- Joined: Aug 20, 2017
- Last Login: Nov 15, 2021, 10:03am EST
- Comments: 168
Share this profile
Comment 1 reply, 2 recs
I think this has gotten more intense in the advent of the MCU. With characters crossing over, and a continuously long running narrative it somewhat requires the actors maintain their roles, to not take you out of the continuity too much. Obviously it happened with War Machine and Hulk, but that was very early on.
Prior to this I think it was much easier to see a new actor take over, because either it was some sort of re imagining of the character, or in the instance of the 90s Batman movies, they were only loosely connected to each other anyway.
At this point I am sort of looking forward to the end of the MCU as we know it. It was an absolute blast, seeing Cap and Iron Man share the screen for the first time in Avengers, and all the way up to seeing it all tied up in Endgame, wonderful things for the fans. But now it will be diminishing returns as we see new, less interesting characters brought in to maintain the ongoing story, or worse yet, multiverse alternate versions which sort of make any long term consequences meaningless. Marvel might be better off telling one-off stories that take more artistic and story risks like Logan did. They won’t recapture the magic of Iron Man thru Endgame, so it is time to move on to something different than the novelty of an interconnected world.
Comment 1 reply
Comment 2 recs
One of the films biggest flaws among many. There was little to no time to actually understand any of the characters. And given the mid point twist, as well as the final act twist, it is incredibly hard to understand the positions various characters take when we don’t know about what has shaped them to this point.
This was perhaps something that would have worked better as a 6 part series on Disney Plus, allowing more time to flesh out the characters so we could understand why they landed where they did, and likewise give more agency to the prime Deviant character, who clearly had some interesting motivations once we find out the entire story. Marvel didn’t seem to learn from the criticism of Civil War where we really don’t get much time with certain character to understand why they pick their sides on registration.
This says nothing for the giant plot whole of why would the Celestials keep the Eternals real mission secret from them, when it can only lead to the very problem that occurs in this movie once they find out the truth.
That the Eternals and Deviants were sent there from space, rather than being artificially evolved from early humanity by the Celestials was a major mistake in the plotting of this.
I mean talking to actual people who served in that war. First hand accounts of what happened and horrors of that (and really any) war.
Be it the combat itself, the POW camps, what Japan was doing in China.
Comment 2 replies, 5 recs
Some research into how the Japanese viewed combat during WWII and actual stories of those involved in WWII in the Pacific might give you better insight into this topic. If you don’t drop the bomb(s) you commit yourself to invading Japan and increasing casualties on both sides to a higher number. It certainly IS a topic open for debate.
Regardless of the tide of the war at that moment, the Japanese weren’t particularly intimidated by our conventional forces to the point that they would surrender even as their defeat loomed closer and closer. Though their numbers get smaller year by year, if you have the opportunity to talk to someone who was in combat in the Pacific, you do well to hear their stories and learn what exactly our alternative was to using the bombs.
Comment 3 replies, 1 rec
"Midnighter’s infamous claim to fame is that he has a supercomputer in his brain that allows him to figure out the winning moves in any combat."
So he’s pretty much the same as DC’s Prometheus? Which came first?
Comment 1 reply
Comment 1 reply
"… he might well have some kind of enhanced charisma or manipulation powers that make him especially enjoyable to be around. (Just having Kumail Nanjiani in the role practically counts as giving Kingo an extra superpower.)"
Maybe you didn’t see the same clip Marvel released, where he is on the set of a bollywood film, but the character comes off as a smug, obnoxious, jerk. Which is par for the course with a lot of stuff I have seen Nanjiani in.
Comment 3 recs
I think it is the definition of star. Johnson pretty much always plays the same character (aside from the few overly comical action roles he does), same with Reynolds, most always the wise cracking guy, and Gadot is just eye candy who can’t act whatsoever. She has zero chops and it showed when they were forced to plot the second Wonder Woman around Chris Pine coming back since his character was far more interesting in the first movie.
Have they all led successful big budget movies? Sure. Have any of them shown themselves to be really great actors? Maybe Reynolds has show some chops outside his comfort zone, but that’s about it.
Comment 7 recs
Reynolds, Johnson, and Gadot are good for what they are, but none of them (aside from maybe Reynolds) have much range outside the rolls we’ve seen them in all the time.
When I saw the preview for this I knew it was going to be check-the-box sort of movie made by focus groups and studio execs, without any substance whatsoever. Straight man hero must team up with wise cracking thief with a heart, and get tangled up with mysterious sexy character on their adventure.
