So, this isn't you getting riled up, telling me I'm a cultist (or a fanboy) and that I shouldn't discuss the director by his first name only? In which case I'd like to see you actually annoyed, at least from some distance. Maybe behind a screen.Cliffjumper wrote:Joss? Joss Stone? Joss Ackland? Jos Verstappen? FFS, he's a film/TV director, not your ****ing mate or a religious leader. Nice to see you treated it like any other film rather than an easily led cultist anyway.
So it is, it's aNeuronutter wrote:And anyone who has seen Buffy, or any of his works, knows what his dialogue sounds like.
Joss film because of a bit of dialogue (because he totally invented quips and pop culture references). Guessing X-Men is a Joss film as well, yeh? So I have low standards because I liked the Avengers movie? And I'm easily conditioned because I've watched Buffy and can recognise Whedon scripted dialogue? Huh.Cliffjumper wrote:Yeh, that's me laughing my arse off at how low your standards are and how easily you're conditioned.
I'm assumed you've seen Buffy so you know what I'm talking about. The Avengers dialogue feels like it was written by Whedon.Cliffjumper wrote:Joss [/color]
You seem to accept his name as an inherent seal of quality and get a little tetchy when he's criticised.Neuronutter wrote:So I have low standards because I liked the Avengers movie? And I'm easily conditioned because I've watched Buffy and can recognise Whedon scripted dialogue? Huh.
And the dialogue in the McKellen/Loncraine Richard III sounds like Bill Shakespeare. It doesn't mean it's his film, it must means he wrote some of the script.I'm assumed you've seen Buffy so you know what I'm talking about. The Avengers dialogue feels like it was written by Whedon.
"Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?"And X-Men? I didn't know who wrote that but according to IMDB it was Tom DeSanto, Brian Singer, and David Hayter. Not sure what you're getting at.
You know what, despite spending much of my professional life surveying amphibians, I just don't know - what does happen?Cliffjumper wrote:"Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?"
Not at all. If you look earlier in the thread I expressed my opinion on Dollhouse. I'm not keen on it. And you are the person calling me a fanboy and a cultist when I've leveled no such terms in your direction.Cliffjumper wrote:You seem to accept his name as an inherent seal of quality and get a little tetchy when he's criticised.
That Whedon was it? Ouch. Wonder why his name isn't credited on IMDB?Cliffjumper wrote:"Do you know what happens to a toad when it gets struck by lightning?"
Yes Whedon did write Alien: Resurrection, and that coupled with his interviews discussing the ideas behind it on the DVD really put me off the fellow. I mean, by the Great Mongoose, I just hate when what should be a well crafted by basically simple sci-fi film gets hijacked by someone who wants to make some point abouts something in a heavy-handed way: in this case genetic engineering / cloning. And how outdated was it? Probably would have been at home in the '60s or '70s but it was not handled in a manner contemporary to the '90s.Neuronutter wrote:Also, didn't he right the awful Alien: Resurrection?
Be fair, if you're going to criticise the film having a lack of suspense because of the announced sequels, those announcements can also be used to create it.Cliffjumper wrote:So suspense comes from press releases now? Good. Grief.
Some of those edges were never really there, has Movie Hulk ever actually killed anyone by accident? It's been a while since I've seen either but as far as I recall his rampages in San Fran and New York round one were equally bloodless, at least onscreen.Personally thought all the edges were firmly filed off long before the end. He's no longer the Hulk, unstoppable force of nature. He's now a fully paid up helpful heroic member of the Justice League of Disney Moneyspinners all nicely packaged and cleaned up. Did you see how awesome he was? And how his apparently destructive and unstoppable rages didn't result in a ****-ton of bystander casualties? God that's marketable. Wait until the focus groups see that. I think I just came in my Calvin Kleins.
