As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Super Summer Slugfest Slamdown: Movies & More!

16791112103

Posts

  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I'm probably in the minority here, but I enjoyed the GL movie. Was it perfect? No. But it wasn't a terrible movie either.

    Honestly, I think it just needed to be about 30 minutes longer. There were some things which needed to be fleshed out a bit more, and the ending needed to be made a bit more epic than it was.

    But for what we were given, I wasn't really disappointed.

    Lucascraft on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Solar wrote: »
    Spider-Man 2, strangely enough, showed how to do it. It recapped the first movie in the opening credits really well and let the second one just get on with it.

    Incredible Hulk did a pretty good job of it too. (A montage of the gamma accident, the falling out between Banner and Ross, and Ross/the military hunting for him, spliced in with newspaper clippers, aquisition requests and etc.

    I remember being really happy with this. It was nice to skip past the origin. More movies should just cover it in the few minutes before the opening credits start. It's not as if people won't find magic space rings believable if they don't have two hours of exposition.

    Quid on
  • cardboard delusionscardboard delusions USAgent PSN: USAgent31Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The best GL movie would be Lethal Weapon. Both Riggs and Murtaugh have rings.

    cardboard delusions on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    skipping over origins is a bad idea

    there's lots of little character nuances and drama to be culled from the pre-hero scenes if done right

    and really, there's a lot of stuff that will look incredibly stupid summarized, but if played out, it will work

    especially for characters that would be a harder sell to begin with

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • KyouguKyougu Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The original Batman movie also skipped over the origin, kinda.


    There's also something to say about all the cool moments you would miss out without origin stories. I geeked for large parts of Spider-Man (first time crawling, first webswing, etc).

    Kyougu on
  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I don't think the ammount of time spent on establishing the origin material was that big of a problem in the GL movie, but the heavy focus on his relationships with fellow humans (which turned out to be mainly Carol) and the marginalization of other Green Lanterns was.

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    How much of a relationship is there between Hal and Sinestro?

    Robos A Go Go on
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    How much of a relationship is there between Hal and Sinestro?

    Very little. Sinestro initially doesn't like him just because he's Abin Sur's replacement, they spar a little and that's it. Mostly Sinestro really just wants to stop Parallax. None of Sinestro's fascistic tendencies ever come into play or are revealed.

    Lux on
  • DrIanMalcolmDrIanMalcolm Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Did you see the scene that's after the credits?

    DrIanMalcolm on
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Did you see the scene that's after the credits?

    If you mean mid-credits after the title card, yeah, but that was out of nowhere with no motivation established. It only makes sense if you know the character.

    Lux on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Spoil it please.

    Or just share a synopsis, because I have no plans to see the film at all.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Silver_MageSilver_Mage Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I know it might be an important part to superhero movies, but I really tired of the whole, "I don't want the responsibility/can't handle the power/I have flaws so I can't be the hero" thing. Maybe it is because of Smallville, where this was an ongoing attitude for ten years, but I can't stand it.

    Why can't someone be happy with getting a fucking power ring. Just be all, "oh I can create whatever I want, fly, and have awesome space adventures? Awesome!!!"

    That, and the fact that there were no easter eggs to the green lantern mythos (that i could see) were my problems with the film. Otherwise it was enjoyable.

    Silver_Mage on
  • Witch_Hunter_84Witch_Hunter_84 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Spoil it please.

    Or just share a synopsis, because I have no plans to see the film at all.
    Sinestro puts on the yellow ring, which he convinced the guardians to sanction creating to fight Parallax, and we see him in his Sinestro Corps costume.

    Witch_Hunter_84 on
    If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten in your presence.
  • cshadow42cshadow42 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Green Lantern gives me the impression of the Last Starfighter.

    cshadow42 on
    MTGO Handle - ArtfulDodger
    Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
    Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    There's a few problems with origin stories.

