So wat was so bad???

[CaptainWagner]

A "safe" movie is a movie that simply checks off marks on a list of "tried and true" concepts that the studio knows the audience will enjoy. It doesn't try to bring something new and unique to the table. It's sole purpose is to make money, not to truly be a great film. At least that's my take on it.

 

[Marvelocity]

I'll answer seriously.

Daredevil

I don't think this is a bad movie. It just feels like a lesser production compared to what Spider-Man and X-Men were doing at the same time. It feels generic. I don't have Ben Affleck like a lot of people do. He will be a much better Bruce Wayne than Bale, no question. Having a black Kingpin was truly awful, though I like Michael Clark Duncan and thought he did a good job. I just don't believe in changing characters that were created 50 years ago. I thought the last 20 minutes of this movie were excellent. Bullseye killing Elektra was great. Daredevil fighting Bullseye in the church was cool. And I really, really liked the way Daredevil beat Kingpin at the end of the movie. Bullseye was miscast as well or at least should have worn his costume. He's a mercenary so a costume to conceal his identity would have made sense. I give this a 7/10

X-Men 3

Like many have said, there is way too much going on in this movie for starters. I pretty much hate all of the X-Men movies though. They all find an excuse to make Wolverine the leader when he is anything BUT the leader. They treated Cyclops like trash and made Magneto way too old. Juggernaut was about the ONLY good thing in this movie.

Fantastic Four and Rise of the Silver Surfer

I don't hate these movies like many do, but they cast very poorly on Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman and Dr. Doom. The Thing and Human Torch were done well, I thought. I also liked the Silver Surfer. Having Galactus as a cloud of smoke was pretty crappy though.

Spider-Man 3

This movie just pisses me off. After the first two Spider-Man movies, this should have been a shoe-in for one of the best comic book movies of all time. Having Venom in it was so stupid. They should have just made it Sandman and Green Goblin and maybe Spidey used the symbiote against them, but Eddie Brock should have been the villain in the fourth movie. Peter dancing as a goth kid pretty much killed the movie.

 

[T-Ray]

Then pretty much 99% of movies are "safe" lol. Guardians of the Galaxy is not a "safe" movie, despite no real moral implications or soul searching. It's about a bunch of people who come together to stop a planet from being destroyed. Doesn't mean it's "safe".

Yup! I do consider 99% of mainstream Hollywood movies "safe", especially in the last 10-15 years. Made to draw in and entertain as wider audience as possible, without causing much (if any) turmoil. Tailor made to not offend or drive off larger part of designated audience for specific genre. Even if a movie have legit controversial themes or plot points they are either watered down or are the exact kind of controversy studio thinks that audience will swallow easily so a movie may appear to be more smart and less "safe". Heck, even my favorite movies are guilty of this. And, heck, I enjoy 99% of those 99%.

I still haven't seen GotG, I'm waiting for it to hit theaters in my city (next month, finally), so I can't really comment on whether it is "safe" or not. I have read the comics, I know the characters and it is my most wanted movie of this year, but considering every (non spoiler) thing about the plot and characters I saw so far makes me believe that it will go in "safe" category. It looks like standard SF opera in vain of "Star Wars" or "The Fifth Element", which are "safe", but awesome, by my definition.

A "safe" movie is a movie that simply checks off marks on a list of "tried and true" concepts that the studio knows the audience will enjoy. It doesn't try to bring something new and unique to the table. It's sole purpose is to make money, not to truly be a great film. At least that's my take on it.

Exactly!
Except that I think that almost all movies are made with money in mind, even the "more shocking" or "artsy" or "smart" ones. All made for their specific audience. Its simply the nature of the beast, IMO.

 

[metaphysician]

Maybe I should have cleared that in my previous posts, so sorry for the confusion. Being "hero's journey" or any other type of story does not mean same as "safe".

I meant "safe" as in "they didn't try to do anything that might raise questions or offend somebody (except for the fans, of course, we'd get offended no matter what) or at least try and play with the established tropes of the genre". For example, heroes are misguided and/or selfish but clearly good at heart, villains are clearly evil of "acceptable target group" variety, no shades of "what if villain is actually right" or "does the end really justify the means" or something like that. A lot of superhero movies are guilty of this, though, some just manage to disguise it better.