It's especially odd as his own film basically takes place in an alternate reality where Hydra and the Red Skull were the big bads of World War II rather than the Nazi's (even if there's the implication the rest of the war is happening around it). Closest he gets to punching a Nazi is as part of the USO show Dempsey from Dempsey and Makepeace has him put on.Jesus that bit was stupid, wasn't it? To be fair, it was the only laugh the first hour got out of me.
Cliffjumper wrote: Hang on, why does Fury still have his job at the end of the film? He's apparently removed from command (or was that message from Loki? Or Iron Man? Or Jesus?), he's left a bunch of superheroes running around America, the Heli-Carrier's been blown to ****ery and he's given the Allspark back to Thor...
I must reread Astonishing at some point, I loved the first few issues but the three legged tortoise level publication rate killed the momentum for me. I'm also still not sure if they changed Kitty's powers since the 80's or her being able to phase for longer than she can hold her breath at the end is a cock up."Whedon wrote Astonishing X-Men in Marvel Comics' popular line of comics about the X-Men but finished his 24 issue run in 2008 and handed over the writing reins to Warren Ellis. The title, recreated specifically for Whedon, has been one of Marvel's best-selling comics as of 2006 and was nominated for several Eisner Awards including Best Serialized Story, Best Continuing Series, Best New Series and Best Writer, winning the Best Continuing Series award in 2006"
I'd say that's fair, you can't give either director full responsibility for the failings of their films but put their successes (box office or otherwise) down to everything but them.With the exception of Iron Man 2, none of marvels movies have broken the 100 million mark so Avengers was definitely not a sure thing. Whedons movie is the 3rd or 4th highest grosser of all time. If youre saying thats not in some way down to his direction than the argument for keeping Bay on for a fourth transformers because the other 3 were successful is moot.
I used to think that, but them pulling off Cybertron in Earth's orbit makes me think they could do the looming threat overheard part of things very well. Mind, as it would basically be the same visual they probably won't any time soon, even if all three films to date have basically the same plot they at least try for different set pieces.Cliffjumper wrote:I don't think Unicron would work solely for mechanical reasons.
IIRC there's only two lines in the final film from his script, that and "You're a dick".Neuronutter wrote:
That Whedon was it? Ouch. Wonder why his name isn't credited on IMDB?
I think the big problem with Alien 4 is Ripley. As I said before, Wheedon's big blind spot is sincere. And Ripley was sincere, she wasn't a stock quip throwing action bad ass (I think she managed about three sort of quips across the previous films). She was very much a real, scared person thrown into terrifying situations trying to overcome them, getting down to it with a minimum of fuss.numbat wrote:Yes Whedon did write Alien: Resurrection, and that coupled with his interviews discussing the ideas behind it on the DVD really put me off the fellow. I mean, by the Great Mongoose, I just hate when what should be a well crafted by basically simple sci-fi film gets hijacked by someone who wants to make some point abouts something in a heavy-handed way: in this case genetic engineering / cloning. And how outdated was it? Probably would have been at home in the '60s or '70s but it was not handled in a manner contemporary to the '90s.
You mean they don't dig you not liking Spider-Man?(As a side note I was really surprised how much I enjoyed Captain America - he's my least favourite superhero after Superman, and just loses to Spiderman... It's a bugger to be one of four 'prominent' [I use the term loosely, given there are only four Scottish arachnologists that I'm aware of] Scottish arachnologists and to also hate Spiderman, let me tell you!)
I'd never really thought about that. The world in Avengers should be totally different if it's in the future of the Cap movie. Where are the Hydra weapons? Heh!inflatable dalek wrote:It's especially odd as his own film basically takes place in an alternate reality where Hydra and the Red Skull were the big bads of World War II rather than the Nazi's (even if there's the implication the rest of the war is happening around it).
Ah, the advantages of coming to something like that late when a lovely hardcover collection has already been released. Plus it's so popular it's still in print and likely to stay that way.inflatable dalek wrote:I must reread Astonishing at some point, I loved the first few issues but the three legged tortoise level publication rate killed the momentum for me. I'm also still not sure if they changed Kitty's powers since the 80's or her being able to phase for longer than she can hold her breath at the end is a cock up.
