Marvel Comics on Film

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Luke M
Posts: 1472
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#51 Post by Luke M » Fri Feb 09, 2018 5:38 pm

One of my unpopular movie opinions is that Sucker Punch is Snyder’s masterpiece.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Comic Books on Film

#52 Post by McCrutchy » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:18 pm

swo17 wrote:I resent the implication that the IMDb rating system waited until the Trump administration to become terrible.
IMDb has been terrible for years, particularly ever since it was taken over by Amazon. As for the user ratings, they are well-known as garbage, and while some of the scores appear fair over time, none of them are, and I don't know a single person that gives them credence anymore, if they ever did.

I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3049
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#53 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:57 pm

McCrutchy wrote:I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.
Well, I don't know. I'm speaking here in a very general sense, but in defense of the IMDb ratings, I think they are a reasonable reflection of how the public at large regards a movie. In my experience, The Shawshank Redemption really is an enormously beloved movie. People really do love Inception. I don't think the ratings are designed to measure the objective quality of a movie - not like there's such a thing anyway - but rather just the general sense of how much people in general like them.

So in that sense, I don't object much to the IMDb ratings. I don't really even object to the efforts to sabotage a movie's ratings, like with Black Panther*; in the end, things will even out, more or less. What continues to be strange, though, to me is when people take them personally. They're just a curiosity, although sometimes instructive in small ways.

* - since nothing really goes without saying on the internet, let me say that (obviously, I hope) I don't mean that as an endorsement of the racism being spouted against the film.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1034
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Comic Books on Film

#54 Post by Big Ben » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:07 pm

I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.

User avatar
Cameron Swift
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

Re: Comic Books on Film

#55 Post by Cameron Swift » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:14 pm

I guess most racists haven't discovered Letterboxd yet where only 4 people have given it the lowest possible rating.

User avatar
Brian C
Posts: 3049
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#56 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:21 pm

Big Ben wrote:I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.
Well sure, but as racism goes, this is a relatively harmless outlet for those guys, and one that makes themselves look pathetic more than it accomplishes anything else.

Still and all, racists are people too. And if they downvote a movie for racist reasons, well, that doesn't exactly make the rating inaccurate. It's instructive, in its own way.

User avatar
Kirkinson
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:34 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Comic Books on Film

#57 Post by Kirkinson » Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:39 pm

Brian C wrote:
McCrutchy wrote:I mean, really, is The Shawshank Redemption one of the top five films ever made? Of course not, but for years, it was right up there with The Godfather and Star Wars on IMDb--in fact, right now it's number one. That's right, if you were to take IMDb voting seriously, then The Shawshank Redemption, a movie with Tim Robbins, is the best movie ever made, and to top that off, Inception is a better film than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, GoodFellas and Seven Samurai, each of which is apparently a progressively worse film.

I will say that IMDb is the main reason why I give very little notice to Rotten Tomatoes (a site which might as well be part of the other RT, for all I care) or any other online voting metric.
Well, I don't know. I'm speaking here in a very general sense, but in defense of the IMDb ratings, I think they are a reasonable reflection of how the public at large regards a movie. In my experience, The Shawshank Redemption really is an enormously beloved movie. People really do love Inception. I don't think the ratings are designed to measure the objective quality of a movie - not like there's such a thing anyway - but rather just the general sense of how much people in general like them.
This is my perception, as well. From what I remember of college & film school, at least, Shawshank was extremely popular with a certain kind of film buff whose interest doesn't expand beyond the USA or much further back than the 90s. Inception is big with the same crowd. This the same subset of people who strike me as most likely to be voting regularly at IMDb in large numbers, so it all makes sense to me, regardless of my own feelings about those or any other movies.

I'm also curious about Shawshank's characterization as "a movie with Tim Robbins." Am I supposed to infer that a movie whose lead actor was never a particularly huge star is unlikely to be so popular? Or is it that Tim Robbins being in a movie automatically implies something about how good it could be? Either suggestion seems odd to me.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Comic Books on Film

#58 Post by McCrutchy » Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:38 pm

Kirkinson wrote:I'm also curious about Shawshank's characterization as "a movie with Tim Robbins." Am I supposed to infer that a movie whose lead actor was never a particularly huge star is unlikely to be so popular? Or is it that Tim Robbins being in a movie automatically implies something about how good it could be? Either suggestion seems odd to me.
I just think it's absurd, that's all, and also a fine example of the utter pointlessness of internet voting. You are, of course, fairly spot on in your assessment of IMDb voters, which is precisely why the film has consistently ranked amazingly high on the site's Top 250 for what must be over a decade, now. Don't get me wrong, I think the film is wonderful, but I've simply never found their internet voting to be of good use. I did enjoy the IMDb forums regarding films and celebrities, even though they were abused by some, the forums were often interesting, and sometimes, had valuable information.

