MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
14,418
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Boston, MA
Incarnate - I knew this would be bad, it's just like, demonic Inception I guess; except instead of DiCaprio, we have Eckhart playing a paralyzed asshole, and no JGL/Tom Hardy/Ken Wantanabe.

From Within - also bad, this one walked so It Follows could run.
 

Mathemagician

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
4,641
Just watched the 2012 Spider-Man for the first time ever with Garfield. I never saw them at the time just because I was busy w/school. But I’m surprised people seemed to “hate” them for so long. Was it just because everyone wanted Toby back?
 

wankerness

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
7,176
Reaction score
1,845
Location
WI
Just watched the 2012 Spider-Man for the first time ever with Garfield. I never saw them at the time just because I was busy w/school. But I’m surprised people seemed to “hate” them for so long. Was it just because everyone wanted Toby back?
No, it's cause it's terrible and doesn't know what it's doing in terms of characterization or writing. It's some of the worst character writing imaginable. Garfield is good enough that he can trick you into thinking his character has any consistency, but holy SHIT is the movie horribly written.

Spider-Man himself seems to waver between being tortured emo kid, goofy nerd, and smart-ass cocky asshole, but not through any sort of character development. He just acts like a different character depending on what each scene calls for. It's a mess. Tobey Maguire certainly had mood swings, but the crucial difference is that those movies have things like "character arcs" or "people reacting to events in some approximation of the way you'd expect a human to behave," while ASM doesn't even pretend.

The villain's even worse, with him initially presented as some kind of benevolent scientist ala the early scenes with Dr. Octavius, but then just randomly turning into a complete psycho with no real explanation. The worst is the unbearable scene in which he very angrily starts defending lizards to Peter Parker well beyond the point of any audience member getting frustrated thinking "Peter, you dumbass, he's basically screaming from the rooftops that he's the giant lizard monster."

And what the hell is with the scene where Peter parks himself in the center of a sewer listening for the lizard with his camera set up in a corner, but then as soon as the lizard shows up, he just leaves the camera there instead of using it/taking it?? It's like they forgot to put in WHY Peter had his camera there when trying to come up with a scene to explain how the lizard would figure out Spider-Man was Peter.

And then there's Emma Stone, who's given an endless parade of short skirts and tall boots and a lot of sassy, brainless dialogue while also trying to convince us she's such a genius that she as a high schooler is working in one of the most high-tech laboratories in the world. I think it's probably just that the writers for this movie were way too stupid to come up with intelligent-sounding dialogue rather than anything that could be blamed on Emma Stone.

It's bad, bad, bad. The adult casting is no fun, either. Martin Sheen is completely unconvincing as a blue-collar regular guy. Sally Field is trying way too hard to dramatically act for the level that this tripe deserves, and she ends up bringing down her scenes by making them too miserable. The only guy that comes out relatively unscathed is Denis Leary, who manages to snark his way through the early scenes but become likable by the end.

The sequel's even worse (epic dubstep Itsy Bitsy Spider, anyone?). I don't totally love the ones with Tom Holland or anything but at least they have vibrant characters that do things that are consistent with their established personalities.
 

BlackMastodon

\m/ (゚Д゚) \m/
Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
7,004
Reaction score
2,625
Location
Windsor, ON
Agree with every point above. I didn't watch the Garfield movies when they released but watched the first one a year or 2 ago and thought it was utter trash. Just an insulting movie, compared to the Tom Holland ones and even the Toby McGuire ones (which really show their age, I think).
 

Mathemagician

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
4,641
No, it's cause it's terrible and doesn't know what it's doing in terms of characterization or writing. It's some of the worst character writing imaginable. Garfield is good enough that he can trick you into thinking his character has any consistency, but holy SHIT is the movie horribly written.

Spider-Man himself seems to waver between being tortured emo kid, goofy nerd, and smart-ass cocky asshole, but not through any sort of character development. He just acts like a different character depending on what each scene calls for. It's a mess. Tobey Maguire certainly had mood swings, but the crucial difference is that those movies have things like "character arcs" or "people reacting to events in some approximation of the way you'd expect a human to behave," while ASM doesn't even pretend.

