The thread wherein we discuss Hancock, Will Smith, and related errata

Gnome-Interruptus

Just going to open the floor to some discussion on the recent film Hancock.

I will say, I wasnt disappointed in the movie, other than it didnt live up to its full potential. It isnt a bad movie persay, it just isnt good. Much like the original StarGate movie wasnt good, or bad.

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/

MORPHEUS

Started off great, but got stupid in the middle and end. I want my fuckin refund.

Sentry

Okay, so... regarding the whole "Hancock origin" thing, which people seem really pissed about... (I don't think there are any spoilers here, but I'll put a spoiler tag anyway)

I know that modern audiences are all used to science explosions, aliens, and traumatic experiences for their superhero's... but back in the day, hero origins were really simple. Basically, a god fucked a moral and bam, you have a superhero.

That's what this origin reminded me of... some kind of tragic grecian tale of superhero's cursed by their very making... my only real complaint is that they never really flushed it out, at all...

Additionally, I've been reading some Anne Rice recently and the origin of Hancock really fits in her world, so maybe I'm just more accepting of it?

Zilla360

Just some images you might want for the O.P:

From this great review. (Spoiler Warning.)

Loren Michael

Hancock was schitzophrenic. Don't shove a man's head up another man's ass in a movie with that kind of overwrought ending. I saw a lot of potential, but not a lot of good execution.

Zilla360

Apparently it's the Exec's fault, they forced a lot of cuts and re-writes at the last minute.

durandal4532

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

Gnome-Interruptus

Sentry wrote: »

Okay, so... regarding the whole "Hancock origin" thing, which people seem really pissed about... (I don't think there are any spoilers here, but I'll put a spoiler tag anyway)

I know that modern audiences are all used to science explosions, aliens, and traumatic experiences for their superhero's... but back in the day, hero origins were really simple. Basically, a god fucked a moral and bam, you have a superhero.

That's what this origin reminded me of... some kind of tragic grecian tale of superhero's cursed by their very making... my only real complaint is that they never really flushed it out, at all...

Additionally, I've been reading some Anne Rice recently and the origin of Hancock really fits in her world, so maybe I'm just more accepting of it?

My beef is they couldnt make up their own fucking mind on their own goddamn origin:
We are meant to be angels to protect mortals.
does not make sense in the context of:
We were made in pairs that love each other and drawn to one another so that we can die like mortals.

But Charleze Therons character clearly falls in love for Jason Batemans character and his son. And the plot behind most of it is so insiped I couldnt even be bothered to remember any of the characters names. The weak ass lying that Charleze Therons character goes through is annoying in the larger context, it makes sense as your discovering the characters, but seems completely idiotic upon reflection after you know everything that her character did at the time.

They never explain the weather phenominon that occur in the Hancock / Angel fight. Then they try and give Angel a tag line like Hancock "dont call me crazy!" that completely doesnt work.

The only way I could see this film being redeemed is if a Directors Cut / Uncut version comes out with the 45 minutes of missing plot and character development.

Sentry

durandal4532 wrote: »

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

I dunno... I remember that, while everyone loved Iron Man, a lot of people bitched about the ending of that too... that it was just another rock-em-sock-em robot fest that all superhero movies turn into.

You know, superhero faces challenge, overcomes challenge in time to beat super-powered bad guy. But for this, it was like the challenge was the bad guy...

Maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass. I think they were, perhaps, trying to do something loftier then they could sustain. Especially billing a movie as a summer funfest of laughs and superhero antics, then changing it up at the last minute.

Edit: And for Gnome, I agree with that too. It was more like half an origin story, made insepid by Charliez's characters actions. "I love you, that's why I have to beat the shit out of you."

I think this movie could do with a prequel.

kdrudy

I thought it was a good origin, though that's probably because of reading Powers and the main hero of that has a similar origin. I think it did seem to go in a lot of unnecessary directions though. Overall I enjoyed it, a good move, not a great movie, but I dug it.

Loren Michael

This reviewer errs on the side of "harsh" a lot, but I think he's pretty close to right about this one:

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

The rest of the problem is how much fucking action there is without any of it having a point. The movie says absolutely nothing. Smith's plight is pathetic and hard to care about. Theron's character and its plotline is ridiculous enough to draw boos from a crowd. Bateman is the richest guy you'll ever meet who doesn't ever have paying gigs, and he's just soft and spongy. Smith is never very curmudgeonly, just a slight sheen of it over a hulk of doughy sappiness that comes out rather quickly.