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
There is a reason they had to figure out a way to bring Chris Pine’s character back from the dead for the sequel, his charisma carried the first film. Gadot is nice to look at, but that is about it. She sort of worked in the first movie playing a navie fish out of water, because as wooden actor can easily pull off the unsure, clumsy character.
Asking her to actually play a character with a real personality seems out of her range.
Comment 1 reply
Ah, well that explains how she is young again, but weird how that sort of seems happen to fit the story, I mean Cable should have been brought back in his youth, AND without any technovirus infection, yet for the sake of "this is how Cable should look" he still has it?
Though I thought the resurrection worked because Xavier started keeping the memories of mutants on file, as a recent thing. Given Destiny was dead before that, wonder what the explanation is for how they can use those protocols for her? Obviously there are ways to hand wave that little difficulty away.
Agree they buried the lede in focusing on the relationship part and not the underlying MAJOR plot implications of this, that have been building for a while. The tenuous nature of having geocidal, murderous villains in their group, Moria’s secrets, the ethics of the resurrections, amongst other moral gray areas Xavier has been treading are sort of the long simmering plot points everyone was waiting to have boil over, and it has been pretty obvious from the beginning that Destiny’s resurrection was going to be the tipping point. But Polo always emphasizes this stuff, simply one of the aspects she likes to focus on in these posts.
Perhaps it is less a question of why every generation rediscovers his work, and more simply that Hollywood relies on remakes, nostalgia, and converting books to movies for most of their big budget output these days. So King is a brand name, has a large library of content, some of which has yet to be filmed, some which was filmed and liked, some of which was filmed, and not liked. Either way studios can cash in on a modern remake of a classic King film, a modern remake that will do right by a King book, or finally putting this King book on screen. King’s content can be recycled forever in Hollywood because of this. Less a question of a new generation finding and demanding King’s work, more Hollywood mining King’s work for every dollar they can get from it, and thus new generations being introduced to it.
Comment 2 replies
So how exactly did she bring Destiny back? A shame they made her young again, feels odd to basically retcon a character’s long standing age for the explicit purpose of them just looking hot.
Comment 1 rec
I think what is essentially happening is that they are building up enough to have a single release of energy be as powerful as a jet engine. So presumably their transfer and storage of energy is 100% efficient and they never lose any in the transfer. At first they can only transfer the energy of a regular human punch. The second time they are transferring the energy of the first punch, and the current punch. So while they are expending metabolic energy each time they punch, and in that aspect they eventually become biologically fatigued, such that the added energy of each successive punch is less than previous, they are still building up the total out put of the punch to incredible levels.
If the first punch is at 100 units of power, then they decrease by a factor of 1 unit each punch, it still looks like 100+99+98+97…. even in this hypothetical situation, after 25 punches the next punch would have 22 times the energy of the first. Even if each next punch is weaker, it is still adding that new punch, plus 100% of the energy of all the previous punches.
Comment 3 recs
She is a shapeshifter who is bisexual. Pretty simple.
Comment 3 replies, 5 recs
I am too young for TOS, but growing up with TNG, DS9, and Voyager, it seems those behind Star Trek now don’t really have a desire to provide something for my generation of fans. The reboot movie series is nice as popcorn entertainment, but it certainly isn’t Star Trek in its real form.
The Trek I loved was set in a future where humanity had actually gotten its act together, the clean and sterile environs of the ships (even during the Dominion War or as Voyager was struggling to get home) created an optimistic, hard science future world to enjoy. The plots were imaginative, dealing with philosophical questions a future humanity might face out in the stars.
Just about all Trek content I have seen today seems to use the Trek branding to release your run of the mill sci fi plots and actions scenes.
Would be great if they truly revisited the world of TNG, DS9, and Voyager in a meaningful way, cause I certainly didn’t find Picard to be that at all.
Comment 1 rec
Yeah, I agree with that. Like I said, it depends on how you define horror movie. I think Fellowship does not fit in the modern horror genre, for the reason you said. But it certainly has a lot of aspects of the horror genre.
Beyond that though, I think there is the question of intent. A horror movie, by its very design, is made to scare you, that is the theme of the movie. Fellowship is not that, it is a movie with a lot of suspenseful moments, featuring scary creatures, but the intent of the story as a whole, is not to scare you, rather there are scary moments in a story about a journey. If that makes any sense.