    #1: Reboot-itis
    There's a big trend going on towards rebooting everything (Mostly due to studios who have their hands on Marvel properties not wanting to lose the rights, but also not wanting to have to pay peoples large salaries for, say, Spider-Man 4). As such, there's a lot of fear that we'll have to sit through Uncle Ben dying AGAIN, or the Fantastic Four getting made wacky AGAIN, or whatever interpretation of Ghost Rider they're using getting his powers some other way.. Basically no one wants to sit through the origin twice.

    #2: Comic Book Movies have exploded in popularity
    Pretty self explanatory. Everyone is putting out new movies with new heroes. Just this year we get Green Latern, Thor and Captain America (and the origin of Captain America is bloody AWESOME. Who doesn't like watching Nazi's get beat up?). On top of that, we have X-Men: First Class which was a soft-reboot with an Origin of several established characters. All four of the "Big Two's" movies this summer are origin stories now that I think about it.

    #3: It's never just the HEROES origin
    You also have to explain where the villian came from, typically. Iron Man showed how the Iron Monger came to be (and then killed him, what a waste), Thor showed how Loki went off the deep end, Batman Begins was also "The secret life of Ra's Al-Ghul", Spiderman was also about where Green Goblin came from, and so on and so forth. Typically they get around it by linking the villians backstory with the hero's, which often comes off as forced, but it doesn't get around that fact. Basically you're sitting through through at least two origin stories every "origin" movie.

    Undead Scottsman on
  • cshadow42cshadow42 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    In my opinion, the best comic book movies are the ones where they focus on the villains (Spider-man 2, Dark Knight, Superman II)

    cshadow42 on
    MTGO Handle - ArtfulDodger
    Diablo 3 - ArtfulDodger#1572
    Minecraft - ArtfulDodger42
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    you cannot focus on the villain if the hero is not established

    that's why all your favorites are sequels because the hero had an entire other movie to be fleshed out

    it's simple

    you can't have a movie without a protagonist

    and you can't buy into a protagonist unless their motives are explained

    so, you're gettin' an origin whether you like it or not

    because doing it any other way would, in fact, be awful

    maybe not to someone who knows the character

    but to the average public?

    yeah, it'd look dumb.

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • LuxLux Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Spoil it please.

    Or just share a synopsis, because I have no plans to see the film at all.
    Sinestro puts on the yellow ring, which he convinced the guardians to sanction creating to fight Parallax, and we see him in his Sinestro Corps costume.
    Yeah, it's pure fan service, and there's absolutely no reason for Sinestro to wear the ring (other than comics). He's portrayed as this revered, strong Lantern. When he finds out what Parallax is, he tells the Guardians, "Well I guess that's it! We're gonna have to fight fire with fire and make a yellow ring." And the Guardians don't even blink and do it.

    Right after they make it, Hal shows up and says, "No! Don't give in to fear! Let me try to beat Parallax!" and Sinestro is okay with that. He wishes him luck, gives him a good send off and even saves his life at the end.

    Then after the victory parade and commendations of Hal Jordan, Sinestro sneaks into Oa's back closet or whatever and puts on the yellow ring. For no reason.

    Lux on
  • FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Also the focus on the villain in Spider-Man 2 was dumb.

    MIND CONTROL TENTACLES

    Furu on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    spider-man 2 is a movie that has a lot of faults people gloss over

    I dug the fight scenes a lot, and Alfred Molina is always delightful

    and I am in love with the lady who played Doc Ock's wife

    but really the sub-plot of spidey losing his powers because he feels bad was some straight up bullshit

    along with other things, too, but that one really annoys me the more I think about it

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • ZeromusZeromus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I was going to see Green Lantern at midnight and then unexpectedly had to work incredibly late, so no dice.

    Sounds like I was spared great pain.

    Zeromus on
    pygsig.png
  • Futt BuckerFutt Bucker CTRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Lux wrote: »
    Spoil it please.

