MovieChat Forums > Reaperscout > Replies
Reaperscout's Replies
I genuinely did not like it. Read my reply to FilmBuff in this thread to see further info. Not retyping all that, or copying/pasting.
I genuinely did not like it. Mainly because I'm getting tired of the whole nostalgia thing. If I want Tobey and Andrew so fricking badly, I'll just go watch their Spider-Man movies. I don't need a "hey, do you remember...?" every 5 seconds. Um, yeah, I remember. I don't have that fricking bad of memory. The movie does have it's moments though, but overall, I didn't care for it. But I don't want to tell anyone they are wrong or an idiot for liking the movie. Plus I didn't care about the ending, especially since it ruins everything Peter wanted to accomplish by the end of Far From Home (mainly talk to MJ and all that stuff). Also, Electro, Sandman, and Lizard barely done a dang thing. Doc Ock and Green Goblin got to do everything. And why did Electro, Sandman, and Lizard need curing for? They don't die in the movies they were in. Only Doc Ock and Green Goblin die. Well, Electro might be 50/50, but I feel he is still alive somewhere. I also didn't care about curing all the villains either. Kind of a lame plot. I'd give the movie a 4 or 5 out of 10. A point or two for the moments I liked and then another point or two because I thought it was a better movie than Black Widow and Eternals. Plus I liked it more than Loki, What If...?, and Falcon & Winter Soldier.
"Don't get me started with Phoebe Sue, the know it all, snarky, quirky yet sometimes cute kid from broke poor mother Callie that seems to know even more than her grandfather ever could. From being able to fix a Proton Pack, deduce the jail cell type, handle the power of the proton gun with her small stature, etc. etc."
I bet if it was Trevor that could do all this stuff, you wouldn't have said a dang thing and accepted stuff.
Heck, I'm guilty of this too.
I bet if Leo's character in Inception was a woman/female, I'd want a back story on how they are the best at their job. But all Leo has to do is say he is the best out there and I accept it and don't need a 5-10 minute recap showing how he became the best at his job.
Same with Rey in The Force Awakens. I wouldn't be sitting there re-watching the movie trying to find explanations for stuff or ways to defend the character when others are calling her a Mary Sue. If Rey was a male character, I'd just easily accept stuff and not question it or analyze the movie. And so would a ton of other people.
There is even Anakin as well. We meet him in Episode 1 as a 9-year-old boy. He can already do all this stuff and is considered a great pilot and the best human podracer. If Anakin was a girl/female, we'd want the movie's narrative to come to a sudden halt so we could get some backstory that explains how female Anakin learned to do everything by the age of 9.
I don't know why we treat female characters so unfairly. I'm trying to get better at it. But I didn't really think Phoebe was some Mary Sue when I was watching the new Ghostbusters. I kind of just rolled with stuff and accepted it. Now if Phoebe didn't need to go to Paul Rudd's character or even Podcast for help, then maybe I would've questioned stuff. She still needed help on things. A Mary Sue wouldn't need help.
But yeah. If Trevor and Phoebe swapped places, no one would say a dang thing about Trevor or question stuff. They'd just roll with it/accept it.
Based on true stories/events is one of the worst gimmicks ever for movies and TV. People probably don't realize that the "based on true events/stories" are pretty much 5-15% accurate and then the rest is just put through the Hollywood blender to make the 5-15% more interesting/eventful (like The Conjuring, I'm sure there was a lot of downtime and it ended very anti-climatically in real life), include a love interest/romance subplot, add extra subplots, change the event's ending to give things a happier ending (if they ended tragically or something in real life) and so on. That's why I either skip those type of movies or TV shows, or just watch it for 100% entertainment and say NONE of it actually happened in real life and they are just trying to pull a Blair Witch Project, only in a non-found footage way. I'm pretty sure the main three Conjuring movies weren't all that exciting/eventful as the cases happened in real life. Also, all three main Conjuring movies I believe changed the ending to the events to make them happier. I heard that the actual case for Conjuring 2 was that the family faked everything to get a new house. But in the movie they changed it so it really was ghosts/supernatural. Plus I'm pretty sure the whole nun Lorraine Warren kept seeing and that subplot never happened in real life when they were investigating the family's home in London. That more than likely came from the Hollywood blender. And the actual case/investigation was probably super boring and maybe took weeks or months for something interesting/exciting to happen. Not constant like in the movie. So yeah. The Conjuring movies (for example) I look at as 100% entertainment. The whole "based on true events/story" is a gimmick thrown in to get people more interested. But a lot of people aren't smart enough to call it out. They'll believe anything/everything if the "based on" stuff is slapped on.
