Tales of the Parodyverse >> View Thread

Author
Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP


I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.

Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.

I know Marvel is looking to establish the Marvel Universe with their self-financed movies, but after seeing Iron Man, I think it's perfectly situated to remain in it's own little world. This could easily be a James Bond-ish franchise, with Stark thwarting more real-world based would-be dictators and terrorists and such, instead of digging up appropriate comic-book villains for him to fight each outing. Either way, though, they've got me on board for a sequel. I think "The Dark Knight" will have to work to top this as the comic book movie of the summer.

Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

>
> I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.
>
> Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.
>
> I know Marvel is looking to establish the Marvel Universe with their self-financed movies, but after seeing Iron Man, I think it's perfectly situated to remain in it's own little world. This could easily be a James Bond-ish franchise, with Stark thwarting more real-world based would-be dictators and terrorists and such, instead of digging up appropriate comic-book villains for him to fight each outing. Either way, though, they've got me on board for a sequel. I think "The Dark Knight" will have to work to top this as the comic book movie of the summer.
>
> Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.





CrazySugarFreakBoy!


Member Since: Sun Jan 04, 2004
Posts: 1,235

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP






Hatman


Member Since: Thu Jan 01, 1970
Posts: 618

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

>
> I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.
>

We got there an hour early, and instead of a line we were the first ones there. Not a lot of people seemed to realize there were screenings tonight.

> Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.
>

While I could have used one more combat scene, they did such a good job with the character of Tony Stark I didn't mind that it wasn't start-to-finish action.

> I know Marvel is looking to establish the Marvel Universe with their self-financed movies, but after seeing Iron Man, I think it's perfectly situated to remain in it's own little world. This could easily be a James Bond-ish franchise, with Stark thwarting more real-world based would-be dictators and terrorists and such, instead of digging up appropriate comic-book villains for him to fight each outing. Either way, though, they've got me on board for a sequel. I think "The Dark Knight" will have to work to top this as the comic book movie of the summer.
>

I saw a trailer for Dark Knight tonight and it really didn't get me excited for the movie, though I definitely want to see it. I'd love for Iron Man to outperform The Dark Knight.

> Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.

I didn't get the Hulk trailer. I was quite shocked at that actually.

~Hat~




Hatman


Member Since: Thu Jan 01, 1970
Posts: 618

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

> >
> > I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.
> >
> > Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.
> >
> > I know Marvel is looking to establish the Marvel Universe with their self-financed movies, but after seeing Iron Man, I think it's perfectly situated to remain in it's own little world. This could easily be a James Bond-ish franchise, with Stark thwarting more real-world based would-be dictators and terrorists and such, instead of digging up appropriate comic-book villains for him to fight each outing. Either way, though, they've got me on board for a sequel. I think "The Dark Knight" will have to work to top this as the comic book movie of the summer.
> >
> > Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.





killer shrike always refuses to stay out of principle



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista

> > >
> > > I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.
> > >
> > > Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.
> > >
> > > I know Marvel is looking to establish the Marvel Universe with their self-financed movies, but after seeing Iron Man, I think it's perfectly situated to remain in it's own little world. This could easily be a James Bond-ish franchise, with Stark thwarting more real-world based would-be dictators and terrorists and such, instead of digging up appropriate comic-book villains for him to fight each outing. Either way, though, they've got me on board for a sequel. I think "The Dark Knight" will have to work to top this as the comic book movie of the summer.
> > >
> > > Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.





Nats


Member Since: Thu Jan 01, 2004
Posts: 85

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

...not that that's a hard feat to achieve.

Yeah, I dug it. I don't even *like* Iron Man, and I thought it was cool. And hey, I'm even going to buy an Iron Man comic this month. Exciting times!

Didn't get the Hulk trailer; got new ones instead for Indiana Jones and Dark Knight, both of which I am hotly anticipating.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP


In many ways, Iron Man is superior to both Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins, in that it doesn't have nearly as many pieces to it that simply don't work. There's a lot more that you have to forgive about those two than there is with Iron Man. However, I also feel that it doesn't reach as far or try as hard as those two films either (or the original Superman, for that matter).

Still, I'm not surprised to see that after more than 140 reviews counted, Iron Man is the most positively reviewed superhero movie on Rotten Tomatoes.


> Yeah, I dug it. I don't even *like* Iron Man, and I thought it was cool. And hey, I'm even going to buy an Iron Man comic this month. Exciting times!

I find it ironic that here, and with the character of Wolverine, the Hollywood adaptations have managed to unearth the appeal of characters that have had it wrung out of them in the comics themselves, through overuse and misuse.


>
> Didn't get the Hulk trailer; got new ones instead for Indiana Jones and Dark Knight, both of which I am hotly anticipating.