The movie also feels like maybe three or four different ideas all crammed together. The main villain is generic when captured by Smith. Later, however, he's an Old Testament, speechifying, oversized baddie in the Batman villain mode. There is no trajectory between these. The end, which takes place in a hospital, feels so formulaic that it didn't raise the stakes at all. In fact, with people strapped to gurneys in a hospital while the fighting goes on, it probably should have been played for laughs, not as serious heart-string dopeyness.

It's a bad fucking movie, with a great idea buried somewhere inside. I sure as hell lost interest in digging for it.

I still love the whale scene though.

Loren Michael

I think it would have been nifty if they just left the origin a complete mystery.

Gnome-Interruptus

Zilla360 wrote: »

Just some images you might want for the O.P:

From this great review. (Spoiler Warning.)

Oh god, that review said everything I wanted to say much better.

Sentry

Loren Michael wrote: »

This reviewer errs on the side of "harsh" a lot, but I think he's pretty close to right about this one:

http://www.bigempire.com/filthy/

The rest of the problem is how much fucking action there is without any of it having a point. The movie says absolutely nothing. Smith's plight is pathetic and hard to care about. Theron's character and its plotline is ridiculous enough to draw boos from a crowd. Bateman is the richest guy you'll ever meet who doesn't ever have paying gigs, and he's just soft and spongy. Smith is never very curmudgeonly, just a slight sheen of it over a hulk of doughy sappiness that comes out rather quickly.

The movie also feels like maybe three or four different ideas all crammed together. The main villain is generic when captured by Smith. Later, however, he's an Old Testament, speechifying, oversized baddie in the Batman villain mode. There is no trajectory between these. The end, which takes place in a hospital, feels so formulaic that it didn't raise the stakes at all. In fact, with people strapped to gurneys in a hospital while the fighting goes on, it probably should have been played for laughs, not as serious heart-string dopeyness.

It's a bad fucking movie, with a great idea buried somewhere inside. I sure as hell lost interest in digging for it.

I still love the whale scene though.

about the "main villian"

See, at the end, I thought the generic bad guy felt tacked on... honestly, I didn't give him another thought after the bank scene, and was actually surpised he came back at all. If there was a mistake made, I think it was that.

I agree though, too many ideas, not enough focus.

Gnome-Interruptus

Sentry wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

I dunno... I remember that, while everyone loved Iron Man, a lot of people bitched about the ending of that too... that it was just another rock-em-sock-em robot fest that all superhero movies turn into.

You know, superhero faces challenge, overcomes challenge in time to beat super-powered bad guy. But for this, it was like the challenge was the bad guy...

Maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass. I think they were, perhaps, trying to do something loftier then they could sustain. Especially billing a movie as a summer funfest of laughs and superhero antics, then changing it up at the last minute.

Edit: And for Gnome, I agree with that too. It was more like half an origin story, made insepid by Charliez's characters actions. "I love you, that's why I have to beat the shit out of you."

I think this movie could do with a prequel.

I loved everything about Ironman except for the ending. Having Tony Stark come out like that is the equivalent of having Peter Parker stand up to J Jonah Jameson about Spiderman.

LibrarianThorne

The movie was relaly, really good up until the origin fight thing.

The ad guys were right to bill it as a comedy because no one would've watched it if they'd advertised the second half. This movie will drop like a stone in the box office next week.

Popped Collar

Hancock was a metaphor for America. You can tell because Hancock had a eagle on his head. Being the only superpower left in the world, Hancock is hated by everyone else because he's always fucking shit up with his power and no one can stop him really. He means well but ultimately his methods cause massive collateral damage in the process. The French kid represented France's poor relation with America. The dude with the C4 bombs represented a Nuclear Missile crisis. The grouptalk meetings in prison were UN meetings. The first time Hancock was shot in the drug store was a metaphor for 9/11. You can tell because this was the first time someone actually managed to damage Hancock and all this time he thought he was invincible, and the dude at the cashier was Arab or possibly Indian, and he covered up the 0 on the cash register display to show 9 11, it was practically beaten over your head.

Unfortunately they stopped following this for the second half of the movie. But they were on to something.

tallgeeze

I liked the movie, but damn there was a lot of cursing for a PG-13 flick. Lately you could throw and F-bomb or asshole late into the movie, but those words were peppered in every 2 minutes.

The plot twist did come out of left field, but I liked it because lately I could predict plot twists in the first 5 minutes into the movie. Maybe it was that bad

I laughed hard the costume brainstorming scene. lol, norwegian homo.

Like someone said earlier, I did read that there were some re-shoots to make this an on the edge PG-13. Maybe the DVD will show the original version.

durandal4532

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

I dunno... I remember that, while everyone loved Iron Man, a lot of people bitched about the ending of that too... that it was just another rock-em-sock-em robot fest that all superhero movies turn into.

