Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: I'M IN!!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: I'M IN!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: I'M IN!!! - 12/10/2011 12:52:31 PM   
waltham1979


Posts: 1179
Joined: 18/3/2008
From: San-Diago, which is German for 'Whales virgina'...
I frickin loved this!!

Potential Spoilers:

Are we assuming from all the ominous looks upwards, the pics of the characters fighting each other (Thor about to spank the shite outta Cap'y) and some of the leaked pics on-line that the big bad is The Skrull?

Right i'm off to clean up the geek sex wee from my monitor...

_____________________________

I just wish stuff like, I don't know, the slow & systemic CRATERING of this country could inspire the same call-to-arms as Batman casting

(in reply to jmebaby25)
Post #: 61
Spoiler Alert!!!! - 12/10/2011 1:53:51 PM   
Holbydude

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 14/9/2011
Reading between the lines and all the fan stuff going round, I can't believe that SHEILD would just create a superteam out of the blue unless they knew some shit is gonna hit the fan....I reckon SHIELD have know that the Skrulls have been on Earth for some time taking the form of normal humans...and the Skrulls are now ready to kick some human arse...Oh, and the Thor fighting Cap is a Skrull...Loki refers to an army ("we have the Hulk!" replies Stark...) which are the Skrulls..If I'm wrong, I will eat my Batman baseball hat!! As to the trailer...still can't get over the fact that Ed Norton isan't playing Banner. Feels a little..odd, But hey, cant wait to see it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 62
Well well well - 12/10/2011 2:17:21 PM   
guysalisbury

 

Posts: 211
Joined: 3/11/2005
I have to say I wasn't holding out much hope for this after Iron Man 2 was only OK, personally I didn't think Thor was great and the Incredible Hulk was just terrible. But this looks really good! I don't think it will be able to compete with the The Dark Knight Rises for one reason, (well there are a few reasons but this is the big one for me) It hasn't got Tom Hardy in it! From the looks of this trailer I'm pretty excited. All I'm gonna do now is pray that when I turn the page of empire to read the review, I see those five magical little red stars that allow me to get really excited!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 63
Well well well - 12/10/2011 2:26:18 PM   
guysalisbury

 

Posts: 211
Joined: 3/11/2005
I have to say I wasn't holding out much hope for this after Iron Man 2 was only OK, personally I didn't think Thor was great and the Incredible Hulk was just terrible. But this looks really good! I don't think it will be able to compete with the The Dark Knight Rises for one reason, (well there are a few reasons but this is the big one for me) It hasn't got Tom Hardy in it! From the looks of this trailer I'm pretty excited. All I'm gonna do now is pray that when I turn the page of empire to read the review, I see those five magical little red stars that allow me to get really excited!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 64
- 12/10/2011 3:49:49 PM   
artilleryman


Posts: 100
Joined: 9/1/2008
Kind of sick of superhero movies but this looks interesting. It's a pity Joss Whedon's helming it as he'll no doubt end up fucking it up, as he pretty much has done with any movie he's had any contact with...

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 65
RE: - 12/10/2011 6:26:25 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: artilleryman

Kind of sick of superhero movies but this looks interesting. It's a pity Joss Whedon's helming it as he'll no doubt end up fucking it up, as he pretty much has done with any movie he's had any contact with...


Care to give examples and state why?


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to artilleryman)
Post #: 66
RE: - 12/10/2011 7:02:22 PM  1 votes
Dave25

 

Posts: 87
Joined: 1/4/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: artilleryman

Kind of sick of superhero movies but this looks interesting. It's a pity Joss Whedon's helming it as he'll no doubt end up fucking it up, as he pretty much has done with any movie he's had any contact with...


Really? Do you even know what your talking about or just trolling? I seem to remember Whedon being responsible for the excellent Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly on the small screen and Serenity was an excellent film on the big screen, oh and he wrote the screenplay to Toy Story.....what have you done today?

(in reply to artilleryman)
Post #: 67
RE: RE: - 12/10/2011 8:33:25 PM   
artilleryman


Posts: 100
Joined: 9/1/2008
He's a good showrunner but essentially he's got a TV mindset. Buffy, Angel, Firefly -- all great. Serenity was not a great movie. There was little cinematic about it and it was essentially a TV script blown up to the big screen. And the sad thing about it was that it didn't even live up to the quality of Firefly. And give me a break with Toy Story. He was one of eight writers on the script and I'm guessing that the biggest input into it would have been, hmm, let me guess, John Lasseter, maybe?
Trollling? Nah. Just not buying into this 'genius' of Joss Whedon schtick.


_____________________________

http://artilleryman.blogspot.com

(in reply to Dave25)
Post #: 68
At the end of the day.... - 12/10/2011 9:11:44 PM   
Holbydude

 

Posts: 72
Joined: 14/9/2011
.....Marvel / Paramount / Disney are gonna be in the money as it will rake in LOADS of our cash. Also, the makers are probably laughing their arses off considering the wealth of characters they can still introduce. Can just see it now - Goliath, The Vision, Black Panther, Qucksilver and The Scarlet Witch fighting Ultron and Count Nefaria in 'Marvel's The Avengers 4'!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 69
RE: At the end of the day.... - 12/10/2011 9:32:36 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
It'll be interesting to see what sort of dynamic the group has. Particularly among Stark, Thor and Rogers. It looks as though Stark/Iron Man will be the leader initially but I imagine Captain America may step up and become the leader he would've been when fighting in WW2? I can imagine after that "genius playboy billionaire philanthropist" remark, Rogers will just say he doesn't measure up to Howard Stark or something. I'm looking forward also to see how Cap will adapt to our world. I'm sure much of the film will be about how he acclimatises to world for which he fought but feels completely out of touch with. One thing about the trailer is the music, I find it a bit jarring and I think a more orchestral track would've been better. Anyone agree?


