Moments when a piece of entertainment completely lost you.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:10 am

I saw Iron Man 2 a second time and I have to say that it was much worse this time around without the fanboy blinders on.

It's like I'm watching the first draft of a script rather than the finished product. Good ideas are thrown onscreen that never get developed. Too little effort is spent tying scenes together. Much of the dialogue is improvised Reno 911! style. Which is fine, but also keep in mind that Reno 911!--at least for the first four seasons--reshoots scenes that aren't funny enough you dumb shits! The improvised dialogue made the first film feel more 'real', but there gets to a point where the 'realism' gets in the way of storytelling.

Besides just having a dull, underbaked plot and random, unlikeable characters the action in this movie sucked. For a comic book movie, there's not enough action in the damn movie. I mean, you have the Whiplash scene which had no tension in it (ooo, oo, I want to see a gimped version of the main villain in a fight with odds stacked against him), the Rhodes/Stark fight which was played for comedy rather than as a falling-out, and then the climax. The climax wasn't that bad, but they could've done a lot better job on the choreography. The final fight against Whiplash ended too early; rather than having a proper fight, they get their butts kicked, come up with a clever trick, then fight's over. Oh, and you also had the fight with Scarlet Johannson if you cared about that. I hated that scene, because contrasting it against what was Happy was doing just made it feel all the more fake. You can't have your waif character effortly destroying mooks and posing after every move while in the background you have a trained boxer taking several minutes to take down one guy like what would happen in a 'real' fight. Instead of making me go 'wow, Black Widow kicks ass!' I went 'wow, Black Widow's plot armor kicks ass!'

Also, the Justin Hammer character. I understand that you wanted to make him an annoying wannabe. However, just because you intended to do something and succeeded at it doesn't make it good. Hammer just felt too stupid and arrogant to be taken seriously. I mean, you're supposed to laugh at the guy while also keeping in mind that he's supposed to be a threat. I'm not against comical villains, but the thing about comical villains is that they're supposed to have an area or two where you take them deadly seriously.

And if you're not supposed to take Justin Hammer seriously then who is supposed to provide the tension for this movie? Ivan? Well, sure, but Ivan for the most part sat on his ass in the movie. After making a lame attempt at attacking Tony the first time he pretty much had all of his toys handed to him by another villain. Then he's sidelined for the rest of the film.

Which wouldn't be so bad on its own, but with Hammer a joke and Ivan laying low, where was the action and drama supposed to come from? Tony Stark's personal issues? Sure, that's fine--more than fine, even, because it worked for Spider-Man 2, but the fact is that:

A) Tony Stark is a lot less sympathetic than Peter Parker. Peter Parker is a college student with a ton of shit being dumped on him and his life is falling apart in several areas. If you ignore the fact that SPIDERMAN MADE A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL OHHHH FUCKING GOD NO WHY (ahem) his struggles are out of his control but still make us feel that he's trying to get his life in order. Tony Stark is a billionaire playboy joyriding throughout the movie and being a dick to his friends; the only thing that could've made him sympathetic are the quips (which like I mentioned before are weaker in this movie) and the fact that he was dying. But the fact that Tony Stark is dying didn't mean anything. It's just randomly resolved. Pepper Potts and Rhodes didn't even find out about it until it became a moot point.

B) Which brings us to my second problem. Tony Stark went through no character development in the movie. I mentioned earlier in the thread that I thought that Iron Man 2 bringing up the fact that a combination of his alcoholism, slow death, tensions with his friends and government, and the fact that he's slipping off of his throne could've made Tony grow as a person. Either negatively or positively. But he just continues being the same smarmy jackass throughout the movie and then Iron Man 2 decides that it's not a problem anymore. I mean, he's still in the same position at the beginning of the movie as before. Tony Stark has better toys than the government and probably won't share. He's still an alcoholic. Criminals still want to one-up the arms race.

If they ended the film on a somber note and ended up with Tony drinking by himself in his ruined stand while he watches a public opinion poll saying that he needs to turn over the suit, that would be something. It'd be depressing, but at least it wouldn't have been pointless. But that movie is just like The Phantom Menace. It's supposed to be a shitstorm where unresolved issues and new problems come to a head and change the status quo forever. But the end of the movie says that the status quo was stronger than the forces coming to take it down so the hero didn't need to do anything different after all! What the fuck?

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:20 am

Also, like The Phantom Menace, Iron Man 2 made the baffling decision to make homage to the comic even at points where it didn't make sense or add anything just because the source material did.

