The Lord of the Rings
- Thread starter Brahma
- Start date
Grizzlebeard
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 2,209
- 2,347
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
you're getting into a semantics argument for some reason. yes every era of films has its share of mindless entertainent. but the 80s was the king of blockbuster films, the 70s had just started with Jaws, then Star Wars and finishing with Close Encounters. 80s had a shitload of blockbusters. there were also slow cerebral films in the 80s. today we call those oscar bait. back in the 70s there was more of those films because studios were very tight with their budgets and so dialogue had to be the way to go. you notice they dont remake those old movies today, but they'll regurgitate Star Wars for all eternity.
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,303
- 8,089
Oh, you're doing that thing where people say "men are taller / stronger / funnier than women" and you respond with "so you're saying there are no tall / strong / funny women?"
Exceptions to the rule do not invalidate the rule.
- 6,432
- 8,475
And for every bad faith argument you make I could call you a cock sucker. Cock sucker.
Ossoi
Tranny Chaser
- 16,303
- 8,089
Stop being right, my brain can't handle it.
I was in the process of collecting my thoughts - the 70s was more an era closer to auteur cinema thanks to Coppola, Scorsese, Lumet etc. Towards the end of the 70s, thanks to Star Wars and Spielberg Hollywood started the shift towards blockbusters.
80s had amazing films, incredible movies that I probably watch more often than the 70s - Top Gun, Karate Kid etc but from a "quality" level over sheer entertainment value then the 70s was clearly the superior decade
- 1
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
its not to say that the 70s didnt at least try to make blockbuster films before Jaws did it right, there were what was called "disaster movies" . they had Poseiden Adventure, Towering Inferno, Earthquak, Airport and etc. movies that a lot of money was spent on for big effects and people just werent that impressed, probably because people go to the movies to be entertained, mass death events are not fun. men wanted to watch Charles Bronson shoot muggers, they wanted Clint Eastwood shooting someone, they wanted Gene Hackman to catch bad guys, chicks wanted Robert Redford and Paul Newman sexing them down.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,964
- 94,038
Hollywood has that figured out today; show all the carnage and destruction you want, just dont show anyone actually die. Building collapses full of people? Amazing as long as you dont show any of the people who would have died.
This disconnect is very.... odd. The last Godzilla movie really goes ham with this. Start of the movie Godzilla attacks a facility and kills 6-7 people and its like OMG the horror! Flash forward Godzilla kills 5-10 thousand sailors and its like no big deal. Sink an aircraft carrier and kill everyone board? NP bro its cool, the horror of dying being trapped in a sinking ship let alone so many people and who they are is ignored.
- 2
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
that shit is the main reason why i hate Man Of Steel even though its not a bad movie (other than them making Pa Kent a fucking asshole). Supes fights Kryptonians in the middle of downtown Metropolis resulting in most of the skyscrapers being demolished, maybe a million people dead. Supes dont care, but then he loses his shit when Zod is about to eradicate a woman and her child with his heat ray? really? thats where you draw the fucking line?
Goatface
Avatar of War Slayer
- 9,374
- 14,473
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
he needs to stop getting math lessons from Maya Angelou.
