Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Daredevil discussion
#71
I still don't see how the radar sense was overused. I felt like it added to the scenes that employed it.
Reply
#72
Will, Will, Will, Will, Will....haven't we talked about this.
Reply
#73
I just love the fact that the 'Beyonder' was brought up in this discussion. Beautiful.

I've pretty much given up seeing movies that are highly anticipated/praised here at chud - I can think of two films that are complete pieces of shit that were hyped on the boards and on the main page ...

But to each his own!
Reply
#74
I don't think it helped at all. It looked like he had night vision or something. Made me not appreciate his powers as much.
Reply
#75
Quote:

misfit:
I still don't see how the radar sense was overused. I felt like it added to the scenes that employed it.

It's needed in the beginning to establish his perspective. It's needed when he uses it to search for criminals.

When it isn't needed is for him to walk up stairs, or as he jumps down buildings, or for much of the latter part of the movie.

And quite frankly, the fidelity of it was quite inconsistent, allowing him to see detailed perspectives of a room in one scene and barely allowing him to glimpse a few feet in front of him in another scene.
Reply
#76
It's a super power. He's a super hero. It's like complaining about Spider-Man crawling up too many buildings.

But, no, it wasn't always consistent.
Reply
#77
Damn. I always come in late to these discussions. What can I say that hasn't already been said? I thought Daredevil was pretty unremarkable. The bright spots were that the CG effects came off very well, Colin Ferrel should always make his entrance into movies with House of Pain blaring in the background, Homeland Security may take up a crusade against peanuts on airplanes, Favreau's dry wit was welcome, and...uh...they sure give you alot of nachos at that Tavern place.
Reply
#78
Quote:

misfit:
It's a super power. He's a super hero. It's like complaining about Spider-Man crawling up too many buildings.

But, no, it wasn't always consistent.

It's not just a superpower. It's a perspective that takes over the entire screen.

Let's put it this way.

Would you have liked it in the Spider-Man film if every time Peter Parker felt the least bit of unease (which was fairly often in the film), the entire film slowed down and they used the spider-sense effect from when Flash Thomson was going to hit him early on?

For a movie that supposedly had budget constraint issues, they sure applied the CGI in the wrongest areas.
Reply
#79
Quote:

misfit:
It's a super power. He's a super hero. It's like complaining about Spider-Man crawling up too many buildings.

That's not a good analogy. The more correct comparison would be if they had taken the time in Spiderman to show you the gripper hairs or whatever the hell they were emerging from his hands every time he went to climb a wall.

They didn't do that because they showed it to you the first time, you should be smart enough to know that it's happening the next time he climbs a wall. As opposed to assuming everyone is stupid (no offense Justin) and beating them over the head with it.
Reply
#80
The DD vision was one of the sturdiest things in the movie.
Reply
#81
Quote:

Nick Nunziata:
The DD vision was one of the sturdiest things in the movie.

The vision itself, I absolutely agree. I just felt like it was way overused, slowing down scenes pointlessly.

Movie's just over 90 minutes and has so little time for so many things, but they choose to spend 15-20 minutes on his origin as a child and give you an abundance of his "radar sense"?
Reply
#82
It's my birthday. Lay off.

This is the only time I can get away with this:

Haha. Never used one before.

There is a first and last time for everything.
Reply
#83
It's a matter of preference. I didn't find it intrusive. Some of you did. The only conclusion to be drawn is that you're wrong and someday you will worship me as your king.
Reply
#84
Abundance? It's not like each instance lasted for minutes on end.
Reply
#85
Quote:

misfit:
It's a matter of preference. I didn't find it intrusive. Some of you did. The only conclusion to be drawn is that you're wrong and someday you will worship me as your king.

Good one, Aryan Brother.
Reply
#86
Quote:

misfit:
Abundance? It's not like each instance lasted for minutes on end.

In a film that rushed and choppy, every SECOND counted.

Let's put it this way...I think his radar-sense had more screen time than a lot of supporting characters.
Reply
#87
It ruined the pacing, I think. Like when he went up the steps and we saw all of the different smells...blah.

