Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T
- 88,677
- 47,872
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2000
89 batman is not better than the dark knight.
I just watched it last night cuz i remember how awesome it was as a kid.
Boy was i wrong lol
Jack was a great joker but michael keaton man.... Smh
I gave ben afleck a hard time for being the next batman but jesus...
Michael keaton was awful.
They put a mostly comedy actor as batman...
Thats like them casting adam sandler as batman for man of steel 2
I just watched it last night cuz i remember how awesome it was as a kid.
Boy was i wrong lol
Jack was a great joker but michael keaton man.... Smh
I gave ben afleck a hard time for being the next batman but jesus...
Michael keaton was awful.
They put a mostly comedy actor as batman...
Thats like them casting adam sandler as batman for man of steel 2
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
That's a cornball, strawman statement and you know it. OG Superman and Batman both aged like bread. To me at least, they were just other 80's-ish movies.
Superman was no different than Flash Gordon. Batman...on the same level as the Ninja Turtle movies.
It's reaching hard to say someone is just hyped off nostalgia if they call SM2, from way back in '04, great.
Last edited:
My point is, people argued like hell MOS wasn't ****.
And I already see it with ASM2, which is easily the best Spidey movie made.
I just watched SM2 a couple weeks ago as prep, it's fresh in my head, hell I even posted in here about it.
ASM2 just kicked its ***. No way about it, ASM2 is better than Doc Ock Spidey. But it will get the MOS treatment on NT, as usual.
Man, they arguin about the ****** soundtrack in there man. The soundtrack.
And I already see it with ASM2, which is easily the best Spidey movie made.
I just watched SM2 a couple weeks ago as prep, it's fresh in my head, hell I even posted in here about it.
ASM2 just kicked its ***. No way about it, ASM2 is better than Doc Ock Spidey. But it will get the MOS treatment on NT, as usual.
Man, they arguin about the ****** soundtrack in there man. The soundtrack.
Last edited:
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
So? Scores and soundtracks can matter. If you took the score out of TDK or the soundtrack out of Drive, neither of those movies work anymore.
Most of the time bad or boring scores are just invisible background noise to me. But if it stands out and doesn't fit, it can pull you out of the movie.
Like MoS...(which I will watch again
once the playoffs die down)...had an amazing score, but they would just mash the music button without even earning those moments or the emotions swelling, so you could just feel that....dissonance. It's like audio dishonesty.
Most of the time bad or boring scores are just invisible background noise to me. But if it stands out and doesn't fit, it can pull you out of the movie.
Like MoS...(which I will watch again
once the playoffs die down)...had an amazing score, but they would just mash the music button without even earning those moments or the emotions swelling, so you could just feel that....dissonance. It's like audio dishonesty.
Last edited:
That's fine, they surely do matter for certain movies, but having a meh one isn't going to knock it down.
So what, SM2 with Doc Ock has a great score, so it gets that never be beat label?
I'm just waiting for one of them dudes to complain about the credits font, or the color of his unitard was too bright. Really nit pick the **** out of it, ya know? Do it right.
So what, SM2 with Doc Ock has a great score, so it gets that never be beat label?
I'm just waiting for one of them dudes to complain about the credits font, or the color of his unitard was too bright. Really nit pick the **** out of it, ya know? Do it right.
- 8,608
- 17,143
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
I thought the score from The Social Network was one of the best in recent memory. That score made a very good movie a great movie, imo.So? Scores and soundtracks can matter. If you took the score out of TDK or the soundtrack out of Drive, neither of those movies work anymore.
Most of the time bad or boring scores are just invisible background noise to me. But if it stands out and doesn't fit, it can pull you out of the movie.
Like MoS...(which I will watch again
But im a huge rezner fan so I may be biased.
Last edited:
lawdog1
Supporter
- 59,678
- 71,665
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2000
You may be biased, but it doesn't mean you're wrong about Social Network. It does have a great score and wouldn't have been the same movie without it.