Again, I do not mind "safe" movies because, sad as it is, movies are expensive businesses and such is the reality of movie-making. And just if I think that some movie is "safe" it doesn't mean that I think that same movie is bad.

Hope that clears this up.

It certainly clears up that your ideas for how to make a "non-safe" movie basically boil down to "I hate the whole premise". If the heroes are not at least basically heroic, than you've defeated the point of making a super hero film. It has to be about *heroes*, not Walter White villain protagonists.

 

[Lilbaz]

If anyone can come up with a definitive answer of what makes a film good/bad. You will earn $millions in Hollywood.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Exactly!
Except that I think that almost all movies are made with money in mind, even the "more shocking" or "artsy" or "smart" ones. All made for their specific audience. Its simply the nature of the beast, IMO.

I actually wasn't agreeing with you..... but oh, well.


And thanks, marvelocity, for liking the Juggernaut in X3. It.s good too know I'm not alone.t:

 

[C. Lee]

And thanks, marvelocity, for liking the Juggernaut in X3. It.s good too know I'm not alone.t:

I personally didn't like the way they did his character. To me, his cursing at a 14/15 year old girl just made him pathetic.

 

[Batmannerism]

Just my thoughts on a few of these:

Xmen The last stand: To be honest, didn't mind it that much. Yes, they wiped out Cyclops as a character, but sadly he was never going to be a dominant force in a franchise so totally Wolverine-centric.

I did like the Prof X death scene, thought it was well done.

But I agree with previous posters, the dark Phoenix saga was a momentus comic book event and deserves a film all to itself that focused on Jean and Scott. Probably my all time favourite X-storyline.


Spider-Man 3:

There are only 3 things I liked about the film

1) the resolution to the Harry/Peter/MJ triangle and a good way for Harry to go out.

2) even though many hate it...... evil funky Peter Parker doing the strut,
man I laughed and laughed at that, it was hilarious.

3) Spidey taking down Venom with the impromptu pipe- xylophone, nice lift from the comics (also the bell-tower scene, a good homage)

On to the rest of the film...........

Church's peformance as Sandman was simply awful (but not nearly as awful as Mary Jane's singing).

Topher Grace, laughably miscast as Eddie Brock, who has an Olympic weightlifter's physique in the comics.

All in all the final battle had some good moments, but somehow felt a little unsatisfying ....although as previously mentioned, I appreciated Harry's sacrifice.


The ending, it ends on such a low key note, ugh. They should have ended it with Harry's death or funeral, and then lifted the tone with some final webslinging - something I thought TASM 2 got right !



Daredevil..... didn't really like the depiction of bullseye, but otherwise it
was tolerable, not nearly as bad as people make out. I thought Michael
Clarke Duncan was a good Kingpin.



As far as the FF movies go, I actually enjoyed them, and only really have one problem with them.....DOOM ! They took one of the greatest comic book villains of all time and made him incredibly lame. The only time he seemed to be a credible menace was after he stole the Surfer's powers.


Was a bit lame that Surfer took out Galactus, why not just chuck in the ultimate nullifier ?

Also, Jessica Alba as Sue Storm was a minor miscast, but not a serious one. I still think Chris Evans was a better Torch than Captain America,
and Michael Chiklis nailed it as the Thing. Ioan Gruffud was pretty reasonable as Mr F. But Julian McMahon as Doom,.......wtf ?

Agree that Galactus as a cloud sucked (although if you look close you can see)

 

[T-Ray]

It certainly clears up that your ideas for how to make a "non-safe" movie basically boil down to "I hate the whole premise". If the heroes are not at least basically heroic, than you've defeated the point of making a super hero film. It has to be about *heroes*, not Walter White villain protagonists.

Maybe I just really suck at English.

I never stated that I "hate the whole premise". My point was that Fox took no unnecessary risks with FF/FF2, Marvel took no unnecessary risks with IM/IM2 and it is fair to say that that those movies are comparable in terms of overall quality, IMO. Both are designed by the studio to appeal to wider general audience, IMO, just like any other major blockbuster.