If Gal Gadot was in a bikini or bra & underwear/sexy lingerie you would have a good argument.
And if you find this offensive, you must have a "great" time with weddings or maybe a movie premiere or award shows like the Oscars or Grammy's since what the three are wearing are how men and women would dress for those events.
The outfits the three are wearing in the posters seems appropriate to use for the poster since I'd say a good chunk of the second act has them in those outfits. It feels like maybe 20-30 minutes of the movie is spent with those three in those outfits and at the one party or whatever you want to call it. Oh and then they have a big 2 on 1 fight in those outfits. And the trailers use quite a bit of footage of them in those outfits as well including some of the 2 on 1 fight.
Actually, Gal Gadot is wearing less in the Wonder Woman posters (and the Wonder Woman movies) than the Red Notice poster. So there is that as well. And where is the backlash about the Wonder Woman posters or even the Wonder Woman movies? I'm guessing we are just going to be selective on stuff?
Oh wait. I got a bigger doozy. What about the Batman V Superman box art for the Blu-Ray? Only skin Ben Affleck is showing is his lower face while Henry Cavill is showing his whole head and hands. Meanwhile you got Gal Gadot in barely anything compared to them. Might as well just have her in her underwear.
I guess you never saw the first Die Hard. Bruce Willis was barefoot for 85-90% of the movie. And he was more than likely stepping on all kinds of stuff throughout the movie. He actually did get his feet all cut up too during the third act from shattered glass. BUT HE STILL KEPT GOING. So are you saying it's okay for Bruce Willis to do it, but Gal Gadot can't? That's what it sounds like to me.
Have you even watched the movie? It's definitely NOT feminist nonsense.
MAJOR SPOILER ALERT
The Rock and Gal Gadot's characters are/were working together the whole time and I think are a couple/married. The Rock was holding back in the fight because he loved Gal Gadot. There is a quick flashback scene to the fight during the reveal and during the fight (which happened off-screen during the actual fight scene), The Rock says "I love you" to Gal and then Gal asks him if he's ready. Then she flips him over her shoulder and throws him to the ground. Ryan Reynolds doesn't really get to witness it because he is still recovering/distracted from something Gal did to him during the fight. And when The Rock and Gal Gadot are having the moment that is shown in the reveal, the camera is focusing on Ryan Reynolds and we are trying to watch him get back up or is lying on the floor in pain.
The trailers leave a lot of the fight out (mainly the first trailer did). Plus there is a plot twist at the end of the movie that explains everything about the fight and why Gal can/could take them on.
But just because you are big/tall and muscular doesn't mean you can easily win a fight. There is more to a fight than height and muscle. It comes down to skills/training along with using your brain. Also survivor mode can kick in too/play a factor.
But look at The Dark Knight Rises. Batman finally beat Bane because he used strategy, although he got a little lucky because the blades on his gauntlet messed with Bane's mask and Bane went berserk from all the pain he was feeling now that his mask wasn't giving him some painkiller. But Batman/Bruce fought smarter instead of going in "guns blazing" like he did in the first fight with Bane.
Also, I just watched A Christmas Story not too long ago (unless someone is reading this months or years later, but this comment was written during Christmas season 2021). Ralphie is a small kid and stuff while Farkus (the bully) is a lot taller and probably stronger. Ralphie beat the living heck out of Farkus. Farkus was more than likely weaker than he looked and didn't really know how to fight, although he had a height and weight advantage.
I never questioned Gal being able to take on two men, especially someone like The Rock. It's more than just muscle. There are other things to factor in. When I saw the trailer, I never questioned stuff. I know how separate real world and fiction as well.
I just got back from seeing Shang-Chi. I can see the similarities to Batman Begins. Even at times Shang-Chi (the character) was reminding me of Batman/Bruce Wayne. And Shang-Chi's father and sister kind of had a Ra's and Talia Al Ghul thing going on. There are some similarities to Batman Begins, but I wouldn't say they did some shot-for-shot remake but just changed the main character from white to Asian. They changed it up some.
