Will be lost in posts in the avengers thread

brianregan09

Tony EH wrote: »

If they were making the original 'Die Hard' today, it would be PG13 and there'd probably be a flood of action figures marketed for it.

Not really the modern day Die Hard is John Wick more or less

eric hoone

I suppose Jason Bourne and Ethan from MI had a few good days out, I wonder who's the next big action hero, hopefully a bit funnier!

pixelburp

I don't think it's necessarily fair to blame Marvel Studios for creating a successful franchise that people clearly want to see; you only need look at the phenomenal success of Black Panther and now Infinity War for the raw numbers proving that. There are a clutch of problems with the franchise that are long and storied but honestly if there's any 'blame' to portion out about the state of blockbuster cinema - blame the other studios here.

The MCU was built slowly, over the course of 10 long years using long-form storytelling hitherto unseen in Blockbuster cinema. Marvel started on a risk in the first place with Iron Man, and certainly didn't launch straight into any interconnected universes. They paid their dues, and let their franchise grow through characters that aren't even Marvel's most popular or well known (thanks to Fox maintaining the X-men licenses). Guardians of the Galaxy - a film involving a talking tree & space-Racoon - by any reasonable metric should have been a bridge too far yet it was carried off with gusto, imagination and charisma enough to make it one of the most beloved series of the MCU.

Now compare that with nearly every other studio that's desperately, almost pathetically clamouring for a 'shared universe' of its own, none of which even attempting to build on the foundations Marvel carefully constructed. Perhaps the most desperate and misguided attempt of recent years was Universal's 'Dark Universe' experiment - one that died not once, but after two attempts (that Tom Cruise remake of The Mummy was the SECOND go, after 'Dracula Untold' also failed to ignite the box office). Sony's Ghostbusters reboot was ostensibly supposed to launch the 'Ghost Corps', a series of spinoffs, sequels and so on - again, falling on its face at the first hurdle. The list goes on and on.

It's all well and good sniffing at the Marvel films - and if you just look at my very previous post on Boards, a review of Infinity War, I'm open about my hatred of the Russo brothers' bland, insipid direction - but when all's said and done they've built a rich, diverse universe of charismatic characters, stories and settings. Samey? Sure, but they've earned their success off the back of competent, enjoyable fare. Direct frustrations towards the studios who are trying to ape the concept without putting in the actual graft.

Adamocovic

I find when people start off with the "Am I the only one..." they are already aware that they are in fact not the only one but rather are seeking validation. I'm probably guilty of this too.

The fun things about films are you don't have to like them all. And any notion that there is no good movies or cinema out there at the moment is wrong. We like to look fondly back at the classics but we always forget about the awful movies that happen in between or during the same time. Unless so bad that we enjoy them.

Also with the rise of the internet we have more at our fingertips, loads of options to watch movies we wouldn't previously have the chance too. You don't have to watch big blockbuster movies but can watch directors personal projects and independent films.

Just look online for the genre you want and no doubt you will get given a lot of great films you have yet to watch.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Banjaxed82

The 'Hollywood works in cycles' is and isn't the case these days.

Fact is when corporations took over the studios, the idea of making 100 million from a 30 million budget wasn't enough. Let's spend 200 million and make a billion!

The middle got squeezed, which (up until Netflix throwing their money around) is why so many of the films mentioned in the OP's post weren't/aren't getting made.

As far as natural cycles go, Super hero movies will hit a brick wall too. The day will come when writing the check for a Marvel movie will be genuine risk. I don't think Star Wars is going to do many favours in this happening. The saturation of big budget CGI that's coming down the line is going to breed an inevitable contempt. What do you replace the 200 million dollar super hero movie with though? Can't see anything out there.

Tony EH

Absolutely.

The day will come when a massive failure will occur and I'm not talking about so called "failures" like 'Batman vs Superman' not breaking a billion. I mean a real failure, like a 200 million pic bringing in 10. A few of those and the current crop of superhero gibberish will be dead, or at least put on hold.