We get the point! They turned a simple walk up the steps into something else that wasn't needed.
Reply
#88
The vision effect itself was mostly fine, although after awhile it took on a Lawnmower Man quality. But the administration of the effect was rather heavy handed, particularly in the final sequence ******possible spoiler****** as DD works out his options with Kingpin.
Reply
#89
Quote:

Nick Nunziata:
Quote:

misfit:
It's a matter of preference. I didn't find it intrusive. Some of you did. The only conclusion to be drawn is that you're wrong and someday you will worship me as your king.

Good one, Aryan Brother.

Time for the kids to go to bed.
Reply
#90
That final usage - and its inconsistency with the rest of the film - was a big problem for me.

Hell, just the inconsistency in general. When it was convenient for the film that DD be able to jump hundreds of feet, shrug off massive wounds and "see" everything, he did.

When it was convenient for the film that he be unable to jump long distances, unable to shrug off a massive wound, and see very little, he did.

The guy being able to do fantastic things not in the comic is no big deal, but give him that ability for the entire film.
Reply
#91
Quote:

What's there now is a truncated abomination that exists solely to get more showings per day per screen. I'm just not willing to settle or go "Ah, it was okay..." It's NOT okay to butcher a film in that way, and as Dennis said, I feel like this movie succeeding would send exactly the wrong message to Hollywood:

We're willing to settle for choppy 90-minute Cliff Notes versions of heroes with rich histories just so long as you get them on the screen.

In a perfect world that would be the message Hollywood would recieve. In this world, the only message Hollywood will hear is that "the comic-book movie trend" is over. The studio heads are not going to pontificate over the intricacies of a comic-book charachters psychosis. They are making these movies for one purpose, to sell toys. We, the fans, are a very small percentage of the movie going public, and our opinions don't shape the industry. This fact sucks, but it is undeniably true.

I haven't seen Daredevil yet. I will be there for the first show on Friday. I hope that I fall in love with this movie, and find it is true to the comic's roots. Daredevil is one of the best comic-book characters ever. But, if I don't like the movie, fuck it, because I can still read "Born Again", "The Electra Saga", and every other great story about the man without fear.

I hope that the movie does well. The comics industry needs it. If one-hundred people pick up a Daredevil comic, because for some reason, they happened to like, what you say is "half" a flick. Great, now they can read how great a character, Daredevil really is. Then they can understand why the movie they saw blew ass.

If you hated Daredevil, super, but it makes no sense to wish for it to bomb. To affect Hollywood we need numbers, not another failed super-hero franchise. Whatever the movie is, good or bad, I hope Daredevil crashes the box-office. There will always be bad movies, but if the trend continues, comics might go the way of the dodo. Every new reader is a step in the right direction, and if the comic-movie trend fades, many people who might have discovered comics won't. That, to me, is a far worse thing than one bad movie.
Reply
#92
"Movie's just over 90 minutes and has so little time for so many things, but they choose to spend 15-20 minutes on his origin as a child and give you an abundance of his "radar sense"?"

Wow. A superhero movie detailing the hero's orgin for a whole 15 minutes to give background and needed characterization to the audience. What a waste of time. Next thing you know they'll be revealing their "secret identities."

The "Daredevil vision" was done well and never felt overused. It was pretty fascinating at times. When the lead character dodes bullets, falls in love, leaps off of buildings AND happens to be blind, I think it helps to show the audience how he accomplishes this.

Once again, dissecting every moment of ANY film looking for every flaw is easy. Certain folks seem intent on crucifying this and have since the first actor was cast. I'm no optimist, but "Daredevil" was a great film that I enjoyed the hell out of watching and I'll watch again.
Reply
#93
I think you're liberally applying the word great when you connect it to Daredevil. Even if you really liked it, and thought that it was extremely entertaining I just don't see how you can apply that word to this film.
Reply
#94
The same way you can apply every negative adjective you would like to and already have. It's my opinion.
Reply
#95
Quote:

TheBandit:
In a perfect world that would be the message Hollywood would recieve. In this world, the only message Hollywood will hear is that "the comic-book movie trend" is over. The studio heads are not going to pontificate over the intricacies of a comic-book charachters psychosis. They are making these movies for one purpose, to sell toys. We, the fans, are a very small percentage of the movie going public, and our opinions don't shape the industry. This fact sucks, but it is undeniably true.

