|
Finally got around to seeing it. It was fun and cool and kept me thoroughly entertained for a couple of hours. It proved that Marvel CAN, in fact, make movies about weird people in a weird environment and have them not suck (I'm looking at you, Thor movies).
Glad you enjoyed it. :)
Though I actually liked the Thor movies (in a very different way from this).
I did not read the comics, which obviously affected the way I saw the movie.
Despite reading comics, I too was unfamiliar with the comics this movie in particular was based on. I feel like most people were, even among comic fans (way more than were unfamiliar with any Avengers stuff, for example).
Responses to spoilers:
1) I thought Drax and Gamora's names were memorable. Well, fairly memorable anyway...okay, maybe just Drax. ;)
2) That's fair. :)
3) I think that's part of the intended aesthetic in some ways...
1) I'm guessing a comics reference, but no real idea. Also, because it sounds cool.
2) Neither. Per wikipedia in the comics he's related to another race entirely, and I know no reason why they'd change that.
3) Per wikipedia there are indeed more of his people. He's just a particularly notable and well traveled member of his race. And the Collector had never seen one of his kind before in person...how would he know that he could grow back?
4) No idea. Pretty clearly why he's in charge of the space pirates, though.
Saw it Wednesday. Was really good.
Not sure I liked it as much as everyone else seemed to though, but I still really enjoyed it.
In reply to some of Lord Snow's questions:
2) Time Lords are not Marvel property, but belong to the BBC. As Deadmanwalking notes, Quill's alien heritage is something altogether different. It is also something that hasn't really been terribly remarkable or noteworthy in the Marvel cosmic scene until the recent revival of Starlord as a character. The movies may end up going an entirely different route with it, but that remains to be seen.
3) Groot is just what he's described as by the Nova Corps. A tree alien (they call him a vegetal being or something). He's originally from Planet X and came to Earth waaaay back in the 60s (before Marvel comics) as one of the giant monster books they used to print, trying to conquer the world. He's mellowed somewhat in recent years, beginning with Keith Giffen's Howling Commandos, which put Marvel monsters as part of a SHIELD team, and then Giffen placed him on Starlord's "Dirty Dozen" team that eventually grew into the Guardians.
I want to say there are others of his kind (he calls himself their ruler), but I don't think any have actually been depicted on-panel.
4) Yondu's "dart whistle" (and Yondu himself) are loosely based on the comic character Yondu, who was one of the original Guardians. That character- who is from a badoon slave race that is sort of stone age hunter marsupial people, uses a bow and arrow, but his arrows are made from a special metal that responds to sound (similar to, but not, vibranium), such that- when he whistles, it can change the arc of the arrow's path.
|
Slight tangent...
Anyone else annoyed by pre-credits credits? Guardians didn't have them and I was thankful.
Also, I'm kind of over the concept of the after scene. Shawarma was fine, the guardians one was fine and a few others, but overall I'm starting to find them annoying.
We all know sequels are coming. Let us enjoy THIS movie, without having to tease us for the next one.
/rant
I don't think the post-credits sequence was really teasing a new movie.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh... I think it means exactly that. And I'm hoping Rated R! :)
|
|
[ref: Questions about Star Lord....]
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am Grooot.
Finally got around to seeing it. It was fun and cool and kept me thoroughly entertained for a couple of hours. It proved that Marvel CAN, in fact, make movies about weird people in a weird environment and have them not suck (I'm looking at you, Thor movies).
I did not read the comics, which obviously affected the way I saw the movie.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Not answering any of your questions here really, just thought it was interesting. Ive never read a Guardians of the Galaxy comic, and only rarely read any other Marvel (or DC for that matter) comics (if there's a specific storyline im interested in I wait for the collected edition and just buy that, only ones I read during their run were Moon Knight and Midnighter). Doesn't seem to have any effect at all on how I enjoy the films compared to my friends who read em. That said, despite the fact that I don't really read them, I guess I do somehow always seem to keep up with the stories anyway, so I suppose that could explain why I love the films as much my friends.