They kept two of his lines? No wonder he's not credited. Still the toad line sucks so why keep it in?inflatable dalek wrote:IIRC there's only two lines in the final film from his script, that and "You're a dick".
Yeah she wasn't the same, was she. She was supposed to be a different Ripley, but I'm not sure it worked. I liked Alien 4 when it came out, then changed my mind when I saw it recently.inflatable dalek wrote:I think the big problem with Alien 4 is Ripley. As I said before, Whedon's big blind spot is sincere. And Ripley was sincere, she wasn't a stock quip throwing action bad ass (I think she managed about three sort of quips across the previous films). She was very much a real, scared person thrown into terrifying situations trying to overcome them, getting down to it with a minimum of fuss.
That's the joy of the character really, she's not the cliché. The scene in Aliens where she's watching the Marines go into the power plant and sees the chest buster come out of that woman on the CCTV sums up the character perfectly, she's horrfied and scared and then pulls herself together in a no nonsense way to try and get everyone out of there OK.
Whedon writes her as Buffy. She's a joke making bad ass who has about one genuinely emotional moment in the whole film. Sure, she's not the same Ripley and it's nice they did try to make her seem a different character, but it's a less interesting one and robs the series of a lot of its heart in a way the AVP films and Bloody Prometheus never regained.
Who said anything about announcements? I watch films, I don't read press releases. It's obvious from very early on that the film has no balls and is very interested in keeping its' new franchise stars alive.inflatable dalek wrote:Be fair, if you're going to criticise the film having a lack of suspense because of the announced sequels, those announcements can also be used to create it.
Apparently the bulk of the audience didn't see those films because the big numbers were brought in by lovely Joss, though. If Hill was going to die she'd have been crushed by rocks at the start. If Hawkeye was going to die Loki would have killed him.Though considering his sizeable supporting role in three of the four preceding films, is Caulson going to look more or less like an invented for the movies disposable character to the bulk of the audience than Hill or even Hawkeye?
That's more a negative for them than a positive for Disneyvengers, surely? Considering how much Banner bangs on about how it's not a good idea to stress him out in the first half of the film (especially when he hasn't said anything for three minutes) it was a bit stupid for the film not to even try addressing why after all his wangst the Hulk just does as he's ****ing told and doesn't really give anyone any bother. Did Harry Dean Stanton (Harry Dean Stanton in a ****ing Disney film) give him magic trousers?Some of those edges were never really there, has Movie Hulk ever actually killed anyone by accident? It's been a while since I've seen either but as far as I recall his rampages in San Fran and New York round one were equally bloodless, at least onscreen.
Apart from when Megatron flicks Michael Bay into a car in the first one or Demolishor runs over a ****ton of motorists in the second one. It's not dwelled on for sure, but it's there and it's balanced by showing the deaths of military personnel, often in great numbers - not to mention the clearly implied deaths of motorists in 1 & 3's highway scenes. Avengers doesn't even do that - when the Chitauri attack they blow up parked cars and cafe furniture. Once more, though, the problem lies in the script signposting what a loose cannon Hulk is and then showing that he's not actually any trouble.hell, it's halfway through the third one before we get onscreen evidence that even the Decepticons role in the big city battles kill any bystanders all).
I know they wrote him out of the universe at one point in the nineties (faked his death at the hands of the Punisher, IIRC) but I stopped reading Marvel when Quesada ****ed too much up.Isn't that basically what happened in the comics around the time Wheedon was doing his X-Men run?
Why not? Box office and film quality are two different things. How many people went to see this thing because it was a Joss Whedon film? Whedon probably deserves credit for turning the thing in on time and, who knows, without him it could have been even more of a car crash. But the commercial appeal is down to a bunch of comic characters who are nearly as old as he is (in America both the Avengers and their core characters have been big news for a long time) and a great big promotional budget. His name probably did help grease a little word of mouth through his cultists but I doubt the thing would have died a death without it.I'd say that's fair, you can't give either director full responsibility for the failings of their films but put their successes (box office or otherwise) down to everything but them.
