Topic: The Movie Thread

@Rudy_Manchego I thought Train to Busan was better than World War Z. The Age Of Shadows (Korean) and Okja (Korean/Hollywood) are also pretty good movies if you haven't watched them, yet.

Anyways, I watched Transformers: The Last Knight. Don't ask me why, but I just like watching the CGI of the robots transforming.lol All I can say is the Transformers movies have gone downhill ever since the first one. Dumb stories, characters (a lot of racial stereotypes), dialogues and situations that made no sense. Also, they've successfully managed to make Optimus Prime super lame, he doesn't do much except always getting saved by his friends (in pretty much every movie) or go missing only to make a dramatic entrance during a battle. Can't believe Steven Spielberg's still continuing to produce this franchise.

@WanderingBullet I thought it was far better than World War Z as a film, completely agree there. I have Okja on my to watch list on Netflix but not heard of The Age of Shadows. Will see if I can find it anywhere.

Regarding Transformers, they are one of my guilty pleasures in that the films are utterly terrible (other than the first which was good imo), the acting poor, sexist and racial stereotyping but I like the way Michael Bay films robots fighting each other. I think Steven Spielberg just takes a paycheck to have his name on it now.

So many smart-arsed scifi films like Insipid, Invective, insertion... Inception, that's it! I can't stand those films that try to be clever. Like the Quantum, time travel film behind a bleedin' bookcase for crissake!
I love those Sci-Fi Films that use the genre as a device to convey emotional themes that are universal:
Realive - beautiful human cryogenics based about mortality, love and loss and the values that are worth living and dying for.
Arrival. Profound movie about how language shapes the way we seen and make sense of the world.
Both remind me of The Green Hills of Earth.

@Rudy_Manchego Wonder Woman was fun but the ladling of the importance of "Love" at the end was a bit of a squib. And I was put off by the dark tones of the fight scenes - These night time fight scenes are budget CGI 'get-outs' as used in Godzilla (1998) and Superman V Batman. It cheapened the whole experience.
Why do it when Marvel and Lucas' Star Wars clearly show you can have spectacular sci-fi fight scenes in broad daylight?

@nathanSF Spectacular scenes in dark/night-time can be incredible too. Especially in HDR where the laser beans, explosions etc are far more impressive against a dark background. Its like watching a lightning storm during the day or at night and the night time storms have much more impact.

For me Godzilla was 'lame' because it was so slow, boring and even the fight scenes seemed to be lumbering through the motions. It would still have been 'dull' during the day time too. BvS was more of an issue because of the story itself and the convoluted plot that led up to the fight. Batman traditionally always fought at night and you can't argue that the Dark Knight trilogy or the Tim Burton Batman films cheapened the experience because of the 'dark' night time scenes. BvS though does look more impressive in 4k HDR and the 'fight' scene in particular is incredible but the build up, the motivation etc is sadly lacking and you still have that 'Jesse' Luthor!!!

@nathanSF DC do need to get their endings battles right. They have all been a bit generic imo. Wonder woman was better then MOS, BVS and Suicide Squad but all had CG villain syndrome at the end.

After Marvel upped their game in Civil War with the airport scene, being able to see everything in daylight did make it feel more unique.

@BAMozzy Fair point about Batman being a night time guy. And yes, those movies did have their other faults too. It's just that with Wonder Woman I kind of expected it to be a bit brighter overall. Plus that film too had its faults, the Captain America plane death thing stuck out a bit, as did the movie's version of the 'Howling Commandos'. And her naivety was grating at times. I mean, she's read the 12 volumes of "Clio's treatises on bodily pleasure," (a non existent thing btw, Clio is a DC comics character). The implication here is that, during their immortal lives, the warrior women do a fair amount of reading; so one would expect her training as a warrior to involve strategy and tactics - where else would they learn from? Meaning she should know some basics about duplicity, betrayal, greed, power and the other things that us mere mortals get up to between breakfast and bed.

@Rudy_Manchego That was my point. I did enjoy the film overall. Maybe I still have in the deep recesses of my mind, warm memories of the TV series (yes, I am that old)

@nathanSF Depends on the literature they have at their disposal. If the literature on the island doesn't have reference to those traits, then its understandable where her naivety comes from. She lived on an island that had little/no contact with mortals and we don't know whether there was much in the way of 'human' literature to read. Maybe the literature was more 'fact' based - like an encyclopedia of combat rather than looking at the reasons that may lead to combat or only literature written by those on the island - historical tomes of life on the island, the laws and regulations, the hierarchy etc etc.

If you were brought up in a secluded area with no access or knowledge of the outside world and the only books you could read were written by others within that 'small' community who had never shown these 'human' traits, I think you too would be very naive...