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Holbydude)
Post #: 70
RE: Good Lord. - 12/10/2011 9:51:51 PM   
Gigolo Joe


Posts: 24
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: rishi851

I am sick...sick of these superhero movies. They are redundant and stupid. What is worse is that they are usually categorized in the science fiction genre. This is not sci-fi. Sci-fi is thought provoking. 2001, Blade Runner and Solyaris are science fiction. Monkeys in suits are not.
and I've always wondered....
correct me if I am wrong but haven't these comics existed for a long time? As in since the 1930s and 40s?
So why is it that it is only now that we get bombarded with a Superhero film every other month? I know Superman was made in 1978 but the next one took some time to come. Nowadays you have a sequel/reboot/mash up coming out every year. This is the reason people have no attention span lately and artistic integrity and passion has given way to obsession with money and ineptitude.


Couldn't agree more! It seems Empire and the fanboys are in perpetual denial about the state of the genre. Not many of the Comic Movies have been successful in the last few years with notable exceptions ie the ones that are made with film goers - not fanboys - in mind..

Marvel's obnoxious franchise building is a failure because they think they can fill the screen with a shitload of CGI in 3D to paper over the 2 dimensional characters and corny old stories that make up their stable.

The one's that work, like Iron Man, are good in spite of their Comic Book origins. The 1st Iron Man had enough believability to make it more Sci-Fi than super hero. And RDJ brings an inherent likability to the role of arms dealing genius inventor turned conscious hero without the need of magic powers. and eye masks.

Then there are classics of the Genre like Batman, Superman and Spiderman - archetypes - much more prevalent in popular culture but just as prone in the past to yawning absurdity as we see today with the Green Lantern, Watchmen, Captain America, the various Hulks etc..

It's hard not to notice the coming Avengers movie threatening to become the big Marvel franchise because they shoe-horn it into every one their flicks - stopping dead the momentum built up over 2 hours whenever Samuel L Jackson pops by with his fucking eye patch! It's so poorly done and is the prime example of why these movies fail - because the vast majority of the audience haven't a fucking clue who he's supposed to be and why Samuel L Jackson is even in what amounts to a feature length trailer for every fanboy's wet dream.

These kind of movies have to be relatable and grounded in reality for non-comic fans otherwise you're sailing dangerously close to the ridiculous.

Don't take my word for it - the brilliant Matthew Vaughn is all over this here http://tinyurl.com/4clyde7 and here http://tinyurl.com/3l824uz

_____________________________

We are drifting into the arena of the unwell

(in reply to rishi851)
Post #: 71
Super Hero Fix - 12/10/2011 10:16:26 PM   
Gigolo Joe


Posts: 24
Joined: 30/9/2005
Why doesn't Empire start a new magazine dedicated to Comics? You froth at the mouth anticipating these movies using every opportunity to hype them up and then they usually turn out to be steaming piles of nonsense. It's not as if they're ever likely to be profound works of art - or even classic blockbusters to be watched for generations - so why does Empire fall for it every time?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 72
RE: Super Hero Fix - 12/10/2011 10:45:44 PM   
...marcus...


Posts: 345
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The Gunga Diner
I believe that Empire's main raison d'etre is the enjoyment found at the cinema, not just "art" or "worthiness". If there is a great deal of fun/enjoyment to be had with a certain title, then they run with it. Build a bridge. And get over it.

_____________________________

Like my loafers?
Former gophers.
It was that or skin my chauffeurs.

Won't someone please
remove these
cutleries
from ma knees

(in reply to Gigolo Joe)
Post #: 73
RE: Super Hero Fix - 13/10/2011 12:25:05 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
Gigolo Joe, I assume your usual business has dried up if you're posting here. If your low post count and date of registration is anything to go by.

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to ...marcus...)
Post #: 74
RE: Super Hero Fix - 13/10/2011 3:21:12 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
Looks not bad but not really too excited tbh. Will be interesting to see the big comic book movie battle next year with The Dark Knight Rises (which as Jim pointed out will surely shit upon this film from a great height).

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 75
New Avengers Teaser Trailer - 13/10/2011 12:08:04 PM   
Red Spider

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 29/4/2008
Can't wait this is going to be the best movie ever:)

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 76
RE: Super Hero Fix - 13/10/2011 1:53:02 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

Looks not bad but not really too excited tbh. Will be interesting to see the big comic book movie battle next year with The Dark Knight Rises (which as Jim pointed out will surely shit upon this film from a great height).


I suppose if someone or something shits upon "The Avengers", someone will have to avenge it.


