The Big Picture: Future Assembly
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I was going to watch the Avengers before you post your review video of it but noooo, two of my work colleages gotten ill so I'm covering their shift (curse their immune system) everday until the weekend.
OT- Thank god you were joking about the Mozes/ Indina Jones continuity otherwise I would of ranted how using that arc does not make it a continuity. Honestly the whole concept of it is abit of a double edged sword but for now I like it only for super heroes movies.
OT- Thank god you were joking about the Mozes/ Indina Jones continuity otherwise I would of ranted how using that arc does not make it a continuity. Honestly the whole concept of it is abit of a double edged sword but for now I like it only for super heroes movies.
You know, I bet Tarantino will jump on this. His movies are already a shared Universe, technically, aren't they? Like, didn't Mr. White in Reservoir Dogs mention a thief he'd worked with in the past, who was Honey Bunny in Pulp Fiction? And isn't Tarantinoverse different to our universe because of how WWII ended in Inglorious Basterds?
If he expanded on all this, that'd be really cool.
If he expanded on all this, that'd be really cool.
Wait two weeks? Not only am I going to see it this Saturday I bought my tickets for it last week. I do find it odd that the UK gets the movie earlier but I'm not going to complain because it means I can see it with my fiancee on our engagement anniversary (the best part is I'm not dragging her to see it, it is legitimately what we both want to do that day).
01:42 - Huh, I've got that poster on my wall.
04:59 - It would be very awesome Bob.
01:42 - Huh, I've got that poster on my wall.
04:59 - It would be very awesome Bob.
My question is, "when The Avengers gets a sequel (and it will, don't kid yourself), what new superheroes will be in it?" I'd personally like to see how Marvel Studios (and yes, it's wierd saying that) does characters like, say, Ant-Man. Or maybe they'll bring in the Heroes For Hire? Or another possibility, maybe they'll start taking back their toys and do a proper Fantastic Four or Daredevil.
Bob, I'm surprised by you! This seemed like the best time to talk about Jay and Silent Bob who have been living in the Kevin Smith movie-verse since Clerks. I liked the idea of those two stoners going through each of the movies they've made cameos in where Dogma could have just been a fever dream they were having and where Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back could have been...well, another fever dream (at least until the end of Clerks 2).
Other than that earlier instance of inner-movie continuity, I really can't freaking wait for Avengers! I'm off work the night of the midnight showing and will be there in the worlds worst Thor cosplay.
Other than that earlier instance of inner-movie continuity, I really can't freaking wait for Avengers! I'm off work the night of the midnight showing and will be there in the worlds worst Thor cosplay.
No Bob, you're not the only one to like the ark tie-in idea. I'd be disappointed if Spielberg didn't do that. I am now actively and anxiously expecting this ark scene.
Wow, the Americans aren't getting it until May? I'm going to see it this Friday...
While there's plenty of awesome to be had with cross-overs, given the way Hollywood is right now, I'd rather not have it at all. There's so much opportunity for abuse, and we all know they'll jump at the chance.
While there's plenty of awesome to be had with cross-overs, given the way Hollywood is right now, I'd rather not have it at all. There's so much opportunity for abuse, and we all know they'll jump at the chance.
Oh, the ambivalence.
To my mind, part of the reason the superhero crossover thing works is the degree to which the different superhero movies are all playing by the same rules (and even that has its limitations- who would want to see Superman show up in Nolan's Batman movies right now?)
(Thank you for standing up and making yourselves visible. OPEN FIRE!... Ahem. Pardon my weird violent fantasy...)
Anyway, before I lost my mind, what I was saying is that we operate on a certain level of disbelief and a certain sense of scale and mood in different movies, even within the same genre. So Bruce Banner turns into a nigh-invincible berserker monster because of some combination of mutagens and gamma-rays and this inventor created an armored suit that lets him fly and fire blasts out of his hands and there's an ancient Norse god who's kinda-sorta an alien and there are a couple of ordinary humans who are so incredibly good at their chosen fields that they tag along with this group and totally aren't out of their depth- okay. Fine. But they're all pretty clearly part of the same bemusingly different version of our world where chance makes individuals into forces comparable to whole army divisions, only less vulnerable. The Hulk may be a bit "woe is me" in his version, Captain America a bit more "basic inherent goodness trumps all", but the differences aren't generally the kind of thing that warrants show-stopping double-takes.
