Social Black Panther (War Room Discussion)

The violence in "300" was off putting to many. They found it gratuitous enough to actually dislike the film. BP doesn't come close to that level of stylized violence, it plays it very safe there.
A movie about the battle of thermopylae? Violent? Get out of town.
 
You went and saw Black Panther?

I saw 300, and I think 60% sounds about right. I thought it was just okay, not something I could rewatch. Overstylized, to an extent that it was annoying to me. The dialogue and acting was terrible for the most part. It was meant to be like a comic, which I guess they achieved.
Almost as though it was based on a comic...
 
Africans generally see their region maligned and denigrated, so a few of them are enthusiastic about this movie, because it doesn't malign them.

While I agree that it's dumb that people are somehow upset by this superhero movie, I find the African Pride angle pretty silly as well. Wakanda is a fictional African nation that is walled off and protected from the rest of Africa [and, presumably, other colonialism]. Wakandans aren't proud of being African, they're proud of being Wakandan.
 
I understand quips are a part of comics and I'm not saying they are in and of themselves bad. Spiderman's mid-fight quips are a consistent part of his character and it adds to his fight scenes. However, I think the way most Marvel movies use quips are ineffective most of the time in that they rarely add to a scene or sometimes detract from it.

Some are good for sure, like Captain America's "I get that reference". Its quip that only makes sense if you know Cap's character and back story.. Can't remember any specific ones right now but there are also some good quips directed at the Hulk and again they're good because they make references to the character.

Iron Man threatening to donate his AI fire extinguisher to a city college if it doused him again unnecessarily is also good because that line adds to the scene in that it gives you a sense of how long he was working on that specific project(long enough to have been doused numerous times unnecessarily).

But "I don't see how that's a party" is cringe worthy and its not the only one.

I'm not disagreeing that some of the quips are bad. I'm disagreeing that the presence of bad quips means the movie is bad. The comics have bad quips. It's a quantity over quality standard.

But that's not what I said, I simply said the video contrasted the action in Marvel films with that of Tarantino and I mentioned that because Tarantino is a box office star who gets it right so you can't just lay the blame for the poor quality of action scenes on the fact that its a big budget blockbuster.

They're bad in their own right though. Their editing makes them hardly intelligible. They're a mess of slopy edits and bad sound design.

That strikes me as more opinion than fact. I'm sure some people dislike them and some people find them just fine. But that brings me back to my previous statement - not great doesn't mean bad.

I mentioned that already and I specifically said its this need to keep consistency that is partly to blame for the quality of their films. I understand it but it doesn't mean I have to like it. You cite Walmart, just because they have an efficient and consistent business model doesn't mean I necessarily have to like their business model. Certainly I don't frequent WalMart myself very often.

Sure, you might not like WalMart or their business model but their success shows that their model is positively embraced by a large number of people.

The success of the Marvel films suggests that their consistency is a reflection of their quality. You don't have to like it, that's true. But not you not liking it doesn't mean it's a technical failing. I found War and Peace boring, I don't think I like anything from Shakespeare except Macbeth. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a hack or that Tolstoy's work is deficient. I don't like them but they are successful enough to suggest that my impression is a minority one.

No, the films are individually not technically impressive and this is because they are part of a franchise as we talked about earlier. In fact its the opposite of what you claim, like I said earlier I was impressed by The Avengers not because its a technically interesting film in its own right but for the fact that it strung together heroes from multiple different films into one.

So yeah I would have the same critique.

Again, you refer to a high standard of technical skill, "impressive". You appear to leave no room for the possibility that a good film can be technically mediocre.

This reminds me of the older UFC days when people would argue that X fighter isn't technically sound and the counter argument was "So what, he wins fights. So his technique might not be picture perfect but it's effective and that's what matters."
 
That is what I said. Do you have an actual disagreement with what I said?
No disagreement. You said it was meant to be like a comic, which makes perfect sense, since that is precisely what it was based onl. What you cite as negatives, are intentional, so as to keep it close to the its source material. Making a movie based of a comic and trying to turn it into Shakespeare would be ridiculous.
 
No disagreement. You said it was meant to be like a comic, which makes perfect sense, since that is precisely what it was based onl. What you cite as negatives, are intentional, so as to keep it close to the its source material. Making a movie based of a comic and trying to turn it into Shakespeare would be ridiculous.

