Recommend (or don't) a movie thread v2

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Rando

You could go to a movie every weekend and not see a superhero film. There hasn't been a Marvel movie since July now.

WGAF if it's Marvel or not? Like, Harley Quinn is in the theatres right now. Joker was October.

I saw Bad Boys for Life on Sunday. 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Should have been 0%. You have to be a dope of the highest order if you found that movie entertaining in any way, shape or form. These two morons behind me laughed at every single one of the terrible jokes. I hate Will Smith. I hate the other guy. I hated the movie. Total BS it got made.

[cKy]

Originally Posted by Sliver

WGAF if it's Marvel or not? Like, Harley Quinn is in the theatres right now. Joker was October.

I saw Bad Boys for Life on Sunday. 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Should have been 0%. You have to be a dope of the highest order if you found that movie entertaining in any way, shape or form. These two morons behind me laughed at every single one of the terrible jokes. I hate Will Smith. I hate the other guy. I hated the movie. Total BS it got made.

lol, why'd you go to a movie if you hated Will Smith and Martin Lawrence? Seems like you wanted to hate this movie before you even watched it.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by Nadal Fan

Last year there was a grand total of 6 superhero films that came out into theatres. There rank at the domestic box office was 1,6,7,9,21 and 44. Frankly I'd be more pissed at all the Disney live action remakes they are doing that keep making bank at the box office, how is the Lion King remake the 7th highest grossing film of ALL TIME! (All Time!)

6 feels like a lot for just one random year though. I'm more just perplexed at how your average movie-goer doesn't seem to feel fatigue at all for the genre, I don't get it. I mean if you're really into comic books I totally get it, this is a golden age for you. But for the rest, how are they not tired of it yet?

I think part of what I don't like about it is that it feels like basically all the big budget action movies are superhero movies. I'm a huge history buff, I loved the 00's when it was a huge push for historical movies, especially after the success of Gladiator. Granted a lot of those turned out to be duds, but I still appreciate the attempt. It seems like they won't try a big budget ancient/medieval historical movie for a long long time now, as all that big budget money just goes to the 4th remake of Spider-Man, or yet another Marvel movie. Mostly because it's guaranteed to be a box office hit, because superhero movies. It's frustrating.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

6 feels like a lot for just one random year though. I'm more just perplexed at how your average movie-goer doesn't seem to feel fatigue at all for the genre, I don't get it. I mean if you're really into comic books I totally get it, this is a golden age for you. But for the rest, how are they not tired of it yet?

I think part of what I don't like about it is that it feels like basically all the big budget action movies are superhero movies. I'm a huge history buff, I loved the 00's when it was a huge push for historical movies, especially after the success of Gladiator. Granted a lot of those turned out to be duds, but I still appreciate the attempt. It seems like they won't try a big budget ancient/medieval historical movie for a long long time now, as all that big budget money just goes to the 4th remake of Spider-Man, or yet another Marvel movie. Mostly because it's guaranteed to be a box office hit, because superhero movies. It's frustrating.

The 00's gave us Master and Commander: Far Side of the World and for that we should all be eternally grateful.

Probably the best historical film of the last 40 years.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by peter12

The 00's gave us Master and Commander: Far Side of the World and for that we should all be eternally grateful.

Probably the best historical film of the last 40 years.

Aesthietically Gangs of New York is upthere as one of the greats, in terms of historical films.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Sliver

WGAF if it's Marvel or not? Like, Harley Quinn is in the theatres right now. Joker was October.

Joker was about as far removed from the typical superhero movie you could get. It broke new ground on the traditional origin story, borrowing heavily from cinematic titans like Martin Scorsese (serious Taxi Driver vibes). The cinematography was a HUGE departure from both the Marvel and DCU mould.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have these genre-busting type films over another cookie cutter Spider-Man or Iron Man. However, I still enjoy the stories and worlds those films build, just in a much different way.

I saw Bad Boys for Life on Sunday. 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. Should have been 0%. You have to be a dope of the highest order if you found that movie entertaining in any way, shape or form.

And here's really the root of what bothers me most on this topic. "I hate it and if you don't you're a dope and a moron". You're entitled to like or not like something, but I don't think this expression is necessary. It's just stomping on another person's joy through a veil of superiority.

To me it really has nothing to do with affect on cinema or the downfall of media consumption. It's simply "I don't like it and its existence irritates me". That argument is valid, and if it was expressed honestly I don't think it would bug me so much, aside from its redundancy.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by peter12

The 00's gave us Master and Commander: Far Side of the World and for that we should all be eternally grateful.

Probably the best historical film of the last 40 years.

Re-watched it a couple months ago after not seeing it since it came out. Utterly brilliant film.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

Aesthietically Gangs of New York is upthere as one of the greats, in terms of historical films.

But not historical. It was basically a fantasy set loosely to 1860s political life in NYC. But it was a beautiful film.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rando

Re-watched it a couple months ago after not seeing it since it came out. Utterly brilliant film.

It is an actually perfect film.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by Sliver

WGAF if it's Marvel or not? Like, Harley Quinn is in the theatres right now. Joker was October.

It was just an added note. The main point was that you could go to the theatre every weekend and not see a superhero movie. You'd probably see a dud or two, a genre that wasn't you're favourite but they're easy to avoid.

You went to see to see the third movie of a franchise staring two actors you hate. You're a glutton for punishment!

[Rando]

Originally Posted by peter12

It is an actually perfect film.

Geez, I called it utterly brilliant. Accept the praise dude.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rando

Geez, I called it utterly brilliant. Accept the praise dude.

I was agreeing with you. Why so insecure?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by peter12

But not historical. It was basically a fantasy set loosely to 1860s political life in NYC. But it was a beautiful film.

I know that it is pedandtic, but I think that presenting it as a fiction lends itself to be a better historical film, then a film trying to recreate the past as it was.

What makes Gangs of New York an effetive historical film is that it is saratorial and setting wise, histircally 'acurate'. Although the plot and characters are fictional the themes and depiction of life is based in historical truth.

Many times 'historical' movies present themselves as accuarte depictions of the past, when in reality they are laden with fiction. Sure it might be a historical event, but you are litteraly putting words in the mouths of people, which to me is worse then creating a fake scinario, because it creates an illusion of truth.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

I know that it is pedandtic, but I think that presenting it as a fiction lends itself to be a better historical film, then a film trying to recreate the past as it was.

What makes Gangs of New York an effetive historical film is that it is saratorial and setting wise, histircally 'acurate'. Although the plot and characters are fictional the themes and depiction of life is based in historical truth.

Many times 'historical' movies present themselves as accuarte depictions of the past, when in reality they are laden with fiction. Sure it might be a historical event, but you are litteraly putting words in the mouths of people, which to me is worse then creating a fake scinario, because it creates an illusion of truth.

Yeah, I'll take that explanation to some extent.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by peter12

I was agreeing with you. Why so insecure?

That's two posters you've labeled insecure this morning. Can't speak for the other guy, but certainly not correct here.

Misreading the situation or projecting?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Rando

That's two posters you've labeled insecure this morning. Can't speak for the other guy, but certainly not correct here.

Misreading the situation or projecting?

God, you are so touchy. Relax.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Will you two get it over with and make out already?

The tension has been palpable lately. Almost as if it’s been building for many years.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by peter12

God, you are so touchy. Relax.

Projecting it is.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Will you two get it over with and make out already?

The tension has been palpable lately. Almost as if it’s been building for many years.

I love him/her so much.

[Rando]

Originally Posted by peter12

I love him/her so much.

Back to cinema? Back to cinema!