But even between two different action movies, you can have significantly different levels of realism and tone and setting. It would feel downright strange to have a character from "The A Team" show up in something like "Heat", or even have Roger Moore's James Bond show up in a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. Take the example Bob gives- depending on that cop movie, the presence of that cop character might well make the audience cock its head and say "I thought he lived in a city where shoot-outs in the middle of the street were a daily occurrence. Why are our likable young couple shopping at this farmer's market- shouldn't they be cowering in their homes in terror?"
Like many things, I don't mean to suggest that this whole crossover thing couldn't be handled well by skilled and gifted moviemakers, as appears to have been the case with the handling of Marvel's franchises.
But we're not always dealing with skilled and gifted moviemakers. A lot of the time- way too much of the time- we're dealing with the kind of people who thought greenlighting a movie based on Battleship was a good idea. Ham-handed use of this "cross-over" idea sounds like a marketer's dream and every cinephile's nightmare, something that could do harm to whole studios worth of movies rather than simply allowing a bad idea to flicker and die in a single bad movie.
It's like a staple gun. It's a tool. Properly used, it could make work faster and more efficient, but- AH! MY EYE!
To my mind, part of the reason the superhero crossover thing works is the degree to which the different superhero movies are all playing by the same rules (and even that has its limitations- who would want to see Superman show up in Nolan's Batman movies right now?)
(Thank you for standing up and making yourselves visible. OPEN FIRE!... Ahem. Pardon my weird violent fantasy...)
Anyway, before I lost my mind, what I was saying is that we operate on a certain level of disbelief and a certain sense of scale and mood in different movies, even within the same genre. So Bruce Banner turns into a nigh-invincible berserker monster because of some combination of mutagens and gamma-rays and this inventor created an armored suit that lets him fly and fire blasts out of his hands and there's an ancient Norse god who's kinda-sorta an alien and there are a couple of ordinary humans who are so incredibly good at their chosen fields that they tag along with this group and totally aren't out of their depth- okay. Fine. But they're all pretty clearly part of the same bemusingly different version of our world where chance makes individuals into forces comparable to whole army divisions, only less vulnerable. The Hulk may be a bit "woe is me" in his version, Captain America a bit more "basic inherent goodness trumps all", but the differences aren't generally the kind of thing that warrants show-stopping double-takes.
But even between two different action movies, you can have significantly different levels of realism and tone and setting. It would feel downright strange to have a character from "The A Team" show up in something like "Heat", or even have Roger Moore's James Bond show up in a Daniel Craig James Bond movie. Take the example Bob gives- depending on that cop movie, the presence of that cop character might well make the audience cock its head and say "I thought he lived in a city where shoot-outs in the middle of the street were a daily occurrence. Why are our likable young couple shopping at this farmer's market- shouldn't they be cowering in their homes in terror?"
Like many things, I don't mean to suggest that this whole crossover thing couldn't be handled well by skilled and gifted moviemakers, as appears to have been the case with the handling of Marvel's franchises.
But we're not always dealing with skilled and gifted moviemakers. A lot of the time- way too much of the time- we're dealing with the kind of people who thought greenlighting a movie based on Battleship was a good idea. Ham-handed use of this "cross-over" idea sounds like a marketer's dream and every cinephile's nightmare, something that could do harm to whole studios worth of movies rather than simply allowing a bad idea to flicker and die in a single bad movie.
It's like a staple gun. It's a tool. Properly used, it could make work faster and more efficient, but- AH! MY EYE!
Locking things up in even more complicated copyright issues, giving hollywood another reason to not make anything but sequels? No thanks.
And I'll have to wait for the dvd release since I don't want to see it in 3D... But I'm sure every scene will have been released as a separate promo clip by then, so I'll just have to piece them together.