User avatar
Luke M
Posts: 1472
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#59 Post by Luke M » Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:18 am

Brian C wrote:
Big Ben wrote:I'd like to point out that some of the review are very much down voted because of racism. The "We wuz kangz" meme originally sprouted from 4Chan and was used to mock black folks who discussed black civilizations (Like Egypt.) and I've seen that garbage show up on more than one review. They're down voting because a film about an advanced black civilization is apparently too much for them. The ability to abuse the rating system to promote such a blatantly racist agenda makes the site look pretty bad.

But Brian raises a good point. It should simply be a metric as to how users felt about the film they've watched. It should go without saying more than a few racists should show up to ruin things.
Well sure, but as racism goes, this is a relatively harmless outlet for those guys, and one that makes themselves look pathetic more than it accomplishes anything else.

Still and all, racists are people too. And if they downvote a movie for racist reasons, well, that doesn't exactly make the rating inaccurate. It's instructive, in its own way.
Ok, I’ll bite how is it instructive? Black Panther already has a bunch of negative audience reviews from people who no doubt haven’t seen the film yet.

User avatar
swo17
Posts: 13480
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Comic Books on Film

#60 Post by swo17 » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:51 am

Instructive of how many people are willing to rate the movie a 1 without having seen it

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#61 Post by tenia » Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:39 am

The irony in it, from what a fellow French critic told me, is that Black Panther has a politic sub-text which is as progressist and subtle that Wonder Woman's feminism (ie a joke).

However, I've read that some DC fanboys might be behind the 1-bombing on RT.

MongooseCmr
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#62 Post by MongooseCmr » Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:40 pm

Anybody expecting a Marvel film to have a nuanced and cutting edge political subtext is lying to themselves. I think the backlash to that sentiment is leading the negative review spam as much as racism. Some of the fan praise/hype for this I’ve seen online is ridiculous, as if Wakanda was real and the existence of the film acknowledging it is a revolutionary act

User avatar
diamonds
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2016 2:35 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#63 Post by diamonds » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:06 pm

Director James Mangold said his goal with Logan was to "make an Ozu film with mutants." ...Really? I have not seen the film, but if this is at all evident in the finished product I'd sure love to.

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#64 Post by tenia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:16 pm

It's not. At all. Probably not even one second.
This only element that could be compared to an Ozu movie is the family bit, Logan being a father for X-23, and Ozu being often movies about families and father-daughter bond, but that's about it, and there's absolutely nothing in Logan that would make this bond feeling it's treated like an Ozu movie.
It feels more and more like Mangold, and Marvel with him, tries to amp up post-release the movie's legacy by making it look more arty and auteurist that it is, riffing on how some felt Logan was soooo different from other movies, but it never really feels this way. It's more graphic (yay, bloodshed !) and with more cursing (yay, cursing everywhere for no reason except saying curseword in a Marvel movie !), but that's about it.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Posts: 5931
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#65 Post by matrixschmatrix » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:27 pm

I don't agree with that- Logan really was an exceptional and different movie in a crowded superhero field, though the Ozu claim seems odd. It felt and played very much like one of the American tales on revisionist Westerns in the 70s, particularly The Outlaw Josey Wales (or even Unforgiven, later on)- the closing of the West, the dying of the frontier, the end of an era of freedom, only here what has taken its place is not an ambivalent civilization but an outright nightmare, and it seems to be America or the entire world that's falling apart.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Comic Books on Film

#66 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:57 pm

The Mangold quote is certainly hyperbole, but I believe it's important to recognize this quote is from a mainstream filmmaker who successfully convinced Marvel to allow Logan to be made as an "adult-themed" comic book film. As Mangold notes in his commentary track, the "R" (or "Adult") designation not only gave the film an opportunity to show more grisly violence (which Mangold admits is something that Wolverine fans would get excited about), but kept the studio from worrying about the length of some of the dialogue scenes or the need for Logan to have a pet dog or some such contrivance. Logan is certainly designed to be mainstream entertainment, but in the form of a classic Western (as "matrixschmatrix" notes above and which Mangold insists was the form he was going for). Compared only to the other Marvel offerings of the past decade, Logan is a relatively low-key, thoughtful action film where the stakes are much lower than usual (no cities being blown apart or alien invasions thwarted), but are more keenly-felt.

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#67 Post by tenia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:20 pm

The bad guy is awful, all the secondary characters are underwritten and superficial, the whole vaguely melancholic setting feels wasted, the relationship between Logan and X-23 never is deepened in any way (it's especially hard to care for X-23's character, one of the most annoying character I've seen for a long time), the pace is tepid (the movie is at least 30 min too long), and the whole tone seemed inconsistant (especially the end encounter with the main baddie).