Um, it's always been like that. Just look at Sons Of Anarchy and Fast & Furious. SOA is supposed to be a bunch of bad guys. Same with everyone in Fast & Furious (been that way since 2001 when the first movie released). My friend had to remind me when we went and saw Hobbs & Shaw (I had to explain all the Fast & Furious movies to one friend who hadn't seen a Fast & Furious movie before) that Hobbs was actually the good guy in Fast Five and Dom, Brian, Mia, Roman, Tej, Han, and Giselle are all the bad guys. But because of narrative trickery, Hobbs appears to be the bad guy. Same with SOA. We are cheering for everyone in the motorcycle club to not get caught/arrested and go to prison, but we should be rooting for the police to arrest them and stuff. You can say this about ANY heist movie as well. There is also From Dusk Till Dawn. George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino play criminals on the run, but we are rooting for them and stuff. Plus when things go down in the second half of the movie with the vampires, we are rooting for George Clooney's character to survive. So yeah. This whole thing didn't just start recently with a couple superhero and Disney movies. It's been around for decades.
After watching the movie, the movie didn't need Will Smith. I thought Idris Elba was a better lead than Will Smith and this is coming from someone who is more of a Will Smith person than Idris Elba. Plus Will Smith wasn't playing Deadshot in the 2016 movie, in my opinion. It was more like Will Smith being Will Smith but just wearing a Deadshot outfit.
The movie was fine without needing an appearance from The Joker. Didn't miss Joker at all or feel it needed Joker in some capacity to be better. But I also don't care for Jared Leto's Joker. He seems like he is trying too hard to be Heath Ledger's Joker.
I'm not getting tired of Harley Quinn though. But that's also because I really enjoy Margot Robbie as the character. The wow factor is still there of seeing Margot Robbie in other movies and then just thinking that she can go from that role to something crazy like Harley Quinn. It's hard to believe, but I find it impressive. Kind of tells you she can act and isn't getting cast because of her looks. Not saying she is my favorite actress though or anything like that. Also, I'm not getting tired of Harley Quinn because I kind of just ignore all the love for the character and everyone cosplaying as her and stuff or the merchandise being everywhere in stores. All I do is just watch movies, play the Batman: Arkham games, maybe read some Batman comics where she pops up (like Batman: Hush), and watch Batman: The Animated Series from the 90's. I stay away from everything else.
Also, they do factor in HBO Max numbers. If it's popular and gets all kinds views and stuff on there, they will factor that into the movie being a flop or success. It's not so much about the money now when streaming services are factored in. But piracy could maybe hurt the movie. All you need is that one person with a HBO Max subscription to rip it and post it on torrent sites and stuff, which sucks since it's HD quality instead of CAM. So people pirating get a good rip much faster.
Well, for those that like spoilers, here is an article listing everyone who lives and dies.
https://www.radiotimes.com/movies/the-suicide-squad-deaths-who-dies/
I remember reading an interview or watching a video around Season 2 releasing (might've been a few days to a week or two after Season 2 released (can't exactly remember since it's been a few years now since Season 2 released)) that mentioned the kids getting older would not cause any problems. They'd always adjust the characters' ages to match the kids' real life ages. So no need to change the focus or do any recasting. Plus if they really have to, they can just make the kids be 17-19 age range for the remainder of the show. It's still pretty common for actors and actresses that are 30-35 years old to be cast as juniors or seniors in high school. So you are looking at about 10-15 years for the kid actors (mainly the ones that play Mike, Eleven, Dustin, Lucas, Will, and Max) to still pass as high school kids. And it definitely shouldn't be a problem if they are just doing five seasons. The only thing they never talked about was if they are keeping things in the 80's or eventually moving into the 90's. So if they want to keep things in the 80's, it's possible they may have to do some SORAS action.
But everyone IS back for Season 4. There is behind-the-scenes pics and footage of the whole cast at the Season 4 table read. That happens right before filming/production starts. And it took place before all the production/filming delays hit. So they got the behind-the-scenes footage and pics out to the public before the virus really blew up. All that stuff has been on the internet too since about January-March 2020. So well over a year now. The actors playing Mike, Eleven, Dustin, Lucas, Will, and Max are all back. Oh and there is behind-the-scenes set pics too that have been releasing slowly over the last year. Everyone can be seen filming stuff for Season 4. That means no change of focus character wise. We'll still be following the same cast from Season 1 and the same characters from Season 1. No altering needed.