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 77
Avenger's WAGS - 13/10/2011 2:15:10 PM  1 votes
Great Ape

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 30/10/2009
Will all the superheroes' girlfriends be in this as well? Will Liv Tyler, Gwyneth Paltrow and Natalie Portman form some sort of Avengers W.A.G. club where they're cheering on the supes from the sides?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 78
- 13/10/2011 4:18:17 PM   
Big Red


Posts: 254
Joined: 6/11/2006
It's all very awesome looking to me!! The footage and the choice of the always appropriate NIN music. It's such a brave movie to make. I hope Weadon can do it. I personally think he can.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 79
wahey - 13/10/2011 4:44:37 PM   
bigmeuprudeboy1

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 17/12/2009
JUST whats needed... more Marvel comic films that think their King Lear but are in fact no more 'important' than Transformers was

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 80
RE: New Avengers Teaser Trailer - 13/10/2011 4:59:08 PM   
LeonardShelby


Posts: 56
Joined: 23/9/2006
I agree with whoever said that this film is way more interesting due to Whedon's involvement. To have him write and direct the superhero movie to end all superhero movies is an inspired and perfect choice. The trailer does look a bit transformer and explosiony but it IS a trailer and I bet the studio heads, as per usual, think this is what people want to see so have downplayed the more of the interesting elements in favour of some bangs and crashes. Whedon's dialogue is probably going to be way more memorable than the fight scenes (which isn't to say the fight scenes will be BAD just more a testament to how entertaining Whedon's writing can be). Very excited for this and it has the potential to steal the thunder from Dark Knight Rises if Whedon nails it.

_____________________________

"In a perfect world, all movies would be made by the Coen brothers"

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 81
RE: Super Hero Fix - 13/10/2011 6:16:58 PM   
Gigolo Joe


Posts: 24
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

Gigolo Joe, I assume your usual business has dried up if you're posting here. If your low post count and date of registration is anything to go by.


DOUBT IS NOT A PLEASANT MENTAL STATE, BUT CERTAINTY IS A RIDICULOUS ONE...

I haven't been knocking around here for ages due to the very points I make. I started reading Empire in the early 90s and subscribed until about 10 years ago when it became obvious the focus turned away from Film Journalism with a populist appeal towards becoming a part of the marketing campaigns of corporate movie products. Vertical Integration is now the default strategy of movie marketing and that includes co-opting the press into the hype machine. No matter that all previous efforts by a studio or a director/star have produced nothing but shiny, migraine inducing incoherence with a video game aesthetic (damn you Michael Bay!) and even when the eventual review is not as glowing as the hype would suggest (although Tranny 2 got 3 fucking stars!!) Empire would always board the train to popcorn mountain come next summer - fool me twice springs to mind, in Empire's case, thrice and so on..

Now in Empire's defense - they don't crave bad movies any more than the average thinking adult and they don't appear to have 'sold out' necessarily - it is probably just pure economics - the magazine needs to write about upcoming movies and get as much inside scoop to make more money by appealing to the corporate target audience. The problem is the core audience for 21st Century blockbusters are teenage boys - and so the magazine gradually caters to the infantile.

It wasn't too long ago that summer blockbusters were events to look forward to - appealing to a very wide audience therefore guaranteeing a huge return on investment - as long as they were any good. Empire provided a critical eye on most upcoming films - analyzing their creative pedigree without gushing about the as yet unseen movies. And they talked about films that most people wanted to see without showering them with hype. Best of all they were more likely to champion small films by directors considered avant garde at the time - eg Reservoir Dogs. in the last decade, the formula has been to intensively hype the movie using ever more subtle means to co-opt fans and the press (eg Comic Con, exclusives) months before premiere in order to guarantee the biggest possible opening weekend - this shields it from Bad reviews and word of mouth halting the momentum.

With comments in this thread like:
quote:

"Can't wait this is going to be the best movie ever:)"

is it any wonder that this strategy works? The author of this article even ends with this declaration:
quote:

Cannot wait.

Now there's journalism. You've obviously bought into it - given that half the Avengers were in shit films (including 2 crappy CG Hulks) and the build up to this one emasculated Iron Man 2 - you might be cautious before prejudging a film that is just as likely to be a huge mess.. I see nothing in the trailer to suggest this will be anything other than a comic fanboy geekgasm. I don't worship Joss Whedon, however, he's not a bad writer, an ok Director - and I'm open to the possibility that he can make a good film out of this - above average but probably no Superman (1978) or Batman (Burton/Nolan) being good Films rather than Comic Films. Now I'm basing this opinion on the history of the crew making this, the standard of their previous work and the overall direction that Marvel have imposed for their product. Basically it does not bode well.

Any casual observer who is not into Comics might see that - so is it Empire's job to behave like a fanboy in print?

It all went a bit pear shaped around the time of the Phantom Menace starting the trend in generating unprecedented hype around movies harking back to a nostalgic childhood of Light sabres and transforming toys - Never mind the actual quality of the film. Empire's path clearly diverged with the original 4 star Phantom Menace review (not the revised 3 star opinion now available on the site) and that of the Matrix in May 1999. Star Wars got a free pass whereas the Matrix review concluded by saying "George Lucas never saw this Phantom Menace coming". After that Empire became incredibly inconsistent - even after correcting their view of phantom - with all the signs since the 1997 Special Editions pointing toward the heights of embarrassment they scaled hype mountain for Attack of the Clones followed by a 5 star review to hide their shame (of course again they had to correct it to 3 stars). Did they watch the same movie as everyone else? The prequels were terrible in plain sight as well as flawed to the core. It is even more obvious looking back at them. But still Empire forged their own shackles to the hype machine and couldn't break free - not with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull round the corner..