There will always be a replacement for what came before though. There always has been, even in hollywood's darkest days.

Dravokivich

Wait... speed is an action movie?

murpho999

OU812 wrote: »

Showing your age op. For the record, all great movies.

Check out the likes of “A Quiet place”, “get out”, even “12 strong” for non chi-fest decent movies. They’re out there.

This age thing is a ridiculous comment. I’m over 40 and enjoy the Marvel films.

I don’t take them seriously though and forget about them pretty quickly, they’re just big entertainment fests that don’t leave a long lasting impression like the other films you mention.

I do think there probably coming a bit too fast at the moment though.

The one thing I don’t really get and is extremely popular is “Dead Pool”.

To me it’s just smart arsed American humour with one-line retorts which is comedy of no real depth. People don’t really talk like that all the time and I find it very annoying. Turns me off the characters and makes it highly unlikely I’ll go and see it.

Maxpfizer

Heckler wrote: »

And when they add them all together its even worse. The cliche one liners are flying. I tried watching Thor Ragnarok 4 times and fell asleep after an hour each time.

Bit of a tangent.

I really REALLY hate when people use this as a criticism of a movie.

Doesn't it mean that you were just tired?

If I got up on a Sunday after a lie in and had my coffee and then put on a movie then there's now way I'd fall asleep regardless of how good or bad or boring the movie is.

Same if I was watching any movie late in the evening after a hard day. I'm likely to fall asleep even during the most interesting movie ever.

Sorry, it's just a pet peeve. "I fell asleep" = the movie was boring/not interesting. What? Explain this.

FunLover18

Heckler wrote: »

Am I the only one bored of all these superhero/Marvel/ DC universe whatever they are films ?

No, you are not.

Heckler wrote: »

I'm not high brow by any means at all. My favourite action film is Speed !!

Speed is a good film! It's got a tight script that successfully creates tension and also builds character and the performances are solid.

Heckler wrote: »

But these 2 plus hour CGI fests are a complete bore to me.

OK but superhero films aren't the only films to use CGI. Most big blockbusters use visual effects to a large degree, so it's a weird criticism to aim specifically at superhero films. Also, I know real stunts are generally preferred because they're real but let's not allow that to undermine the fact that a huge amount of time effort goes into each visual effects.

Heckler wrote: »

And when they add them all together its even worse.

I couldn't disagree more and I think that it could have been terrible. Let't put aside superhero movies and look at team/ensemble movies in general; The Great Escape, Spotlight, or the Ocean's films, they're not easy and require a big balancing act. What the Russos have managed with IW and that amount of characters is phenomenal.

Heckler wrote: »

The cliche one liners are flying.

Because superhero films were the first films to deal in cliche one liners. :rolleyes:

Heckler wrote: »

I tried watching Thor Ragnarok 4 times and fell asleep after an hour each time.

That's one film. It's hardly a fair sample on which to base an argument against all superhero films.

Heckler wrote: »

Whatever happened to the like of (again) Speed, Die Hard (the good 3), The Rock, Face off, Air force one, Under Siege and on and on.

This is an excellent question and one I have asked as well. It's almost like Hollywood's forgotten how to make them. Movies like John Wick and The Raid are great but the action is all too smooth and choreographed. I think The Matrix was a turning point in action films, there used to be a certain roughness to action scenes that you just don't really get anymore and maybe that is the visual effects coming in. But even the last two Die Hards completely failed to recapture it. I think the Mission: Impossible franchise is the closest we have at the moment to those kinds of films.

Heckler wrote: »

Great entertaining action films that didn't need a cape, cloak, cowl, iron suit or godly hammer and bucket loads of CGI..

I think the reason visual effects has taken off so much is because you can do much more, you can go bigger and do things you couldn't with practical effects or cheaper that it could be done with practical effects. Sequels have always felt the need to go bigger, add to that that tehy're not only competing with the predecessor with other franchises the scope and action is always being pushed. This isn't unique to superhero films and it didn't start with them.