I'm the same way. I don't read comics (mostly because I'd have to pay for them...), but I generally keep up with what's going on. Wiki reading and Atop The Fourth Wall help.
** spoiler omitted **
Hm...
Sounds like a story Bendis might have written.
I am Grooot.
What do you mean the movie got it wrong?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not answering any of your questions here really, just thought it was interesting. Ive never read a Guardians of the Galaxy comic, and only rarely read any other Marvel (or DC for that matter) comics (if there's a specific storyline im interested in I wait for the collected edition and just buy that, only ones I read during their run were Moon Knight and Midnighter). Doesn't seem to have any effect at all on how I enjoy the films compared to my friends who read em. That said, despite the fact that I don't really read them, I guess I do somehow always seem to keep up with the stories anyway, so I suppose that could explain why I love the films as much my friends.Finally got around to seeing it. It was fun and cool and kept me thoroughly entertained for a couple of hours. It proved that Marvel CAN, in fact, make movies about weird people in a weird environment and have them not suck (I'm looking at you, Thor movies).
I did not read the comics, which obviously affected the way I saw the movie.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
The story, characters and settings were made easy to follow (an accomplishment in and of itself for the movie). I meant that I came with no preconception of how the characters should be, and no expectations or anything. When I watch a movie based on a book, that certainly changes how much I like it - V for Vendetta is an excellent example of a film that's probably good but that I hated because the comic was so much more.
The story, characters and settings were made easy to follow (an accomplishment in and of itself for the movie). I meant that I came with no preconception of how the characters should be, and no expectations or anything. When I watch a movie based on a book, that certainly changes how much I like it - V for Vendetta is an excellent example of a film that's probably good but that I hated because the comic was so much more.Not answering any of your questions here really, just thought it was interesting. Ive never read a Guardians of the Galaxy comic, and only rarely read any other Marvel (or DC for that matter) comics (if there's a specific storyline im interested in I wait for the collected edition and just buy that, only ones I read during their run were Moon Knight and Midnighter). Doesn't seem to have any effect at all on how I enjoy the films compared to my friends who read em. That said, despite the fact that I don't really read them, I guess I do somehow always seem to keep up with the stories anyway, so I suppose that could explain why I love the films as much my friends.Finally got around to seeing it. It was fun and cool and kept me thoroughly entertained for a couple of hours. It proved that Marvel CAN, in fact, make movies about weird people in a weird environment and have them not suck (I'm looking at you, Thor movies).
I did not read the comics, which obviously affected the way I saw the movie.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **...
Ah...so as a friend of mine loves to say you are letting a good book destroy a good movie?
I don't understand how people can't watch a film based on a book as a separate work, and enjoy it for what it is.
Because when it's "based on" a book in name only, it's failed as an adaptation.
If you're going to adapt something, adapt it. If you're going to make something new with similar themes, name it something different and market it as new.
An adaptation should not be slang for "I wrote this story, but don't think it could draw in a big audience. But wait! There's a popular book out now with vaguely similar characters and basic plot elements! I can totally steal that book's audience!"
Disregarding everything else, that's far too much for a single word to be saying.
|
Unless the source material was a movie script, a movie *shouldn't* slavishly copy the source material, since different mediums lend themselves to different expressions.
Peter Jackson made changes, like adding +50% more women-with-speaking lines, and 100% less Tom Bombadil, to Lord of the Rings, and I think the movie was stronger for it.
No 'perfect' movie adaptation of a book is ever going to be possible, since every reader of a book has their own internal picture of what each character looks and sounds like, what each 'setting' looks like, etc. and that mental picture may look nothing like what the author thought they looked like. It's going to be 'wrong' for pretty much everyone. (Lestat was supposed to look like a young Rutger Hauer. While I would strongly agree that Tom Cruise was the wrong Lestat, I also didn't see him looking anything like *Anne Rice* did...)