The villain's even worse, with him initially presented as some kind of benevolent scientist ala the early scenes with Dr. Octavius, but then just randomly turning into a complete psycho with no real explanation. The worst is the unbearable scene in which he very angrily starts defending lizards to Peter Parker well beyond the point of any audience member getting frustrated thinking "Peter, you dumbass, he's basically screaming from the rooftops that he's the giant lizard monster."

And what the hell is with the scene where Peter parks himself in the center of a sewer listening for the lizard with his camera set up in a corner, but then as soon as the lizard shows up, he just leaves the camera there instead of using it/taking it?? It's like they forgot to put in WHY Peter had his camera there when trying to come up with a scene to explain how the lizard would figure out Spider-Man was Peter.

And then there's Emma Stone, who's given an endless parade of short skirts and tall boots and a lot of sassy, brainless dialogue while also trying to convince us she's such a genius that she as a high schooler is working in one of the most high-tech laboratories in the world. I think it's probably just that the writers for this movie were way too stupid to come up with intelligent-sounding dialogue rather than anything that could be blamed on Emma Stone.

It's bad, bad, bad. The adult casting is no fun, either. Martin Sheen is completely unconvincing as a blue-collar regular guy. Sally Field is trying way too hard to dramatically act for the level that this tripe deserves, and she ends up bringing down her scenes by making them too miserable. The only guy that comes out relatively unscathed is Denis Leary, who manages to snark his way through the early scenes but become likable by the end.

The sequel's even worse (epic dubstep Itsy Bitsy Spider, anyone?). I don't totally love the ones with Tom Holland or anything but at least they have vibrant characters that do things that are consistent with their established personalities.

You know you put to words a lot of the different things I’d noticed especially in regards to the character personalities/acting. I agree with pretty much all of them.

One scene that stuck out as well done character wise was the saving of the kid in the car. That actually felt like a really cool thing for Peter Parker to do. I wish we’d had a little more of that stuff.

It also feels like a classic move where they had to cut it down to reach a fixed run time. I feel like anything that would have noted character development got cut or something.

I still had fun though. And I’m glad he got a bit of a redemption story in the latest spider man movie.
 

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Fairbanks, AK
Watched the most recent Dune again as I am reading the book for the first time.

I've seen the older movies many times at this point, but as I read the book I am realizing there is so much even within the parts of the story that do make it onto film that just doesn't get the detail necessary to fully understand WTF is going on.

Perfect example, I didn't realize the full extent to which the Bene Gesserit had engineered the entire arc of the Maud'dib prophecy. The movies all make reference to it in their own ways and I notice it now having read (part of) the book, but the fact that they did it all is not as clear.

To me, this makes it a much more interesting take on the "white savior" trope. The Fremen had their entire culture and religion infiltrated by what surely must have been many generations of social engineering. That is a lot more believable than them and just arbitrarily having a prophecy that can only be fulfilled by white space jesus, but that in and of itself is a rather common trope and so I applaud Frank Herbert, especially given the time in which he wrote this, for putting substantially more nuance to the events, allowing them the weight of more meaningful implications.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,811
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
We need sequel material.
Why? It's a DC film. They'll push the reset button and have a new Batman to play with in less than three films. I'd be shocked to see Pattinson's second outing as Batman make it to release. That management team hates nothing more than they hate continuity.
 

Spaced Out Ace

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
5,093
Location
Indiana
Why? It's a DC film. They'll push the reset button and have a new Batman to play with in less than three films. I'd be shocked to see Pattinson's second outing as Batman make it to release. That management team hates nothing more than they hate continuity.
Meanwhile, Ezra Miller is a fucking dumpster fire piece of genetic feces and is still going to be in The Flash, apparently.

As for Pattinson, I have no interest in this version of Batman. For whatever reason, I'm just not interested and I love Batman movies.
 

KnightBrolaire

OnlyPointies™
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
18,596
Reaction score
22,592
Location
MN
Meanwhile, Ezra Miller is a fucking dumpster fire piece of genetic feces and is still going to be in The Flash, apparently.

As for Pattinson, I have no interest in this version of Batman. For whatever reason, I'm just not interested and I love Batman movies.
he's done as the Flash and fired from WB after this film. The only reason they kept him on was to finish the film.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,811
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
Meanwhile, Ezra Miller is a fucking dumpster fire piece of genetic feces and is still going to be in The Flash, apparently.