- 28,226
- 3,086
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
Django was a really really dope movie. Chris waltz is amazing man. Flawless acting.
am1x90xnike
Banned
- 3,034
- 1,217
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
I'm not going to lie, I feel like most people get caught up in effects x technology x dialogue.
Like, to call the dialogue in Batman and Robin cheezy and say that it looked to cartoonish is a bad evaluation of a movie to me. Those are superficial things, like an actors ability cry on command, yeah it would be cool, but it shouldn't make or break an actor; those are just surface things, bad dialogue x bad effects shouldn't make or break a movie. Check movies from the "Golden Era" their dialogue was so terrible, the effects were abhorrant, but the movies were still great.
When I think script, dialogue is the last thing that comes to mind, because honestly it should be the last thing the writer thinks about.
I'm looking for Plot, first and foremost.
Then I'm looking at each scene, asking if it pushes the story forward, not each moment, but each scene as a whole.
Next, I want to see character development
then character relationships
then character usage
then effects
then score
then acting
then dialogue
Then, at the end, I look at directing, finding out all the "faults" in the movie, and seeing if the director was able to make them go unnoticed. Example, the story might not have been that good, but the director made sure the dialogue was on point and the characters were the focus.
I'm not big on acting because the final product isn't necessarily what makes a good actor. I feel like you can only see a really good or a bad actor on screen. It' s hard to see what makes a good actor in the theater; Does he remember his lines? Does he always hit is mark? Does he really understand the character? etc. Those are only things you can see on set, opposed to "man he can cry on command" like yeah, thats cool, and important to the movie, but that doesn't mean hes a good actor.
On the flip side, if he is a really good actor, you can see it on screen, he becomes that character (recent example Garfield became Spider -Man, Emma was still Emma). It comes off, he knows his lines, you don't have to take as many takes, so the story flows a little bit better because it doesn't have to be edited as much, not to say Emma Stone is a bad actor, but it didn't come off on screen; and thats just something some people have and others don't.
Not going to lie, I'm not high on actors...or atleast I think they are among the least important to the overall movie. Hell, I think the editor is equal to the director, I would say my hierchy goes
Writer > Director > Editor > Lighting x Visual Director > Actor > rest of crew.
Like, to call the dialogue in Batman and Robin cheezy and say that it looked to cartoonish is a bad evaluation of a movie to me. Those are superficial things, like an actors ability cry on command, yeah it would be cool, but it shouldn't make or break an actor; those are just surface things, bad dialogue x bad effects shouldn't make or break a movie. Check movies from the "Golden Era" their dialogue was so terrible, the effects were abhorrant, but the movies were still great.
When I think script, dialogue is the last thing that comes to mind, because honestly it should be the last thing the writer thinks about.
I'm looking for Plot, first and foremost.
Then I'm looking at each scene, asking if it pushes the story forward, not each moment, but each scene as a whole.
Next, I want to see character development
then character relationships
then character usage
then effects
then score
then acting
then dialogue
Then, at the end, I look at directing, finding out all the "faults" in the movie, and seeing if the director was able to make them go unnoticed. Example, the story might not have been that good, but the director made sure the dialogue was on point and the characters were the focus.
I'm not big on acting because the final product isn't necessarily what makes a good actor. I feel like you can only see a really good or a bad actor on screen. It' s hard to see what makes a good actor in the theater; Does he remember his lines? Does he always hit is mark? Does he really understand the character? etc. Those are only things you can see on set, opposed to "man he can cry on command" like yeah, thats cool, and important to the movie, but that doesn't mean hes a good actor.
On the flip side, if he is a really good actor, you can see it on screen, he becomes that character (recent example Garfield became Spider -Man, Emma was still Emma). It comes off, he knows his lines, you don't have to take as many takes, so the story flows a little bit better because it doesn't have to be edited as much, not to say Emma Stone is a bad actor, but it didn't come off on screen; and thats just something some people have and others don't.
Not going to lie, I'm not high on actors...or atleast I think they are among the least important to the overall movie. Hell, I think the editor is equal to the director, I would say my hierchy goes
Writer > Director > Editor > Lighting x Visual Director > Actor > rest of crew.