I got both of those as well (and Narnia, and that Mike Myers movie, and the Adam Sandler one). Neither the Indy nor the Batman trailer did much for me... they were mostly more of the same. I really have no idea what to make of Batman... Some of it looks really good, some of it looks really ridiculous.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

> >
> > I went to the 8 o'clock advanced showing tonight. I don't know how well advertised it was that the movie started playing Thursday night, but the theater wasn't a sell out. It was nearly full, however, and everyone seemed to have a good time.
> >
>
> We got there an hour early, and instead of a line we were the first ones there. Not a lot of people seemed to realize there were screenings tonight.

Yeah, I've heard from a few sources that the early showings in general weren't exactly packed. I wonder if that will hold through the weekend, or if it really was just poorly advertised. (I know I was surprised to find it playing already, and had just looked at the online movie listings out of curiosity to see if it was having midnight showings. I wouldn't have gone to those, having to work today, but 8pm? Why not?)

I know the Hollywood media is asking whether or not Grand Theft Auto 4 will keep a large percentage of would-be Iron Man moviegoers home this weekend. I doubt it, but I'm guessing it won't rocket too high on the all time opening weekend box office charts.


>
> > Everyone in it did a great job acting, and the character was really faithful to the days before he became an ass. It might be a little tame for some tastes, as there are only a handful of combat scenes, but I didn't mind personally... it had good pacing throughout.
> >
>
> While I could have used one more combat scene, they did such a good job with the character of Tony Stark I didn't mind that it wasn't start-to-finish action.

Oh, same here. In truth, he's not in the armor all that often, and yet I didn't really find myself dividing the movie into Tony Stark and Iron Man segments... they were so well integrated. I did find his first offensive use of the armor to be a great sequence that really gets you jazzed for sequels, though.

>
> I saw a trailer for Dark Knight tonight and it really didn't get me excited for the movie, though I definitely want to see it. I'd love for Iron Man to outperform The Dark Knight.

Yeah, I felt the same way about the new trailer... I'm looking forward to that movie as well. I wasn't instantly in love with Batman Begins, but it grew on me, especially with second (and more) viewings on cable movie channels.


> > Oh, and the new Hulk trailer with this one actually looked much better than that first trailer.
>
> I didn't get the Hulk trailer. I was quite shocked at that actually.

That actually is surprising... but then, I guess the distributor gets to pick the guaranteed trailer attached to prints, and Paramount released Iron Man, while Universal will release The Incredible Hulk.





Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP


Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.

The scene here, while much meatier than most post-credits bits, wouldn't have worked well within the flow of the movie itself.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

>
>
>






killer shrike



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista

>
> Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
>

If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.

> The scene here, while much meatier than most post-credits bits, wouldn't have worked well within the flow of the movie itself.

So show it at the end of the movie after a brief fade out. I paid to see the film: I shouldn't have to sit through the credits to get the full experience.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

> >
> > Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
> >
>
> If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.


Honestly, I really see no problem with the studio saying "we worked hard on this film... if you stay and let us take our bow, we'll throw a little something in there for you as thanks." It seems a much better solution than forcing everyone to wait through the credits for the movie to start, which may also hurt the pacing and the build up of the start of the film.



>
> > The scene here, while much meatier than most post-credits bits, wouldn't have worked well within the flow of the movie itself.
>
> So show it at the end of the movie after a brief fade out. I paid to see the film: I shouldn't have to sit through the credits to get the full experience.

In truth, the way this movie ends, the fade-out idea honestly wouldn't work... the two scenes would be horrible back to back.

I suppose it comes down to a "glass half full" kind of thing... end credits scenes feel completely like extras to me, rather than part of the film that's being withheld.

In any event, I'm sure it'll be on YouTube or something soon enough.




killer shrike



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista

> > >
> > > Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
> > >
> >
> > If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.
>
>
> Honestly, I really see no problem with the studio saying "we worked hard on this film... if you stay and let us take our bow, we'll throw a little something in there for you as thanks."

I do. When I go to a restaurant and order coffee at the end of my meal, I don't have to sit through a long presentation from the waiter where he tells me the name of the chef, the person who put together my salad, the grocer they bought the lettuce from, the brand of stove used to bake my potato, the company that installed the stove that baked my potato, and the songs the house band played during dinner. They just go off to get my coffee. Same situation, different consumable.




> It seems a much better solution than forcing everyone to wait through the credits for the movie to start, which may also hurt the pacing and the build up of the start of the film.
>


I agree. My point was if the studio truly cared about giving those people recognition, that's what they would do.


>
>
> >
> > > The scene here, while much meatier than most post-credits bits, wouldn't have worked well within the flow of the movie itself.
> >
> > So show it at the end of the movie after a brief fade out. I paid to see the film: I shouldn't have to sit through the credits to get the full experience.
>
> In truth, the way this movie ends, the fade-out idea honestly wouldn't work... the two scenes would be horrible back to back.
>

So a five second lag between scenes wouldn't work, but a five minute one does? Yeah, I don't believe that.






Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP

> > > >
> > > > Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.
> >
> >
> > Honestly, I really see no problem with the studio saying "we worked hard on this film... if you stay and let us take our bow, we'll throw a little something in there for you as thanks."
>
> I do. When I go to a restaurant and order coffee at the end of my meal, I don't have to sit through a long presentation from the waiter where he tells me the name of the chef, the person who put together my salad, the grocer they bought the lettuce from, the brand of stove used to bake my potato, the company that installed the stove that baked my potato, and the songs the house band played during dinner. They just go off to get my coffee. Same situation, different consumable.

And they bill you extra for the coffee... it's not part of the meal. Occasionally, a restaurant will thank a customer for their patience and understanding by giving them a little something extra, like a free desert or drinks.

You want the extra scene, the price is sitting through the credits (or waiting to see it online or on video.)


> > It seems a much better solution than forcing everyone to wait through the credits for the movie to start, which may also hurt the pacing and the build up of the start of the film.
> >

> I agree. My point was if the studio truly cared about giving those people recognition, that's what they would do.

Well, that assumes that they can only care about either giving people credit or the desires of an impatient audience. If they truly care about both, then the only answer is some form of compromise.


> > In truth, the way this movie ends, the fade-out idea honestly wouldn't work... the two scenes would be horrible back to back.
> >
>
> So a five second lag between scenes wouldn't work, but a five minute one does? Yeah, I don't believe that.

You honestly can't conceive of two scenes that shouldn't be back to back, especially as the end point of a film? Five minutes later, the punch of the ending has had a chance to fade. As I've said from the beginning, the scene doesn't fit into the movie proper... It's the very definition of tacked on. Putting it at the end of the credits is harmless, while making it the last scene of the movie would have been artless.




killer shrike



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista

> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I have no problem with movies offering a little something as enticement for people to watch the trailers and give the cast and crew a little recognition.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If they truly cared about giving the cast and crew recognition they'd put the credits at the beginning of the film. To me the whole thing strikes me as coy and silly.
> > >
> > >
> > > Honestly, I really see no problem with the studio saying "we worked hard on this film... if you stay and let us take our bow, we'll throw a little something in there for you as thanks."
> >
> > I do. When I go to a restaurant and order coffee at the end of my meal, I don't have to sit through a long presentation from the waiter where he tells me the name of the chef, the person who put together my salad, the grocer they bought the lettuce from, the brand of stove used to bake my potato, the company that installed the stove that baked my potato, and the songs the house band played during dinner. They just go off to get my coffee. Same situation, different consumable.
>
> And they bill you extra for the coffee... it's not part of the meal. Occasionally, a restaurant will thank a customer for their patience and understanding by giving them a little something extra, like a free desert or drinks.
>
> You want the extra scene, the price is sitting through the credits (or waiting to see it online or on video.)
>

I shouldn't have to pay that price. I paid for a ticket. I'm entitled for the whole movie experience and some director or producer being cute shouldn't deny me that.


>
> > > It seems a much better solution than forcing everyone to wait through the credits for the movie to start, which may also hurt the pacing and the build up of the start of the film.
> > >
>
> > I agree. My point was if the studio truly cared about giving those people recognition, that's what they would do.
>
> Well, that assumes that they can only care about either giving people credit or the desires of an impatient audience. If they truly care about both, then the only answer is some form of compromise.
>

Nope. I paid for a ticket, I'm giving them my time. I shouldn't have to slog through credits to see everything they felt was worth showing on the big screen.


>
> > > In truth, the way this movie ends, the fade-out idea honestly wouldn't work... the two scenes would be horrible back to back.
> > >
> >
> > So a five second lag between scenes wouldn't work, but a five minute one does? Yeah, I don't believe that.
>
> You honestly can't conceive of two scenes that shouldn't be back to back, especially as the end point of a film? Five minutes later, the punch of the ending has had a chance to fade. As I've said from the beginning, the scene doesn't fit into the movie proper... It's the very definition of tacked on. Putting it at the end of the credits is harmless, while making it the last scene of the movie would have been artless.

Having seen the movie and read spoilers of what happens at the end, I can say it would have been quite easy for them to put them together so people wouldn't have to sit through the credits.

I would say the majority of the people in the theater left when I did, and I bet a lot of them didn't even know there was a bonus scene. So by being cute the creators cheated their customers out of seeing the entire product. That's wrong, and the "artists" should be called on it.

EDIT: Also, how can you say its not relevant to the movie? Is Stark in it? Yup. Is a previous plot point mentioned? Yup. Can it possibly set the stage for what will happen in the sequels? Or even set up an entire other movie franchsie? Double yup.




Visionary



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.14 on Windows XP


>






On Topic™ © 2003-2024 Powermad Software