I haven't seen Daredevil yet. I will be there for the first show on Friday. I hope that I fall in love with this movie, and find it is true to the comic's roots. Daredevil is one of the best comic-book characters ever. But, if I don't like the movie, fuck it, because I can still read "Born Again", "The Electra Saga", and every other great story about the man without fear.

I hope that the movie does well. The comics industry needs it. If one-hundred people pick up a Daredevil comic, because for some reason, they happened to like, what you say is "half" a flick. Great, now they can read how great a character, Daredevil really is. Then they can understand why the movie they saw blew ass.

If you hated Daredevil, super, but it makes no sense to wish for it to bomb. To affect Hollywood we need numbers, not another failed super-hero franchise. Whatever the movie is, good or bad, I hope Daredevil crashes the box-office. There will always be bad movies, but if the trend continues, comics might go the way of the dodo. Every new reader is a step in the right direction, and if the comic-movie trend fades, many people who might have discovered comics won't. That, to me, is a far worse thing than one bad movie.

Here's the thing, and I don't think it's selfish.

I would rather see NO comic-book films than accept anything that they put out as "not that bad" until we're back to Matt Salinger fighting an Italian Red Skull.

This "the future of the genre rest on every movie that comes out" reasoning doesn't ring true with me. If this wave of comics films bombs, Hollywood will regroup, leave it alone for a bit, and then we'll see some more.

But in any case, I'm not going to root for a hatchet job from a studio to succeed. I'm not rooting against Daredevil, I'm rooting against the greedy, self-sabotaging way in which it was presented.
Reply
#96
Quote:

DFJ:
Wow. A superhero movie detailing the hero's orgin for a whole 15 minutes to give background and needed characterization to the audience. What a waste of time. Next thing you know they'll be revealing their "secret identities."

</strong>

It's a waste of time when it takes 20 percent of the film, and the remaining 80 percent has ANOTHER origin story, a romance, characterization, multiple long form fights, and a central storyline to tie this all together to get out of the way.

Origin is fine. An origin wherein the kid is doing slo-motion overhead kicks with no martial arts training whatsoever in a fight scene with OTHER KIDS(!) is pointless and a waste of time.

Quote:

The "Daredevil vision" was done well and never felt overused. It was pretty fascinating at times. When the lead character dodes bullets, falls in love, leaps off of buildings AND happens to be blind, I think it helps to show the audience how he accomplishes this.

</strong>

Aside from explaining the rain effect, all of that was handled during the first fight scene in which they use this perspective. Everything after that is extraneous and unnecessary.

Quote:

Once again, dissecting every moment of ANY film looking for every flaw is easy. Certain folks seem intent on crucifying this and have since the first actor was cast. I'm no optimist, but "Daredevil" was a great film that I enjoyed the hell out of watching and I'll watch again.

My favorite defense: I had a grudge going in and looked to dissect every flaw.

Allow me to present me equally pre-produced response:

Yes, you can pick any movie apart. What makes anyone pick and choose those films they wish to pick apart and those they don't is how much they are immersed into the world of the film wherein even the most fantastic leaps in logic or plot holes would at least seem native to that world.

Nick picked apart Femme Fatale using the very same methodology I am with Daredevil. He wasn't enraptured by the film or drawn into its world. The cheesiness and plot holes took him right out of the film and kept him out.

Same thing here. Bad decisions. Cheese. Leaps in logic. Bad movie.

Watch it all you like. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I didn't.
Reply
#97
Quote:

DFJ:
The same way you can apply every negative adjective you would like to and already have. It's my opinion.

And I competely respect that, to a point. The word great is/has been/should be applied to films that deserve it. To use it to describe the film that is Daredevil discredits other films that truly deserve the tag, such as "If Looks Could Kill".

And to be fair I think I have been fair to the film, in my opinion.
Reply
#98
Not to derail the thread, but quick question: Micah, did you like Femme Fatale? I'm not trying to make a point, I just didn't know.
Reply
#99
"The word great is/has been/should be applied to films that deserve it."

Do you even read what you write? I think it's great. It's MY opinion. Great is not a word like "Christ" or "savior." And the flicks you deem "great" may not — and are likely not — the same as mine. Makes the world interesting. Just stay consisent in what you preach.