Like the character of Happy. Aside from the fact that he was in the comics, why the fuck was he there? Or SHIELD. Aside from the fact that they're doing an Avengers movie, why the fuck did they derail the plot so much? Who the fuck was Nick Fury? I know who he is, because I read Punisher and the Ultimates, but how was someone supposed to know what his purpose was unless they read the comics or saw the scene after the credits? What was Black Widow's purpose in the movie? Why did that last SHIELD guy suddenly have to leave after having nothing to do with the film? Why should I care what he's doing? Oh, Thor's Hammer? What importance does that have to do except as a fanservice?

I have no idea why they did that. I mean, it's not like Iron Man is Batman or Superman or Spider-Man. The vast majority of movie-goers only knows Iron-Man to the point of 'oh, yeah, he's that guy in the red and gold suit'. Wasting all of that time on fanservice that most people aren't going to get is stupid as hell. This really does not bode well for the franchise if this is what Marvel thinks makes a good movie.

I think unless the people at Marvel reads the negative reviews very carefully, they're about to really screw the pooch on what could've been a cash cow franchise. There are enough stupid fanboys and confused fans out there that they may have made the mistake of making a good movie instead of a thoroughly mediocre one.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 6:56 am

Saw Repo Men yesterday...

It was terrible. They get points for a few things:
-The attempt to take the world set up of Repo the Genetic Opera, and making a Hollywood movie out of it. I have no problem with Hollywood making movies, or even really wanting to play with someone else's idea, that's fine, just.... do it better. Make it less of a blatant rip off of tensions from the other guy's playground.
-The idea of taking a scene in which

The main protagonist and his hussylove interest must scan each others' artificial organs while said organs are still inside of each other

and making it analogous to a sex scene. Great, awesome, interesting idea. If Hollywood could actually write/film interesting, emotional, erotic, romantic, sensual, etc sex scenes, maybe it could have worked. But you gotta know the rules and be proficient at the base subject before you can play with it
-Trying to play up a few different interesting tensions

*Protagonist's wife wants him to be a sales person and quit being a repoman, guys friend/partner is co-dependent and doesn't want to be left alone because the only other thing he has is beer, killing, and sex
*Protagonist loves his wife and son/likes his job and friend, and isn't cut out to be a sales person
*Protagonist has a change of heart on the killing when his heart's replaced with an artificial one. He liked the job/can't perform now that the victims seem more human. He can still be a salesperson, and try to be a good one/can't be a good sales person because he knows the fate of people who can't pay, and how frequently it happens

But they failed. In many ways, and many times. The tension they try to put in is forced (though they may have had something if they'd stuck more to the family tension, rather than turning it into the Bourne Identity half way through). They had interesting ideas (the scene referenced above alone is at the least a very interesting idea). But they were clumsily executed. The ending

"The last half was all a high tech dream"

was shit. It was cliche, trite and clumsy.

They tried to be really clever and edgy, and really just revealed, once again, that Hollywood has no idea what clever or edgy are.

I didn't have high expectations going in. I was never one of those REPO grognards who thought it was a giant rip off of REPO, I was willing to give it a chance, even after learning that the writer of the book it's based on was approached by Universal to write said book after Universal had passed on REPO and then saw how much money it made.

There were some moments where Repo Men was very clearly trying to pull in REPO shit

like the main protagonist seeing a singer at a bar, then getting the pink slip telling him to repo her parts

Or the attempt to make Repo Men musically oriented but not a musical.

all in all, they could have done well, they could have made an interesting movie that brought the "organ transplants are big business, you can get a finance plan, but if you fall behind, your organs are repossessed" idea to an audience that wouldn't see REPO because it was a musical/directed by the Saw guy/not main stream/glorified sex and ultra violence/whatever. They could have done something thought provoking. But instead we got "Bourne, as an organ corp's repo man, with highchair philosophy*"

*seriously, they reference Schrodinger's Cat at the beginning, but just give a really course overview and no explanation of where they're going with it, and the protagonist doesn't get the idea of "something at once alive and dead". They try and bring that point home at the end as some kind of Chekov's Cat (and it's not the only Chekov's they try to pull... sadly, it's possibly the more proficiently wielded one...)

oh, and...
WHY THE FUCK IS THE PROTAGONIST THE ONLY ONE WITH A COCKNEY ACCENT WHEN HE GREW UP WITH HIS FRIEND AND DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE SPENT ANY TIME IN ENGLAND!?

