Please login or register.

Login with email, password and session length
 

News:

Happy 15th Birthday, Freedom Force!


Author Topic: Marvel Movies  (Read 14679 times)

Offline SickAlice

  • Virtual prophet and aspiring beet farmer
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1840
  • bing cherry
    • The Litterbox aka MeanJellybean
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #390 on: May 15, 2017, 03:20:07 AM »
Liked GOTG2 a bit and ended up going to see it a second time. Shortly I liked the first one and felt the second retained both the spirit as well all the little things that made the first fun, added I felt it was much more deep and did a better job in character analysis and development. I'll even give it I wasn't thrown slightly by their take on Ego and more could see why it worked better that way than getting it closer to the comic would have. Same with changing Star-Lords origin as the Spartax weren't really established. Though I would give anything to see The Imperial Guard in a film sometime. Oh and another great soundtrack of course.

Offline yell0w_lantern

  • Cut-rate Ringslinger
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2894
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #391 on: May 22, 2017, 04:39:43 AM »
Not up to Guardians 1 or 2 yet but I am now almost caught up wit the MCU.  AT almost 1 hour into Thor the Dark World, I can say that it is, so far, my least liked of the films.  The plot holes are too gaping even for a superhero film.  Evil Elrond says he's killed his own race except for one goon and then comes back with an army?!? Heimdall takes down an invisible scout craft with TWO SWORDS and the rest of Asgard can't take down any with cannons!  Loki had to tell the goon to use the stairs on the left but somehow dude found Agard's shield generator on his own?!?  And the Asgardians let Evil Elrond's ship just sit there while he was looking for Jane Foster?   :angry:
Yellow Lantern smash!

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #392 on: May 22, 2017, 06:05:40 PM »
Wait till you get to the tank in Ant-man.
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline spydermann93

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3743
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #393 on: May 23, 2017, 12:28:27 AM »
Wait till you get to the tank in Ant-man.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Offline catwhowalksbyhimself

  • Lord of Procrastination
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 7598
    • Freedom Force Forever
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #394 on: May 23, 2017, 01:02:08 AM »
I liked the tank.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I am the cat that walks by himself, all ways are alike to me.

speakingofgeek.freedomforceforever.com

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #395 on: May 23, 2017, 04:04:09 AM »
Wait till you get to the tank in Ant-man.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
He does.Its stated in the movie that things retain their mass when shrunk.So how did Pym carry around a 64 ton keychain?
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline daglob

  • Shape-Shifting Silly-Putty Android
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 7379
  • Da Glob
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #396 on: May 23, 2017, 05:25:34 AM »
But ants lift Ant Man, and even the whole "proportionate strength" thing isn't going to keep him from squashing them. He will probably sink into the dirt like an ice pick would at ant-size, and if he were to jump onto a wooden floor, he would bury himself up to his waist. However, he has always had some way for the mass of a shrunken object to kind of disappear (into the negative Zone , maybe?). Or, maybe his mass stays the same, but his weight diminishes... of course, it would still be like lifting the hammer of Thor to pick up a 64 ton key chain, having to overcome all it's inertia.

Offline SickAlice

  • Virtual prophet and aspiring beet farmer
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1840
  • bing cherry
    • The Litterbox aka MeanJellybean
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #397 on: May 23, 2017, 02:20:04 PM »
In it's defense Ant-Man is still more fun of a watch then Thor 2. I'd rate it about the first Daredevil film, not mind-blowing but well enough to stick with. Though props as the character becomes more notable in Civil War. Glad I'm not alone on Thor 2. It was just...yeesh! Again I could forgive most of it but Selvig in his underpants and that chick with the knitted cap getting more screen time then Jane. Not what I want out of a Thor movie just saying.

Sorry for being ranty but I just have to add some cognitive dissonance to it. So due to involved events Selvig looses it...way after the fact. But he was totally cumbersome as a scientist meeting a God and that God dating his daughter, like let's have a beer and some lunch with God and give him dating advice kind of relaxed.  :thumbdown:
« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 02:27:04 PM by SickAlice »

Offline yell0w_lantern

  • Cut-rate Ringslinger
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2894
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #398 on: May 24, 2017, 12:40:49 AM »
I already watched Antman.  The tank was a bit of a Deus ex machina, I grant that.  However, I cannot think of a size-changing hero that really treats mass consistently.  I am bit skeptical that the tank fuel would not have presented a problem.

Kat Dennings is pretty hot in Thor but Evangeline Lilly as Hope VanDyne just cranked it up to 11.
Yellow Lantern smash!