Heckler wrote: »

Even great chiller/thrillers like Pacific Heights, Single White Female or Se7en never seem to be around anymore. And if they are they are a very pale imitation.

It's not a genre I'm particularly into but maybe you need to widen your gaze re
film media. I listen to the Kermode and Mayo show and he covers every film released that particular week. It's hard to gauge from you post what kind of film goer you are (I probably should have gone through you post history) but it seems to me that people who complain about the superhero genre tend to be people who hear about films through the mainstream media and I say that because there absolutely are not too many superhero films, they merely receive the biggest coverage. As has been pointed out there are less then ten superhero films out this year (including The Incredibles 2) out of a total of well into the hundreds.

Heckler wrote: »

Wheres the likes of True Romance, Goodfellas, ?

Netflix?

Heckler wrote: »

Anyone recommend a non cgi infested action film, a non pg-13 horror/creepy film ?

Action wise, I thought Safe House with Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington was a great old fashioned action film that relies heavily on practical effects. Also as mentioned, John Wick and The Raid.

Also this: https://twitter.com/mightygodking/status/989496821729841153

Heckler wrote: »

Alpine Oak

murpho999 wrote: »

This age thing is a ridiculous comment. I’m over 40 and enjoy the Marvel films.

I don’t take them seriously though and forget about them pretty quickly, they’re just big entertainment fests that don’t leave a long lasting impression like the other films you mention.

I do think there probably coming a bit too fast at the moment though.

The one thing I don’t really get and is extremely popular is “Dead Pool”.

To me it’s just smart arsed American humour with one-line retorts which is comedy of no real depth. People don’t really talk like that all the time and I find it very annoying. Turns me off the characters and makes it highly unlikely I’ll go and see it.

I view Deadpool like I view Batman and Robin, goofy superheroes winking at the camera trying to hard to be funny.

Dravokivich

murpho999 wrote: »

This age thing is a ridiculous comment. I’m over 40 and enjoy the Marvel films.

I don’t take them seriously though and forget about them pretty quickly, they’re just big entertainment fests that don’t leave a long lasting impression like the other films you mention.

I do think there probably coming a bit too fast at the moment though.

The one thing I don’t really get and is extremely popular is “Dead Pool”.

To me it’s just smart arsed American humour with one-line retorts which is comedy of no real depth. People don’t really talk like that all the time and I find it very annoying. Turns me off the characters and makes it highly unlikely I’ll go and see it.

He's the Merc with a mouth. He loses a lot of his character's purpose without those quips.

artvanderlay

Dravokivich wrote: »

He's the Merc with a mouth. He loses a lot of his character's purpose without those quips.

I hate Deadpool, it just really annoys me, but I think it could have worked without Ryan Reynolds. I despise that man...he thinks he is hip and funny, but really he is so frickin lame. Cannot understand how he gets movies...apart from Deadpool, I can't remember any movie of his that wasn't a flop, and he's exactly the same in every film. Wtf?

Fysh

artvanderlay wrote: »

I hate Deadpool, it just really annoys me, but I think it could have worked without Ryan Reynolds. I despise that man...he thinks he is hip and funny, but really he is so frickin lame. Cannot understand how he gets movies...apart from Deadpool, I can't remember any movie of his that wasn't a flop, and he's exactly the same in every film. Wtf?

Deadpool aside, the Nines, Buried and The Voices are all good, and he's had several other films which did well financially. Maybe just file under "not your thing" and move on.

Mrcaramelchoc

i went to see a quiet place last week and there were 4 marvel trailers on before it. 4 !!!! for f sake.
enough already.

ceegee

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

i went to see a quiet place last week and there were 4 marvel trailers on before it. 4 !!!! for f sake.
enough already.