And I'll have to wait for the dvd release since I don't want to see it in 3D... But I'm sure every scene will have been released as a separate promo clip by then, so I'll just have to piece them together.
MMmmyeah, sorry, I like seeing Bob this excited for something but I'm not feeling it. "The future"? Don't you think you're exaggerating a little? To me, continuity is either a cheap gimmick or an impenetrable barrier to entry, depending on how long it's been going. Especially with mashing universes, it just seems like the writers are toying with their own creations, not considering them seriously.
Also, I don't like how studios might handle this - dozens of movies could be shoehorned into the same continuity, purely for cross-promotion purposes, thereby limiting what the writer and director even further. Or, if it's an empty crossover, like the medieval-looking armour or chakram-thrower from Amalur in Mass Effect 3, it makes no sense, it's dubiously crammed into canon, it strains disbelief and wasn't needed.
It's also exhausting. Even with book series, for example, I don't think I'll have the time or willpower in my entire lifespan to enjoy more than... five of them. Potter's already taken a decade off of me, and I'm only starting with Vorkosigan, so regardless of their quality, I'm retching at the sight of any other long-running series.
I think it would also make me risk-averse - if I know something is supposed to run for years, why would I start watching immediately? I don't know if it's any good, I don't want to invest in something long-running if the attention I can give to such works is a limited resource, so I'd rather wait for it to reach a conclusion before diving in. I know a lot of people that avoid series until they have at least a season's worth of episodes - and while TV shows may profit from DVD sales and streaming, movies can't afford to have people miss the box office.
Also, I don't like how studios might handle this - dozens of movies could be shoehorned into the same continuity, purely for cross-promotion purposes, thereby limiting what the writer and director even further. Or, if it's an empty crossover, like the medieval-looking armour or chakram-thrower from Amalur in Mass Effect 3, it makes no sense, it's dubiously crammed into canon, it strains disbelief and wasn't needed.
It's also exhausting. Even with book series, for example, I don't think I'll have the time or willpower in my entire lifespan to enjoy more than... five of them. Potter's already taken a decade off of me, and I'm only starting with Vorkosigan, so regardless of their quality, I'm retching at the sight of any other long-running series.
I think it would also make me risk-averse - if I know something is supposed to run for years, why would I start watching immediately? I don't know if it's any good, I don't want to invest in something long-running if the attention I can give to such works is a limited resource, so I'd rather wait for it to reach a conclusion before diving in. I know a lot of people that avoid series until they have at least a season's worth of episodes - and while TV shows may profit from DVD sales and streaming, movies can't afford to have people miss the box office.
Considering 'The Avengers': I saw the German press release on April, 16th (Europe gets to see the movie a week before the US) and have to say that I, as someone whose knowledge of the Marvel Universe is limited to the five movies before the big team-up, was reeeeaaally surprised.
The movie knows its roots and doesn't even try to approach the characters with a realistic perspective as Nolan did with Batman. The movie is funny, the action is amazing (Transformers this is definately not) and, probably the most important thing, every character gets at least one moment to shine and noone is only 'physically present'. There are some minor downsides (which I won't get into because of spoilers), but they are inferior to the pros. The script even managed to give Bruce Banner a reason to be there.
And yes, it pays off to stay through the credits
The movie knows its roots and doesn't even try to approach the characters with a realistic perspective as Nolan did with Batman. The movie is funny, the action is amazing (Transformers this is definately not) and, probably the most important thing, every character gets at least one moment to shine and noone is only 'physically present'. There are some minor downsides (which I won't get into because of spoilers), but they are inferior to the pros. The script even managed to give Bruce Banner a reason to be there.
And yes, it pays off to stay through the credits
Just saw Avengers about an hour ago (opened in Australia earlier, lolwut). Have fun waiting USA et al, it's about time you did for once.
There's an after-credits sequence as usual, someone who knows their stuff can tell me who the guy is because I have no idea. Edit: nevermind I googled it.
the avengers win derp
There's an after-credits sequence as usual, someone who knows their stuff can tell me who the guy is because I have no idea. Edit: nevermind I googled it.