Don't even go there on moviegoers being morons. I enjoy these movies, but I enjoy stuff like Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction as well. Plus I know the difference between what can happen in a movie vs the real world. I don't watch movies for 100% realism either or 100% facts. If I want 100% realism and 100% facts, I'll go watch The Travel Channel, History Channel, and other channels like that. Or go watch documentaries and stuff on YouTube.
I think she was eventually forced to say all that nonsense. Early marketing for Halloween 2018 (mainly the interviews she did), she was telling everyone to not read between the lines of the movie's plot and ignore all the PC/SJW crap people had started bringing up when talking about the movie. The movie was just supposed to be fun/entertaining from what she was saying in the early marketing. But then out of nowhere and the final month or two of the marketing, she started saying all this PC/SJW nonsense. So I'm guessing someone made her say that stuff. I heard Jason Blum is pretty liberal/left and a PC/SJW supporter. Maybe it was him that told her to say all this stuff since Blumhouse made Halloween 2018. I didn't have a problem though with all this PC/SJW stuff since the horror genre has ALWAYS made the men look bad and the women look good. Just watch any of the Halloween, Friday The 13th, or Nightmare On Elm Street movies. It's always been there.
The horror genre has always been about making the women look good and the men bad. Go watch ANY Halloween movie, ANY Friday The 13th movie, or ANY of the Nightmare On Elm Street movies. Heck, throw in the Scream movies as well. They are all like that. Plus the horror genre started the whole final girl thing, and it was Halloween 1978 that pretty much started it. That was 40+ YEARS AGO. There is SOME horror movies with a final guy or male protagonist/main character, but majority of them (like 85-90%) make the women look good and the men bad. It's nothing new that started recently. Halloween 2018 was just doing what has ALWAYS been around in the horror genre.
But just look at Halloween 4 (WHICH CAME OUT IN 1988). Rachel and Jamie were resourceful and knew when to retreat and stuff and try to come up with a plan. But then you got Rachel's love interest Brady that is all about wanting to bang both Rachel and the sheriff's daughter. Plus he thought he could be all macho because he had a shotgun. He should've retreated retreating with Rachel and Jamie to the roof of the house instead of staying behind to fight Michael. Him thinking with the shotgun and his muscles instead of his brain led to Michael killing him. Then you also got the idiot worker at the power plant that turned his back on Michael. Michael ends up killing him, causing Haddonfield to lose all power. The only smart male character in the Halloween movies is Loomis, but he can be questionable at times.
So yeah. Nothing new. It's always been there. Halloween 2018 is doing similar stuff that I've seen in previous Halloween movies or even the Jason, Freddy, and Scream movies.
My guess is that it's supposed to be a cheap reference. They were actually already in the 2018 for a scene.
It makes me wonder that since Halloween 3 and Halloween 1978 are in different universes (but Halloween 1978 exists in Halloween 3 since we see the movie being marketed/shown on TVs throughout the movie and is the movie playing during the big giveaway) that Cochran got the idea for the masks because they have their own Halloween/Michael Myers sequel in their universe that takes place between the 78 movie and the 2018 movie (maybe it's a sequel where the killer is just a copycat Michael Myers, kind of like how Friday The 13th 5 has a copycat Jason). The masks could've came from that movie and Cochran created some movie tie-in (probably why the masks are selling like crazy throughout the movie), and the 2018 movie is kind of bringing them back (for nostalgia reasons). I'm thinking Halloween 2018 would eventually exist in Halloween 3's universe/reality/world. Well, IF the final channel stopped playing the Silver Shamrock commercial and everyone lived happily ever after.
But overall, I think it's just going to be a reference to Halloween 3 and the masks aren't really that important.