*This* Peter Quill, IMO, was more interesting than any version of Star Lord I've read about, either in the old days, when he had a sentient ship and an 'element gun,' or more recently, during the DnA run on Guardians of the Galaxy. Indeed, the recent comic book interpretations of Drax, Rocket *and* Groot have all been *wildly* different than their characterizations in previous decades, so the 'source material' itself is a hot mess.
The farther back you go, the 'wronger' these characters are, *in the comic books,* compared to the characters they were when they were introduced.
I'm less concerned about whether they got it 'right' (a point muddled by how inconsistent the source material is anyway), than with whether or not it was good.
Unfortunately, I didn't think it was very good. The humor almost always felt off, to me. Too many lines seemed like they were trying to be funny, but not actually *being* funny, if that makes any sense.
Maybe if I lived in a world with no Warners Brothers cartoons and no Muppets, anything that came out of the lips of a talking raccoon might automatically be funny just because it was a talking raccoon saying it, but that's not the world I live in. That bar was raised fifty years ago.
If you are a hardcore fan of a book, you often get mental images on how certain things should look or be portrayed. Not to mention that different people may have different favorite characters/themes/plot points.
So when something is adapted, it can be very difficult to divorce book versus show/movie, since you expect you will see all that stuff in the adaptation. And when you don't, or it's changed...RAGE ENSUES.
I have had mixed experience in trying to divorce those two things at times. I love HBO's Game of Thrones, but also loved, and for far longer, A Song of Ice and Fire. Normally I can balance those two mediums, but I remember being profoundly disapointed on my first viewing of the 4th season finale that certain things I expected to see were cut or changed. Only on later viewing, knowing the overall plot of the episode, was I able to enjoy the episode for what it was.
Bringing it back to Marvel...I don't think Guardians had the fanbase of other Marvel properties, plus there have been so many iterations that it's pretty easy for Marvel to pick and choose there storyline or how the characters were portrayed. But man...compare that to say Iron Man 3 and The Mandarin. I know a lot of people that completely lost it (in a bad way) about the Trevor reveal, and I can't say I blame them.
Bringing it back to Marvel...I don't think Guardians had the fanbase of other Marvel properties, plus there have been so many iterations that it's pretty easy for Marvel to pick and choose there storyline or how the characters were portrayed. But man...compare that to say Iron Man 3 and The Mandarin. I know a lot of people that completely lost it (in a bad way) about the Trevor reveal, and I can't say I blame them.Yeah, the Mandarin is a good example. It wasn't a bad movie in a lot of ways, though I had other issues with it. But there was no point in using the Mandarin the way they did.
The only people who'd care that the supposed villain was the Mandarin were the comic fans who were also the most likely to be upset by the reveal. For anyone else, any other name or even a less classic Iron Man villian would have worked just as well. But no, you get people excited about one thing and then twist it into something else, you're going to get upset about it.
The Thor 2 Blu-ray Marvel One-Shot tells everyone what they need to know about "The Mandarin."
Personally, I thought what they did with the Mandarin was brilliant. And finding out what the One-Shot reveals knocks it out of the park!
The fact that NO ONE saw it coming... astounding.
You have to remember... not a single promotional image, trailer, or legitimate news piece EVER revealed that "Mandarin" would possess and/or use 10 rings of power. Almost certainly they left that in the dark for good reason. Because IM3 wasn't a story about the head of a terrorist organization with super powers... it was a story about FABRICATING a terrorist in order to achieve another goal.
In the end, most movies "based on" or "adapted from" are going to change things significantly in one way or another.
What matters to me is the story. These days they are able to accomplish just about anything they want to with effects... but if the story doesn't hold then it's worth considerably less to me. Marvel has been telling a good story. And sure, they leave us with questions. They SHOULD!
Why? The real mandarin comes, pissed that someone tried using his infamy and starts wrecking stuff...Possible. Except there was no hint that the real Mandarin existed and the fake one was using his reputation. As far as I remember the reputation was only from the terrorist bombings in the movie itself. Nothing about him being an old player using new tactics or anything.