I agree that would be ridiculous. But if you make a movie based on a comic, and the comic has terrible dialogue, then the movie ends up with terrible dialogue. I don't like the terrible dialogue more just because it was accurate to the source material. I wasn't a big fan of the style of movie making, it just doesn't interest me much. But like all reviews, it's mostly subjective.
 
I'm not disagreeing that some of the quips are bad. I'm disagreeing that the presence of bad quips means the movie is bad. The comics have bad quips. It's a quantity over quality standard.
Oh I know that some bad quips don't ruin a movie but notice in that post I pointed to more than just bad quips. The quips are just one element that drag the films down. Toby Maguire was not the best at delivering his Spidey quips but I still love Spiderman 2.
That strikes me as more opinion than fact. I'm sure some people dislike them and some people find them just fine. But that brings me back to my previous statement - not great doesn't mean bad.
I suppose on some level its an opinion but I'm talking about specific practices which seem to only detract from the quality of an action scene. If its less intelligible then that seems to me as close to an objective marker of poor quality as you can get with film since the point of film is to communicate what is happening on camera. Action scenes in the Marvel franchise just don't do that very well for the most part and even when you can tell what's happening the choreography leaves much to be desired.
Sure, you might not like WalMart or their business model but their success shows that their model is positively embraced by a large number of people.

The success of the Marvel films suggests that their consistency is a reflection of their quality. You don't have to like it, that's true. But not you not liking it doesn't mean it's a technical failing. I found War and Peace boring, I don't think I like anything from Shakespeare except Macbeth. That doesn't mean Shakespeare was a hack or that Tolstoy's work is deficient. I don't like them but they are successful enough to suggest that my impression is a minority one.
Kimbo Slice was an incredibly popular fighter, does his popularity suggest he was a quality fighter? I think not.

Also, I'm not arguing that its a technical failing because I don't like it, that's flipping my argument around. I don't like these films because they are technically unimpressive on multiple levels. I'm sure there are technically impressive films that I don't like out there and in those cases my objection would be different.

I like The Revenant and its a technical masterpiece but its also very slow and at times even I got bored. In that case, my issue wasn't with technical simplicity but rather the pacing which was deliberately slow but bored me at time regardless.
Again, you refer to a high standard of technical skill, "impressive". You appear to leave no room for the possibility that a good film can be technically mediocre.

This reminds me of the older UFC days when people would argue that X fighter isn't technically sound and the counter argument was "So what, he wins fights. So his technique might not be picture perfect but it's effective and that's what matters."
I guess it depends what you mean by "good". "Good" as in it does well at the box office? Sure, technically unimpressive films can be box office this as the Marvel franchise shows.

"Good" as in entertaining? I agree, I enjoyed Jurassic World and its basically not too different from the modern Marvel blockbusters but with dinosaurs instead of superheroes and I love dinosaurs. In that case though the film appealed to my personal preference for dinosaurs just like these capeshit films appeal to people's preference for superheroes. However, that doesn't mean they're "good" on a technical level and that goes for Jurassic World as well. It was most fun the first time, the more I rewatch it the less impressive it becomes. After a while the main thing worth rewatching it for is Bryce Dallas Howard in a pencil skirt with a bob cut.
giphy.gif

She was quite the specimen in that film.
 
I've mentioned the specific details many times ITT.



If you don't care to notice some of these things then they will go unnoticed obviously but once you see them its hard to unsee.

Also I hate the excessive use of quips, some of which are just plain bad like this one between Iron Man and Black Widow

Even when they're not terrible quips there's just too many and I think it hurts the tone of the film when they're injected into seemingly more serious scenes.

This guy breaks down why the action scenes in these films suck, contrasting them to Tarantino who is a box office winner but also a good film maker.

Similar reason as to why The Dark Knight has shitty action scenes, you can barely tell whats going on. Except TDK is good despite its bad action as it makes up for it elsewhere while The Avengers doesn't. The Dark Knight for instance has a great score but the Marvel films?

Basically, the music is very predictable, barely noticeable, and often is just ripped off from tracks of other films.

Compare that to the other blockbuster franchises he alludes to early in the video(Star Wars, Harry Potter, James Bond) and the difference is clear, Those films have very distinctive and evocative scores.

