As someone who never read X-Men or watched the animated series, I couldn't have cared less what the color of their suits were, I just cared that the films were compelling.Jacked Assassin said:They don't go to the police because its boring reminded me of a post I have in a different forum. Though that rant has more to do with the word Practical.
The whole problem with black though is its an over used color scheme. Even worse when it replaces the original color schemes that would've stood out more.
We can't have a Blue, Gray, &/or Yellow outfit Batman.... Nope we can only get black outfit Batman.
We couldn't (originally) have the X-Men in Blue & Yellow or any of their original color schemed outfits. Just a bunch of Black Leather Suits.
And forbid that no one in The Matrix not remind us of The Trench Coat Mafia.
So having Robocop follow along with this doesn't sit well with me at all. Even if someone were to label this as practical the whole point of any of these (Super) Heroes isn't to really be practical in the first place.
If they were practical
Superman would wear all black as black absorbs heat from sunlight more easily.
Spider-Man fighting at night would have an all black outfit with a hard to see Spider Logo if there was a Spider Logo at all.
Tony Stark would have remotely controlled his new Iron-Man suits in every situation.
Thor would have never been cast out of Asgard because this time around he was too practical to get into trouble.
Any Super Hero (or Villain) wearing the colors of their country as their color scheme would be replaced by camouflage.
Kick Ass, Big Daddy, & Hit Girl would have easily been replace by SWAT Teams.
Even being "Practical" by using Military Forces in movies has caused movies to probably be less exciting then they could have been.
Godzilla 1998 (even though my favorite looking Godzilla) suffered from the use of Military Forces. They should've gone with a Mecha Godzilla 1998. That could have been a much better movie.
Cloverfield suffered from similar problems but with the added annoyance of a bunch of pricks from a party.
Michael Bay's Transformers.... Yeesh.... The Military Forces Had / Has the ability to destroy Decepticons without the need for Autobots to be there.
Maybe that's why we can't get a Gundam movie on the big screen. Someone is going to want it to be practical. RX-78-2 (If that's the Gundam they use) wouldn't be able to have its color scheme or its roll out color scheme. It would have to have either a camouflage color on earth or be black since that's basically the camouflage color of space. Then they would probably change it to a Mobile Armor since a Mobile Suit isn't as practical. By the time it was done making practical changes it would be like the Battleship movie.
No wonder I had the urge to defend Pacific Rim. Pacific Rim being impractical is what made it fun.
So once this Practical Robocop comes out I honestly & hopefully expect it to bomb. Because practicality is what ruins these (super hero like) movies.
Would you go as far as to say that Cameron's Avatar was a better movie then Titanic?darkrage6 said:Titanic really is a fucking terrible movie though, the plot holes are the least of that movies problems. It might as well be called "First World Problems the movie", hated the acting in it(and Kate Winslet apparently was not a fan of it)thought Jack and Rose were bland characters with zero chemistry, the film dragged for way too fucking long and engaged in too much bullshit emotional manipulation("instead of selling this valuable necklace to help out some other unfortunate folks, i'm just going to throw it away!") it's the prime example of style over substance. No way in hell it should've beat out L.A. Confidential for Best Picture, Titanic is the worst kind of Oscar Bait imaginable.
Yes, though i've got my issues with that film too-it's basically a live-action version of Ferngully and it's environmental message is so heavy-handed it makes Captain Planet look downright subtle in comparison(and i'm saying that as someone who generally leans left). Most of the reviews praising that film were in regards to the 3-D, which was revolutionary at the time yes, but once you watch the film on home video, you realize it's just another blockbuster and there's nothing too special about it(give me the DCEU and Transformers films over it any day of the week). Honestly I don't think the sequels are going too do that well at the box-office, because Avatar's cultural relevance is long gone by this point, and honestly I don't see where else there is for the sequels to go.Samtemdo8 said:Would you go as far as to say that Cameron's Avatar was a better movie then Titanic?darkrage6 said:Titanic really is a fucking terrible movie though, the plot holes are the least of that movies problems. It might as well be called "First World Problems the movie", hated the acting in it(and Kate Winslet apparently was not a fan of it)thought Jack and Rose were bland characters with zero chemistry, the film dragged for way too fucking long and engaged in too much bullshit emotional manipulation("instead of selling this valuable necklace to help out some other unfortunate folks, i'm just going to throw it away!") it's the prime example of style over substance. No way in hell it should've beat out L.A. Confidential for Best Picture, Titanic is the worst kind of Oscar Bait imaginable.
No, if you're in the moment, you don't care about the reasons for X and Y. Rather, the film has successfully pulled off its magic trick of making you care about these fictional people (or heavily dramatized real people) in this fictional (or heavily dramatized) situation without stopping to think "why?" or "how?" Any reasons you then come up with later are just rationalizations after the fact, but that doesn't change how you felt in the moment. And the door jokes didn't originate with a bunch of haters who never gave the film a chance--it was an in-joke among the superfans who saw it half-a-dozen in theatre and bought the DVD and knew every detail by heart.Callate said:But it shouldn't be overlooked that what Bob presents is just another side of the same damn coin he's deriding. Yes, if you're in the moment, you can come up with reasons that Rose didn't find room on the door for Jack- but it doesn't mean the movie itself is providing them. I enjoyed Titanic, but I recently ran into a joke about Rose not moving over for Jack in some other show, and I found it pretty funny, in part because some people do still hold a grudge about it.
To what end? Neither the cineaste nor the average film-goer spares a second thought for the tiny bunch of pendantic never-satisfied nerds whinging about expanded universe/fanon/retconned continuity nitpicks. Which by the way--pot to kettle--is also being "so caught up in a work" but in a tedious, priggish way far fewer people can relate to. And I resemble that remark, I've just become more self-conscious of it over the years. So why should a critic bend over backwards to accommodate them? To alienate the majority of their audience in the attempt to please a minority who's never satisfied anyway? That doesn't make sense for the critic, and frankly nerds shouldn't seek validation for their opinions if they can't be mature enough to take the criticism with the praise.Callate said:Arguably it's better for a critic to be nit-picky or adopt an unwarranted pedanticism than for them to be so caught up in a work (and/or whatever attendant buzz/controversy/real-world-parallels follow it) that they cannot produce criticism of value to someone who doesn't see the world in absolute parallel.
Soon? Do you not remember the days of youtube where the response video's use to be listed directly below the video being responded to? Youtube use to promote that exact thing to fuel debate.Samtemdo8 said:Patrick's video became viral because of Mauler's 5 hour long stream criticising it:
Honestly to me this is gonna soon create precendent where everyone are gonna now criticize youtube critic's videos when it comes to movies and tv. Making video responses to other videos.