You know, superhero faces challenge, overcomes challenge in time to beat super-powered bad guy. But for this, it was like the challenge was the bad guy...

Maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass. I think they were, perhaps, trying to do something loftier then they could sustain. Especially billing a movie as a summer funfest of laughs and superhero antics, then changing it up at the last minute.

Edit: And for Gnome, I agree with that too. It was more like half an origin story, made insepid by Charliez's characters actions. "I love you, that's why I have to beat the shit out of you."

I think this movie could do with a prequel.

I loved everything about Ironman except for the ending. Having Tony Stark come out like that is the equivalent of having Peter Parker stand up to J Jonah Jameson about Spiderman.

See though, I'm not asking for a villain, I'm asking for the bit where he saves the cop (or the like) to be the end. You don't always need direct character-vs-character conflict. Plus the "villain" in this was hilariously terrible.

Zilla360

Yeah, blame the Execs. The director/etcetera left to their own devices would have made something truly brilliant.

Vyolynce

Popped Collar wrote: »

the dude at the cashier was Arab or possibly Indian, and he covered up the 0 on the cash register display to show 9 11

See, the problem with that is the other -- usually more common -- meaning of those specific numbers.

Plus, in that metaphor, who the fuck is Mary supposed to be?

Enjoyed the movie as a summer popcorn smashfest, but definitely agree it was like 2.5 half-assed movies duct taped together.

Zilla360

"...And while that first half of Hancock proves that not all of the changes made by the studio-hired writers were necessarily bad, the second shows the obvious effects of having way too many cooks in the kitchen. Particularly when those cooks are fucking idiots."

http://www.alwayswatching.org/features/truth-about-hancock (contains spoilers)

End

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

I loved everything about Ironman except for the ending. Having Tony Stark come out like that is the equivalent of having Peter Parker stand up to J Jonah Jameson about Spiderman.

It seemed in character to me. Tony Stark has a big ego.

I can't say it's the right thing for a superhero to do...but it's a very Tony Stark thing.

Gammarah

I was wondering wtf was going on with this movie when I saw it. Reading the original script now, and the difference is amazing.

Quazar

I liked it as a fun Will Smith July 4th movie. I wasn't really expecting a big superhero movie. There is a lot of potential in there for one, though.

EDIT: Wait a minute! After reading that review...

Underage girl, projectile semen, getting drunk with a 12 year-old? I HAVE TO SEE THE DIRECTOR'S CUT! I simply CAN'T picture Will Smith like that, and it sounds hilarious.

maximumzero

Quazar wrote: »

projectile semen

Wait.

What?

Wait.

What?

Vyolynce

maximumzero wrote: »

Quazar wrote: »

projectile semen

Wait.

What?

Wait.

What?

TBH, it's something I've long thought that Superman should have a problem with as well*. Muscles are muscles, after all...

*

Not to mention Lois...

Scooter

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

I dunno... I remember that, while everyone loved Iron Man, a lot of people bitched about the ending of that too... that it was just another rock-em-sock-em robot fest that all superhero movies turn into.

You know, superhero faces challenge, overcomes challenge in time to beat super-powered bad guy. But for this, it was like the challenge was the bad guy...

Maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass. I think they were, perhaps, trying to do something loftier then they could sustain. Especially billing a movie as a summer funfest of laughs and superhero antics, then changing it up at the last minute.

Edit: And for Gnome, I agree with that too. It was more like half an origin story, made insepid by Charliez's characters actions. "I love you, that's why I have to beat the shit out of you."

I think this movie could do with a prequel.

I loved everything about Ironman except for the ending. Having Tony Stark come out like that is the equivalent of having Peter Parker stand up to J Jonah Jameson about Spiderman.

Which, btw, should happen.

MayGodHaveMercy

I laughed, a lot. Worth my $10. Wasn't expecting a deep story. Just laughs. I got them.

Talleyrand

Scooter wrote: »

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Sentry wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Man Sentry it wasn't that the origin was dumb, dumb origins are the rule not the exception. The problem was that every single thing that happened because of that reveal was supremely boring.

I would prefer a 3-ish act superhero movie that follows the dude from selfish and robbing banks/whatever because they can to trying to do good but just pissing people off to actually figuring out how to do that voodoo that they do so well.

I dunno... I remember that, while everyone loved Iron Man, a lot of people bitched about the ending of that too... that it was just another rock-em-sock-em robot fest that all superhero movies turn into.