    Or just share a synopsis, because I have no plans to see the film at all.
    Sinestro puts on the yellow ring, which he convinced the guardians to sanction creating to fight Parallax, and we see him in his Sinestro Corps costume.
    Yeah, it's pure fan service, and there's absolutely no reason for Sinestro to wear the ring (other than comics). He's portrayed as this revered, strong Lantern. When he finds out what Parallax is, he tells the Guardians, "Well I guess that's it! We're gonna have to fight fire with fire and make a yellow ring." And the Guardians don't even blink and do it.

    Right after they make it, Hal shows up and says, "No! Don't give in to fear! Let me try to beat Parallax!" and Sinestro is okay with that. He wishes him luck, gives him a good send off and even saves his life at the end.

    Then after the victory parade and commendations of Hal Jordan, Sinestro sneaks into Oa's back closet or whatever and puts on the yellow ring. For no reason.
    That scene would have made a lot more sense if there was even the slightest hint that Sinestro was busy being space Hitler on Korugar.

    Futt Bucker on
    My color is black to the blind
  • GankGank Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    but really the sub-plot of spidey losing his powers because he feels bad was some straight up bullshit

    along with other things, too, but that one really annoys me the more I think about it

    Huh, so bad apparently I straight up forgot that shit. That was god awful.

    Gank on
    galactussig-1.jpg
  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    X2 was a fantastic movie and they barely focused on the villain

    Centipede Damascus on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    X2 was a fantastic movie and they barely focused on the villain

    What? There was tons of stuff on Strucker. He had a personal relationship with Wolverine and Xavier, and there was all that stuff with his son.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Lord BuzzkillingtonLord Buzzkillington Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    you cannot focus on the villain if the hero is not established

    that's why all your favorites are sequels because the hero had an entire other movie to be fleshed out

    it's simple

    you can't have a movie without a protagonist

    and you can't buy into a protagonist unless their motives are explained

    so, you're gettin' an origin whether you like it or not

    because doing it any other way would, in fact, be awful

    maybe not to someone who knows the character

    but to the average public?

    yeah, it'd look dumb.

    if only there were some kind of... trilogy, based on the character of peter parker: spider-man so that a refleshing of the origin would not be necessary, and they could just make a good spider-man movie

    but the general public has no idea of the importance of great responsibility in relation to great power

    (lurker... EMERGE)

    Lord Buzzkillington on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    reboot

    those movies don't count

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    In The Incredibles, Bob Parr's superpowers are never explained, we never see how he gets them, how he learns to use them, or how he decided to become a hero. We begin the film with him already a fully-formed superhero. There is no origin story for either Bob or Helen Parr.

    The Incredibles is also, arguably, the best Superhero movie ever made.

    Fatboy Roberts on
  • TairuTairu Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Green Lantern wasn't that bad. Pretty much a generic superhero origin story, but at least it wasn't just a lead-in for a Justice League movie or something.
    Saw it with my friends and we all enjoyed it.
    That after-credits scene made no sense though.

    Tairu on
  • RansRans Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Guys, Green Lantern wasnt that bad. In fact it was quite fun and enjoyable. Not a perfect movie but not deserving of the horrible reviews either. I liked it. If you're on the fence about seeing it due to reviews, just go see it. If you like GL at all, you'll have some fun with thi s.

    More thoughts later.

    Rans on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    In The Incredibles, Bob Parr's superpowers are never explained, we never see how he gets them, how he learns to use them, or how he decided to become a hero. We begin the film with him already a fully-formed superhero. There is no origin story for either Bob or Helen Parr.