Again, and I'll repeat myself again, just because I think that movie is "safe" it doesn't mean that I think that movie is bad. The level of "safe" is not the only thing that can make or break a movie for me. IM is one of the safest and by-the-number movies in recent history, IMO, but it is one of my absolute favorites, because I find it cool and enjoyable movie, flaws and all, and I got my wish for live action Iron Man done good. I think the same thing about FF (extended cut).

I just don't like dealing in absolutes when dealing with movies and I like to acknowledge the reality of film-making so I believe that stuff generally considered "bad" ("safeness", plot holes, product placements, studio interference, changes from source material, etc.) is inevitable by default, so it is not something I can take against the movie inn and off itself.

And talking about my idea of "non-safe" (or better "less-safe") Hollywood movies... IM3 and CA: TWS (and as much as I didn't think much of it, TDK) are going in the right direction, and I hope that trend will continue and escalate with future comic book movies, thats all I have to say about that. It all wouldn't be possible without previous "safe" movies, though, so there is another positive thing about about those.

I actually wasn't agreeing with you..... but oh, well.

Well, I was kinda agreeing with you.. Hm, paradox..

 

[CaptainWagner]

I personally didn't like the way they did his character. To me, his cursing at a 14/15 year old girl just made him pathetic.

Maybe so, but it's always seemed to me as exactly the sort of thing Juggernaut would do.

And T-Ray, your opinion is starting to be a little more clear. I do actually agree with you on a lot of your points. However, I still think GOTG a a vey risky movie.

 

[Human Torch]

I think McMahon could've made a spectacular Doom,had the part been written better.

 

[Batmannerism]

I think McMahon could've made a spectacular Doom,had the part been written better.

Really ? Agree to disagree dude. To me Doom has to exude a particular menacing vibe, and McMahon can be smooth, but never as menacing as Doom needs to be.

I guess the voice really put me off. I've always got this image of Doom with a strong Eastern-European accent, and a powerful commanding voice. Sure McMahon can sound slimy, but Doom has got the kind of voice where you pay attention. He's charismatic and intimidating.

I think they really understimated the quality of actor needed to do doom justice. They needed someone with real presence and acting chops. Someone Shakespearean ( look what McKellen has done with Magneto !).

Just IMO, but I think McMahon was the wrong choice. I'll have to think hard about who would have been the right choice though !

Okay, got one Marton Csokas, one of the best actors that no one ever knows about, check him out he's done heaps of films, does an eastern european accent well, and looks a lot more menacing than McMahon.

So, in summary, I respect your opinion, but disagree. Cheers.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

To put the original Iron Man int he same class as FF and FF2 is an insult. And I don't even hate the FF movies (I own both of em and watch them when I'm bored). But Iron Man is one of the best comic book super hero movies made to date. EASILY.

Agree Iron Man is above FF and FF2. Iron Man 2 and 3 however are about the same

 

[Batmannerism]

Agree Iron Man is above FF and FF2. Iron Man 2 and 3 however are about the same

Hate to bandwagon jump, but yeah, I'm not a Marvel fan but wow, Iron Man (the first one) is one of the best superhero movies of all time, I rate it up there with the Dark knight.

I don't think the FF films were that bad, for when they were made (what, 2004 and 2007 ?) but they weren't on the same level as IM.


Well that's IMO.

 

[Elevator Man]

Okay, got one Marton Csokas, one of the best actors that no one ever knows about, check him out he's done heaps of films, does an eastern european accent well, and looks a lot more menacing than McMahon.

I just looked him up after your post and didn't realize he played a doctor in a marvel movie already. Dr. Kafka of TAS-M2.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Ok, I actually liked TASM 2 and he was awful in the scenes he was in.

 

[Victarion]

X-3: Juggernaut was the only downside to an otherwise enjoyable film.

Spider-Man 3: I didn't like Sandman being connected to Ben's murder directly. The character did seem misused. Harry's amnesia subplot wasn't too good either

 

[bobaban]

FF I saw as a popcorn flick and I enjoyed those 2 films. I'm not a huge FF fan so didn't care as much about the portrayals.