Many point out Empire's flawed system for giving really bad movies a positive review. Sending only 1 reviewer to assess a movie - rather than publishing the closest review to the consensus is not a good way to represent 'Empire's opinion'. However, I recently had cause to give Empire another look, hearing some senior staff at a recent screening - it became clear that they want to steer the magazine back to its former glory - the ideal place between Sight and Sound and the drooling slavish corporate press. This is entirely welcome - and there are signs that the tone has changed to a more critical approach - maybe they've sorted out the reviewing system - since Transformers 3 (which Chris Hewitt describes as better than the previous one which Empire marked higher at 3 stars) the reviews have been pretty much spot on. Maybe Chris has been given a bit more editorial control - which can only be a good thing.

< Message edited by Gigolo Joe -- 16/10/2011 1:56:16 AM >


_____________________________

We are drifting into the arena of the unwell

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 82
RE: Super Hero Fix - 14/10/2011 11:41:58 AM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one...


One has to ask how do you get out of bed in that case?

I understand and respect that you've had some sort of career in advertising, marketing and media. So you understand the chain links among the film studios, their products, various film magazine syndications etc. Still, I can't help but be suspicious there may be an ulterior motive here at play. You might simply be a genuine jaded reader as you purport to be, but then I'm not sure whether there's sour grapes involved with previous business/professional dealings. It's not my place to offer conjecture on such things, but it does strike me as odd. As you've made repeated claims, some more vague than others that Empire has consciously or otherwise colluded in some way with the film industry in order to get exclusive access and boost a film's publicity to sell more tickets. One has to ask, if you question Empire's credibility so much, why do you still post in the forums?

I take point with you labelling "Superman" and "Batman Begins"/"The Dark Knight" as merely good films rather than comic book films. I agree with Mark Kermode when he said "The Dark Knight" is just a good comic book film. For some reason, upon its release, people were stating that it was a crime thriller akin to "Heat" etc and not a comic book film. It's still is a comic book film, but plainly of a higher grade than most. I think there's a clear case of film snobbery here.

I think the Avengers references in "Iron Man 2" didn't 'emasculate' the film, rather it just diluted/burdened it with extraneous material that strictly didn't need to be there. I thought Mickey Rourke was miscast in that film anyway.

Perhaps Empire's review system isn't perfect, but then I'm not sure which film review outlet has a perfect system. I'm sure it can be revised. The thing about Empire needing a consenus of opinion from its staff for each film is a little silly, don't you think? I'm sure they simply just don't have the time to sit down and review each film together. Moreover, what if they have quite different opinions? Could one conjugate potentially conflicting views into one coherent whole? Lastly, this is something you've touched upon before: If a panel of people reviewed a film upon its cinematic release and then later with the DVD release a new panel reviewed the film, you are going to have a different rating (but then for me, one reviews the DVD entirely and not just the film). Should Mark Kermode or Andrew Collins consult the entire film editorial staff of the BBC before reviewing a film? Empire isn't the only body that appoints an individual to form a representative opinion on something.

However, all this is moot in such a thread. If you continue to feel that Empire has fallen short. Why don't you post your criticisms in the Empire Magazine section where they belong? As any Mod will tell you.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 14/10/2011 2:48:40 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Gigolo Joe)
Post #: 83
- 14/10/2011 7:28:42 PM   
Cyberleader

 

Posts: 134
Joined: 15/7/2010
Good though this will be, i'm more excited about The Dark Knight rises and Man Of steel. Marvel movies are fun and exciting...DC comic movies, though few and far between, are, like the comics they derive from, pure class...The Ritz of comicdom. That is why Green Lantern failed. it was a Dc Comics film pretending to be marvel. Do it again but this time no gags, no vain-yet-lovable heroes. Give us Old Testament style epicness!!!!!!!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 84
RE: Super Hero Fix - 14/10/2011 9:29:26 PM   
Gigolo Joe


Posts: 24
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one...


One has to ask how do you get out of bed in that case?

I understand and respect that you've had some sort of career in advertising, marketing and media. So you understand the chain links among the film studios, their products, various film magazine syndications etc. Still, I can't help but be suspicious there may be an ulterior motive here at play. You might simply be a genuine jaded reader as you purport to be, but then I'm not sure whether there's sour grapes involved with previous business/professional dealings. It's not my place to offer conjecture on such things, but it does strike me as odd. As you've made repeated claims, some more vague than others that Empire has consciously or otherwise colluded in some way with the film industry in order to get exclusive access and boost a film's publicity to sell more tickets. One has to ask, if you question Empire's credibility so much, why do you still post in the forums?


I respect most of your comments but point out where you say "it's not my place to offer conjecture on such things" right after offering just such conjecture. You've obviously looked back through my posts so know enough about me to correctly say I've worked in advertising - and that is about the only relevant conjecture you can make. Everything else is ad hominem and thus will get you nowhere..

Notice that I don't make claims about other readers beyond referring directly to what is said here, I don't suggest that someone I disagree with is 12 years old - however tempting, and I don't claim to have superior opinions about film - I don't need to. All I have to do is respond to what is written here, and any observations I make about Empire are based on a simple thing called evidence which I give examples of where possible.