Were they repeating them? Avengers and Amtman are the only marvel movies coming out or out already. I guess Deadpool is a marvel property (though not a Marvel studios film). No idea what the 4th could be

megaten

OP if you interested in films that are no longer the norm its up to you to seek them out. Nobody is going to do it for you.

Mrcaramelchoc

ceegee wrote: »

Were they repeating them? Avengers and Amtman are the only marvel movies coming out or out already. I guess Deadpool is a marvel property (though not a Marvel studios film). No idea what the 4th could be

New mutants

dublinman1990

There is a new animated kids movie featuring some young kids going around in Spiderman costumes. It's from Sony Pictures Animation & Marvel. I saw a trailer of it before I watched Sherlock Gnomes from the IMC in Dun Laoghaire recently as that movie is also made from Sony. The animated Spiderman trailer looked pretty good though. Was that one of those 4 trailers for Marvel or was it for something else?

Optimalprimerib

So far the marvel universe have delivered 2 duds out of 20(?) Movies in Thor 2 and Ironman 2. The rest were seen as critically acceptable.

They are light, fun and varied enough while keeping roughly the same formula. They are made very meticulously so that the audience will have fun with them whether you are up to date or a first time watcher. And basically like a movie version of coronation Street, it's relatively easy to catch up if you want to.

I have fully bought in to the universe and have caught the majority in the cinema and am not bored yet.

My biggest issue with superhero films and Star Wars and in fact pretty much every blockbuster is that as soon as one is released they fill most screens in any cinema. Looking locally and this weekend if you don't like Superheroes or Star Wars then there's not a whole lot else on.

In a move that is most likely killing the woman initially behind the art house cinema in Galway, The Palas which has been lauded (by themselves) as something different to the existing IMC and Eye cinemas in Galway and has taken great pains to tell everyone how they are going to be showing art house films and not Hollywood blockbusters are dedicating 2 out of their 3 screens to showing Solo.

Tony EH

If you're running a business, money will beat art every day of the week. Obviously there isn't enough shillings coming in from showing the more "arty" fare.


Shame really.

Checkmate19

This superhero drive is all money driven. Film studio's are just after the dollar and who really can blame them. It will change its just go's in cycle's. Same with tv. Tv is changing as a format with netflix etc. Be good to see money start going back into making more gritty films. Scorcese had to go to netflix to get his film The Irishman made. That would not have happened year's back. Studios are not willing to splash say 80-100m on a film that might be a hit. When they can make a superhero film and almost gtd a return. It's like everything people will tire of them and something else will take it's place.

Tony EH

The problem is not that there is a cycle of superhero films. The problem is that they're all so bloody bland. They're just so interchangable. They're almost the same story every time.
The only difference in a Marvel movie is which superhero is going to get screentime and which instantly forgettable bad guy they have to stop from taking over the world.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

If you're running a business, money will beat art every day of the week. Obviously there isn't enough shillings coming in from showing the more "arty" fare.


Shame really.

It's only been open a couple of months and the people behind it got an amazing deal given that they got the whole complex at a total cost of 1 euro a year rent. Sure they had to put under a million into finishing the building but some of that no doubt can be written off and in exchange they got exclusive usage of publicly funded to the tune of 10 million euro cinema, bar and restaurant and if you look at their total investment and rent the grand total they will pay over the next 25 years is 40,001 euro a year.

I was there once so far, the bar is like the back room of some pub in the middle of the country, not a thing hangs on the wall and it has no character. The cinema itself, well we saw A Fistful of Dollars in screen 3 and it was tiny, seriously all the seats are all below screen level and so close to it that you need to sit back and push your neck into your shoulders and move it from side to side in order to actually watch the film. That screen was filthy and damaged and the projection poor. Shame as it had so much promise

Tony EH

Jesus, that sounds like a terrible way to see a picture.


You're lucky it wasn't the 3 hour cut of 'The Good, The Bad and The Ugly'. :pac: