|
|
Post by simple on Sept 9, 2021 6:33:25 GMT
Yeah Red Skull has been the best voice so far and it wasn’t even Weaving doing it
|
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Sept 9, 2021 7:00:43 GMT
I wonder if it was the guy who played him in Infinity War?
I think you can tell, unfortunately, that some of the movie actors aren't used to giving a voice performance. But Ruffalo is great and is unmistakably Ruffalo. I did find it a bit weird in the episode that revisited The Incredible Hulk to have him vacuum l basically replacing Ed Norton in those scenes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Sept 9, 2021 9:21:32 GMT
It is, he’s a good voice actor and impressionist as well which is why he’s one of the better voices.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 9, 2021 9:28:09 GMT
I honestly didn’t even realise it wasn’t Weaving in the actual films nevermind on What If
|
|
Derblington
Junior Member
Did you know I have a girlfriend
Posts: 2,125
|
Post by Derblington on Sept 9, 2021 9:42:02 GMT
Ruffalo and Bettany sound normal.
I think Sebastian Stan is the worst one for it, but there have been others that just don't sound like themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Sept 9, 2021 10:53:43 GMT
The guy playing Spider-Man is really good, because although he doesn't sound like Tom Holland, he captures the essence of his performance so it feels like the same character, rather than feeling like another version of Spider-Man (if that makes sense).
Chadwick Boseman is also very good, which just makes me sadder, to be honest. Some of the best not-Doctor-Strange bits have been T'Challa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2021 16:22:04 GMT
Thought the zombies one was pretty dumb (even for a story with marvel zombies) Quantum virus sounds like bad tumblr fan fic
|
|
aubergine
Junior Member
I must get over myself
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by aubergine on Sept 9, 2021 23:52:51 GMT
All zombie stories are completely stupid to be fair. 28 Days Later at least treated it more believably.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 10, 2021 0:04:45 GMT
There are plenty of decent zombie franchises out there. Marvel Zombies was never one of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2021 16:30:42 GMT
I have not read these marvel comics but from the wiki they sound better than this toss (even the ones with howard the duck)
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 10, 2021 18:41:32 GMT
Howard deserves his own Disney+ series.
MODOK got one!
|
|
|
|
Post by baihu1983 on Sept 11, 2021 15:02:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by beastmaster on Sept 11, 2021 15:57:38 GMT
More films should be 90 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reviewer on Sept 11, 2021 16:02:17 GMT
Good way to reduce the budget too.
|
|
neilka
New Member
Font Geeking
Posts: 424
|
Post by neilka on Sept 11, 2021 18:03:52 GMT
It's more like an extended Venom cameo.
|
|
Tuffty
Junior Member
Posts: 3,602
|
Post by Tuffty on Sept 12, 2021 16:20:46 GMT
Came back from watching Shang-chi. I really enjoyed it, prob one of my favourite origin movies. The usual CGI nonsense in the third act but I think it was overall really solid. Not sure what people mean when they said the CGI was bad. Black Panthers third act was noticeably visibly bad and I don't think it ever got to that level. Tony Leung was a great villian. Whoever did the sound design for the rings deserves a raise.
|
|
Onny
Junior Member
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by Onny on Sept 12, 2021 18:12:34 GMT
Yeah I really enjoyed it too. Some of the best hand to hand fighting in the MCU so far. The post credits scene was intriguing too: the rings are ancient - and have sent out a signal? Feels like an early call out to the Eternals and their tech I reckon. Also, Smart Hulk has reverted to banner? I wonder why?? They had the venom trailer running before it and man - either the trailer editor is bad or that film is going to terrible. And Eddie Brock still looks like he needs a wash. |
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 12, 2021 18:24:33 GMT
Why not both?
|
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Sept 13, 2021 10:01:16 GMT
More films should be 90 minutes. I wish more films were this length. There are exceptions but generally speaking most films at 2 hours or longer could stand to be trimmed down. Most of it is just needless padding. |
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Sept 13, 2021 10:04:56 GMT
Ghostbusters and Men in Black - two films which really feel like templates for modern jokey action blockbusters - are both about 90 minutes long. I'm really not sure why running times have crept up to the degree they have, but I'm choosing to blame Titanic.
|
|
|
|
Post by zerimski on Sept 13, 2021 10:31:11 GMT
I know the trend started long before (LotR), but I blame Game of Thrones. It seems that people now expect that level of world-building in everything they watch, so 90 minute stories get split into two 2-and-a-half-hour "epics".
Saw Shang-Chi at the weekend and was a little put out by the lack of context around Death Dealer, until it was pointed out to me that I'm the first to complain about the aforementioned surplus world-building and you're shown just as much of the character as you need for it to service the story. As ever, the film could probably do with a trim in other areas though.
|
|
aubergine
Junior Member
I must get over myself
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by aubergine on Sept 13, 2021 11:59:31 GMT
By my reckoning the trend towards ass-numbing movie lengths started with Dances With Wolves. It was also a massive success though, and every year after that there was some ridiculously long movie openly trying to win Oscars. But that’s only because Dances was “of my time” - there were dozens of movies longer than three hours before Fellowship of the Ring. I do think the trend after Dances though was away from the 80 minute standard that had ruled Hollywood for decades, with movies more often coming in at 2 hours 20 minutes on average, the “Forrest Gump” measure. Aliens is probably the only popcorn mobile earlier than that I can think of in the 140 minute range.
Probably boring to most people, but I actually really like the rigidity of the 80 minute standard and films that stick to it. Tron is a great example. There’s these rules about what should happen and when in screenwriting to that standard, eg you set up the “normal” world in the first 9 pages and then upend the world for the protagonist on page ten. One page is designed to equate to one minute. Jeff Bridges gets sucked into the computer world at exactly the ten minute mark. The second act would be x minutes long, the second act turn at y minutes, and if you have those rules in front of you while watching Tron you can see it hits all these artificial story milestones at very precise times, and is damn near 80 minutes to the second. I think it’s kind of cool that that particular movie is written to a very rigid program and viewers are unaware of it, even though it was completely common for movies of the time. These days you’d be hard pressed to find anything shorter than 90 minutes I’m sure.
One question I’ve always had about Tron is this bizarre shot of CGI spider monsters that is tipped in when they are on the sail barge, but then is dropped immediately and has absolutely no bearing on anything. Was that put in there to reach 80 minutes? More likely they did some CGI work, had plans to develop that further, but then cut it for time / budget, but didn’t want to waste the short CGI scene they’d already made so just… shoved it in there.
|
|
Onny
Junior Member
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by Onny on Sept 13, 2021 12:11:03 GMT
I know the trend started long before (LotR), but I blame Game of Thrones. It seems that people now expect that level of world-building in everything they watch, so 90 minute stories get split into two 2-and-a-half-hour "epics". Saw Shang-Chi at the weekend and was a little put out by the lack of context around Death Dealer, until it was pointed out to me that I'm the first to complain about the aforementioned surplus world-building and you're shown just as much of the character as you need for it to service the story. As ever, the film could probably do with a trim in other areas though. Early on I was totally convinced it was going to be his mum or something! Or at least the reveal of their face was going to be important haha |
|
|
|
Post by beastmaster on Sept 13, 2021 12:30:18 GMT
I second the Dances With Wolves statement. That seemed to me to be the first one that I was very aware of the long runtime when I went to the cinema. I do love that film though.
No Time to Die is the next "epic" film. 2hrs 50mins. I really hope its Infinity War/Endgame entertaining and the time will fly by. Something tells me it won't be.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Sept 13, 2021 12:38:36 GMT
I’m in the blame LOTR camp. Other films were longer before they came out but I think they did more than any other to normalise extreme length in big mainstream multiplex cinema. They also proved that audiences would accept multi-instalment storytelling in a way previous trilogies and sequels had never done.
Its not really about being first but being biggest and most game changing and they did it.
Arguably Harry Potter too but I think that phenomenon stands on its own, as Narnia and Percy Jackson and the rest being relative flops proves.
|
|
gray
New Member
Posts: 435
|
Post by gray on Sept 13, 2021 12:45:39 GMT
I think it goes further back than you may expect. "Oscar epics" have been a thing since the 30s...
|
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Sept 13, 2021 12:47:23 GMT
There have always been long, epic movies, but I think something that's happened this century (blimey, feels weird writing that) is how mainstream blockbuster cinema has favoured longer run-times. And I think many of the films and reasons cited are to "blame": Titanic was the biggest film of all time; a couple of years later the LOTR films were massively successful epics; the Harry Potters and the Star Wars prequels all came with built-in audiences who rushed to the cinemas, and as their runtimes increased it seemed to have no discenable impact on their box office (IIRC Revenge of the Sith is around 150 minutes, whereas the first Star Wars is barely two hours). And then the big TV renaissance kicked off, arguably with stuff like The Sopranos, but people got used to watching film-quality ongoing stories, and binging the DVD boxsets.
So basically a lot of things happened to help condition audiences to longer run-times, and a lot of long films were successful enough that studios stopped caring if films were too long. I think sometimes this is fine - most Marvel films are so full of plot and twists that they justify two hours plus - but on the other hand it means we get the bloated and barely comprehensible Pirates sequels, and also a lot of just very slow, plodding blockbusters (cough, Transformers, cough).
I don't want to pick on the Ghostbusters reboot - because at the end of the day it's fine, and god knows it's had its fair share of kicking - but that film is about half an hour longer than the original, and I just don't know why. I still feel it'd be a stronger film if it lost about twenty minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by beastmaster on Sept 13, 2021 13:12:17 GMT
Hawkeye trailer. Wasn't expecting it to be all festive.
|
|
aubergine
Junior Member
I must get over myself
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by aubergine on Sept 13, 2021 14:34:19 GMT
Hawkeye in a Die Hard film looks like.
|
|
aubergine
Junior Member
I must get over myself
Posts: 2,181
|
Post by aubergine on Sept 13, 2021 14:42:22 GMT
I think it goes further back than you may expect. "Oscar epics" have been a thing since the 30s... Well yeah, Gone With The Wind, Ben Hur, Godfather Part II etc. But epics were rare and dropped off the radar until Dances With Wolves, after which they became more like a yearly thing. You can look up a list of three hour movies, and most of them seem to be between 1990 and 2003. But critics still call anything longer than two hours “an ass-numbing x minutes long” because 80 minutes was the standard for so long, outside of these rare, epic “event movies”. With TV, a 6 hour story was “event television. Now a 10-13 hour season is just television. (I’m talking continued narrative, not episodic, eg Game of Thrones vs Xena Warrior Princess.) |
|
