Discussion in 'Thor: The Dark World' started by Thread Manager, Oct 24, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]466995[/split]
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]466773[/split]
Holy **** you people love to make **** up and then pass it off as fact.
I feel the need to get a response to this.
I now have this great image. I have no idea what fangz looks like, or whether fangz is a male or female. But I have this great image of a old school vampire, cape and all, in the theater with a notepad and glasses, leaning forward, paying close attention.
see i think that Iron Man 2 is exactly the same problem as Thor 2.
Which i gotta say I am presuming during this whole comment that Thor 2 is gonna be as bad as it looks to me....
but Iron Man 2 had way deeper problems than Marvel's insistence that certain elements should be included to satisfy their track to Avengers.
Iron Man 2 came off to me like a movie that didn't know what it wanted to be in the first place. This is the writers and the director and creators fault...including RDJ in this case. It's also Marvel's fault for rushing it along and probably pushing for certain elements to be included.
But it wasn't some good movie that Marvel ruined. It's not a case of Big Bad Studio blowing the little pig's house down is what I mean.
And if it was, little pig's house must've sucked in the first place.
little pig, go make a better house, I guess is what I mean.
it might sound like I'm defending Marvel, but I'm trying to say these models that tend to get stereotypically tossed around really are misrepresentative of what actually goes on.
I think that at the end of the day, the director has to stand up and take responsibility for everything that happened. Cuz examples like Spider-Man 3, I see a director that didn't know what he wanted to do, or that couldn't turn what the studio wanted them to do into something compelling.
I know a lot of hands are tied all over the place, but ultimately, the director needs to answer to this. why did Chris Nolan maintain such a firm grip on all three Batman movies? Answer is not becuz everyone just liked him and decided they should be nicer to him than everyone else....
Answer is becuz he is a great director. directing a movie is more than yelling cut and giving motivation to actors, a lot of it is political and involves simply reading other people in charge and maintaining a lworking level of what you want to happen.
not saying that every situation is the same, some particular situations might be impossible to exit with victory...
that's just game mechanics.
haha, not far from fact. whatever else can be said, yeah, i pay attention.
How dare you pay attention.
Four of the best five? Maybe you and I can take that to PM, because I can't name more than two.
That's beside the point, which was that DC is having a hard time putting together a DCU because they don't have a strong guiding hand. You didn't really address that point, so I assume you agree.
What I don't like is Taylor's treatment of Gunn in the situation. It has nothing to do with my opinion of Marvel. For all your talk of worrying over how director's are treated, I'm surprised that you think it's okay for one director to crap all over another.
I'm not some blind Marvel fanboy, btw, despite how you try to paint me. I call them out on things I don't like and praise them when I think they deserve it. I don't think, in this situation (the mid-credits scene), that they've done anything remotely evil. It's exactly according to the framework they established before Taylor agreed to come on.
Man that new Cap trailer is awesome, I'd rank that shot of Winter Soldier catching Cap's shield up there with Malekith's surrounded by that red mist.
Indeed. If we were all right the world would be in chaos.
wait... two middle fingers make a peace sign.
oh wait this was posted wrong. i meant this in response to Teekay...
Hypocrite much? lol I've seen you take jabs at DC on these boards quite frequently, actually
I personally think WB should have just kept doing what they were doing. But whatever happens, I think they will get it right in the end, at least in terms of Superman and Batman. Even if it is extremely painful.
Gunn's work wasn't interfered with. That is why I don't see a need to defend him. If this happens to Gunn and he says he doesn't like it, I'd defend him over it.
And you are wrong. It is not the same framework. It is in fact very different. 2 credit sequences, with the mid-credit sequence being by another director.
I have and that's in the past, do you see me doing it anymore recently? Actually not jabs but opinions. I don't go around saying Dc sucks or MOS sucks blah blah without giving any valid reasons as to why.
Well yes, from time to time I have..I think recently in the gotg boards. But secondly, I didn't say anything about recently, nor do I find anything WRONG with taking jabs at DC, hell, I'll defend you if you're getting crap for taking jabs, but you gotta own it, can't share all POVs. I just think your comment saying that people are waiting to cheapshot DC, is hypocritical, since I've seen you taking jabs at DC before, at one point, quite frequently.
I'm not wrong. It is the same framework. I'm not arguing one scene versus two. I'm arguing that the tag scene to set up the next film in line is usually done by another director. That is a fact. What Taylor said about Gunn's work was kind of a jerk thing to do. If you don't agree, that's fine.
Personally, I don't like the way DC was headed before MoS, mostly because I prefer a connected universe when it comes to superhero stories. Pretending like a single hero exists by himself in a world isn't as interesting to me when it comes to DC/Marvel heroes. I still liked a couple of the Nolan movies, but it would've been nice if they could have been linked to a greater universe.
Forgive me for jumping in the middle here, but isn't this whole connected universe thing still pretty new? Like, 2008 on? That's still pretty new, I mean, before the MCU, we've had marvel films in the past, none of which linked and they were still enjoyable, not anymore than DC films. I wouldn't exactly say DC not having a connected universe is a good reason for not liking them as much, more so as an excuse to mask a bias/opinion so that it doesn't start a flame war. Which leads me to think you may have a stronger opinion about DC than you are showing, please excuse the psychoanalysis
IM- Tag scene setup, same director.
TIH- Tag scene setup, not sure about director.
IM2- Tag scene setup, different director.
Thor- Tag scene setup, different director.
TFA- No tag scene, trailer.
Avengers- Two scenes (one setup), same director.
IM3- Tag scene, same director.
I just want great films. If you deliver me a great film, that is all I care about. For me, only Nolan and Bird have done that in the superhero genre.
Ummmm Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I've recently taken any jabs at DC at the GOTG boards. Can you please show me where?
I said that I prefer a connected universe, not that I prefer Marvel over DC. I know the MCU started in 2008 and that there were Marvel films before that. What I was trying to get across is that I've always wanted these types of films to be connected, and now they are. If DC can manage to do the same with similar success, I'm all for it.
In Captain America: The First Avenger, the last scene of Cap in present day was shot by Joss and was originally the post credits scene. The children in the streets was to be the last scene before the credits. However, they weren't satisfied with that so they put the credits scene on the end and put a trailer for avengers after the credits.
I know the original intention and that Joss filmed it, but that isn't what they actually ended up doing.