Whedon writes every female character like Buffy, when he's not writing them like Faith or Cordelia. Like J.J. Abrams he's something of a one-trick pony who lucked into doing the exact thing he was good at for a few years and built up an overrated reputation as a result.inflatable dalek wrote:Wheedon writes her as Buffy.
There's also Willow, Tara, Fred, River and so on.Warcry wrote:Whedon writes every female character like Buffy, when he's not writing them like Faith or Cordelia. Like J.J. Abrams he's something of a one-trick pony who lucked into doing the exact thing he was good at for a few years and built up an overrated reputation as a result.
I'm going to see Looper this weekend on the hope that it's just that: a smart action movie that's intelligent, well put together and well acted. So far that's what the reviews I've seen say it is and I hope I'm not disappointed.Warcry wrote:Hollywood just doesn't do smart action movies anymore, at least not on purpose. That's not going to change no matter who the director is, not until the mindset of the bigwigs calling the shots changes.
It's unfortunate that Incredible Hulk hasn't been given a proper story arc in his previous films to lead him to the point he should be to be part of the Avengers (and not an adversary).Cliffjumper wrote:That's more a negative for them than a positive for Disneyvengers, surely? Considering how much Banner bangs on about how it's not a good idea to stress him out in the first half of the film (especially when he hasn't said anything for three minutes) it was a bit stupid for the film not to even try addressing why after all his wangst the Hulk just does as he's ****ing told and doesn't really give anyone any bother. Did Harry Dean Stanton (Harry Dean Stanton in a ****ing Disney film) give him magic trousers?
Willow's largely written as a male character. She's a fairly standard male geek just played by an attractive female. She's adorable but until she gets with Ozz there's very little that couldn't have been said by a man. The same trick's done with the one with a perfectly spherical head in Firefly.Neuronutter wrote:There's also Willow, Tara, Fred, River and so on.
It's a good concept but the problem is it could have been written into the film with a little thought - the other characters spend the first half gently ribbing Bruce about how he can't control the Hulk, he repeatedly states he's in complete control (maybe with his characterisation a little jittering so the audience don't know whether he will be able to or not), the Hulk comes out and does his Disney, great big I Told You So. But the film goes out of its' way to show that everyone - Banner included - still thinks he's collateral damage in big trousers.Brimstone wrote:I like the idea. There's the monster that Hulk controls and there's the monster that Banner can control.
Fair enough. My point was that Whedon has written more than one kind of female character. You have a Buffy type, a Willow/Fred type, a Faith/Cordelia type. OK, so that's still not many, but it's more than just one.Cliffjumper wrote:Willow's largely written as a male character. She's a fairly standard male geek just played by an attractive female. She's adorable but until she gets with Ozz there's very little that couldn't have been said by a man. The same trick's done with the one with a perfectly spherical head in Firefly.
I was just trying to talk about a time frame within reference. Buffy is often talked about as one of the best TV shows ever made. I'm not sure I'd go that far but it's certainly was one of the best in the period in which it aired and since. Heroes was a shame. After a solid first season they killed it. My wife and I enjoyed Supernatural until the end of season 5 and since it's been pretty dull. I've never watched Lost having no interest in a series that either never answers it's own questions/is all about the mystery/would probably annoy the cr*p out of me. As I said I've never seen it so I don't know how accurate my assumptions are.Cliffjumper wrote:I'd say the phrase "the past 15 years" is pretty meaningless TBH. Buffy probably is in and about the best despite its' faults (and its' faults are many, mostly rooted in having a very dislikeable main protagonist) but that says more about TV in the past 15 years, which has shown a habit of overextending any half decent concept until it's terrible (Heroes, Lost, Prison Break, Supernatural). Go back a few more years and I could name twenty series that obliterate Buffy.
![[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]](/common/skin/cardbackwide/tfarchive.png)