As for Pattinson, I have no interest in this version of Batman. For whatever reason, I'm just not interested and I love Batman movies.
Unfortunately, I don't think the movie making machine will be completely satisfied until Batman is destroyed as a movie property. I'm a huge Batman fan, and have been since I was a kid, and I haven't bothered watching a Batman movies since Bale's. I can't stand having a completely new cast every time a movie comes out. I've been tempted by this one, as it does at least sound interesting in concept, but it is Pattinson. Very few actors get a bigger *meh* from me. He's not a bad actor, but doesn't inspire with most of his performances either.
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
14,418
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Boston, MA
Unfortunately, I don't think the movie making machine will be completely satisfied until Batman is destroyed as a movie property. I'm a huge Batman fan, and have been since I was a kid, and I haven't bothered watching a Batman movies since Bale's. I can't stand having a completely new cast every time a movie comes out. I've been tempted by this one, as it does at least sound interesting in concept, but it is Pattinson. Very few actors get a bigger *meh* from me. He's not a bad actor, but doesn't inspire with most of his performances either.

Man, that's an absolute shame as Affleck was a perfectly cast Batman for a DKR style, and Pattinson coming in for a year two style origins looks to be on track as the next Keaton; Bale's trilogy has moments where it's good, but overall, it's pretty hokey.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,811
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
Man, that's an absolute shame as Affleck was a perfectly cast Batman for a DKR style, and Pattinson coming in for a year two style origins looks to be on track as the next Keaton; Bale's trilogy has moments where it's good, but overall, it's pretty hokey.
I got burnt out on the flip-flip-flip nature of the DC franchises and gave up on them altogether movie-wise. I watched the Keaton Batman's, hit the Kilmer one, then bowed out when they changed to Clooney. Three Batmans in three films is two too many.

Got into the Bale ones even if they aren't the favorites of anybody, then they announced before the third came out that they're restarting yet again in the hopes of creating a "universe," and just sorta pffffffffffffted out. Flipping actors is one thing. Claiming you're going to create a "universe" by throwing out everything you've already done was sorta nail-in-the-coffin. Yet it pisses me off they have these characters and they CLEARLY have no clue what to do with them.
 

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
14,418
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Boston, MA
Yeah, as someone who was born in '90, the general consensus is that the best two Batman films came out either the year before I was born or when I was around 3 years old (I believe Batman Returns in 1993), and then to have two more actors portray the character when I was getting the age to be able to see them and recognize them so quickly was a bit like, "Wait, what?" I think at the time I thought it was more natural and it didn't really affect much, but then as you get older you hear how bad those movies were and what they did to the legacy of the character for future movies, it's a bummer; especially since after/during Clooney we had the Batman Animated Series going on parallel with it, and following that we also had Justice League Unlimited, which I think my generation consider those two the definitive Batman and he's not even live action!

As a character he's had highs and lows, which is a nightmare that there's no real consistent bar for anyone who might want to check out any of the live action Batman offerings. I think with the WB/DC shakeup we'll hopefully see that coming with Pattinson's universe that'll hopefully be disconnected for a minute and not hinge on roping him into some forced Justice League immediately.
 

wankerness

SS.org Regular
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
7,176
Reaction score
1,845
Location
WI
I think saying Batman ‘89 is better than the Bale movies is a minority/contrarian position mainly pushed by aging millennials who have a lot of nostalgia for it. It’s really not very good. Batman Returns is at least incredibly interesting and has one of the most intricate scores ever in a blockbuster, but I wouldn’t call it a classic either. That’s not to say they’re bad movies, but especially the 89 one fails pretty hard in a narrative sense imo and I find Nicholson’s presence overpowering and mostly annoying. Not to say he’s bad, the movie just can’t handle him. It ends up working best as a really stylish music video almost. Speaking of which, I hate the Prince songs on the soundtrack’s prevalence as much as the repeated Nirvana needledrops in this newest one.