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:06 am

Anyone else still following Bleach? I'm curious about this weeks issue. I fully expect a JUST AS PLANNED response from Aizen next week, but there is that sliver of hope that he won't.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:43 am

I do not follow Bleach completely.

I can't pirate Internet manga anymore. I just feel too guilty, ever since the whole Nick Simmons thing. So I have fallen waaaay behind on the Holy Shounen Trinity while I wait for the American manga market to catch up. I do look at summaries, though.

Eh, I'd say that it's fifty/fifty. On one hand, Aizen hasn't shown us everything he has yet and you-know-who has, so by the laws of shounen manga Aizen isn't going out. Remember, whoever shows off their Real Ultimate Power first loses.

On the other hand, Kubo has been addicted to ridiculous plot twists lately and killing off villains in anticlimatic ways. Also he's at the point where the plot can easily transition to a new villain. How would you like a King's Key arc to wash the taste of this (more awful than usual) arc out your mouths? Well, what better way to kick it off than ending it with some dark horse villain ascending and the previous Big Bad Evil Guy biting the dust.

TOZ · Post by **TOZ** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:41 am

Fuck, I hadn't heard of the Nick Simmons thing.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:53 am

TOZ wrote:Fuck, I hadn't heard of the Nick Simmons thing.

The Nick Simmons stuff is Here.

Frankly, that site goes way overboard. If the eyes and mouths and shit can't be made to line up, it's not plagarism, it's someone drawing in a similar art style. However, some of those panels are clearly direct panel rips, which makes me wonder why they still have the ones that are bullshit up there.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:11 am

Why did Star Trek: TNG jump so much in quality from season 2 to 3?

I mean, it's not all stinkers, but I see where the moniker 'growing the beard comes from'. I have to admit that up to that point Riker was my least favorite of the non-Enterprise XOs, because I found him a smug twerp. So what happened in him?

I feel rather foolish for my 'Chakotay is better than Riker' comment now. :embarrassed:

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:41 am

"art" major (questionable content)

...really. The hipster indie prude bitch who disparages emos and goths for moping, depression and not constantly acting like the love child of a rainbow and a butterfly on pcp has a signature sculpture style generally seen in brooding, mopey, depressed emos and goths who can't get laid, and don't have an artistic bone in their body so they have to destroy something and call it art, when all it's really doing is giving them an outlet for pain and frustration?

fucking hipsters....

Wesley Street · Post by **Wesley Street** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:18 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: If the eyes and mouths and shit can't be made to line up, it's not plagarism, it's someone drawing in a similar art style.

That simply means Simmons didn't straight-up lightbox the work. Side-by-side comparisons where the composition and style are identical is pretty damning evidence. I'm sure it's not enough to fit the definition of legal plagarism but the non-traced works are definitely not simply paying "homage" to Bleach.

Nailing comics illustrators on their laziness has become sport now. Damn, I used to actually like David Mack until this popped up a couple of years ago. Also, I was thumbing through some third edition Shadowrun books and noticed that several of them are rife with straight lifts from comics, mostly Marvel-era GI Joe and Wildstorm's Wildcats.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:50 pm

You guys realize that comes from the two artists cribbing from the same Pose model books, right?

-Crissa

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:31 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:"art" major (questionable content)

...really. The hipster indie prude bitch who disparages emos and goths for moping, depression and not constantly acting like the love child of a rainbow and a butterfly on pcp has a signature sculpture style generally seen in brooding, mopey, depressed emos and goths who can't get laid, and don't have an artistic bone in their body so they have to destroy something and call it art, when all it's really doing is giving them an outlet for pain and frustration?

fucking hipsters....

Prak, I know you're very much sympathetic to the Goth/Emo culture and it's a pet peeve to see it disparaged.

Now, that said, I -think- you're reading too much into that strip, because her line about her medium is pretty obviously a threat she made up on the spur of the moment to express her irritation with the computer.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:35 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Why did Star Trek: TNG jump so much in quality from season 2 to 3?

I mean, it's not all stinkers, but I see where the moniker 'growing the beard comes from'. I have to admit that up to that point Riker was my least favorite of the non-Enterprise XOs, because I found him a smug twerp. So what happened in him?

I feel rather foolish for my 'Chakotay is better than Riker' comment now. :embarrassed:

From third season on, they let Johnathan Frakes have more editorial control over his character. And it turns out that he's actually kind of awesome as a writer and a director. If you only watch one episode of Dollhouse (you should only watch one episode of Dollhouse), watch the one Riker directed - which is called "Belonging".