Offline Ouflah

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 201
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #399 on: May 24, 2017, 01:31:46 PM »
However, I cannot think of a size-changing hero that really treats mass consistently.
I mean, the Atom is fairly "consistent" in the comics in that he can control his size and mass independently (thereby acknowledging that it is not the rules of size-changing that are changing, only his manipulation of said rules).
"Superhero deaths are basically an unproven hypothesis at this point."
 -Mike Exner III

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #400 on: May 24, 2017, 05:41:48 PM »
Realistic physics are one thing;movies own internal logic another.
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline spydermann93

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3743
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #401 on: May 24, 2017, 11:51:43 PM »
Realistic physics are one thing;movies own internal logic another.

Which they kept consistent

Offline Tomato

  • The Original AA
  • Titans
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 5797
  • Hufflepuff Pride
    • Hero Force
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #402 on: May 25, 2017, 03:59:23 AM »
Ummm... no, they didn't. By the movie's internal logic, Ant-Man hits bad guys with the full force of an adult human at small size because his actual mass doesn't change. But he also rides ants, something he cannot do with the mass of an adult human. The tank should not be able to be carried around, the giant ant-dog should float away because it has less relative mass than the air, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Ant-Man, but saying the logic is consistent is nonsense. And that's not even going into the fact that if the science of shrinking works like the film explains, him shrinking into the microverse like he did would have created a black hole.

Offline spydermann93

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3743
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #403 on: May 25, 2017, 04:12:36 AM »
Ummm... no, they didn't. By the movie's internal logic, Ant-Man hits bad guys with the full force of an adult human at small size because his actual mass doesn't change. But he also rides ants, something he cannot do with the mass of an adult human. The tank should not be able to be carried around, the giant ant-dog should float away because it has less relative mass than the air, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Ant-Man, but saying the logic is consistent is nonsense. And that's not even going into the fact that if the science of shrinking works like the film explains, him shrinking into the microverse like he did would have created a black hole.

Yeah, their descriptions were off (they didn't know what they were talking about), but in practice, everything worked consistently. Nothing weighed the same as they would at full size, nothing got flimsier when they grew in size. Just like the comics.

Yeah, based on real-world physics, it didn't work, but in the film, everything that shrunk or grew behaved the same. They're different. Spade even mentions that. So playing real physics to all of the mumbo-jumbo means jack-all. Practically, the effects of the resizing was the same.

I'm not saying that the descriptions given by characters made sense, but it's not like the movie flip-flopped on how things worked. That's what I am saying. They were stupid, but consistent.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 04:28:51 AM by spydermann93 »

Offline Deaths Jester

  • Drunken Arse!!
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3554
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #404 on: May 25, 2017, 06:00:14 AM »
Something to remember: IT'S A SUPERHERO MOVIE...it doesn't have to make sense, just entertain.
Avatar picture originally a Brom painting entitled Marionette.

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #405 on: May 25, 2017, 07:52:53 AM »

Nobody expects complete realism from a movie,but if you bother so much with explaining how you "science" works,at least follow those rules.
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline Ouflah

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 201
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #406 on: May 25, 2017, 03:56:53 PM »
Yeah I agree with Tomato and Spade. The movie should follow its own rules, or else not explain their rules at all. It's not about science, it's about storytelling.
"Superhero deaths are basically an unproven hypothesis at this point."
 -Mike Exner III

Offline spydermann93

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3743
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #407 on: May 25, 2017, 04:09:31 PM »
The point is: why is the tank scene so outrageous and belief breaking for everybody when all of the other size-altering is fine? It makes no sense to me.

You guys are confusing consistency with matching up with our universe's physics. They don't match up with ours, as I've stated before and you guys are so quick to point out. But that's not the issue, here. Why is it that the tank scene in particular is so ridiculous? That's the one scene that I hear chewed out for no reason. Nah, a man becoming the size of a thumb tack and knocking full-sized humans is fine. Thomas the Train Engine growing to absurd proportions and crushing a house? That's fine, too! But a tank retaiming its durability when small, just like Ant-Man does? Perposterous!

It's fine if one were to have a problem with all of the size-altering science in the movie, but to have a problem with one scene when it follows the same logic as all of the others, as broken as they are from the descriptions given by the characters and especially when compared to our real world physics, is just as silly to me as you guys believe my argument to be. Yes, logically, theor descriptions don't make sense to us, but practically, it all works out in the same manner.

The movie is consistent. It might not make sense, but at least it's "wrong" all the time and doesn't flip-flop around.

