST Jedi Actor to ever play Nick Fury.
(and he's a lot better than the non-Jedis that have played Nick Fury) |
| Mournblade |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 05:34:12
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I just feel as if the plotlines have been dumbed down...really dumbed down, to try and appease to the masses. But I think they might accidentally do themselves in. At best, I can see this movie being average. I have no high hopes of it being as good as Iron Man.
Iron man certianly was not dumbed down.
Iron Man 2 focused on the 1970's issues with Tony Stark's problems, and it pretty much merged Crimson Dynamo with Titanium man.
Hulk was very well done, I, as a serious comic fan have trouble seeing where the plotlines have been dumbed down.
XMEN 3, Wolverine:Origins, and Spiderman 3 have been dumbed down, but none of those movies were Marvel Studios. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, and Hulk I would give A+, A-, and A respectively. I fail to see, given the record of the last three marvel movies why we should expect Thor to be bad.
Xmen 3, Wolverine, and Spiderman 3 were C level movies, but none of them were marvel studios.
My only complaint about the MArvel movies is Samuel jackson the worst Jedi Actor ever playing Nick Fury.
|
| Mournblade |
Posted - 01 Aug 2010 : 05:27:40
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Actually, I hate the love interest thrown in here. This movie should be about Thor, not Thor and Jane Foster, and this possible love triangle with him, her, and Sif.
Well, the "love interest" was a big part of Thor's early adventures in Journey Into Mystery back in the 60's. Nearly every issue spent some time with Thor on-screen pining his love for Jane. One story-arc even had Odin deliberately decrease Thor's immortal power because of the Thunder's God love for a mortal woman.
Absolutely SAge. The whole point of the Early Thor years was the Jane Foster relationship. Pretty much started in Journey into Mystery 84 with Jane Foster. I just bought that issue at comic con and she is focused upon. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 17:16:13
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
I just feel as if the plotlines have been dumbed down...really dumbed down, to try and appease to the masses. But I think they might accidentally do themselves in. At best, I can see this movie being average. I have no high hopes of it being as good as Iron Man.
Well, the early stories for Thor really didn't have much in the way of developed and/or elaborate plot-lines. They usually amounted to the "tried-and-true" method of MARVEL storytelling back in the mid-60's:- Introduce the good-guy, introduce the bad-buy, have Donald Blake/Thor lament about his unrealised love for Jane Foster, bad-guy threatens city, Donald Blake transforms into Thor without Jane seeing him, Thor fights and defeats bad-guy, Thor returns to the surgery without Jane seeing him again, transforms back into Donald Blake, both Jane and Donald then harbour secret feelings about how they can't be honest about their love for each other. End of issue.  |
| Razz |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 16:16:49
I just feel as if the plotlines have been dumbed down...really dumbed down, to try and appease to the masses. But I think they might accidentally do themselves in. At best, I can see this movie being average. I have no high hopes of it being as good as Iron Man. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 06:12:50
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Actually, I hate the love interest thrown in here. This movie should be about Thor, not Thor and Jane Foster, and this possible love triangle with him, her, and Sif.
Well, the "love interest" was a big part of Thor's early adventures in Journey Into Mystery back in the 60's. Nearly every issue spent some time with Thor on-screen pining his love for Jane. One story-arc even had Odin deliberately decrease Thor's immortal power because of the Thunder's God love for a mortal woman.
Ironic given the nature of Thor's own creation...he is naturally drawn to Earth. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 06:09:40
quote:
Originally posted by Razz
Actually, I hate the love interest thrown in here. This movie should be about Thor, not Thor and Jane Foster, and this possible love triangle with him, her, and Sif.
Well, the "love interest" was a big part of Thor's early adventures in Journey Into Mystery back in the 60's. Nearly every issue spent some time with Thor on-screen pining his love for Jane. One story-arc even had Odin deliberately decrease Thor's immortal power because of the Thunder's God love for a mortal woman.
|
| Dennis |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 05:35:38
Razz, that's kinda given. The thing about love interest, I mean. Can you name a superhero movie featuring a hero that has NO lover, or whose lover is NOT central to or part of the plot?
|
| Razz |
Posted - 31 Jul 2010 : 05:28:59
Am I the only one that's a Thor fan and also thinking the movie is going to be really "meh"?
The acting seems overdone, at least from the actor for Thor and...Natalie Portman? Really? Bad choice. Anthony Hopkins appears to be somewhat of a saving grace for the film.
Actually, I hate the love interest thrown in here. This movie should be about Thor, not Thor and Jane Foster, and this possible love triangle with him, her, and Sif.
I hope they focus on JUST Thor and his character. I want them to really portray the differences of the Asgardians and the Humans. I want to see Thor's character learn to love humans and why he does learn to love them.
The other half of the movie, I believe needs serious CG. He's a thunder god, he should be pulling some Matrix-moves and crippling everything with awesome powers. I hope they don't cheapen out on the CG. They have Disney's resources now, there's no excuse. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 30 Jul 2010 : 09:16:19
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
There is a Doc Strange movie???
Just an animated one, which didn't hit the big screen since it's the straight-to-dvd type.
|
|
|