WS wrote:That simply means Simmons didn't straight-up lightbox the work. Side-by-side comparisons where the composition and style are identical is pretty damning evidence. I'm sure it's not enough to fit the definition of legal plagarism but the non-traced works are definitely not simply paying "homage" to Bleach.

Nailing comics illustrators on their laziness has become sport now. Damn, I used to actually like David Mack until this popped up a couple of years ago. Also, I was thumbing through some third edition Shadowrun books and noticed that several of them are rife with straight lifts from comics, mostly Marvel-era GI Joe and Wildstorm's Wildcats.

That David Mack stuff is not problematic to me. Copying, even tracing poses from real world objects and previous drawings is what realistic art is. Of course in the modern age someone on the internet can find your source material and put it up side by side. That shouldn't embarrass Leonardo DaVinci and it shouldn't embarrass anyone in the modern age either.

I object to people stealing content. Actual compositions, text lifts, and idea theft. Just looking at someone else's drawing while doing your drawing is not the same as actual copypasta. Although even that I only get a little annoyed with, because folk songs, stories, and myths have been doing that shit to each other for as long as we have records. Fuck, Jesus Christ had his backstory thoroughly and embarrassingly plagiarized from Moses in Mathew. Anyone who reads the Book of Mathew and gives shit to David Mack is a hypocrite.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:50 pm

I can tell you Simmons did crib a lot of content. Even character designs. I'd have to look for a picture, but the big scary spiky-haired eyepatch guy in Bleach looks weird without the eyepatch. And Simmons' big scary spiky-haired guy looks identical. Even down to his expressions in a lot of cases.

http://dl01.mangashare.com/manga/Bleach/309/003.jpg

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 4:58 pm

Maxus wrote:I can tell you Simmons did crib a lot of content. Even character designs. I'd have to look for a picture, but the big scary spiky-haired eyepatch guy in Bleach looks weird without the eyepatch. And Simmons' big scary spiky-haired guy looks identical. Even down to his expressions in a lot of cases.

http://dl01.mangashare.com/manga/Bleach/309/003.jpg

Oh definitely. People do some 1:1 overlays that make the plagiarism pretty fucking clear. I just object to people posting up pictures of anime girls who have different hair, different mouths, different eye placements, and different cheek lines as evidence of plagiarism.Seriously dude, it's a manga stylized girl looking at the camera, superficial similarities are inevitable. If you can't find a smoking gun, don't post it.

The really weird part, is that they do have smoking guns. Making the posting of additional bullshit where they think some additional panel might have been inspired by some other panel somewhere is just retarded. If you can't be sure that a picture was plagiarized, it wasn't. But of course, they do have some that are plagiarized.

-Username17

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:21 pm

The thing about the Simmons stuff? I could go down to Kinokuniya and find dozens of examples of characters that look just like those two. Moreso for the girl. I like her, but her thing is the hairclips, the rest of her is totally generic, and intentionally so.

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:43 pm

Maxus wrote:
Prak_Anima wrote:"art" major (questionable content)

...really. The hipster indie prude bitch who disparages emos and goths for moping, depression and not constantly acting like the love child of a rainbow and a butterfly on pcp has a signature sculpture style generally seen in brooding, mopey, depressed emos and goths who can't get laid, and don't have an artistic bone in their body so they have to destroy something and call it art, when all it's really doing is giving them an outlet for pain and frustration?

fucking hipsters....
Prak, I know you're very much sympathetic to the Goth/Emo culture and it's a pet peeve to see it disparaged.

Now, that said, I -think- you're reading too much into that strip, because her line about her medium is pretty obviously a threat she made up on the spur of the moment to express her irritation with the computer.

yeah, I half figured that. It was more for the venting.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:11 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:"art" major (questionable content)

...really. The hipster indie prude bitch who disparages emos and goths for moping, depression and not constantly acting like the love child of a rainbow and a butterfly on pcp has a signature sculpture style generally seen in brooding, mopey, depressed emos and goths who can't get laid, and don't have an artistic bone in their body so they have to destroy something and call it art, when all it's really doing is giving them an outlet for pain and frustration?

fucking hipsters....

I don't fucking get it. What does the link have to do with your rant?

Also, artistic goth chicks are fucking awesome, but the moping can be a bit much at times.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:43 pm

honestly the rant has more to do with the entire rest of the archives up to that point. Faye's getting on my fucking nerves.

and I somewhat identify with goths, and get twitchy when people talk about "sad little mopey emos" because I've been called emo (due to being depressed, morose, sarcastic, and at times whiney) too many times in my life and it goes over about as well, and is about as applicable, as calling KoRn emo...