From what I hear the animated series might be the best portrayal. I’ve only seen the mister freeze “movie” and mask of the phantasm, the former of which I did find pretty impressive. But I definitely think the Bale movies are really good even if they aren’t perfect.
 

nightflameauto

SS.org Regular
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,371
Reaction score
1,811
Location
Sioux Falls, SD
From what I hear the animated series might be the best portrayal. I’ve only seen the mister freeze “movie” and mask of the phantasm, the former of which I did find pretty impressive. But I definitely think the Bale movies are really good even if they aren’t perfect.
The wife and I are currently about halfway through a rewatch of the animated series. Anybody that's a Batfan needs to watch this at least once. I hadn't seen it since it was originally airing way back when, and it's killing me how much of it I remember in hazy terms. It's definitely the backbone of my Batman fandom. While my first encounter of the caped crusader was reruns of the old Adam West series, the Animated will forever be my "that's Batman" choice for TV/Film. Unless something miraculous happens and somebody gets "Ryan Reynolds into Deadpool" level fan-cray into Batman with the money and clout to steer the ship. And somehow I don't see that happening, as too many big dollar folks see Batman as a money maker. They'll forever fuck up how good it could be, all in the hopes that they can make it "better" by messing with it.
 

Spaced Out Ace

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
5,093
Location
Indiana
I think saying Batman ‘89 is better than the Bale movies is a minority/contrarian position mainly pushed by aging millennials who have a lot of nostalgia for it. It’s really not very good. Batman Returns is at least incredibly interesting and has one of the most intricate scores ever in a blockbuster, but I wouldn’t call it a classic either. That’s not to say they’re bad movies, but especially the 89 one fails pretty hard in a narrative sense imo and I find Nicholson’s presence overpowering and mostly annoying. Not to say he’s bad, the movie just can’t handle him. It ends up working best as a really stylish music video almost. Speaking of which, I hate the Prince songs on the soundtrack’s prevalence as much as the repeated Nirvana needledrops in this newest one.

From what I hear the animated series might be the best portrayal. I’ve only seen the mister freeze “movie” and mask of the phantasm, the former of which I did find pretty impressive. But I definitely think the Bale movies are really good even if they aren’t perfect.
Lol
 

Spaced Out Ace

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
9,448
Reaction score
5,093
Location
Indiana
The wife and I are currently about halfway through a rewatch of the animated series. Anybody that's a Batfan needs to watch this at least once. I hadn't seen it since it was originally airing way back when, and it's killing me how much of it I remember in hazy terms. It's definitely the backbone of my Batman fandom. While my first encounter of the caped crusader was reruns of the old Adam West series, the Animated will forever be my "that's Batman" choice for TV/Film. Unless something miraculous happens and somebody gets "Ryan Reynolds into Deadpool" level fan-cray into Batman with the money and clout to steer the ship. And somehow I don't see that happening, as too many big dollar folks see Batman as a money maker. They'll forever fuck up how good it could be, all in the hopes that they can make it "better" by messing with it.
TAS was and is killer! I love that stuff like X-Men, Spiderman and Batman had animated series that weren't specifically for children.
 

wheresthefbomb

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
3,573
Location
Fairbanks, AK
A Scanner Darkly

Second time I've seen it, I found it streaming on some sketchy website. Highly worth a re-watch, I picked up a lot of stuff I missed the first time. I will probably read the story when I finish Dune, and will likely watch the movie again-again in the meantime.

The paranoid group drug freakout scenes are a perfect mix of psychotic, hilarious, and maybe a little uncomfortably relatable. Downey and Harrelson are great. Even Keaneu himself feels like the right casting for this movie, instead of his usual "Ted just wandered on set lost and high as a MF" performances



EDIT: And now I'm watching Mask of the Phantasm. I haven't seen this since my mom brought it home from the movie rental store when I was a kid. Will be watching SubZero next, then starting in on TAS. Planning a full on nostalgia blowout today.
 
Last edited:

MFB

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
14,418
Reaction score
3,950
Location
Boston, MA
TAS was and is killer! I love that stuff like X-Men, Spiderman and Batman had animated series that weren't specifically for children.

There's like a 20 min video with the composer of the X-Men Animated Series theme song and they talk about the series and what made it so loved; ultimately it came down to not treating it like a "kids" show, because the second you do that, it dates it for when they're older and won't want to watch it. If you approached stories/concepts at a level that's basic enough for everyone to understand but still well written, then that's what will sell (and it did).
 


Top