@Rudy_Manchego That Civil Wars airport fight scene is gonna be very tough to beat but I have a feeling that maybe Avengers: Infinity War might have some pretty epic fight scenes.

Personally, I think they should get the guy if they haven't already who choreographed the fight scenes in Winter Soldier and Civil Wars again for Avengers: Infinity War.

@BAMozzy This is true. I guess we have to give these comic to movie franchises a lot of license otherwise we just wouldn't enjoy the movies as much as we do (well I do - mostly) But I can't help feeling that her naivety sort of diminished her awesomeness. She could have responded with more curiosity which would have her 'ignorance' (not knowing) to come from position of confidence and certainty - as you'd imagine a warrior would. I just think DC tore a chink in the character when they mentioned her reading the 12 volumes of the fictional 'Clio' . Come to think of it, one would expect any tome on lovemaking that ran to 12 volumes to include guidance on attunement to, and how to handle the arising and flow of different types and expressions of desire, surrender, passion and vulnerability. Such chapters would address the complex flow of emotions that arise in the process - the same emotions that drive the human condition and desires in all matters, including war. All of which would mean she would not be so surprised at the more base emotions and motives that drive mortal behaviour.

@WanderingBullet Well they've got the Winter Soldier and Civil War directors for both Avengers sequels so I would hope they have kept the rest of the team, including choreographers. I think what worked about the airport scene is that every character had a point to them being there and I could understand what was going on rather than just a massive cgi splooge fest.

@Rudy_Manchego Yeah, the Russo brothers.

A lot of movies nowadays are a CGI splooge fest , simply because technology is so advance studios think they can get away with it even without having a good story.

@nathanSF I haven't seen Wonder Woman myself to comment but it is an 'Origin' story so you may have to give it the benefit of doubt. If that tome was about 'Love' it could be the 'fictional' romantic nature and as I said, written from a perspective not akin to 'human' traits. Rarely do the Romantic fictions of humans mirror the experience of the majority and unless we were to read the literature and live on the island WW was brought up in, we have to assume that her 'naivety' was genuine to the human behaviours. There is also the aspect that reading something is very different to experiencing something first hand.

Reading about War, is very different to being on the front line with the sounds, the sights, the smells etc all around you every day. Even reading about the brutality of it can not prepare you for the reality. You can apply that to any topic - Love, hate etc. You also have the aspect that people can appear to be 'good' and portray positive traits but are manipulative and untrustworthy. Until you have been 'burned' you realise that you can't always take first impressions which again can appear as 'naivety'. We as humans get a lot of first hand experience as we grow up, go through school and leave the protection of our 'parents' and have to find out these things ourselves. Its that thing of being told not to touch the fire by our parents because its 'hot' but until we do, we don't have any concept of what 'hot' means.

Disney's Moana (Netflix) - I actually quite enjoyed this one. It had a beautifully vibrant naturalistic color palate, a similar grand fantasy adventure vibe to the Disney films I grew up with, it actually gave me a few chuckles, and almost made me tear up in a couple spots.

I'm generally more of a fan of 2D animation than CGI, but despite that I've been really liking some of Disney's recent output (Big Hero Six & Zootopia in addition to this), and am almost ready to say they've hit another renaissance.

@BAMozzy True, maybe I'm being a bit too critical, considering I thought the film was fun.
I think DC do have a problem with morality and sentiment we accept and consider 'natural' in the real world, and the slightly distorted, idealised values carried by plot, characters and action in good movies.
DC have a real problem with trying to embed real world values in a fictional world where they just look out of place.
Man of Steel is a fine example - with the camera angles on Superman and his poses reminiscent of Jesus, the thick dollops of "Traditional American Values" dropped into various parts of the film.
Wonder Woman wasn't as guilty as Man of Steel, but it was still there and it jarred.
Marvel somehow manage to avoid explicit, blatant 'appeals to what is right'
Then again, Superman has to fight for the "Truth, Justice and the American Way', whereas Spider-man is your "Local, friendly, neighbourhood"
Didn't you think the several references to real-world dilemmas were a bit pointed? Like the native American guy's comment, or the fact you can't save everyone, and the other 'S**t happens' category of scenes and one-liners? - which I presume were meant to somehow, recognise that life isn't fair?
It's like DC would make a film about fire and say "Look, you'll get burned, fire bad."
Marvel will make a film about fire and have a story about a kid getting burned and how things were tough afterwards - and that's it.
My point is, we know life isn't fair - it's sickening and that's one of the reasons why we go to these fantasy superhero movies - they're an escape into a world where we're given a problem and superheroes come along and fix it in spectacular fashion and we all go home happy - until reality bites - again.
If I wanted realism I'd go watch some French or German PoMo, black and white film about a dog and a jar of marmalade.
And there I go again, into another rant about silly, niggly things about the film.

