I can't wait. Space Jockeys.

I'm so fucking excited for it. I haven't bothered watching any of the viral stuff for it, I've just been watching the trailer(s) over and over and the ads on TV.

the avengers being not much different from transformers is ludicrous. did we watch the same movie? you even admitted you don't get it.


1st paragraph:

i don't know how you see a hannity and colmes dynamic. iron man lets the captain assume command and direct him around the city as a containment mechanism. so is iron man colmes....? i don't think that's what you were getting at.

other than the obvious function that captain america is the lead avenger and he has an obvious leadership role that develops over the course of the movie, as this was their first mission together in film, he's a foil to iron man. if you think he's just there to make stark look like more of a badass, then do you value stark's narcissism? it's stark's self-confessed flaw throughout the first two thirds of the movie, and his own movies, a selfish individualist who only plays for himself, while the idea of this "team" of avengers just amuses him. he has that argument with captain america on the ship when captain america challenges stark to be the guy who takes one for the team, and who would make an irreparable, unavoidable sacrifice, and stark responds by saying there's always a way out, sacrifice isn't necessary. basically, captain america humbles stark, who eventually defers authority to the captain by the final fight. first when they're attacked on the ship he and iron man are forced to work together to repair the engine, and iron man realizes he actually has to rely on the captain to get out of the turbine, and he'd die otherwise. then during the fight he lets the captain assume control and order him around. then he makes the huge sacrifice with the bomb, when he didn't think he'd live--which is exactly the conversation he had with captain america, and the challenge the captain made to stark that he'd always put himself first.

2nd paragraph:

the first sentence directly contradicts the first sentence of your post. you make it sound like it is inherently problematic because it is "just a way to make a mediocre film without putting much effort into anything else," which is an absurd and pretentious statement in itself. CGI and shallow movies aren't intrinsically related. you can't just arbitrarily establish a connection between those two things. that's just illogical and a terribly sweeping generality and makes it sound like you're predisposed to disliking any movie with above an X amount CGI before you even watch a second of it. that's just as illogical as the claim "hot girls in movies is just a strategy to distract the audience from the fact that the film is mediocre." that tarkovsky. always distracting me with those russian beauties. what a hack. and mulholland drive sucks because two hot chicks make out.

it's cool to dislike CGI and to dislike the avengers, but claiming CGI is there to distract from a bad story is just silly. one, there is story, and two, CGI was going to be there if the final product was shit like transformers or gold like the godfather because it's a freaking superhero movie. CGI being there has nothing to do with the quality of the film's substance.

lol i wrote a whole lot about CGI and the avengers.

well i hope you're right because that would be cool. i'll still see it and i hope i'm wrong. the trailer just made me roll my eyes because it looked like hip, over-choreographed, ostentation, and isn't luhrmann notorious for that kind of over-abundance of style and glamour without offering much else?

Yes he is. I used to really like Romeo + Juliet when I was a kid but I watched it for the first time as an adult a few years ago and really didn't like it. There are some really goof performances in it though. Pete Postlethwaite ftw.

Yeah, I got all of that and understand the dynamic between the two characters. I felt like Captain America was basically a useless character, constantly losing battles, etc. Sure, he eventually shows up during the scene in which you mentioned, but my point was that his role is overshadowed by both Downey Jr.’s performance, as well as the way in which his character was portrayed. This could have been another Iron Man film.



CGI can absolutely be utilized in a way in which the rest of the movie is neglected garbage, see Van Helsing. There is nothing pretentious about saying that. I’m not against CGI and I obviously don’t think this applies to every time is has been used.



I know.



It was never my intention to do so. Sorry if that’s how it came off.



Again, I don’t have anything against every film that uses CGI, I simply felt that this was just another average story with a lot of CGI action. You guys and the rest of the world liked the story, this is where we differ. I thought Robert Downey Jr. was great but the rest was meh for me. Sorry!

