Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wonder Woman is a badass movie all around. IMO a superhero movie should be rich in detail and look like artwork. It shouldn't look dull and flat as if it was filmed with the latest iPhone.
The Wonder Woman soundtrack is just brilliant all around, and I cannot believe that it did not get an OScar nod that year. I get why the film would not get Oscar nominations in categories like Best Pic and such, but damn...I assumed that Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, and Best Score would most definitely get at least Oscar nods.
Oh, well...
It was a gigantic box office hit and a critical darling, and it finally made Wonder Woman a cinematic star like she deserved to be after 75 years of pop culture saturation that inexplicably had never led to a big screen solo adventure before 2017.
Plus it gave moviegoers an instantly iconic scene in "No Man's Land (one of the most emotionally resonant, genuinely thrilling action scenes of ANY MOVIE [not just superhero cinema] in recent years...)
So let me ask: What new techniques did Endgame bring to the table?
"Battle of the Bastards" wasn't just a cool scene because of the arrows and the gore and the death and the agony. I don't think we'd ever seen a scene on TV or film where someone is being trampled to death. And we get it to see it from Jon's perspective! Here's Jon trying to get up and he's heaving because hundreds of men are stomping on top of his face and chest. That was simply incredible.
Plus, there's the scene where hundreds of horses are charging at him full speed and it's NOT CGI as a lot of people think.
Sorry, but I don't see Endgame bringing any revolutionary film techniques to the table. When the Matrix came out, and Trinity fights that cop in the opening sequence, we lost our collective minds since we had never seen anything like it before. Endgame is loaded to the hilt with awesome CGI, but it doesn't make quite the impression that the Matrix did, or even Star Wars when it first hit theaters. IMO there's just the sense of "it's cool."
Never until End Game have we had so many superheroes together on one screen; big name actors at that. Easily over 30+ heroes were involved in that battle, from everything the MCU has done in the past 10 years. And we will probably never see that again, or at least on the same magnitude as what the Russo Bros did for End Game. What made it cooler was we got to see the battle from different angles and perspectives from a lot of the heroes in that fight. We finally got see Pepper Potts suit up and fight side-by-side wit Tony Stark. We finally got to see Cap wield Mjolnir, and for a good while, he was kicking Thanos's ass with it. Scarlett Witch almost had her redemption moment and literally almost ripped Thanos in half. Captain Marvel flew into his ship and destroyed it, and ate every hit he threw at her. Thanos literally had to take the power stone out of the gauntlet and use it on her to have an advantage.
Valkerie revived the Valkerie army and stormed in. Dr. Strange had an army of sorcerers with him, and Black Panther brought all of Wakanda with him. The amount of team work in that battle was incredible, and not once did you feel overwhelmed with how many people shared the screen in that final battle. And RDJ had us all clapping and cheering as he nabbed the stones and snapped Thanos and his army out of existence, fully knowing this would kill him. Sorry, but to me, that's better than that GOT battle. That entire last season was rushed and sucked anyways.
I think the difference between "cinema" and "movies" is that all too often movies find a "formula" and then repeat over and over again. Cinema breaks new ground.
Never until End Game have we had so many superheroes together on one screen; big name actors at that. Easily over 30+ heroes were involved in that battle, from everything the MCU has done in the past 10 years. And we will probably never see that again, or at least on the same magnitude as what the Russo Bros did for End Game. What made it cooler was we got to see the battle from different angles and perspectives from a lot of the heroes in that fight. We finally got see Pepper Potts suit up and fight side-by-side wit Tony Stark. We finally got to see Cap wield Mjolnir, and for a good while, he was kicking Thanos's ass with it. Scarlett Witch almost had her redemption moment and literally almost ripped Thanos in half. Captain Marvel flew into his ship and destroyed it, and ate every hit he threw at her. Thanos literally had to take the power stone out of the gauntlet and use it on her to have an advantage.
But that's not bringing anything new to the table in terms of cinematography. You're basically saying here that it was a "cool" and a great movie. That's not the same as saying that the filmmakers were pioneers in certain filmmaking techniques that will be copied by other filmmakers in the years to come. That's really what makes a movie memorable and a true masterpiece IMO.
Scorsese is a real artist when it comes to filmmaking. He invented quite a few techniques that have stood the test of time. The best one, IMO, is the freeze frame, with the most notable example being the introductory scene in Goodfellas.
"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."
That one shot (and line) will forever live in immortality. It is probably the best opening sequence of a movie ever.