Social Network did have a great score, but even with a lesser score, dropping it a peg isn't smart to me.
And considering we dealing with Superhero, Comic movies, knocking the score on those shouldn't be what we're doing in 2014.
Raimi can have the better score, this was the better Spiderman movie. EASY.
And if we knockin Emma Stone as Gwen, this movie already been judged then.
You're a man of your word, I know you will when the chance comes.
And considering we dealing with Superhero, Comic movies, knocking the score on those shouldn't be what we're doing in 2014.
Raimi can have the better score, this was the better Spiderman movie. EASY.
And if we knockin Emma Stone as Gwen, this movie already been judged then.
Like MoS...(which I will watch again
You're a man of your word, I know you will when the chance comes.
- 35,014
- 47,059
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
That's fine, they surely do matter for certain movies, but having a meh one isn't going to knock it down.
So what, SM2 with Doc Ock has a great score, so it gets that never be beat label?
I'm just waiting for one of them dudes to complain about the credits font, or the color of his unitard was too bright. Really nit pick the **** out of it, ya know? Do it right.
?? The hell man. No ones even arguin these points
Stop flying off the handle with these big blanket statementsbtw the credits did suck with that Alicia Keys song and that random X-Men clip in the middle.
My reply was much the same as saying SM2 >> AMS2, yes?
It's the same type of replies that are growing within the current thread, and it's the same as the MOS thread was where things like Daily Planet, and glasses kept getting brought up as negatives.
It's the equivalent on NT as some hot chick with perfect hair, perfect body, gorgeous face, and someone comes thru with "point elbows" pass.
am1x90xnike
Banned
- 3,034
- 1,217
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
never knocked her as Gwen, said she didn't "become" Gwen. When I see Denzel I'm yelling "My *****" or "King Kong ain't got ish on me" or "I'm not going to bury my son, my son is going to bury me." When I see Leo, I expect him to have a nice suit on, hair slicked, being smooth, I see Robin Wright...she gets a swift kick in the face...that cheating, scumbag *****...then I will tell her how much I love her in House of Cards and ask her to have my children.
Emma, was just another actor in the role...if you read what I posted I said she wasn't bad or anything, just not necessarily "good" or "stand out" or "turned in a memorable performance." She won big off the chemistry, but that that was it. I've seen about three of her movies, or movies she was in...to me, she doesn't have that "it" factor, like Anna Kendrick, you see her in a movie or on stage and boom, shes the focus point, even when shes not suppose to be, you see Emma and it's like "she cool." Not to say Anna is on her Meryl Streep, but I will say she has more of "it" than Emma does, then again, I was never one of those dudes hyped about Emma, frankly I never understood it.
She's cool, hope she continues to get work, but I don't see her name on a marquee and go "Damn I gotta see that" ...Garfield ain't there either, he just scored big with this role, in fact I didn't like him in his other roles, he was cool in Social network, but he didn't "wow" me, in this Spider Man, he "wowed" me, and I will check out a movie just because his name is on the marquee.
Also, you're just as bad as those you claim to be against, you see one thing and jump to conclusions, disregarding the very next sentence. lol.
Emma, was just another actor in the role...if you read what I posted I said she wasn't bad or anything, just not necessarily "good" or "stand out" or "turned in a memorable performance." She won big off the chemistry, but that that was it. I've seen about three of her movies, or movies she was in...to me, she doesn't have that "it" factor, like Anna Kendrick, you see her in a movie or on stage and boom, shes the focus point, even when shes not suppose to be, you see Emma and it's like "she cool." Not to say Anna is on her Meryl Streep, but I will say she has more of "it" than Emma does, then again, I was never one of those dudes hyped about Emma, frankly I never understood it.
She's cool, hope she continues to get work, but I don't see her name on a marquee and go "Damn I gotta see that" ...Garfield ain't there either, he just scored big with this role, in fact I didn't like him in his other roles, he was cool in Social network, but he didn't "wow" me, in this Spider Man, he "wowed" me, and I will check out a movie just because his name is on the marquee.