For what it's worth - I can be a former advertising worker who knows the grubby dealings of the industry - and a jaded Empire reader as well can I not? I know these discussions tend to go somewhat off topic but nothing I say isn't related to the original article which - as I've stated in the past - we are invited to comment on, and in any case it's a little pedantic to sieve one's comments into separate forum sections. This brings me to the heart of the issue. I am an avowed Film Geek, spend a lot of free time reading about Film - even more time watching good Films. Controversially, I can't stand Bad/Mediocre Films. I care passionately about the direction the Industry is headed especially when it comes to the gimmickry they employ, not only the overuse of 3D and CGI - shiny dangly distractions in your face, but also the obsession with finding a built-in fan base, a pre-packaged audience, pandering to nostalgia. This is the reason we're mainly getting remakes and movies based on Comics or Toys. You may not realise it but the studios aren't doing it to please the fans - or even to make good movies - it's purely about creating a commercial event around which they're selling a product - nothing more.

This is where 'vertical integration' comes in. In the old days the studios were of course big businesses but you certainly wouldn't go into the industry if all you want is to make money - films were always a risky investment. Executives were in the 'business' of making movies that needed to please the people - along with lots of cash if they could get away with it. Toys, tie-ins, Merchandising added value and sometimes more than the films themselves.. Since the Multi-National corporate monopolies absorbed Hollywood, the artistic side of the business has retreated to being a technicality. The kind of decision making to create great films to stand the test of time is now almost non-existent - especially for the big movies. For example, when Bob Shaye heard Peter Jackson's pitch for doing Lord of the Rings split into 2 films - he said great idea but there are 3 books so it should be 3 films - at the time this was an enormous gamble considering the cost of a 2 year production.

Corporations have no interest other than maximizing shareholder profit. Because 1 company, like Comcast owns Universal, NBC, General Electric, and a host of other media companies, it is in pure commercial interest to create products for cross promotional purposes and movies are the perfect way to create an event about which their TV networks can talk endlessly. The Film is launched like any other product - marketing strategy is conceived before the script is even written which is why the advertising bears little resemblance to the finished product. The sting in the tail of production-line franchises are the inevitably bad movies not finding a broad audience - this is why the 1st weekend has to be really big, the hype cons as many as possible to fill the multiplex before word of mouth gets around..

I have a gripe with Comic/Superhero movies especially because they've pretty much usurped Action, Science Fiction, Fantasy, Adventure etc as the default Summer Blockbuster. My favourite films are very much big populist Hollywood Movies but from a time when sets were real, Special Effects were 'special', and heroes didn't have to wear a ridiculous costume. The great Blockbusters made a shit load of money without fanboy hype and they still do. Will anyone remember the Green Lantern, Captain America, or the Hulks 5 years from now? Science Fiction is probably the most successful genre you'd think there'd be more of it.

I'll have to respect your opinion on Iron Man 2 - I can't argue with that, and you mention Mark Kermode - who's brilliant and I rarely disagree with but I take issue with Kermode on the Dark Knight which is Just a good Film - not a patch on Heat - but it's a Film based on a Comic not a Comic Book Movie. Sin City, 300, Watchmen, Batman and Robin are Comic Book movies. Nolan's Batman is very much rooted in the language of cinema with virtually no Comic style. The reason it's so highly regarded is that they went to great lengths to create a believable world and to detail how a person with enough money might go about becoming a masked vigilante. It succeeded massively because it is a Film 1st and foremost which anyone can relate to. Film Snobbery? If you like - but it's a damn sight better than what you get from Comic Book puritans or any kind of fanboy. For example I love Star Trek especially the idealism and the infinite possibilities for the story, but I hate the way some Trekkies squabble over 'canonical detail'. A kind of dull puritanism that helped homogenize the various shows and Films over the years - There were still great stories - well told, but by the end of Enterprise and Nemesis, Trek had become impenetrable to a wider audience. Then along came Abrams and Lindelof to blow away all preconceptions creating the most enjoyable blockbuster in many years. They did this by putting Film First.

Back on topic, the fact that the Avengers film is upon us is obvious enough from the lead outs in all the recent Marvel movies as well as reams of commentary online - let alone this trailer - which only confirms my expectations. What we rarely get is a critical eye on the thing beyond superficial comment on the 'high hopes' for the movie. Surely it is Empire's raison d'Ítre to offer a little analysis on the state of Film today and maybe put their stories into context? This article is pure promotion for a movie that's not out till next April. This suggests nothing more than some Empire writers are Comic Fans and don't care when most Comic Films turn out to be rubbish. I never say that Empire is on the corporate shill - just that they've massively promoted Comic Movies for years - ignoring the possibility that most people probably don't care about Comics but do care about good movies.

In the past year they've had Comic Book World At Big Screen, The 30 Comic Books You Should Have Read, The 50 Greatest Comic Book Characters, The 20 Greatest Comic Book Films - This is why I've suggested that Empire starts a new title dedicated to this fan base where they can say every comic movie is Marvel-ous.

By the way is it really that hard to figure out how to sort out the reviews - surely you don't take everything literally? Obviously they don't have to amalgamate the reviews of all the staff - but at least run the reviews by a few people who've seen it to make sure it squares with some kind of consensus otherwise you have reviewer bias representing Empire as a whole. I'm quite comfortable with Mark Kermode's reviews because clearly they are the opinions of Mark Kermode - not the BBC as a whole.