Um...you really have not watched the Thor 2 Blue Ray disc one-shot special...
Unless the source material was a movie script, a movie *shouldn't* slavishly copy the source material, since different mediums lend themselves to different expressions.
Peter Jackson made changes, like adding +50% more women-with-speaking lines, and 100% less Tom Bombadil, to Lord of the Rings, and I think the movie was stronger for it.
No 'perfect' movie adaptation of a book is ever going to be possible, since every reader of a book has their own internal picture of what each character looks and sounds like, what each 'setting' looks like, etc. and that mental picture may look nothing like what the author thought they looked like. It's going to be 'wrong' for pretty much everyone. (Lestat was supposed to look like a young Rutger Hauer. While I would strongly agree that Tom Cruise was the wrong Lestat, I also didn't see him looking anything like *Anne Rice* did...)
There's a difference between making changes for the screen, and writing a different story.
Lord of the Rings making minor changes, but keeping the core of the story is a good adaptation. It does what it was meant to do, adapting Lord or the Rings to film without making the movie unreasonably long, but also bearing the undeniable stamp of the writers and directors.
Compare/contrast the Eragon movie. Where plot elements are changed for arbitrary reasons and the plot barely even RESEMBLES the source material after the first 15 minutes or so.
It was not "Eragon the movie" it was "Movie that happened to share the same name as Eragon the book".
*This* Peter Quill, IMO, was more interesting than any version of Star Lord I've read about, either in the old days, when he had a sentient ship and an 'element gun,' or more recently, during the DnA run on Guardians of the Galaxy. Indeed, the recent comic book interpretations of Drax, Rocket *and* Groot have all been *wildly* different than their characterizations in previous decades, so the 'source material' itself is a hot mess.
The farther back you go, the 'wronger' these characters are, *in the comic books,* compared to the characters they were when they were introduced.
I'm less concerned about whether they got it 'right' (a point muddled by how inconsistent the source material is anyway), than with whether or not it was good.
The main difference with comic book movies is twofold.
1.) Comic books change continuity ALL THE TIME. Comic book readers are kinda used to characters changing all over the place, even if they often don't like it.
2.) The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a separate continuty from the main Comic universe to begin with. It is not presented as an adaptation of Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, Iron Man, etc., it is presented as a re-imagining, and they're very honest about it being an adaptation in the loosest possible sense, rather than essentially lying to the audience and saying "Yeah guys, we're TOOOOOTALLY adapting this storyline you loved to the big screen" and then delivering something completely different.
Bringing it back to Marvel...I don't think Guardians had the fanbase of other Marvel properties, plus there have been so many iterations that it's pretty easy for Marvel to pick and choose there storyline or how the characters were portrayed. But man...compare that to say Iron Man 3 and The Mandarin. I know a lot of people that completely lost it (in a bad way) about the Trevor reveal, and I can't say I blame them.Yeah, the Mandarin is a good example. It wasn't a bad movie in a lot of ways, though I had other issues with it. But there was no point in using the Mandarin the way they did.
The only people who'd care that the supposed villain was the Mandarin were the comic fans who were also the most likely to be upset by the reveal. For anyone else, any other name or even a less classic Iron Man villian would have worked just as well. But no, you get people excited about one thing and then twist it into something else, you're going to get upset about it.
The Thor 2 Blu-ray Marvel One-Shot tells everyone what they need to know about "The Mandarin."
Personally, I thought what they did with the Mandarin was brilliant. And finding out what the One-Shot reveals knocks it out of the park!
The fact that NO ONE saw it coming... astounding.You have to remember... not a single promotional image, trailer, or legitimate news piece EVER revealed that "Mandarin" would possess and/or use 10 rings of power. Almost certainly they left that in the dark for good reason. Because IM3 wasn't a story about the head of a terrorist organization with super powers... it was a story about FABRICATING a terrorist in order to achieve another goal.
In the end, most movies "based on" or "adapted from" are going to change things significantly in one way or another.