@nathanSF I think the problem is that DC are trying to be 'different' from Marvel rather than copying them. Despite the fact that DC Films before we entered this MCU were more successful - Superman with Cristopher Reeve - until 3 and 4 was terrible. Tim Burtons Batman again until 3 and 4. The Dark Knight Trilogy - especially the second - was also successful and the one thing that the most successful Batmans proved were that these 'very dark' settings for their comic book characters work. By dark I am not just referring to night-time.

DC have also had a long time TV series success rate - Superman in the 50's, Batman in the 60's, WW in the 70's and now we have Arrow, Flash, League of Legends and Supergirl all 'successful'.

They are trying to do a Marvel in the movies but don't want to do the 'same' thing. A lot of Marvel characters though were set in more 'real' places - like Spider-Man in New York and whilst Metropolis, Gotham, Central City for example may have real world 'counter-parts', Gotham is much 'darker' than any real place. Metropolis and Central City could be your New York or Seattle or some other American City (I am not that familiar with America or where these could be based on).

DC are trying to make their films 'relevant' to the world, keep them 'different' enough from Marvel, but also trying to appease their comic book fans. For all your criticism of WW, she was one of the better moments in BvS and by all accounts, her Solo film was a big Success. Superman Returns was OK 'critically' but Man of Steel drew criticisms - particularly surrounding the ending and the final fight with Zod which ended up destroying a lot of Metropolis - something people thought Superman wouldn't have done. However it's also one of the 'darker' movies and like I said, DC appear to want to take that approach to keep it 'different' enough from Marvel.

I really can't comment on the WW film myself as I have to wait until these movies come to Sky.

As for the 'Jesus' poses, I know its somewhat 'jarring' but its also 'Apt' for the direction they wanted to go with the DCU. Superman is seen as a 'god', a miracle and saviour by the people. The camera angles etc are purposefully being used to show this. Just in case people haven't seen BvS:- The battle in Metropolis is the equivalent of the Story of Jesus throwing a tantrum in the Temple and upsetting his 'people' not long before he was betrayed (the set up to the court case in BvS) and subsequently crucified (killed in BvS). Like Jesus, Superman is 'expected' to resurrect himself too so there are parallels being drawn. . Marvel have done something similar in effect with the destruction in Avengers Assemble and some of the fallout from that. I think though that what they have done well, is keep there 'solo' story's more 'separate' in that you can watch them without necessarily having to watch the others. For example you can watch Iron Man 1, 2 and 3. Thor 1 and 2, Ant-Man. Captain America - the Winter Soldier is a bit different, I think as that does tend to follow on from the preceding Avengers movie and I do feel you need to watch some, if not all the Avengers movies along with the majority of Solo movies in between - not all. You don't necessarily need to watch Iron Man or Thor to watch Avengers Assemble but by Civil War you need to watch things like the Winter Soldier in between.

As for the DCU, I think its too early to be 'critical'. WW was very much an Origin story but Man of Steel and BvS are more of a set-up for things to come. It may make more sense when we are much further into the DCU and we can look back and tie things in. Its a bit like watching part 1 and 2 of a series and judging the whole thing before it really gets going.

I must admit I wasn't a big fan of Suicide Squad either. A few characters stood out in their performances but the story was weak as the 'Joker' - well nuff said!! Margot was a good Harley and Will Smith was good as Deadshot but it just felt all over the place.

What I feel is wrong with the DCU overall is a few 'poor' choices for actors in specific roles, poor editing leaving too much on the cutting room floor and keeping a bit too much of the 'fluff' in. Get that right though and who knows...

I agree, WW was the better of all the DC films outside of Nolan's Batman trilogy. The problem DC are having though is their attempts to mesh the DCU with our real world. Maybe their ethic, religion, morals dilemma is a result of their inability to resolve the fictional DCU with our world, something Marvel doesn't have to deal with.
I never saw the Metropolis, temple metaphor!
I wonder, do DC think that if theirs is a fictional world then potentially, anything goes, so they try to rein it in through pointed references to morality, values, ethics etc?
Interesting thought, for it would imply DC are unconsciously aware they have created a fictional world where superpowers means there are individuals who can do anything they damn well please with no moral bounds - so DC overcompensates the emphasis on morals, "Truth, Justice and the American Way"
I started to watch Arrow but was tottally put off by the episode where the guy who loses his job because of Arrow's dad's criminal dishonesty is somehow blamed for being so desperate he turns to crime. Instead of addressing the wrong choice the guy made, or Arrow saying "Sorry, my dad was an a-hole, here you can have your job back,' or "I'm a billionaire now, here's some money to help you get started elsewhere" he positions the guy as a criminal - end of!
I thought, 'Screw you, Arrow' and stopped watching -
It reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