    The Incredibles is also, arguably, the best Superhero movie ever made.

    it's a giant origin story for the family being a team.

    it's the origin of the incredibles, not bob parr

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    “I hereby declare Green Lantern the worst superhero movie ever made. And yes I count The Phantom and The Shadow as superhero movies. Green Lantern was the cheapest-looking 300 million dollar movie I’ve ever seen. Why didn’t they give that money (to) Africa? It had a couple of good moments, all coming from Mark Strong. But oh man. It was just such an ODD movie. Like it travelled here from a parallel universe where they made a Green Lantern movie in 1995. But it was only eight quid and thus worth it. And I know I’ll go and see it again ”

    –Comics writer Mark Millar

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    naaaaaah. The movie ends with the family BEING the team, but it's Bob & Helen's movie. The point of the movie isn't about "how this wonderful superhero team came together," although that is the result of the adventure that happens. You still don't get the sequences of the kids learning how to use their powers. They already know. But "The Incredibles" is Bob Parr's movie, and all of the superpowers in the film, the superheroes motivations, and their decisions on how and why to become heroes are never even questioned. The Incredibles is a movie that does NOT need an origin story in the way you're arguing for it, and is all the better for it.

    The only real origin story in the film is Syndrome's, and even then, you don't realize you saw it until about the 40 minute mark.

    Fatboy Roberts on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The difference is that Incredibles presupposes a world where superheroes are common. In a story where that sort of thing is rare, you need to justify the lead's abilities.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • spookymuffinspookymuffin ( ° ʖ ° ) Puyallup WA Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Worse than The Phantom? Ouch.

    spookymuffin on
    PSN: MegaSpooky // 3DS: 3797-6276-7138
    Wii U NNID: MegaSpooky
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The difference is that Incredibles presupposes a world where superheroes are common. In a story where that sort of thing is rare, you need to justify the lead's abilities.

    I think we say that sorta shit a lot, but if we stopped and thought about it - nah, we wouldn't really NEED to justify the lead's abilities. The ridiculousness of the premise allows for a heightened suspension of disbelief as it is. It's one of those things we say because nobody else has really tried (save for Burton w/ Batman) so we just assume it'll never work otherwise.

    However, if the story is set in a world where we're USED to the idea of a superhero being around, (which is, honestly, closer to our universe than the fictional ones we're being shown, since we're more than familiar with the ideas behind superheroes) suddenly all that justification you need goes out the window. Because the characters are somewhat used to it, you don't have to take all that hand-holding into consideration. You can use much fewer brushstrokes to get the idea across, and devote that much time to the storytelling instead of the futzing with the origin bullshit.

    Fatboy Roberts on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    naaaaaah. The movie ends with the family BEING the team, but it's Bob & Helen's movie. The point of the movie isn't about "how this wonderful superhero team came together," although that is the result of the adventure that happens. You still don't get the sequences of the kids learning how to use their powers. They already know. But "The Incredibles" is Bob Parr's movie, and all of the superpowers in the film, the superheroes motivations, and their decisions on how and why to become heroes are never even questioned. The Incredibles is a movie that does NOT need an origin story in the way you're arguing for it, and is all the better for it.

    The only real origin story in the film is Syndrome's, and even then, you don't realize you saw it until about the 40 minute mark.

    you are being willfully ignorant

    you are focusing solely on the superhuman abilities and not the story

    the incredibles is about the formation of the family as a team

    that is the end result

    there is a lot more going on, and it is a lot deeper in characterization and motivation, but the end result is the same.

    the team comes together to fight a bigger foe.

    just because it was well executed does not mean it wasn't an origin.

    and that's the thing about showing the origin.

    you are not justifying the powers of the lead.

    fuck the powers.

    they get explained in about three minutes, tops.

    it's who the character is, how this affects them, and what they choose to do with them that matters.

    It's about personality, not ability.

    Like, take Iron Man, for example.

    If that movie did not have the origin, Tony Stark would just be a dick. If you don't see him vulnerable just for that short time and actually have a moment of conscience, he's just a smarmy dick in a suit of armor.

    Or Spider-Man

    If you just kind of brush over who Parker was before his powers, the fact that he has these fantastic abilities now doesn't have the punch it should.