Also, you're just as bad as those you claim to be against, you see one thing and jump to conclusions, disregarding the very next sentence. lol.
- 28,226
- 3,086
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
The KKK scene in Django is up there with the funniest movie scenes of all time lmaoooo
Last edited:
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Scores enhance or accentuate a movie but they don't make or break a movie. The reason any movie is good is due to the script, story, & acting.
@ Affleck. He got caught counting cards at the Hard Rock Vegas & is banned for life...
@ Affleck. He got caught counting cards at the Hard Rock Vegas & is banned for life...
- 87,849
- 50,354
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
As for Emma as Gwen she did what she was suppose to do like the last film. Solid performance. You gotta keep in mind Spidey is the main and sole hero, there is no team or ensemble cast. So the love interest is the love interest just updated for modern times. Of course her scenes will deal with the drama romance side of things.
To be fair and honest she did the same thing Snaggle tooth did but she's way more prettier.
If you want to get lost away in to visuals like that's all cbm's are suppose to or only can do then that's your limitations.
Your stance at this point is seeming like the latest version has to be the best because of advancements of tech and directors simply benefitting from that.
To be fair and honest she did the same thing Snaggle tooth did but she's way more prettier.
Comparing'78 Superman to SM2 when somebody says SM2 is better than ASM2 is complete bull ****.
My reply was much the same as saying SM2 >> AMS2, yes?
It's the same type of replies that are growing within the current thread, and it's the same as the MOS thread was where things like Daily Planet, and glasses kept getting brought up as negatives.
It's the equivalent on NT as some hot chick with perfect hair, perfect body, gorgeous face, and someone comes thru with "point elbows" pass.
If you want to get lost away in to visuals like that's all cbm's are suppose to or only can do then that's your limitations.
Your stance at this point is seeming like the latest version has to be the best because of advancements of tech and directors simply benefitting from that.
Last edited:
It's not that at all.
I didn't praise ASM1 over Raimi. I simply said it was solid and looked forward to next.
ASM2 dwarfs the other 4, comfortably.
I also don't have ASM2 ahead of Cap 2, IM1, Avengers, or Dark Knight. But I have it in some form of 6-8ish overall????
I loved MOS, and have them fairly even, probably have MOS a notch above, but need another view or two of Spidey to be sure.
I love Flash Gordon, 78-81 Supes, 89 Bat, but they are classics that got the jump, but stand no chance to today for obvious reasons. The people that downplay these current versions seem to hold onto those classics a lil too tightly.
I didn't praise ASM1 over Raimi. I simply said it was solid and looked forward to next.
ASM2 dwarfs the other 4, comfortably.
I also don't have ASM2 ahead of Cap 2, IM1, Avengers, or Dark Knight. But I have it in some form of 6-8ish overall????
I loved MOS, and have them fairly even, probably have MOS a notch above, but need another view or two of Spidey to be sure.
I love Flash Gordon, 78-81 Supes, 89 Bat, but they are classics that got the jump, but stand no chance to today for obvious reasons. The people that downplay these current versions seem to hold onto those classics a lil too tightly.
- 7,121
- 1,156
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- 27,927
- 41,988
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
Look at a young Jesse Pinkman
- 25,831
- 15,061
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
Eddie Murphy just needs to finally come out & also admit he & Johnny Gill have been shacked up on the low for a long while now...
- 20,619
- 1,615
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
Saw Spider-Man 2 today...
Can't in good faith recommend it. It's such a mess and lacks serious direction and fluidity. I'll go more in depth in my full review but I'd say to skip it
Can't in good faith recommend it. It's such a mess and lacks serious direction and fluidity. I'll go more in depth in my full review but I'd say to skip it
- 37,127
- 14,107
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
Wow, that's really disappointing to hear. Looking forward to your review.
- 20,619
- 1,615
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
First Full Length Trailer for Christopher Nolan's Interstellar is attached to Godzilla.