The MCU lacks these kinds of signature characteristics IMO. I remember the final battle at the end of Civil War and thinking that Jack Bauer was going to come running out onto the tarmac at any moment screaming "Where is the detonator???" It was more of a TV-level quality of production that didn't seem to be commensurate with its huge budget. I'm sure others will disagree, but there was nothing that made me think, "Wow, this is going to go up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Matrix, Star Wars, etc." It was a fine movie for what it was, but not great. I don't think any of the MCU movies come close to rivaling the Dark Knight unless CGI is really your thing. End Game might be the GOAT CGI movie.
The MCU lacks these kinds of signature characteristics IMO. I remember the final battle at the end of Civil War and thinking that Jack Bauer was going to come running out onto the tarmac at any moment screaming "Where is the detonator???" It was more of a TV-level quality of production that didn't seem to be commensurate with its huge budget. I'm sure others will disagree, but there was nothing that made me think, "Wow, this is going to go up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Matrix, Star Wars, etc."
The problem is that for decades the conflict in super hero comics always devolves into good guys punching bad guys. It's still a staple of the genre. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that when it's done well. But can we not start thinking out the box at times?
The AVENGERS movies have actually been the worst examples of this, particularly the second one. They have a sentient robot who could supposedly transfer his consciousness instantly just as any computer could do. The Avengers solution? Give chase and start punching!
I don't object to super hero movies being fun. They should be fun. But do they have to consistently be so dumb?
The problem is that for decades the conflict in super hero comics always devolves into good guys punching bad guys. It's still a staple of the genre. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that when it's done well. But can we not start thinking out the box at times?
The AVENGERS movies have actually been the worst examples of this, particularly the second one. They have a sentient robot who could supposedly transfer his consciousness instantly just as any computer could do. The Avengers solution? Give chase and start punching!
I don't object to super hero movies being fun. They should be fun. But do they have to consistently be so dumb?
I don't know if I'd call them dumb, but they are certainly simplistic. Good guys have purely good motives and bad guys for the most part have purely evil motives. The extent of any type of complexity is Thanos wanting to destroy half the universe for supposedly altruistic reasons. Otherwise, good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things.
I think most people are perfectly fine with this. They want to go to the movies and "not think" for once. It's basically like people making a conscious decision to eat cotton candy; they know it's completely lacking in nutrients, but they're not eating it for the nutrients. They're eating it because it's sweet, fluffy and fun! Most people probably have a similar attitude about the MCU and don't want to inject any complexity (i.e., nutrients) into the storylines.
And I totally get that. My criticism is that you can have a movie with a rather shallow story that's still shot in a refreshing and original way. I think the MCU falls short there.
But that's not bringing anything new to the table in terms of cinematography. You're basically saying here that it was a "cool" and a great movie. That's not the same as saying that the filmmakers were pioneers in certain filmmaking techniques that will be copied by other filmmakers in the years to come. That's really what makes a movie memorable and a true masterpiece IMO.
Scorsese is a real artist when it comes to filmmaking. He invented quite a few techniques that have stood the test of time. The best one, IMO, is the freeze frame, with the most notable example being the introductory scene in Goodfellas.
"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster."
That one shot (and line) will forever live in immortality. It is probably the best opening sequence of a movie ever.
The MCU lacks these kinds of signature characteristics IMO. I remember the final battle at the end of Civil War and thinking that Jack Bauer was going to come running out onto the tarmac at any moment screaming "Where is the detonator???" It was more of a TV-level quality of production that didn't seem to be commensurate with its huge budget. I'm sure others will disagree, but there was nothing that made me think, "Wow, this is going to go up there with Raiders of the Lost Ark, the Matrix, Star Wars, etc." It was a fine movie for what it was, but not great. I don't think any of the MCU movies come close to rivaling the Dark Knight unless CGI is really your thing. End Game might be the GOAT CGI movie.
I see what you're saying, and love the Goodfellas reference, as it's one of my favorite movies. But bringing together that many household names under one film to help put the final piece to the puzzle of a 10-year story, is definitely a pioneer move. Marvel and Disney were the first two companies that sat down, mulled over a giant list of superheroes, made their own stories with these existing characters, and had a goal, and a vision: to make multiple films that had a main story line, with a side story that helped tie each movie into each other, to create one giant arc. Literally every Marvel movie from Iron Man to Spider-Man: Far From Home, connects to each film that was released from 2008 - 2019. No other studio has been able to have that many actors and actresses under not one, but two films, that were meant to be strung together into one long film.