Spider-Man 3 I liked overall, but just was bloated.

X3 was horrible and a complete disservice to the franchise, I'm glad thats all gone now.

Daredevil was pretty bad too, was trying to be serious and corny at the same time. I shudder at the thought of that park battle. Colin Farrell was funny though as Bullseye.

 

[Batmannerism]

Ok, I actually liked TASM 2 and he was awful in the scenes he was in.

True he was pretty terrible in that, but then was he as terrible doing the over the top evil scientist as McMahon was terrible at performing as Dr Doom, one of the most recognizable and infamous comic book supervillains of all time ?

I think Doom was not just badly written, but badly cast and badly acted.
My one real complaint about the FF films, which otherwise were fun.

cheers.

 

[Human Torch]

McMahon was pretty good with the aristocratic,haughty attitude Doom has and he looked pretty good behind the mask.(I think his voice was well suited too) But,I think he was a bit weak in the "towering rage" department.(another Doom staple)His only real attempt in the "I don't want to understand it!" scene came across as unintentionally humorous.

 

[Hmarrs]

They failed to capture the heart of the audience. It's not about being comic accurate, because many less accurate films (ie X2 and First Class) have done much better because they engaged the audience. This is something that we, as fan critics, often miss when analyzing films. Sometimes we think that things are explained, that these are origin stories because the audience is dumb or needs to understand intellectually. Far from it, they need to care. They need to understand so they care about the stakes of the hero.

Now there are some people that don't care about these things. They loved all these films, Green Lantern and Ghost Rider too, however, they are a relatively small group. They may feel very comfortable reading the most ridiculous contrived comic book storylines, but as long as there's something cool, like with, say, Civil War, they're good.

So when I talk about these films, understand I'm talking about why no one cares about them, and why they were disappointed with everything that happened because it was meaningless, random or silly. Usually it's because the film tried to do too many things, and thus never won the audience either cause.

Daredevil - Like Green Lantern many years later, this film suffers from a very grim heavy presentation style layered on top of a nearly zany kitchy cheeky almost campy storyline. This dissonance doesn't work, and the zany comicness of a Bullseye just seems zany instead of disturbing. The emotional heart of the film, Daredevil's thing with his dad and Kingpin was so brief, it was hard to care about it. The emotional climax was with Elektra's death but their whole bonding experience was a cutesy playing on the playground. Like Green Lantern, nothing is earned from the audience, the audience is just expected to like it just because its from the comics.

Spider-Man 3 - With a similar problem to Amazing Spider-Man 2, this film suffers from 3 villain syndrome. This lack of focus on any particular emotional touchstone makes the entire film pretty random and uninteresting emotionally. Like Daredevil it has the same 'let's have fun with dark stuff' problem, so we're supposed to care about this dark Venom symbiote storyline, but it has its height in a dance routine. Even the relationship which has been the major touchstone for the film is bogged down with a random and uninteresting love interest that doesn't even bother to interact/rival with Mary Jane personally... because there's no time.

Fantastic Four - FF has a slightly different issue. It seems to take no risks at all and is a largely by the numbers comic book film, even to the point where the script lacks any shining moments even in dialogue. The movie doesn't have any significantly bad moments, it's just that it doesn't have any good ones. The things supposed to be meaningful are so convenient why bother caring about things that come so easy. The movie attempts to ride on Johnny's comedy, but... the other characters are so very dull, devoid of good moments... why bother?

Fantastic Four 2 - Imagine the first FF film, same conveniences, same boring characters, but now with higher stakes! What was supposed to make anyone care about Silver Surfer? He has cool powers... his whole pathos came down to being captured in a lab... which kinda subverts the whole grand powers thing. It was better than the first FF film as it gave the characters some kind of stakes and even Reed got to be interesting for a moment, cheesy as it was, but that's not saying much.

X-Men 3 - It doesn't get much more random or pointless than X3. It suffers from too many bad guys (Magneto? Phoenix? Warren Worthinton II?) it suffers from trying to pull a lot of emotion out of something light (Logan and Jean's relationship takes place over only a few days according to the previous films, but we're to care that they are soulmates. Our other original viewpoint character Rogue is off doing nothing nowhere and the movie is actually obvious, even to non comics fans, in it's attempt to make Wolverine something he fundamentally is not, and then builds the whole movie around you caring about that.