"Man of Steel: Damage to City Would Be Five Times As Much As In The Avengers
A disaster analyst has pegged the damage done to Metropolis during the climactic battle between Superman, General Zod and his forces in Man of Steel at $700 billion--that's five times what The Avengers would have cost New York, or roughly fifteen times the cost of the damage done in the real-life September 11 terror attacks on the city. They also guess that the financial fallout from the attack would ultimately end up costing $2 trillion. In fairness, there were six Avengers to fight off the aliens. And while one Superman may not be fighting nearly as many villains, each Kryptonian is probably as powerful as at least 150 of the disposable Chitauri. Can you imagine Hawkeye taking on Faora? He got his butt kicked by Black Widow! Of course, given that Metropolis is a fictional city and we don't know much about its layout, property values, etc., beyond what's already on the screen, there's an element of blind faith here; Buzzfeed reports that "Charles Watson worked with his team at Watson Technical Consulting to model and anticipate the damage done to Metropolis, both in the form of human casualties and monetary cost. They ran analyses of the World Engine ground zero in Central Manhattan and central Chicago, finding that the major damage would be a mile in diameter." About 400,000 would be dead or missing and presumed dead, with another million people injured in the Kryptonians' attack on Metropolis, WTC found. The analysts compared the impact on the city to that of the destructive force of the nuclear bomb that hit Nagasaki (ironically, a plot device in Scott Snyder and Jim Lee's Superman Unchained #1, out last week), except without the radiation and fallout. "
i think thats still way conservative, the planet destroyer device was fluxing people hundreds of feet in the air. anyone affected by that is dead.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,617
- 50,983
It wasn't the first time there has been catastrophic collateral damage in a Superman fight, it was just the first time they showed it in live action. Realistically any time Superman brawls with someone like Doomsday, Zod, Darkseid, or Brainiac there is immense collateral damage. When Superman dies killing Doomsday he leaves a large crater right in the center of Metropolis and between that and the rest of the battle there were probably a couple thousand civilians killed by explosions and debris. And in the animated version, it's seeing Doomsday about to smash one single little girl into paste that pushes him to finally end the fight.
So I think the real issue is that you just don't really know much about Superman.
So I think the real issue is that you just don't really know much about Superman.
Chris
Potato del Grande
- 18,428
- -214
Only 5 times more than Avengers?he needs to stop getting math lessons from Maya Angelou.
"Man of Steel: Damage to City Would Be Five Times As Much As In The Avengers
A disaster analyst has pegged the damage done to Metropolis during the climactic battle between Superman, General Zod and his forces in Man of Steel at $700 billion--that's five times what The Avengers would have cost New York, or roughly fifteen times the cost of the damage done in the real-life September 11 terror attacks on the city. They also guess that the financial fallout from the attack would ultimately end up costing $2 trillion. In fairness, there were six Avengers to fight off the aliens. And while one Superman may not be fighting nearly as many villains, each Kryptonian is probably as powerful as at least 150 of the disposable Chitauri. Can you imagine Hawkeye taking on Faora? He got his butt kicked by Black Widow! Of course, given that Metropolis is a fictional city and we don't know much about its layout, property values, etc., beyond what's already on the screen, there's an element of blind faith here; Buzzfeed reports that "Charles Watson worked with his team at Watson Technical Consulting to model and anticipate the damage done to Metropolis, both in the form of human casualties and monetary cost. They ran analyses of the World Engine ground zero in Central Manhattan and central Chicago, finding that the major damage would be a mile in diameter." About 400,000 would be dead or missing and presumed dead, with another million people injured in the Kryptonians' attack on Metropolis, WTC found. The analysts compared the impact on the city to that of the destructive force of the nuclear bomb that hit Nagasaki (ironically, a plot device in Scott Snyder and Jim Lee's Superman Unchained #1, out last week), except without the radiation and fallout. "
i think thats still way conservative, the planet destroyer device was fluxing people hundreds of feet in the air. anyone affected by that is dead.
Avengers was mostly superficial damage to buildings and they spent the entire battle saving people and helping emergancy services.
Superman was personally demolishing buildings lol and yeah that lazer was fucking everything.
Man of Steel was 911 times 100, yeah that's right it's 91100.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
i've seen Doomsday several times. just because it exists doesnt mean i cant call it out. especially when they say it was no big deal.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 44,964
- 94,038
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,617
- 50,983
No big deal? The destruction Superman caused is why Batman wants him dead in the next movie.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
those giant space snake things were just collapsing buildings left and right, Avengers were not going to stop all that death, although they tried their best to prevent it because it was a big deal to save them. Supes just didnt care that much, when Lois was in trouble, he stopped what he was doing to save her, but nobody else until the end. when Bats lost his shit, it was totally understandable he would want to kill him.
Chukzombi
Millie's Staff Member
- 71,968
- 213,272
i meant, it was no big deal to Superman. he wasnt upset about the mass carnage until the end when Zod is about to go ham on a mom and daughter.