I hope that one day a Film magazine or website will look at recent movie history and try not to be overly excited about every new blockbuster that's coming out - you end up feeding into the hype and it encourages the corporate studios to make more bad movies - surely that is reason enough to become more inquiring.

< Message edited by Gigolo Joe -- 14/10/2011 9:39:19 PM >


_____________________________

We are drifting into the arena of the unwell

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 85
Why doesn't this film have an (A list) Director ?????? - 14/10/2011 11:28:24 PM   
Magnetic Eye

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 19/1/2011
As someone who has been reading Avengers since 1975, I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I was underwhelmed by the trailer. I will still see the movie since it's a MARVEL STUDIO production and they are much better than the Fox Abattoirs and Phony Sony offerings.

I felt the trailer lacked substance, the story seems tired and predictable. Nothing new to see here except for the players.

I'm also not a fan of the over rated "Ultimates" series which this film seems to be based on instead of Marvel's original and better mainstream comic book series and I'm really peeved about the omission of original founding members Ant Man & Wasp.

Robert Downey Jr’s sarcastic one liners is starting to really wear thin, but that's attributed to Whedon's typical snarly dialogue. Just as I feared, an episodic TV screenwriter given full reign as a director on a feature film.

This may look grand and epic thanks largely to world renowned Seamus McGarvey who is an Oscar-nominated cinematographer, but it reads much like an extended TV episode.

MARVEL / DISNEY should have hired a critically acclaimed (A list) Director to helm what should have been a ground breaking cinematic epic.

Whedon IMO lacks an understanding of cinematic visual structure and cinematic narrative structure.

Avengers will no doubt do well at the box office because of it's large fan base, but will not be of the same caliber as a LOTR or TDK.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 86
RE: Why doesn't this film have an (A list) Director ?????? - 15/10/2011 2:57:05 AM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
I'm finding myself agreeing with almost everything Gigolo Joe writes. Does he have some kind of superpower?

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to Magnetic Eye)
Post #: 87
- 15/10/2011 10:57:10 PM   
subcircus

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 11/1/2009
I haven't read all the comments, so I apologise if this has already been mentioned, but a lot of the comments I have read seem to be bashing Whedon and doubting his ability to handle this property and I just wonder why when all evidence is to the contrary. 1) ensemble cast - Joss is the master of this, just look at any of his oeuvre. 2) Joss has written for the Marvel verse, he understands comics and he understands Marvel and the Avengers 3) Joss has proved he can handle an FX movie with Serenity, which despite what some naysayers might argue, it *was* cinematic - just watch the gorgeous battle between the Reavers and the Alliance and try and tell me it's not (remembering that when Serenity came out that kind of CG work was not being done on TV - BSG has spoiled us since). 4) All the footage we've seen so far looks great.

It probably won't be nominated for Oscars outside the technical categories, and probably won't tax the cerebellum like The Dark Knight Rises, but who cares? It will be fun. Make Mine Marvel!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 88
RE: Why doesn't this film have an (A list) Director ?????? - 16/10/2011 1:53:22 AM   
Gigolo Joe


Posts: 24
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

I'm finding myself agreeing with almost everything Gigolo Joe writes. Does he have some kind of superpower?


My secret is discovered!!

_____________________________

We are drifting into the arena of the unwell

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 89
As you wish.. - 16/10/2011 11:20:57 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2177
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
I respect most of your comments but point out where you say "it's not my place to offer conjecture on such things" right after offering just such conjecture. You've obviously looked back through my posts so know enough about me to correctly say I've worked in advertising - and that is about the only relevant conjecture you can make. Everything else is ad hominem and thus will get you nowhere..


An error of denotation on my part, I should have phrased it as "it's not my place to offer further conjecture than what I've already said, as that can only be wild speculation" which in other words means to offer a view without some basis to substantiate said views. I purposefully wrote the conjecture bit simply to acknowledge the futility of baseless conjecture. Anything else I've written has come from simply deducing what's in front of me. And again, I made reference to comments that you have made in the past on a few occasions. Which when looked at strikes one as rather odd. There's clearly some bitterness, it could simply be disillusionment with the magazine or something more 'professionally' related - as you said both aren't necessarily mutually exclusive so I may have been right. To me, they aren't unreasonable assertions to make given what has been posted. Anything that has been posted by you here is relevant, hence why I alluded to it and there is absolutely nothing in my other posts which is ad hominem. I haven't attacked you personally nor cast any aspersions on your character. I've merely called into question your reasoning for periodically espousing your views here when you've declared that you have 'broken ties' with Empire in protest as it were (by cancelling your prior subscription for instance). I'm genuinely perplexed. What do you hope to achieve? To turn en masse the entire magazine readership against Empire here with your opinions?

"any observations I make... are based on a simple thing called evidence which I give examples of where possible."

Sure:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

I say new (1), but for the last several years the once great yardstick for film journalism has become not much more than a predictable brochure for the big movies, regardless of merit.

.......................................