I've enjoyed everything after the movie I'm going to say and I'm still looking forward to 10 and 11, but I think 6 was more of a better movie to end things in a narrative way. Everything felt tied up. Everyone was able to return to the U.S. and live happily ever after, plus we learned how Han found his way to Tokyo (where he would die) and why Giselle wasn't with him. The movie just had this final movie feel to it. Well, it was already the final movie to fill in what led to Tokyo Drift, but it just felt like a final movie altogether. So I wouldn't have mind 6 being the last movie altogether. I'm still enjoying the movies though. Well, except 9. I thought 9 was complete trash (not because I finally tapped when it comes to how ridiculous the movies are getting, it's for other reasons, I'm one of those that can still roll with a person falling from a 40-story building and surviving, I know the difference between reality and a movie, I don't watch movies for 100% realism). I still enjoyed 7 and 8 along with Hobbs & Shaw, and I'm looking forward to 10 and 11. But looking at things from a writer's POV, 6 was a good place to end things in a narrative way. I can't really recall stuff that was still left unanswered. Only new questions popped up and stuff when that scene during the credits popped up revealing Jason Statham was responsible for killing Han in Tokyo Drift and that he was out for revenge for what happened to his brother in 6. If they didn't include that scene, 6 could've easily been the final movie.
The horror genre has ALWAYS been "woke." It's the one genre where women are better than men. Well, most of the time. That's why we got this thing in horror called the final girl and not the final guy. If you don't believe me that horror has always been about the women, go watch any Halloween, Friday The 13th, or Elm Street movie. Also, majority of horror movies have female protagonists instead of men. There are some horror movies with a male protagonist, but it's not often. That's why I said most of the time it's women instead of all the time. But go watch any Halloween, Friday The 13th, or Elm Street movie. You'll see what I'm talking about. The men always look like idiots. It's all about sex, drugs, and alcohol with them. They also think that because they got six-pack abs and muscular arms that they can go in "guns blazing." Men think with their muscles instead of their brains, which leads to them dying within seconds. Women though are more resourceful and stuff and actually use their brains. Just look at Halloween 4 (which released in 1988 and further backs up about me saying this stuff has ALWAYS been in horror movies). Rachel and Jamie are trying to get to the roof of the sheriff's house. Brady (Rachel's love interest) decides to stay behind and fight Michael. Mainly because he has a shotgun. What happens? Brady dies quickly and Rachel and Jamie escape and later help defeat Michael (temporarily). If Brady just went with the two instead of being all macho, he would've lived. So all this supposed "woke" stuff has always been in horror. Nothing new or because of the time we live in where everything is woke now and stuff. Horror likes to make women look better than men most of the time. It's always been there. Army Of The Dead is continuing to follow things that have always been around in the horror genre and not because of the time we live in now.
I don't get the backlash for the 4:3 aspect ratio. I didn't like the idea at first (before watching the movie and just going off the trailers/marketing), especially since it's a movie and not TV show, but after watching the Snyder Cut once on my 20-inch PC monitor and then again on my 40-inch TV, I'm fine with the black bars on the side. They don't bother me and I forget they were there. But then again, maybe the aspect ratio is nothing new to me. I own Batman: The Animated Series on Blu-Ray and have been watching Batman Beyond and Courage The Cowardly Dog on HBO Max. Those are in 4:3 aspect ratio. Then throw in I also have Are You Afraid Of The Dark?, Kenan & Kel, and several other 90's Nickelodeon shows on an external hard drive that I watch sometimes if nothing seems like a mood and I'm desperate to watch something. They all are in the 4:3 aspect ratio. Maybe I'm just a little more accepting to stuff too because if it's the aspect ratio the director or whoever wants us to watch it in, then I'm fine with it. So if Zack Snyder wants us to watch his cut of Justice League in 4:3, then I'll accept it. But it didn't take me long to adjust to the 4:3 aspect ratio for the Snyder Cut. After about 10-15 minutes, I kind of accepted it and/or forgot about the black bars on the side. And I have seen an aspect ratio comparison of the Snyder Cut and Whedon Cut for some scenes. Not too much was lost on the sides. It's nothing massive like the fullscreen vs widescreen stuff back in the day with DVD's in the late 90's to early 2000's. It doesn't seem like you are missing much of the shot/frame like you would back in the day with fullscreen. Shoot, with fullscreen, a person or two could be entirely cut out. But that's not the case with the Snyder Cut. Most that gets cut off from the sides are a random house/building or tree or some scenery. I can live with not seeing that house/building or tree or scenery. They don't really add anything to what's going on.