I'm going to go ahead and agree to disagree. I don't think anybody's mind is going to change, so rather than me derailing this thread even more, I'm going to stop now.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 04:19:20 PM by spydermann93 »

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #408 on: May 25, 2017, 04:18:06 PM »
As mentioned before,the movie explains that Ant-Man retains his mass when shrunk.That's why nobody can just step on him(They could,but it would be like jumping on a nail). So why doesn't the same apply for tank Henry carries around like a key-chain?It not even hand waved as pym-particles-magic.
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline Ouflah

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 201
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #409 on: May 25, 2017, 04:25:35 PM »
Exactly. He cracks the bathroom tile from a 2 foot drop, which can be easily explained by their dialogue about him retaining his mass. However, he can also ride an ant no problem.

Anywho, I still enjoyed the movie. On a side note, I loved size-change effect. Totally reminiscent of the comic.
"Superhero deaths are basically an unproven hypothesis at this point."
 -Mike Exner III

Offline SickAlice

  • Virtual prophet and aspiring beet farmer
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 1840
  • bing cherry
    • The Litterbox aka MeanJellybean
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #410 on: May 25, 2017, 04:28:24 PM »
I bet The Ancient One could explain why but she would probably expect us to go on a soul journey and for us to have a personality adjustment first.

Really when you think about that, not a bad trade-off. The cost of gaining magic potent enough to mold reality to your whims is you have to read some books and be nicer in general to people. I'd do it!

And I'm with Spade and Outlah too. Like I enjoyed the film but little things like that aren't a matter of physics but they are a matter of proper film and story structure. I feel the same about the Back To The Future films for example (don't get me started!). Doesn't make a film bad but is a red check mark and makes the production look sloppy. Like leaving a nail head sticking out of a floor you built.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 04:32:31 PM by SickAlice »

Offline spydermann93

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3743
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #411 on: May 25, 2017, 05:00:07 PM »
As mentioned before,the movie explains that Ant-Man retains his mass when shrunk.That's why nobody can just step on him(They could,but it would be like jumping on a nail). So why doesn't the same apply for tank Henry carries around like a key-chain?It not even hand waved as pym-particles-magic.

Yes, that is why I've stated that their descriptions don't make sense. I realize their attempts to describe how the process works are flawed, but when it comes to practical examples, I don't see the problem. Everything behaves consistently.

Exactly. He cracks the bathroom tile from a 2 foot drop, which can be easily explained by their dialogue about him retaining his mass. However, he can also ride an ant no problem.

When he cracked the floor, it was to show that he retained his density, and apparently mass can stay the same, but weight can change independently (with no change in gravity). The tank is the same thing; it is just as strong as it would be at full size, but its weight is clearly reduced enough to carry around. Flawed logic and descriptions; consistent behavior. And if the descriptions were accurate, then the physics of the world are different.

It's not like they had Ant-Man be super frail when tiny but kept the tank just as durable, or try and pass Scott weighing 180 lbs when shrunk but just said the tank was half an ounce.

That is why I don't understand the hate for the tank scene in particular. If it was an issue with world building, then it would be way more issues than just that scene in particular that people would have an issue with, but apparently, that's not the case.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2017, 05:42:43 PM by spydermann93 »

Offline Deaths Jester

  • Drunken Arse!!
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3554
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #412 on: May 25, 2017, 07:11:16 PM »
IT'S JUST A MOVIE!!   :banghead:
Avatar picture originally a Brom painting entitled Marionette.

Offline kkhohoho

  • Evil (but a hero) Santa Claus look-a-like
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3036
  • "He sees you when you're sleeping...
    • The Golden Age: Not Your Ordinary Fanfic
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #413 on: May 26, 2017, 04:37:38 AM »
IT'S JUST A MOVIE!!   :banghead:

Are you seriously saying everyone should turn their brains off just because 'it's a movie'?
The Golden Age; 'A different look at a different era.'

http://archiveofourown.org/works/1089779/chapters/2193203

Offline daglob

  • Shape-Shifting Silly-Putty Android
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 7379
  • Da Glob
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #414 on: May 26, 2017, 05:25:32 AM »
I dunno... I read SF from the '30s 'til the present, and I've read a lot of unlikely science, my favorite being a gravity based energy storage system (the more energy you put into it, the more you can put in it). A lot of it has been rendered obsolete; Isaac Asimov wrote essays for each Lucky Starr story when they were reprinted, detailing the changes in scientific knowledge, and Fred Pohl wrote some HeeChee stories even after one of the big ideas was proven totally wrong (involving living in a Black Hole).