I unsubscribed and stopped reading Empire long ago but I still get to hear about these embarrassing lists from mainstream media. Empire, please leave the general public alone with these pointless votes. Any Empire readers who are similarly dumbfounded please do yourselves a favour and stop buying the magazine and visiting the site (I'm using Firefox with ad-blocking so not contributing). There are alternatives none with as much influence (except AICN), better still, start a new one if you're able. We do need a local equivalent of 'Aint it Cool', something that discusses film from all eras and locations. But more importantly something that seeks out and champions independent film production in the UK/Europe as well as the big movies that actually merit discussion.

Empire is no longer for people who truly love great Films, they cater to the prattling teen/occasional movie-goer demographic and in this case it most definitely shows.


Reference


1. You chose "The New Empire" as the title for your post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe


quote:

ORIGINAL: G_MAN07

T**** F*** gave 'Jumper' four stars. I ended my subscription that day.


Empire gave Star Wars ROTS four stars, Transformers and sequel 4 & 3 stars respectively.

Jumper, although a flawed film, is better than those put together..

Empire has very questionable tastes these days, which is why I hardly ever come back here.

The lunatics at AICN have better taste!

So when are you going back to T**** F*** ?


Reference

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe

"..and, er, wipe our memories clear of Speed Racer"

But you gave Speed Racer 3 out of 5!

Being Shills for every genre movie that comes out doesn't come more transparent.


Reference

quote:

Notice that I don't make claims about other readers beyond referring directly to what is said here, I don't suggest that someone I disagree with is 12 years old - however tempting, and I don't claim to have superior opinions about film - I don't need to. All I have to do is respond to what is written here


On this thread thus far, but then saying so would imply that you're above name calling and the rest of it. Which is patently false as we can see here:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
What are you - 5? You must not encounter words longer than 3 syllables very often.. Makes the head hurt, doesn't it just? Now I have to tailor my language for the under 10s or risk being branded an intellectual.


No-one's above such things. Whilst you state you haven't made claims about having superior opinions on film. From what you've said, you imply that you have superior taste in film.

quote:

but nothing I say isn't related to the original article which - as I've stated in the past - we are invited to comment on


Even though the article is a small piece about a newly released teaser trailer for a highly anticipated gathering of superheroes that hasn't really been done before on a live-action cinematic film? Discounting the likes of "X-men" and "Fantastic Four" who are ensemble groups rather than individual heroes.

quote:

in any case it's a little pedantic to sieve one's comments into separate forum sections.


I find this remark particularly abrasive. I can't work out whether it's supremely ignorant, arrogant or both. Clearly it's too much of an inconvenience for you to post comments which aren't pertinent to the article in the relevant forum sections. Strange seeing as most people are able to do so. Thankfully the Empire moderator team are quite lenient on such things.

quote:

I'll have to respect your opinion on Iron Man 2 - I can't argue with that, and you mention Mark Kermode - who's brilliant and I rarely disagree with but I take issue with Kermode on the Dark Knight which is Just a good Film - not a patch on Heat - but it's a Film based on a Comic not a Comic Book Movie. Sin City, 300, Watchmen, Batman and Robin are Comic Book movies. Nolan's Batman is very much rooted in the language of cinema with virtually no Comic style. The reason it's so highly regarded is that they went to great lengths to create a believable world and to detail how a person with enough money might go about becoming a masked vigilante. It succeeded massively because it is a Film 1st and foremost which anyone can relate to.


"Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are still comic book films, they just have a very tight narrative and a thoroughly well crafted central character (with very good supporting characters and actors). There's a certain nuance to those realities which are seldom seen in most comic book adaptations. Nonetheless, they are still that -- comic book films -- strip them of all the carefully layered elements and you'll see it. Those films still have big set-pieces with the inevitable action climax. They still feature eccentric characters who live out outlandish lifestyles or who like to concoct hairbrain schemes. The villains still chew-up the scenery and twizzle their non-existing moustaches. Not to mention, the plot is driven with rather quite contrived sequences that certainly belong to the comic book staple. What you're referring to is merely style. Schumacher and Burton liked to go a little over-the-top with camp and flamboyance. Whilst Nolan & Goyer preferred something more introspective and perhaps abstract. By the way, "TDK" was heavily influenced in parts by certain graphic novels - chiefly: "The Killing Joke" and "The Long Halloween". The former was written by Alan Moore who also wrote "The Watchmen", which is one you stated you did not like and was actually faithfully adapted on screen. The clever thing about the Batman films and I don't think this was some artifice conjured up by Nolan and Goyer is that the two Batman films are effectively stealth comic book films. At first glance, they have the versimilitude of not being comic book films as they avoid many of the trappings that have appeared in that genre but nonetheless they still carry a number of elements from their literary source. Good as those films are, "TDK" had virtually no humour and compared to "Iron Man" - it had no levity and no sense of fun.

quote:

Film Snobbery? If you like - but it's a damn sight better than what you get from Comic Book puritans or any kind of fanboy. For example I love Star Trek especially the idealism and the infinite possibilities for the story, but I hate the way some Trekkies squabble over 'canonical detail'. A kind of dull puritanism that helped homogenize the various shows and Films over the years - There were still great stories - well told, but by the end of Enterprise and Nemesis, Trek had become impenetrable to a wider audience. Then along came Abrams and Lindelof to blow away all preconceptions creating the most enjoyable blockbuster in many years. They did this by putting Film First.