How you can denounce that simply because of CGI fights and Marvel being "boring," is beyond me. That definitely counts. Marvel and Disney took what film studios did in the past for superhero films and raised the bar. They created a standard; one that WB tried to half ass and failed miserably from it. Marvel Studios set a bar for how special effects should be done. They allowed their actors to perform their own stunts, and gave them more freedom with it versus any other studio. (Chadwick Boseman said this himself, as he was astonished with how much they allowed him to do, versus other studios limiting his own stunts.) Disney mastered digitally de-aging actors and set a standard for that as well. No other film company has nailed it like them. As I said before, Scorsese used it for The Irishman. We fell in love with these actors and they people they played. RDJ will always be Iron Man. Chris Evans will always be Captain America. They have left a huge impact on the franchise, and no one will ever be able to fill their shoes, at least for now. End Game was a grand finale and then some. So of course it was going to have one hell of a final battle; I wouldn't expect anything else. I guarantee you people will be talking about a lost of those films years to come. And Captain America: The Winter Solider, can definitely rival The Dark Knight Rises, which looking back at it now, was the best one in the trilogy.
First one was decent, and TDKR was crap. Christopher Nolan is obsessed with realism and not fantasy. So instead of picking one of the many other Batman villains that could actually exist in our world, he chose to take a Mexican luchador who was a victim of an experiment and had tubes surgically put into his body, fill it with the venom serum, and when activated, Bane goes from a 6 ft man, to a giant, almost 8 ft tall, jacked up killing machine. Instead we got some scrawny bull****, well spoken person that isn't remotely close to Bane's mannerisms (wasn't even Mexican either), that had a stupid mask that helped him breathe in a "special serum." What a joke. Even Tom Hardy said he was embarrassed and disappointed with how Bane was portrayed.
The problem is that for decades the conflict in super hero comics always devolves into good guys punching bad guys. It's still a staple of the genre. And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that when it's done well. But can we not start thinking out the box at times?
The AVENGERS movies have actually been the worst examples of this, particularly the second one. They have a sentient robot who could supposedly transfer his consciousness instantly just as any computer could do. The Avengers solution? Give chase and start punching!
I don't object to super hero movies being fun. They should be fun. But do they have to consistently be so dumb?
OK, but that's how Ultron is in the comics. He can tap into any piece of technology and upload his consciousness into it. And they did more than just "punch him." They create Vision, which was the key to defeating him. He was even more brutal in the comics than he was in the movie. Matter of fact, it takes The Avengers 10 years to finally destroy him for good in the Ultron story arc.
Also, I suggest you watch Logan, and try and tell me they're all the same. Or Deadpool 1 & 2.
I see what you're saying, and love the Goodfellas reference, as it's one of my favorite movies. But bringing together that many household names under one film to help put the final piece to the puzzle of a 10-year story, is definitely a pioneer move. Marvel and Disney were the first two companies that sat down, mulled over a giant list of superheroes, made their own stories with these existing characters, and had a goal, and a vision: to make multiple films that had a main story line, with a side story that helped tie each movie into each other, to create one giant arc. Literally every Marvel movie from Iron Man to Spider-man: Far From Home connects to each film that was released from 2008 - 2019. No other studio has been able to have that many actors and actresses under not one, but two films, that were meant to be strung together into one long film.
That's not a "pioneer move." I guess we can congratulate them for having the budget to film a movie that includes gobs of comic characters, but that's not revolutionary and it's certainly not something that's easily reproducible. If putting together an All-Star ensemble is a "pioneer move," then everything from Justice League to the Expendables could be considered a "pioneer move." A lot of movies with All-Star casts suck really badly.
I think you're probably a huge fan of all these characters, and as a huge fan, I'm sure it warms your heart to see all these characters you've been reading about for years come to life on the big screen. I totally get that. There is definitely a reason to be excited about these movies now that we live in an age of incredible CGI that makes movies like End Game possible. But from a cinematic perspective, these movies are a bit rote for my taste.
There are lots of films I don't really care for substance/plot-wise (i.e., The Revenant) yet I appreciate from a filmmaking perspective. I can't really think of any MCU films that fall into that category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK736
How you can denounce that simply because of CGI fights and Marvel being "boring," is beyond me.
Where did I say anything about these movies being boring? I am talking almost strictly about the technical achievements of films, i.e., how they were shot. "Birth of a Nation" is an absolutely repulsive movie, but that's an issue separate and apart from the techniques used to make the movie, which were revolutionary at the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