RDJ can seem like the focus because that's literally just his personality as tony stark. captain america is more reserved and deliberate. how do you think he should have been portrayed? they're totally different. i don't see how you could portray them as opposites that have an effect on one another without making iron man stick out because that's just iron man in a nutshell. it's hard to get around that in general. i haven't read the comics so i don't know if the captain is supposed to have the same kind of presence as iron man, but based on their individual movies it wouldn't make sense to compartmentalize iron man's ego for the first 2/3 of the movie to make captain america seem more prevalent. his arc is about becoming a leader from someone who's less assertive and more observant and a little confused by all of the egos and crazy shit going on.

if you take the other avengers out of it then iron man is useless on his own and earth is ruled by loki, because iron man only had a few things to do, along with everyone else. iron man just focuses everything on him and is supposed to be the character with the most charisma and presence. and it's weird you think it could be an iron man movie, because almost everyone i talk to about it think the hulk stole the show.

what do you mean useless? like he doesn't contribute to their tactics? as a character in the narrative he's important. i explained that in a long paragraph. now black widow was mostly useless aside from her obvious contributions to the visual experience of the movie.

It's like pink didn't even watch the film. His criticisms don't make any sense.

i went in to the movie disliking everything about the Captain America character. two days after watching it, i bought a Captain America t-shirt. he definitely had a major role, enough that it made me a huge Captain America fan. he's the point of the movie.

imo what themes are explored and how they are explored are very important in comic book movies. because they lack subtlety almost by nature. one thing that makes complete sense to me is exploring symbols and how we use symbols to inspire. because symbols are, by nature, simple (at least in how they are presented to whatever audience they are intended for). The Dark Knight probably explored it the best, as the character was aware of the symbol he was creating and did it purposefully (and because they weaved it together with media narrative and public opinion and politics and other similar themes). but that theme presents itself in Avengers too, and even more-so the movie itself is a reflection of that. Captain America is the symbol we are supposed to believe in at the end of the movie. he's the one who inspires the others (most importantly Iron Man). he's a direct criticism of post-modern cynicism and detachment. to the point where he comes off as incredibly cheesy until you realize that his selflessness and courage are true heroic qualities, even if Iron Man's carefree detachment comes off as more cool on the surface. and when we actually do see Iron Man become a hero, he does so after being inspired by Captain America.

now, whether or not the movie succeeded in this goal is up for debate. imo, there were way too many pointless hero vs hero fight scene wankjobs and general average storytelling for it to be truly inspiring. but even so, the idea of Captain America as a symbol was certainly there. and it could have worked. and he still came off as the most likable of the group by the end of it imo.

Just realized that Captain America is part of the Avengers. I will definitely not be seeing this film because the Captain America film is probably the worst thing in history and giving money to the people who made it is probably the most morally objectionable thing I have ever done or ever will do. For the record, I declare war on any film which exploits the insecurities of short skinny white boys who feel like they are supposed to be strong tall muscular men. I literally had to talk myself out of whipping my cock out and pissing all over the theater screen when I saw that shit, and then talk myself out of diarrhea-vomiting all over the floor when I saw that it was then using that exploited skinny white boy energy into fueling xenophobic propaganda. Don't any cunt give me some middlebrow bullshit about oh it's just a fun movie grow up and just be titillated by the people in board rooms with no artistic integrity. No I will not, Captain America is evil. Fuck you. How about you grow up and watch Antonioni movies? Fuck Captain America and anything that has anything to do with his piece of shit story. Fuck Captain America and all his evil apologists. The film is vile. Fuck it.

haha, his movie was awful.

Avengers doesn't have any of that nonsense. i guess to a certain extent anything that happened in Captain America still remains true about the world of Avengers. but its never mentioned. Avengers pretty much ignores everything that happened in Captain America. and for good reason, because everything you said was completely correct.

Sorry, I just didn't like it. I'm not going to comment any further, it's the fucking Avengers

what's wrong with that?

edit: what i mean is i don't see why just because it's the avengers it's not worthy of discussion--at least that's what it seems like you're suggesting. if we were talking about stalker right now instead would you keep it going? that doesn't make sense. the avengers isn't highbrow but there's plenty to say about it. it sounds pretentious when it's dismissed just because it's the avengers, like there's nothing much to say. it's such a cop out to just end discussion with "after all it's just the avengers". so?

in other news, michael haneke wins the palme d'or again for amour.

jeff nichols new film mud was received really well. cosmopolis is getting really mixed reviews, so it's probably going to be awesome.

matthew mcconaughie must have had a revelation because all of a sudden he's in i think 5 films this year that aren't shitty romantic comedies or cheesy sports dramas, basically nothing like what he's typically in. he's in the mud, bernie (linklater), soderbergh's next film about channing tatum's career as a male stripper, the paper boy by the precious director, and a fifth that costars emile hirsch and sounded like an interesting premise, but i can't remember the title or the director.

the one you're thinking of is Killer Joe directed by William Friedkin.