What matters to me is the story. These days they are able to accomplish just about anything they want to with effects... but if the story doesn't hold then it's worth considerably less to me. Marvel has...
The problem with this is that I shouldn't have to watch the Blu-Ray extras from a movie that came out 6 months later, to make the earlier movie more enjoyable.
The movie I'm watching now should be enjoyable all on it's own.
IM3 was okay, but lacking. Particularly in the area of the twist, it was a let down.
Yeah...had the real Mandarin reveal been in, say the after credits scene, that would have been one thing. But sticking it in a one shot of a different movie released later....ugh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I get that it was well done. It was even an interesting twist. That's not the point. Nor was the point that you needed to know about the Mandarin.
The point was that the movie would have worked just as well with someone else in place of the Mandarin. Same plot, but with a new character or lower profile villain instead of the Mandarin. The only people that cared that it was the Mandarin were the comic geeks, who were the most likely to be upset by the reveal. If you don't know or care about the Mandarin except for some vague knowledge that he's an Iron Man villain, the twist is cool. If you go into the movie thinking "Awesome, I can't wait to see the Mandarin on the big screen", if that's part of what you're excited about for the movie, then you're going to be disappointed.
Mandarin is a classic Marvel villain. People like him. I like him. I wanted to see him versus Tony. Finding out it wasn't the Mandarin at all, but the lame extremis villain was a let down.And now they're kind of screwed if they wanted to use him in another Iron Man movie. So, iconic Iron Man villain down the tubes.
But that is precisely why it DID work so well. Expectation.
And I get being disappointed because of an expectation based on unstated assumptions of what the character's inclusion might mean (ask me about Deathstroke on the cover New 52's Teen Titans some time) but this is a case where not only did they surprise us, they did so with the existing context and merits of the universe they created.If what you wanted was a whole new villain? You ALSO got that!
Me? I went into the theater wondering: what are they going to do with the character & if they don't use the rings (always doubted they would) how can they make him interesting?
And making him a terrorist head of "The Ten Rings" gave you every indication that would be kind of all there was to it... until Trevor!
Even without the Blu-ray reveal, the story was solid and the way they did it entertained. If the Mandarin walked in and started ring-slinging, that might have been appealing for fan service, but also might not have made for the best story on film at this stage of the franchises development. Who can say? Doesn't hurt to give themselves somewhere else to go in a sequel.
And personally I love that they've built up the mythos of the character. They have absolutely left it open to bring him back in another film and even flush out the "True" Mandarin. To say they're screwed and can't do so now is just a limitation of imagination. It can be done.
Just believe and enjoy. ;)
|
|
I don't understand how people can't watch a film based on a book as a separate work, and enjoy it for what it is.
For me it's all about opportunity cost. A bad movie made as an adaptation to a book I like does two negative things:
1) Makes other people who didn't get to read the book yet think that the book has anything to do with the movies, which is bad for the book
2) Decreases the chance to get an actually good adaptation to the book
So a movie like "V for Vendetta", while enjoyable to watch, is overall negative for "V for Vendetta", which I care about more than just a random enjoyable movie.
It's like somebody offered me a cookie, but delivered a loaf of bread. The bread might be decent, but it's not the cookie I wanted, and now I'm not getting a cookie.
|
|
Well, not every move they make will be good. Give them a break. Their track record thus far is pretty damn amazing. Not a single bad film of the whole lot. Some, granted, not great, but none bad.
That is quite an accomplishment.
Yeah, not complaining too much about the movie, though it wasn't a favorite. This particular derail was a spinoff from the expectations bit.
I liked it a lot less than I would have otherwise because I was expecting the Mandarin and looking forward to that and it didn't deliver.
I loved the fact that Tony had to struggle with PTSD throughout the movie. Freaking Tony Stark, the most arrogant man in the universe. That was some amazing character development.