The result is a movie that probably is better than most current Supers movies (and superior to the other 2 Wolvie movies) (but that definitely wasn't hard to achieve), but never really works and feel extremely pretentious. It probably hoped to do vastly different things, blending together mainstream Super hero movies elements with a more low-key gritty aspect, but actually is just your typical super hero movie, but with an added superficial subtext (Getting old is tough, and at the end, you die) and a R-rating that allows nothing else than bloodsheds and swear words everywhere. Saved for its prologue, it never feels very gritty.

If I had to sum up the movie, it'd probably be somewhere like a bloated pretentious disappointment that probably was a good idea originally, but sadly ends up failing flat mostly due to its superficial writing.

The movie might be R-rated, but it didn't feel any more adult than many other PG-13 Super hero movies (GoG 2 felt vastly superior in this regard).
Roger Ryan wrote:(no cities being blown apart or alien invasions thwarted)
This, however, was very refreshing indeed.
Last edited by tenia on Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jindianajonz
Posts: 2017
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#68 Post by jindianajonz » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:32 pm

diamonds wrote:Director James Mangold said his goal with Logan was to "make an Ozu film with mutants." ...Really? I have not seen the film, but if this is at all evident in the finished product I'd sure love to.
He said similar things about The Wolverine, and that movie was even further from its supposed influences.

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#69 Post by Ribs » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:38 pm

I think he gives himself too much credit, generally - Deadpool was a project that was long DOA that only got greenlit because of Kingsman's surprise success for Fox as an ultra-violent February release made on a relatively modest budget, and its success enabled Mangold to make Logan a "harder" film than what was being planned. It was basically fortuitous timing that he got to do the movie he did.

As somebody who really enjoyed the X-men films as a whole, particularly the delightfully lax continuity where not one film seems to make any sense when considering its supposed to take place around the other films, I found Logan just to be taking it a little too far and a disservice to the character as Jackman had played him for 15+ years to make him suddenly brutally violent in a film with swearing and lots of blood.

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Comic Books on Film

#70 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:16 pm

Ribs wrote:...I found Logan just to be taking it a little too far and a disservice to the character as Jackman had played him for 15+ years to make him suddenly brutally violent in a film with swearing and lots of blood...
To be fair, Wolverine has viciously killed people with his claws in nearly every film he has appeared in (just not as gorily as in Logan) and his language has been the saltiest of any X-men character (discounting Deadpool) on film (note his F-bomb line in his gag cameo in X-Men: First Class).

User avatar
Ribs
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#71 Post by Ribs » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:24 pm

Yeah, I know, but I just thought Logan pushed it just a bit further to make it a really odd note to send off the character/actor. I get it, just wasn’t for me and the things I liked about the Bryan Singer X-Men universe.

User avatar
Big Ben
Posts: 1034
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Comic Books on Film

#72 Post by Big Ben » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:44 pm

Have you read the Wolverine comics Ribs? In one of the ones that loosely inspired the film he's eaten by The Hulk, regenerates and then claws his way out of him and kills him by tearing him apart from the inside. There is absolutely basis for the violence and gore. Wolverine is essentially the mutant equivalent of a Berserker in the comics and there has most certainly been graphic violence in Wolverine comics for over thirty years. The earlier films are the ones not true to Wolverine. He was very clearly edited down to fit into the more profitable at the time PG-13 market. Logan felt a lot like a deconstruction of those earlier films which ranged from okay to terrible in my opinion.

NSFW:
SpoilerShow
Image

User avatar
tenia
Posts: 3461
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#73 Post by tenia » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:27 pm

But in the franchise, this sudden graphic aspect that was nowhere to be seen seems a bit jarring, almost like a tonality gap with the previous movies.
And in a way, that's not very useful and the movie certainly could have been "mature" enough without this. Nolan's Batman seemee more adult to me, and all 3 were PG 13.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Posts: 8612
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Comic Books on Film

#74 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:54 pm

That's perhaps the biggest reason why the Nolan movies are the best for me. They struck a really tight balance between elements based in realism and flights of fancy, without ever going completely overboard.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4147
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Comic Books on Film

#75 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:59 pm

On the soundtrack for Black Panther, Yugen Blakrok hilariously name drops the Batman comics on “Opps,” and of course, someone decided to bleep 'Riddler.'

Spit slick, attack is subliminal
Flowers on my mind, but the rhyme style sinister
Stand behind my own bars, like a seasoned criminal
Gotham City streets, I’ll play the Riddler

Post Reply