    Also all the talk about Batman's origin not being in the Burton film always bugs me because it is not actually a good movie, and yes, it is an origin movie, just a twisted one. Batman's parents die. He becomes Batman to avenge them. And oh hey the joker is the guy who killed his parents. I'd say that is an origin. We just don't get the training bits.

    The audience is 100% okay with whatever fantastic things you have the character do.

    You just have to give a shit about them before.

    And that's kind of hard to do if you gloss over who they were before.

    The Incredibles, to get back to it, does this backwards.

    The powers were always there, but there was never a real reason to use them. Nor were they allowed. It took a crisis that brought not only the team, but the family, together for the incredibles to be born.

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    There's no willful ignorance going on here in the slightest man. Jesus.

    The Incredibles is not ABOUT the formation of the family as a team. It's about Bob Parr recognizing how important his family really is to him, and how important he is to his family. That's the point of the movie. As a result, his family works together AS a Superhero team, but the movie isn't "This is how the Incredibles became The Incredibles!" It's not an origin story in any way, you're just kinda trying to bend it to fit your presupposed notion of how superhero movies HAVE to work because that's how they've ALWAYS worked and they can't possibly work any other way.

    You're now shifting your argument as to what an origin story is from how you initially presented it: A series of moments wherein a person discovers their powers, learns how to use them, and then goes on a journey that teaches him why/how to be a hero. That doesn't apply to the Incredibles, even if you try to stretch your definition to include the whole family. Now, your argument is that basically Origin = Narrative Arc in General.

    It wasn't just Brad Bird's proficiency in execution - it's that he gave the audience credit to catch up without having to hold their hands, and managed to fit in a narrative arc that doesn't depend on "The awakening of the hero within."

    That's the biggest irony with a lot of Superhero movie successes: You don't NEED the prolonged origin story in a lot of cases. You don't NEED Batman Begins get everything you need out of The Dark Knight. It seems Brad Bird is one of the only directors who has figured that out, and made his movie accordingly.

    Fatboy Roberts on
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    see you are right, but you aren't at the same time.

    the incredibles is about bob's journey.

    it is also about bob realizing what his family means to him

    it's about syndrome's warped view of what makes someone special, and how that is a reflection of how bob felt about himself which is what lead him to this mess.

    but, at the end of the day, all of these things are what brought the family together, as a team, to not only rescue bob, but continue on fighting crime. Even if it is only the final few minutes of the film.

    that, though it is the narrative arc of the entire movie, is still, in essence, an origin.

    there is not a single, cookie-cutter origin, though. I never said there was.

    the origin in the first x-men movie is "hey, we're a bunch of dudes who were born different" and through recruitment, end up being sucked into a battle with Magneto.

    the origin in Batman Begins is, indeed, the whole movie.

    Ditto with Thor.

    The origin in Tim Burton's Batman, is shown in fragments, and all comes to a head with the final confrontation with the Joker. This is echoed in Blade.

    the vast majority? yeah, they do traditional three act structure, with the origin being the first act of the film.

    All of them, in their own way, tell how the character came to be who they are. Or how a team formed.

    It can be as simple as X-Men or as complex as The Incredibles.

    I am not saying one way is better than the other. It all depends on how you do it.

    The only thing that needs to be accomplished, however, is a sense of who this/these characters are, and why we should care about them.

    The Lovely Bastard on
    7656367.jpg
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    We're agreeing but we aren't, you're right. Basically, I guess the gist of what I'm saying is that you can get a sense of who a person is without an origin story. Indiana Jones didn't have an origin story in the first 2 films, for example. Jules Winfield didn't have an origin story (although Butch did.) The things you say we need to learn about a character over the course of a film to make a narrative arc interesting can be learned outside of that character's beginning/origin. Basically, you don't have to start your movie AT THE START for it to still be a coherent, compelling story, and being in the realm of the fantastic, as Superheroes are, should make that a little easier than harder.

    Fatboy Roberts on
This discussion has been closed.