I loved the fact that Tony had to struggle with PTSD throughout the movie. Freaking Tony Stark, the most arrogant man in the universe. That was some amazing character development.Well, not every move they make will be good. Give them a break. Their track record thus far is pretty damn amazing. Not a single bad film of the whole lot. Some, granted, not great, but none bad.
That is quite an accomplishment.
Yeah, not complaining too much about the movie, though it wasn't a favorite. This particular derail was a spinoff from the expectations bit.
I liked it a lot less than I would have otherwise because I was expecting the Mandarin and looking forward to that and it didn't deliver.
+1 to that. THAT was what made the movie so good. It wasn't about Iron Man. It was about Tony Stark.
Except I don't buy that because for the vast majority of the audience, the Mandarin meant nothing.
That being true, why would anyone expect the classic interpretation of the character?
It goes without saying most films do not 100% match the core material. If you acknowledge that before even going to see it, why would this one be any different? In most cases, you're better to expect changes and be surprised and appreciative of anything that connects well to canon.I still say it's a solid film and story on its own and brilliant in its ability to build mythos for an even greater story over time.
In the end... you don't know that you WON'T eventually see a more classic version of the character face Stark on screen.
Given that in most MCU films the villain dies, I'm happier that this story has the potential to fill more than one movie and this was a good a starting point as any because now... well none of us really know what to expect, do we?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, not every move they make will be good. Give them a break. Their track record thus far is pretty damn amazing. Not a single bad film of the whole lot. Some, granted, not great, but none bad.
That is quite an accomplishment.
They do make a lot of good movies, which is why I trust them and spend the money to see them in the theater.
That said, it doesn't matter if a different movie is good. Each movie is judged on it's own and whether or not it delivers an entertaining experience.
I left IM3 excited on opening night, but partly that was the lingering excitement from expectations. The next day I felt let down by the movie and started to figure out why. The Mandarin plot line is one of those reasons.
Except I don't buy that because for the vast majority of the audience, the Mandarin meant nothing.That being true, why would anyone expect the classic interpretation of the character?
It goes without saying most films do not 100% match the core material. If you acknowledge that before even going to see it, why would this one be any different? In most cases, you're better to expect changes and be surprised and appreciative of anything that connects well to canon.I still say it's a solid film and story on its own and brilliant in its ability to build mythos for an even greater story over time.
In the end... you don't know that you WON'T eventually see a more classic version of the character face Stark on screen.
Given that in most MCU films the villain dies, I'm happier that this story has the potential to fill more than one movie and this was a good a starting point as any because now... well none of us really know what to expect, do we?
I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.
The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.
The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.
Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.
I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.
The mandarin thing could have been good in a better movie but.. meh. Tony could have ended the movie in 15 seconds by telephoning home for his armor to come across country for him. Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the after-credit scenes:
There's another obvious reason for those. You actually have to sit through the names of all the nice people who made the movie you just enjoyed possible.
Obviously, most people won't read them, but it's still a shout out to the hard working, mostly "anonymous" people who worked on it.
And I'm constantly amazed by how otherwise fairly reasonable adults react when they give in to their childish nerd rage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.
The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.
The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.
Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.
I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.
Let's make a distinction between "marketing" and "op-ed news-pieces."
Because for all the advertising and official statements Marvel made... I know I saw nothing that built up or guaranteed anything other than a "mystery" or "mystique" of the Mandarin. They never showed him in an action scene. Never showed or discussed the use of rings. Always left his presence vague.I'll give you an example... in one interview Feige said of the Mandarin, "Assuming that he’s the one responsible for what happens to Tony’s house, no other villain has been able to strike that fast and that hard at one of our heroes." Note that he didn't say "When he attacks Tony's house." He says "assuming" which leaves possibilities wide open because all we'd seen in ads was the house being blown up. Not WHO did it.
But everywhere some unofficial source from people generating click-bait would aggregate the news, theorize the meaning, expand on the comic character's history, etc...
that exposure is not the fault of the movie makers.
So if something you saw along those lines carried with you and ruined what you expected of the film, I think it's worth it to be more critical of the "news-pieces" read online.