In the end, it's only fans that care about these movies and think of them as bad. Keep in mind some fans were created by the previous films in the case of Spidey and X-Men. Most people, however, just don't care about these films and consider them forgettable and uninteresting, or at worst, a waste of time.

Ok so basically your word in all of these films would be.. "OVERKILL"...
Now I can see your point on daredevil too campy but do you really believe Green Lantern was Campy?..Well maybe but I don't think that's what killed it or injured it I believe it was .."OVERKILL"..big time overkill and I honestly think that's what Hurt the first Hulk movie.

In both these Movies there we like 5 Movies in one.

So can we say.."OVERKILL"..overall all just too much...

Because honestly Campy can work if done right..Even in Daredevil("KILL BILL" FOR EXAMPLE) Ergo."Gaudians of the Galaxy."..to which I have never seen a camoier movie and honestly I was very worried and critized this movie.
To which I need to start a thread on here of Apology because I was wrong.

And I Loved it and was completely Blown away.

So back on topic "OVERKILL"

 

[Loki882]

The only real "corny" scene in DD that I recall is the playground fight (which was admittedly really dumb). Overall, I though that the movie took itself pretty seriously. Yeah Colin Farrell was kind of hammy (in a good way imo) as Bullseye, but Bullseye had always had a certain over-the-topness to him.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah, it's not that DD was overly campy, but that particular scene being campy meant that Elektra's death didn't have emotional development in it's build up, but campy buildup, which doesn't make for non-campy payoff very well.

Ok so basically your word in all of these films would be.. "OVERKILL"...
Now I can see your point on daredevil too campy but do you really believe Green Lantern was Campy?..Well maybe but I don't think that's what killed it or injured it I believe it was .."OVERKILL"..big time overkill and I honestly think that's what Hurt the first Hulk movie.

In both these Movies there we like 5 Movies in one.

So can we say.."OVERKILL"..overall all just too much...

Because honestly Campy can work if done right..Even in Daredevil("KILL BILL" FOR EXAMPLE) Ergo."Gaudians of the Galaxy."..to which I have never seen a camoier movie and honestly I was very worried and critized this movie.
To which I need to start a thread on here of Apology because I was wrong.

And I Loved it and was completely Blown away.

So back on topic "OVERKILL"

I don't know if all of them were overkill. I wouldn't say that about the FF films or DD. I do think GL had some extremely campy parts that made the movie uneven. As with DD, it's not about how campy it is, but how it's used. All the payoffs for Guardians of the Galaxy were funny moments. He defeated the final guy with a dance move and the power of heart. The mother's death was left uncamped so they could pull on it to get serious at the very end, and for the space near-death scene they took a few minutes to be like 'no, really dude, you will die... no, really... dude...'

One of the weakest scenes, to me, in GotG was Drax one on one vs Ronan, because Drax had been largely comic relief until that point.

GL camped up every aspect of itself at some point in the film or other, leaving very little to take seriously, even though the movie would turn around and suddenly take itself very seriously. Some people in my theatre laughed at Hal's dad's death, for instance. That's what happens when the gags aren't strategically or organically placed... the audience starts to see them everywhere. That's okay with a film like Guardians, since the gags actually are everywhere, but you can't be campy and then turn around and try to Dark Knight like GL2011 did.

The first Hulk movie, I think, had the opposite problem, in that it was entirely too too serious. It was too much a werewolf movie, as Joss Whedon might put it, and not a really a superhero movie at all. It was a good movie, technically, but it didn't give the people what they wanted or expected.

 

[Human Torch]

The playground scene was just a cutesy way of having them meet,since they weren't going with the comic book angle of Matt knowing her from collage.They had to start somewhere and that idea was as good as any.

I don't see it as overly campy,myself.Lighthearted,yeah,but it didn't ruin the characters or lessen the impact of Elektra's death,for me anyway.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Yes, because if it's one thing a daredevil movie needs, it's a Kung fu meet cute between elektra and Matt