@nathanSF Some of that is the backdrop for many of the criminals in comic books though. You have the rich that use their 'wealth' and 'power' to try and get more wealth and power, the criminally insane who are just 'nasty' and those that have fallen from the path through 'circumstance' to feel they have no choice but to be 'criminal's' - to dish out the 'injustice' they felt or 'revenge' a 'fallen' parent, friend etc. As with Marvel, you also get those who use their 'powers' for good and those who use their powers for 'evil'. As they say. power corrupts and with great power comes great responsibility but not everyone will choose the right path.

The Joker is one of those 'criminally insane' who just wants to see the world burn.
Harley was a Dr doing good who fell in love with the Joker and essentially fell in with the wrong crowd
The Penguin was shunned by his family at birth
Other 'misformed' bad guys all had a similar reaction because of how they looked.
You also get characters like Lex who has wealth who through scheming and underhandedness acquired that and wants to keep hold of that wealth and power by any means necessary so automatically places himself as an 'enemy' to Superman as the 'kingpin' of a nefarious group. The equivalent to a Mob boss.
Wonder Woman's enemies were originally the German's who were fighting the Americans so its kind of Propaganda of the era. Had the creator been a German, no doubt Wonder Woman would have been fighting the Americans

In the example you used regarding Arrow, the 'son' loved his father and couldn't see the 'Bad' he was doing. It's also like Wonder Woman being brought up with a certain set of values that eventually became her belief. That Son was no-doubt brought up to believe his father was right, didn't do anything wrong and the set of values he had, were passed down to his kin. Upon his death, the Son lost his world. His father, the business etc everything. Angry and bitter, he wanted vengeance and having little morals because of the values instilled in him by his parents, its understandable why he may have turned to crime.

Not everyone who loses a parent and their family business are going to see the wrong doing that got that parent to that position. Again think of a Mob boss who has children who grow up around criminal activity, heir to the throne. If their Father gets killed by the Police, do you think they will suddenly join the police force and try to tackle mobs or do you think he would be even more likely to want to kill the person that killed his father??

I really do think you are overthinking things. Have you ever read a comic book and questioned why everything is as it is? We are talking about 'mostly' inhuman characters or human characters that were 'transformed' by accident (Hulk, Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) or by Circumstance (Riddler), born 'different' (like Penguin) and even characters not of this earth 'Superman' so why do you think that everything must have 'human' behaviour and characteristics. Superman grew up on Earth, went to human school and experienced 'human' life long before he became 'Superman'. Wonder Woman grew up in isolation, never encountered 'Human' behaviour so no wonder she is a little 'naive' by comparison.

In a lot of the DCU, we are led to believe that these 'characters' have existed before we are watching them playout. Wonder Womans Origins date back to WW1 so by the time we are seeing Man of Steel, Superheroes have been around so who knows what an 'Earth' would be like, what 'human' behaviour would be like at that time. Imagine if a 'Superman' appeared today, and Wonder Woman had been around since WW1, how American behaviour would be? Would it still be the same? Especially if the Criminal element - like a Lex Luthor, Joker, Penguin etc were around too...

Of course there would still be 'people' as we know them. People are People - a bit of nature, nurture and experience to get them to be the way they are...

Spider-Man is 'good' because of the upbringing he had from Aunt May and Uncle Ben - the influence they had on him and the morals they instilled. When he 'became' Spider-Man, its their influence that guided him to use those powers in the right way. Had he been brought up by a Mob boss, then maybe he would not have had those morals and ethics...

I'm pretty sure Arrow wanted to do right by where his father did wrong, but he somehow seemed to miss the point where he could reach out and not only do right by the burglar /former employee, but also give some reparative justice to all the people who financially suffered at the hands of his father - and still have money left over to live the life of Riley. But no, he'd rather keep absolutely all of his father's ill gained wealth and go round being a hero.
One of my all time favourites were the Green Arrow & Green Lantern duo comics illustrated by Neal Adams where each edition addressed specific social problems. The Arrow on TV is a travesty of the character in the comic books - who for a whole series, struggled with his own demons.
I watched a couple of episodes of Supergirl, Flash and Legends of Tomorrow and decided to give them a miss - they are clearly targeted at a teen demographic with no appeal to the majority of longstanding comic book fans.