But, yeah, when these hipster fucks get all superior about hipster indie culture and bands that 99% of my peer group will have never heard of... gragh. I hate the whole "[X] is better than everything! It's the best! You're all wrong for liking whatever silly shit you like!" attitude.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:35 pm

Gaga is just bizarre...

near as I can tell, this song is about inviting the entire male population of spain to a nunnery to gang bang the singer.

as far as I can tell, the video is about doing the same in nazi germany and feeling nostalgic for the gang bang in spain...

Gnosticism Is A Hoot · Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:58 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Gaga is just bizarre...

near as I can tell, this song is about inviting the entire male population of spain to a nunnery to gang bang the singer.

as far as I can tell, the video is about doing the same in nazi germany and feeling nostalgic for the gang bang in spain...

Wow. Homoerotic Nazi Catholic gun-fetishism.

I won't lie - as a former (and recovering) hard-right Evangelical Christian, a lot of the imagery in that video really pushes my buttons*.

*in a disturbingly enjoyable way.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:14 pm

oh hell, as a person who likes bizarre chicks, and cannot deny that nazis looked damn good, add in Gaga's virtual nudity in some of it, and... yeah.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:32 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:Gaga is just bizarre...

near as I can tell, this song is about inviting the entire male population of spain to a nunnery to gang bang the singer.

as far as I can tell, the video is about doing the same in nazi germany and feeling nostalgic for the gang bang in spain...

I counted three: Alejandro, Roberto, and Fernando. So unless the male population of Spain is just three (or more likely, three names/haircuts/costumes that all Spaniards choose from), it's probably not the entire male population.

Although she could be talking about banging the entire population of a Southern California goth fetish club.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:48 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: I object to people stealing content. Actual compositions, text lifts, and idea theft. Just looking at someone else's drawing while doing your drawing is not the same as actual copypasta. Although even that I only get a little annoyed with, because folk songs, stories, and myths have been doing that shit to each other for as long as we have records.

It depends. I for example wouldn't mind if CN decided to put out a superhero show where the character archetypes and powers were a copy of the Teen Titans, but I would be very pissed if they decided to redo the same basic plots without putting a spin on it. It'd be one thing if they did a 'gloomy goth and perky genki girl learned to settle their differences' plot, but if they did it via a silly bodyswap plot that disabled the rest of the team-members then it's worth getting up in arms about.

Same for the Irate Gamer/Angry Video Game Nerd thing. I think the 'plagiarism' accusations thrown at him are pretty weak, even the supposed copied jokes, since they're fairly obvious riffs. I dislike the Irate Gamer because he doesn't have a clue about videogames, can't act worth a shit, and bullies his fanbase. The plagiarism stuff is just a distraction and isn't even really strong, especially since his later stuff wildly diverges from the AVGN's stuff.

Wesley Street · Post by **Wesley Street** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:34 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:That David Mack stuff is not problematic to me. Copying, even tracing poses from real world objects and previous drawings is what realistic art is. Of course in the modern age someone on the internet can find your source material and put it up side by side. That shouldn't embarrass Leonardo DaVinci and it shouldn't embarrass anyone in the modern age either.

I object to people stealing content. Actual compositions, text lifts, and idea theft. Just looking at someone else's drawing while doing your drawing is not the same as actual copypasta.

Lightboxing photographs and stock photography? Sure, fine, that will give you a "photorealistic" look even though anyone who has gone through art school knows that camera lenses actually distort the images they create. The most accurate method to creating a lifelike rendering is to use the human eye and to understand lighting, shading, perspective and human anatomy.

However, Mack didn't trace real world poses. He traced someone else's illustrated work, that being Adam Hughes'. The musculature of the figures are exaggerated in the exact same ways. And they have identical compositions. This isn't "art for art's sake" where it's okay to paint a mustache on the Mona Lisa or scribble your name on a urinal and use the "found art" claim. This is commercial illustration and that kind of crap is a professional and legal no-no. The only time a professional illustrator ever blatantly copies the work of another is as a student, for practice, or to be very, very obvious about it; an homage or fun sillyness like Forrest Gumping Deadpool into The Amazing Spider-Man #47.

Mack is also guilty of idea theft in the past; not in that issue of New Avengers, but in Scarab, where he blatantly lifted entire chapters of Speed Tribes for the plot. Total idea theft. I'd be willing to give him some leniency on the Echo/Caitlain Fairchild thing as I like his past works, if he hadn't already been showing signs of Liefeld-level plagiarism.