› ›

Marvel Cinematic Universe (2008 - present)

1…7172747677…183

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    Yeah I'm not a fan of these movies because they're not really my cup of tea (I actually agree with you on the overuse of CGI @Mendes) but @doubleoego clearly loves the characters so he's allowed to be excited if they're being done justice. I was the same when Dredd came out.

    Still twiddling my thumbs as I wait for that 'Dredd' sequel.

    Same mate, I was gutted that it didn't do too well (the 3D probably put people off). .

    Which is ironic, since it had some of the best 3D effects I have seen.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    What an amazing cast of the next 2 MCU films/partial cast of Infinity War. Feige's got a lot to be proud of.

    main_comiccon_.jpg
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    doubleoego wrote: »
    What an amazing cast of the next 2 MCU films/partial cast of Infinity War. Feige's got a lot to be proud of.

    main_comiccon_.jpg

    Over 50% minority cast. Punching way above his targets.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    doubleoego wrote: »
    What an amazing cast of the next 2 MCU films/partial cast of Infinity War. Feige's got a lot to be proud of.

    main_comiccon_.jpg

    Wow! But wait until we get an Infinity War cast photo! So amazing the breath and depth of Actors/Actresses who have been enveloped into the Marvel franchise.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2017 Posts: 15,716
    Thor: Ragnarok's runtime rumoured to clock in at 1 hour & 40 minutes, making it the shortest film in the MCU yet (if true).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,395
    Kinda goes a way to proving the theory about shorter run times becoming more prevalent.

    The next stage of modern cinema is "less dialogue". Just look at Mad Max and Dunkirk.

    Its all about focusing on essentials, and burning away the extraneous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Thor: Ragnarok's runtime rumoured to clock in at 1 hour & 40 minutes, making it the shortest film in the MCU yet (if true).
    That is really surprising. Isn't this the 'setup film' for Infinity War as well?
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Kinda goes a way to proving the theory about shorter run times becoming more prevalent.

    The next stage of modern cinema is "less dialogue". Just look at Mad Max and Dunkirk.

    Its all about focusing on essentials, and burning away the extraneous.
    It could have something to do with global markets and also falling attention spans. Less dialogue means less to translate. It doesn't bode well for Bond though, because I think Bond films live or die on their dialogue (including wit that may not translate perfectly) as much as action.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited July 2017 Posts: 8,395
    bondjames wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Thor: Ragnarok's runtime rumoured to clock in at 1 hour & 40 minutes, making it the shortest film in the MCU yet (if true).
    That is really surprising. Isn't this the 'setup film' for Infinity War as well?
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Kinda goes a way to proving the theory about shorter run times becoming more prevalent.

    The next stage of modern cinema is "less dialogue". Just look at Mad Max and Dunkirk.

    Its all about focusing on essentials, and burning away the extraneous.
    It could have something to do with global markets and also falling attention spans. Less dialogue means less to translate. It doesn't bode well for Bond though, because I think Bond films live or die on their dialogue (including wit that may not translate perfectly) as much as action.

    Yes, I was going to mention that. Why dumb down dialogue when you can simply remove it, thus shifting the focus entirely. I have to say I'm not against this. In fact, when it comes to Bond, I think it will be a positive. Bond is at it's best when it's atmospheric and suspensful, and that doesn't come as a result of dialogue usually. It comes from the scenario. Anything that helps to bring Bond films back into the present tense, after all this endless pontificating and psychoanalysising, is a positive in my book.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Thor: Ragnarok's runtime rumoured to clock in at 1 hour & 40 minutes, making it the shortest film in the MCU yet (if true).
    That is really surprising. Isn't this the 'setup film' for Infinity War as well?
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Kinda goes a way to proving the theory about shorter run times becoming more prevalent.

    The next stage of modern cinema is "less dialogue". Just look at Mad Max and Dunkirk.

    Its all about focusing on essentials, and burning away the extraneous.
    It could have something to do with global markets and also falling attention spans. Less dialogue means less to translate. It doesn't bode well for Bond though, because I think Bond films live or die on their dialogue (including wit that may not translate perfectly) as much as action.