The films also have very flat and washed out colors which make them seem very dull relative to other films that are either shot in film or digitally shot and properly use color grading in post-production(which Marvel doesn't seem to do for some reason).

So far that's:
dialogue
action
score
color palette

So its lacking in key aspects relating to the visual and audio quality of the film on a technical level.


I would argue The Avengers is the greatest mega action movie of all time.
Nothing has come close to it since it was released and it blew away everything that came before.

To this day, it is still the most succesful comic book movie of all time. 1.5 billion plus. 93% rotten tomato.

What comes close to this?


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qq6dQwLh1s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y69kGmPeHw0
 
I would argue The Avengers is the greatest mega action movie of all time.
Nothing has come close to it since it was released and it blew away everything that came before.

To this day, it is still the most succesful comic book movie of all time. 1.5 billion plus. 93% rotten tomato.

What comes close to this?




You could make that argument based on the scale of the film but I don't think its a particularly interesting or good action film. IMO Mad Max: Fury Road is a far better action film and a true contender for GOAT in that genre.
 
You could make that argument based on the scale of the film but I don't think its a particularly interesting or good action film. IMO Mad Max: Fury Road is a far better action film and a true contender for GOAT in that genre.

No doubt it is a brilliant movie. Definitely top 5. I think Avengers checks more boxes tho.

From 5 year olds to 60 year old nostalgia nerds. The movie hit like a hurricane when it was released.
 
Is it crazy to say that '300' is objectively the better film?

Better story telling, better acting, hell - even better CGI (and it's 11 years older).

60% for 300, 100% for Black Panther?

That's a little weird.


I haven't seen Black Panther yet, But I loved 300..

it was silly, over the top, and ridiculous...loved every minute of it...

loved the speeches.

Logan is the best comic book film of the last 5 years.
 
No doubt it is a brilliant movie. Definitely top 5. I think Avengers checks more boxes tho.

From 5 year olds to 60 year old nostalgia nerds. The movie hit like a hurricane when it was released.
Like I said, based on scale of success and cultural impact there's a strong argument but in terms of the film on its own, divorced from its success, I can't say it ranks all that high on my list of action movies. But then again maybe @panamaican is right and I'm just a film snob.
 
Last edited:
Yeah 300 is good... Till you meet a mother fucker that cant stop quoting it..


And what the fuck was that bullshit Immortals?

Steven Dorff spoke like a frat boy from ancient greece.
 
Yeah 300 is good... Till you meet a mother fucker that cant stop quoting it..


And what the fuck was that bullshit Immortals?

Steven Dorff spoke like a frat boy from ancient greece.


LOL..hey, fuck you. I am one of those guys who can't stop quoting it.
 
LOL..hey, fuck you. I am one of those guys who can't stop quoting it.

Bruh... I HATE that damn movie.

You want to talk about a movie that had an impact on its viewing audience. Well thats the one.

People were really serious about that 300 workout too, only to find out it wasnt what they really did.
 
Hey...



Do yall really want to see how tom hollands "spiderman" reacts when the symbiote attaches to him?

Yall do remember shia lebouf right?

Kid was a serviceable spiderman.

But i dont know if my ears are ready for that. He needs to at least be done with puberty.
 
I did a search in this thread and came up with nothing for Joe Rogan's take, which i thought was pretty good:

 
The violence in "300" was off putting to many. They found it gratuitous enough to actually dislike the film. BP doesn't come close to that level of stylized violence, it plays it very safe there.
Also, Zack Snyder's visuals are off-putting to some people. He has a very particular style and not everyone enjoys it. I liked the way he shot set pieces in the film but the color palette is utter shit.
 
No disagreement. You said it was meant to be like a comic, which makes perfect sense, since that is precisely what it was based onl. What you cite as negatives, are intentional, so as to keep it close to the its source material. Making a movie based of a comic and trying to turn it into Shakespeare would be ridiculous.
Funny you say that because Black Panther is very Shakesperean. Take away the futuristic and comic book elements and I would believe anyone who told me the premise belonged to some obscure Shakespeare play.

Not just the premise, the execution too. Sometimes during dramatic scenes I thought I was watching a play. Not my cup of tea personally but it looked to me like a deliberate decision by the director and I respect that.
 
Back
Top