Actually there are a few 'fanboys' or what you could call 'comic book enthusiasts' on this forum whom I shall not name as I don't want to drag them into this discussion that actually aren't like that and bring a lot of understanding and incisive thought when it comes to discussing such characters.

The Star Trek franchise originally failed because the old tv producers rehashed the same tired storylines. Not only that, the series became mired with so much 'technobabble' that the language of the characters became nearly indecipherable and therefore created a massive barrier to any would-be newcomer. What Abrams & Co did was to simply go back to the root of the franchise which was the most accessible and popular in the Star Trek franchise and give it a young and contemporary face. "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" is another example of a successfully done Star Trek film (perhaps "First Contact" is another one).

quote:

Back on topic, the fact that the Avengers film is upon us is obvious enough from the lead outs in all the recent Marvel movies as well as reams of commentary online - let alone this trailer - which only confirms my expectations. What we rarely get is a critical eye on the thing beyond superficial comment on the 'high hopes' for the movie. Surely it is Empire's raison d'Ítre to offer a little analysis on the state of Film today and maybe put their stories into context? This article is pure promotion for a movie that's not out till next April. This suggests nothing more than some Empire writers are Comic Fans and don't care when most Comic Films turn out to be rubbish. I never say that Empire is on the corporate shill - just that they've massively promoted Comic Movies for years - ignoring the possibility that most people probably don't care about Comics but do care about good movies.


Empire's only raison d'etre is to be accountable to their readership, people who actually pay and therefore contribute towards its continual existence. Not some anonymous face on the internet who it seems no longer has a vested interest in the magazine and does not support it in any way. And certainly not someone who makes out as though they know what's best for film and film-goers. Whether you like it or not, Empire's largely serving up what their readership wants and that's fine by me. To be fair to them, they get the balance right because there's all sorts of films being released - independent and big studio films - and they have to cover all of that with every issue. I don't see anything wrong with certain individuals on the Empire roster who share and therefore reflect the enthusiasm for such films. God forbid it actually shows they're in touch with their readership.

quote:

By the way is it really that hard to figure out how to sort out the reviews - surely you don't take everything literally? Obviously they don't have to amalgamate the reviews of all the staff - but at least run the reviews by a few people who've seen it to make sure it squares with some kind of consensus otherwise you have reviewer bias representing Empire as a whole. I'm quite comfortable with Mark Kermode's reviews because clearly they are the opinions of Mark Kermode - not the BBC as a whole.


Please, don't try and condescend me. You've made the point before about Empire's review system and these are the sort of replies you've had:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Guinevere

Ok, so I know professional reviewers are writing for a wide audience but come on! We can't expect them to be some kind of communist automaton who's going to have completely universal taste!


Reference

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
Sadly what you might not appreciate is that every 'big' film gets the same posts over and over again. And the point is simple - a 'review' is the reviewers opinion, it is not an objective committee decision on the quality of a film. That's the same with reviews everywhere.

The standard comment for an Empire Admin thread is irrelevant - this thread is for the review and discussion of the film the review relates to. If you disagree with any opinion on the thread, or simply wish to give your own, then watch the film and do that.

If you want to discuss Empire's policy on reviewing generally, then that is off-topic in this thread. Use search and you will find a thread discussing it and 5 star films in general in Empire Online. Please use the existing thread.


Reference


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Conceptual argument on the nature of reviews and the apparent confusion on what the word opinion means - Empire Magazine forum please.

And please leave this thread for people who've actually seen the damn film or would like to discuss it. I'm not sure you entirely appreciate how unfair this is to them.


Reference


The amusing thing is you said I was being too literal when in the past you've asked:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gigolo Joe
The question is does everyone else at Empire Towers hold a similar view....? The corollary questions remain, who reviews the reviewers? How does Empire decide which individual's review makes the print? Is it a representative opinion of the entire staff, or do they draw lots?


Reference

How else should I answer your question? The points I made in the previous post still apply. Whilst the reviews are 'professional' opinions, they are still opinions nonetheless. Informed by the individuals knowledge of film and ability to critique a film and offer some sort of insight into its characters, plot and the rest of it. Not all opinions will be congruent with one another and simply put, you may not always get a consensus. Seeing as though you have numerous reviews, interviews, articles, features etc to be prepared every month. I don't see how the staff will always have the time to have a nice little 'confab' in the coffee room for each film. It's just not workable.

quote:

I hope that one day a Film magazine or website will look at recent movie history and try not to be overly excited about every new blockbuster that's coming out - you end up feeding into the hype and it encourages the corporate studios to make more bad movies - surely that is reason enough to become more inquiring.


At the end of it, no-one's compelling you to stay here if you feel so disheartened with Empire. Why don't you try and set-up a magazine of your own or a forum where you can share you appreciation for the films you like with other similar people. Rather than continually show up here, taking pot shots at Empire's credibility and integrity and getting into disputes with its members, whom you have disparaged on a number of occasions. Another thing, if we had tempered our enthusiasm for each of these blockbusters and abstained. We would not have come across films such as "TDK" and "Iron Man". There's another (bound to be) great Batman film coming out next year and a possibly interesting Spider-Man film. Hardly anything to moan about.

I apologise to the rest of the forum.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 17/10/2011 3:27:45 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Gigolo Joe)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> RE: I'M IN!!! Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.094