    Yes, I was going to mention that. Why dumb down dialogue when you can simply remove it, thus shifting the focus entirely. I have to say I'm not against this. In fact, when it comes to Bond, I think it will be a positive. Bond is at it's best when it's atmospheric and suspensful, and that doesn't come as a result of dialogue usually. It comes from the scenario. Anything that helps to bring Bond films back into the present tense, after all this endless pontificating and psychoanalysising, is a positive in my book.
    You make some valid points. Atmosphere and scenario are indeed critical.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    edited July 2017 Posts: 5,767
    bondjames wrote: »
    DaltonCraig007 wrote: »
    Thor: Ragnarok's runtime rumoured to clock in at 1 hour & 40 minutes, making it the shortest film in the MCU yet (if true).
    That is really surprising. Isn't this the 'setup film' for Infinity War as well?
    If you look at a film such as the first Mad Max, you´ll see how much story can be told in under 90 min. So if it´s not clustered up with various storylines, 100 min for Ragnarok should be a perfect time to rok.

    bondjames wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Kinda goes a way to proving the theory about shorter run times becoming more prevalent.

    The next stage of modern cinema is "less dialogue". Just look at Mad Max and Dunkirk.

    Its all about focusing on essentials, and burning away the extraneous.
    It could have something to do with global markets and also falling attention spans. Less dialogue means less to translate. It doesn't bode well for Bond though, because I think Bond films live or die on their dialogue (including wit that may not translate perfectly) as much as action.
    Both SF and SP could easily have been sped up considerably without losing any important dialogue or action. Also many of the old Bond films, as much as I love them as they are, wouldn´t have suffered from a little tightening here and there.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    I would be surprised if Thor Ragnorok was that short? Having said that? If it's as good and as much fun as it looks? I'll be happy!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Taika gives a very good explanation as to why Ragnarok isn't some 2.5hr long movie. He definitely knows what he's talking about.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Short or long, I can't wait for that film. It looks like so much fun. They've totally changed up the tone from "Dark World".
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Ragnarok looks kind of dumb, but I hope that is because they have focused on the worst bits in the trailer.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,813
    Nice, check out Cable!

    DGovov0WAAAMMVa.jpg
    20621770_10203382113231011_2356262355657608893_n.jpg?oh=f359b656c31d7e46f799eaf50c6f620a&oe=5A26B08A
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Nice! I like it! Even with the teddy bear on his hip lol.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    He certainly looks bad ass!!
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,993
    Meanwhile :

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Who is that Cable guy?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    Who is that Cable guy?

    larry-the-cable-guy-books.jpeg
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    tumblr_mnkhm8EZln1spq9vko1_400.gif
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,107
    Gerard wrote: »
    Meanwhile :


    Dear God I think someone spiked my coffee
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Master_Dahark wrote: »
    Nice, check out Cable!

    DGovov0WAAAMMVa.jpg
    20621770_10203382113231011_2356262355657608893_n.jpg?oh=f359b656c31d7e46f799eaf50c6f620a&oe=5A26B08A
    Isn't that Brolin? I thought he was Thanos. Last I heard Brozza was going to be Cable.

    Is Marvel is trying to get two for the price of one? Nice.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    No, that is Glark Cable.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'm so bummed it's not Pierce. :(
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'm so bummed it's not Pierce. :(

    Me too. Once I heard that rumor I loved it. However, Brolin looks closer to the comic book than Brosnan. Although it would be cool to see what he would've looked like beefed up.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Deadpool isn't part of the MCU so really, Brolin's cable should really go in the x-men/Fox thread.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Deadpool isn't part of the MCU so really, Brolin's cable should really go in the x-men/Fox thread.

    giphy.gif
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Riz Ahmed in talks to join the Spider-Man spin-off 'Venom':

    http://variety.com/2017/film/news/venom-riz-ahmed-spider-man-spinoff-1202444772/
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Yeah, I think maybe we should change the title of the thread to something inclusive of all movie properties of Marvel characters.
Sign In or Register to comment.