Talk about it, complain about it, be sure an tell the kids that it isn't possible, but it isn't on PBS, so it isn't meant to explain real physics. I mean, next thing you know we will be figuring out why Superman can't fly.

This is, of course, Stan Lee's fault. he actively encouraged such nitpicking in his comics. Although, I have read similar discussions in Astounding SF where the science in a story was pretty thoroughly dissected and eliminated.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 05:43:13 PM by daglob »

Offline Ouflah

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 201
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #415 on: May 26, 2017, 01:06:33 PM »
Oh, don't get me wrong-- I have no expectations for superheroes to adhere to physics. In fact, it's kinda silly when people explain why "that wouldn't work in real life."

Reminds me of this video. They hate on the classic Avengers costumes by photoshopping exaggeratedly poor versions of the comic costumes on to the actors, even though most of the characters they're talking about in the movies have suits that are already plenty comic accurate.

And Spyderman93, I see what you mean. Whenever he has momentum on his side and is hurtling toward something, he hits the target with a lot of force, and whenever somebody (or something) is lifting him up, he doesn't weigh much. So yeah, I agree that in general the powers were consistent, even though (as you said) their descriptions didn't really match that.

I'm just going to add to my headcanon that the scientists didn't really know how to explain Pym particles and they just kinda said the wrong thing with confidence.
"Superhero deaths are basically an unproven hypothesis at this point."
 -Mike Exner III

Offline BentonGrey

  • Titans
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 14329
    • The Greylands
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #416 on: May 26, 2017, 05:14:47 PM »
Well, what matters for a film is internal consistency.  Do you create a universe where a man can fly?  Where someone can shrink and ride ants?  If so, then you succeed, no matter how ridiculous the thing is in real life.  Fantasy is all about make believe worlds and situations, and it's been a key part of human storytelling since there have been humans. 

Does Ant-Man succeed at that?  Mostly.  They should have adapted the Atom's explanation.  'You can change your size AND mass,' and then problem solved.  Their explanation is flawed, but despite that, the setting they create is internally consistent.  So, it's one flaw, and a not insignificant one, but it doesn't ruin the film or completely destroy suspension of disbelief.  It would be worse if their explanation was flawed AND the portrayal of the power was inconsistent.  (Looking at you, Man of Steel)

Ouflah, that's a great and believable no-prize explanation.  I could totally see that happening.  :lol:
God Bless
"If God came down upon me and gave me a wish again, I'd wish to be like Aquaman, 'cause Aquaman can take the pain..." -Ballad of Aquaman
Check out my DC voicepacks at my yahoo group.
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/bentongrey/
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/bentongrey2

Offline HarryTrotter

  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2606
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #417 on: May 26, 2017, 05:17:22 PM »
Thou,in all honesty,there are better heist films around.  :)
''Even our origin stories have gone sour.''
Jon Farmer

Offline yell0w_lantern

  • Cut-rate Ringslinger
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 2894
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #418 on: May 28, 2017, 03:29:28 AM »
Well, I'm going to incite some irritation here.  Guardians of the Galaxy (1) was okay. I like it better than Dark World and unlike Dark World, it did not have such numerous and glaring plot holes. I think I just didn't like the characters or find the story as engaging as many of the other Marvel films.

My one major Quibble with Dr Strange was simply casting.  I totally would have cast James Hong as the Ancient One.  The guy deserves to be the Sorcerer Supreme for once.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0393222/
Yellow Lantern smash!

Offline kkhohoho

  • Evil (but a hero) Santa Claus look-a-like
  • Hero Member
  • Posts: 3036
  • "He sees you when you're sleeping...
    • The Golden Age: Not Your Ordinary Fanfic
Re: Marvel Movies
« Reply #419 on: May 28, 2017, 03:38:27 AM »
My one major Quibble with Dr Strange was simply casting.  I totally would have cast James Hong as the Ancient One.  The guy deserves to be the Sorcerer Supreme for once.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0393222/

Yeah, about that. Nothing against Hong, but the sad fact is that Marvel wasn't going to cast any Asian guy as the Ancient One simply due to China having a hate-on for Tibet. If such a grand position as Sorcerer Supreme were given to a Tiebetan character, China (one of Marvel's most lucrative investments in terms of movie-goers,) would have freaked, and while they well could have made Hong Japanese or even Chinese, Marvel still probably thought it'd be a bit too close for comfort. Mind you, it still sounds freaking stupid, but it was simply the reality of the situation.
The Golden Age; 'A different look at a different era.'

http://archiveofourown.org/works/1089779/chapters/2193203