And yes, I believe certain folks came in with agendas well before the movie received a first edit. Comments about how "ugly" Jennifer Garner is, how bad the trailers look, how awful the music sounds, how terrible the scenes with the kid were all months before its release don't exactly reflect an open mind walking in the theater.
Reply
Quote:

misfit:
Not to derail the thread, but quick question: Micah, did you like Femme Fatale? I'm not trying to make a point, I just didn't know.

Nope. Agreed with every word Nick said on it.

My point in mentioning it is that the methodology used to criticize the film isn't flawed, in either his case or mine. It's just applied to personal taste, not pre-conceived hatred.

My life is fulfilling enough so that I ALWAYS have something better to do than spend 90-120 minutes in a theater simply because I want something to rip apart.
Reply
Quote:

DFJ:
And yes, I believe certain folks came in with agendas well before the movie received a first edit. Comments about how "ugly" Jennifer Garner is, how bad the trailers look, how awful the music sounds, how terrible the scenes with the kid were all months before its release don't exactly reflect an open mind walking in the theater.

You're confusing an agenda with an opinion.

An agenda is when I set out to do a specific thing, such as hating Daredevil regardless of the actual quality of the film as perceived by me.

An opinion is what I am supposed to form upon seeing trailers or knowing who is involved with the project. If those things had no effect on my opinion or anticipation level for a film, there would be no such thing as stars - because all actors would be paid equal salaries - and no such thing as trailers - because what's the point in showing you any scenes if you won't formulate an opinion of the film's potential based on them.

Also, I find it interesting that you do not bemoan excessive ENTHUSIASM and predisposition to like a film regardless of its quality. Surely, that's as much an "agenda" as what you're accusing some of us as doing, isn't it?
Reply
Quote:

Here's the thing, and I don't think it's selfish.

I would rather see NO comic-book films than accept anything that they put out as "not that bad" until we're back to Matt Salinger fighting an Italian Red Skull.

This "the future of the genre rest on every movie that comes out" reasoning doesn't ring true with me. If this wave of comics films bombs, Hollywood will regroup, leave it alone for a bit, and then we'll see some more.

But in any case, I'm not going to root for a hatchet job from a studio to succeed. I'm not rooting against Daredevil, I'm rooting against the greedy, self-sabotaging way in which it was presented.

You are perfectly justified in not wanting to root for hatchet job flicks. It would be hypocritical. I don't want to see a bomb that hurts comic movies, because, hell, I might die before it turns back around.

I also don't want a kick-ass "Black Panther" movie scrapped, because the studio tried the lower-profile heroes before and got their asses handed to them.

My other concern is for the actual comics. It is not a healthy medium. Each year the average age of comic readers rises. It could very easily not survive another dormant period in Hollywood. It needs the movies, cartoons, and toys to reach new readers and actually turn a profit(which contrary to popular belief is not necessarily a bad thing).

The best way to fight bad comic movies, is for more people to read what great stories these shit films were attempting to tell. Other than that all we can do is bitch and moan here at chud.
I can say proudly that I am doing both of these, and will continue to do so, until someone hurts my ego so badly I never return.

&lt;edited because I wasn't done&gt;

Reply
I agree with Mikah on this agenda post. It isn't like DC writes him a check everytime he pans the flick.
Right Mikah... Right.

Come on Mikah say it ain't so.

Say it ain't so?
Reply
Quote:

DFJ:
Do you even read what you write?

Every word, though I usually don't agree with it.

Quote:

Just stay consisent in what you preach.

Not really preaching or trying to sell anything, and I'm really not sure where I've contradicted myself, although my sarcastic dissection of your overzealous review may have made it seem that way. It's o.k., we all get confused sometimes.


Quote:

Comments about how "ugly" Jennifer Garner is, how bad the trailers look, how awful the music sounds, how terrible the scenes with the kid

Aren't these all just the precious opinions you speak so highly of?
Reply
No "us." Just one.

I've been really looking forward to this for a long while but had several reservations from casting to the director's qualifications. Even Garner, who I am a fan of, seemed slightly off in some weird way. Too white bred. It was nice to see those notions dispelled. Even Affleck, whose films I avoid, was surprisingly good.

Semantic games aside — opion, agenda, and who really feels like playing these — the point is moot. Bottom line: when one is geared up to hate something, there's a good chance one will.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)