Because if Marvel says "We've cast Ben Kingsley as the Mandarin" and every Joe who knows how to use WordPress & thinks they are a journalist needs to fill their crappy 3000 word column of the day just so they can generate traffic enough to justify advertisers paying them for the chance of someone seeing their ad... you can bet most of what they write to fill that column with has little to do with anything official.
And many times it's poorly researched as well.
So in case of Feige's quote above, such a writer tends to turn that into something like, "So it looks like we'll see the Mandarin blow up the Stark mansion" and then the telephone game strips even more context after it's been aggregated and reaggregated.
A responsible journalist would take that quote and analyze it... probe into what is meant by "assuming" and not actually "assume" something that wasn't stated.
This is pretty well true of ALL news at this point. You really do have to examine the sources carefully. And if anyone takes Joe Wordpress at face value, that just isn't the fault or failing of the film maker.
Personally, as an audience member, I didn't feel betrayed at all. And the story also left the Mandarin so vague as to leave me questioning "why isn't he taking a more active role?"
So in that sense, what you feel was a backfire, thoroughly satisfied me.
|
|
Saw this last night it wasnt on my radar but glowing reviews from just about everybody sent me out. Despite not being a huge comic book movie fan I thought this was really enjoyable. The directors experience with a cynical yet endearing ensemble of misfits helped make up for the usual comic book movie flaws. The soundtrack was great too im glad to see the 70's being rememebred for something other than disco. Would recommend.
I've never read any of the source material. I'm just judging the movie on its own.
The movie was really about Tony Stark and his struggle of relating himself to the suit, figuring out what it meant to him. Then they layered a convoluted plot of bait and switch on top of that that just felt pointless.
The problem is that they spent this time building up the Mandarin, both in marketing and then in the story line. To pull the rug out from that on the AUDIENCE gives similar feelings of betrayal and mistrust. For this kind of movie, to remove my feelings of trust is a bad thing. Now I stop being invested and care less for the characters on screen, because the director has shown me overtly that he's toying with me.
Toying with the audience works for a lot of films. Inception is a movie built on the concept of manipulating perception and concealing the truth from the viewer (both in the movie and out). There, it works and is even expected. IM3 is not that kind of movie and going into that kind of area is dangerous and can backfire. It certainly did with me.
I still liked the movie, but only a little bit. I wasn't that interested in going back to the theater and haven't really cared to pick it up since it's out on DVD.
Let's make a distinction between "marketing" and "op-ed news-pieces."
Because for all the advertising and official statements Marvel made... I know I saw nothing that built up or guaranteed anything other than a "mystery" or "mystique" of the Mandarin. They never showed him in an action scene. Never showed or discussed the use of rings. Always left his presence vague.I'll give you an example... in one interview Feige said of the Mandarin, "Assuming that he’s the one responsible for what happens to Tony’s house, no other villain has been able to strike that fast and that hard at one of our heroes." Note that he didn't say "When he attacks Tony's house." He says "assuming" which leaves possibilities wide open because all we'd seen in...
You must be confusing me with other people.
I have no idea what rings you're talking about. I guess he wore a lot of jewelry, but honestly, I have no clue what their significance is.
I saw trailers that hyped a villain. I saw a movie that hyped a villain and then did a bait and switch. The left over story-line of the actual villain was very bland and I didn't really care.
You can tell me why I should care about that villain, but the truth is it's the movies responsibility to make me care and it didn't.
I'd have rather seen a 90 minute movie of Tony Stark and the kid he befriended. No sarcasm.
I am not a marvel fan boy. I really don't pay attention to all the stuff you are assuming I pay attention to. The only movie/show I have ever relied on interviews to help me understand the movie/show was The Wire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty much felt the same way Irontruth did. The Mandarin sounded like he was going to be a cool villain, then it was someone else the whole time. And frankly someone who felt like a less-cool villain.
I didn't dislike the movie. I was just expecting something else, and what I actually ended up getting wasn't better than what I expected. It was blander.