You know, superhero faces challenge, overcomes challenge in time to beat super-powered bad guy. But for this, it was like the challenge was the bad guy...

Maybe I'm completely talking out of my ass. I think they were, perhaps, trying to do something loftier then they could sustain. Especially billing a movie as a summer funfest of laughs and superhero antics, then changing it up at the last minute.

Edit: And for Gnome, I agree with that too. It was more like half an origin story, made insepid by Charliez's characters actions. "I love you, that's why I have to beat the shit out of you."

I think this movie could do with a prequel.

I loved everything about Ironman except for the ending. Having Tony Stark come out like that is the equivalent of having Peter Parker stand up to J Jonah Jameson about Spiderman.

Which, btw, should happen.

Ok, to help completely derail this complaining fest, I think it was a great idea. Right now they're planning a lot more superhero movies and even if they weren't they've thorougly gone over the whole secret identity bit with Spiderman. By not giving one to Stark means they won't be going over old ground.

Schrodinger

I thought the movie handled the concept of superhero-as-the-new-mythos better than Unbreakable. But that's mainly because I hated Unbreakable.

The Return of Captain Invincible handled the idea of the drunken superhero with more humor, and I won't what it would have been like if Alan Arkin and Christopher Lee had the same budget.

The physics were sort of annoying. I liked the idea of the ground tearing up every time Will Smith started flying, it created the idea that his power of flight was dependent on some complex magnetic fields or other similar nonsense, and it was a great new take on the character. But I don't like the idea of tossing a kid thousands of feet in the air, and then catching him as though nothing happened. It would have been a lot more interesting to see a superhero who was still limited by basic physics, where catching Lois Lane in mid-air would result in Lois being slice up into three equal pieces.

The twist with Charlize was just dumb. She knows that Hancock is vulnerable when she's nearby, so she decides that the best thing to do is arrive to the hospital and tell him to fly away, rather than flying away herself and catching up to him after he heals? Considering how fast Charlize recovered at the end, it wouldn't have taken much.

People picking on Will Smith in prison was just stupid. It makes sense for Batman or Rorshach, because those guys are human. Hell, it might even make sense for Superman, because Superman is a boy scout at heart. But Hancock is indestructible, super strong, and he's a complete asshole who just doesn't give a shit. What, the prisoners didn't factor this into their equation? The prison guards didn't worry about this in advanced?

The ending... Will Smith paints the moon? Huh?

Schrodinger

Talleyrand wrote: »

Scooter wrote: »

Ok, to help completely derail this complaining fest, I think it was a great idea. Right now they're planning a lot more superhero movies and even if they weren't they've thorougly gone over the whole secret identity bit with Spiderman. By not giving one to Stark means they won't be going over old ground.

Batman is the worst, though. He reveals his superhero identity to a different love interest in every... single... movie. And then he ditches them in time for the sequel.

Iron Man was refreshing. "Oh, whoopse, you caught me. Dang." And I loved how he revealed his identity to War Machine after only 2 minutes of trying to keep it hush-hush. I think he set a brand new record with that one.

Couscous

Vyolynce wrote: »

maximumzero wrote: »

Quazar wrote: »

projectile semen

Wait.

What?

Wait.

What?

TBH, it's something I've long thought that Superman should have a problem with as well*. Muscles are muscles, after all...

*

Not to mention Lois...

Super muscle control. Does he still have that?

Fallingman

Saw this last night.

Meh.

Is it just me, or were the effects sub-par for a blockbuster... the bits where he was CGI really stood out for me. I agree with the ending. I understand that they wanted to play with Hancock as the character, tearing shit up and making a mess of things - but to then just say "ohbythewayhere'sthedealsuprise!nowletstryandstuffsomeemotionandtensionin" It just seemed a bit hamfisted.

Oh and

paining a corporate logo ont he moon? Man Hancock you are an Asshole!

...see what I did there?

Schrodinger

Fallingman wrote: »

Oh and

paining a corporate logo ont he moon? Man Hancock you are an Asshole!

That scene reminded me of Superman's completely random super logo throwing powers from Superman II. "Wha--? Where did that come from?"

tallgeeze

Fallingman wrote: »

Oh and

paining a corporate logo ont he moon? Man Hancock you are an Asshole!

...see what I did there?

How the hell did he make it red? Everthing else I let go, but I can't let that go. WTF

After only seeing marvel movies this summer I was half expecting Fury or Stark to show up at the end for some reason and offer him a job.

Zilla360

So I got back from watching it, and now I really can't wait for the DVD/Blu-ray with all the deleted stuff that will turn this good/average movie into hopefully a great one.