LEGEND New Movie Trailers

[ozarkram]

You baited yourself?

So you edited your posts to accomplish this. Wow. The mods need to take a good long look at you. IMHO. As for me ignore button time.

 

[coconut]

So you edited your posts to accomplish this. Wow. The mods need to take a good long look at you. IMHO. As for me ignore button time.

I quoted your post #517. Again, bait not taken.

 

[RamFan503]

is a spoof of a spoof , still considered a spoof

or ...........

is it possible to even do a spoof of something that is already a spoof

the comic book could be considered a spoof because it clearly has fun with it's genre

but..........

the movie actually stays 100% faithful to it's source material , therefor , is the movie it's self considered a spoof ?

View: https://youtu.be/rf71YotfykQ


View: https://youtu.be/uio1J2PKzLI

 

[RamFan503]

So you edited your posts to accomplish this. Wow. The mods need to take a good long look at you. IMHO. As for me ignore button time.

I quoted your post #517. Again, bait not taken.

Debate the term spoof all day long. But knock this shit off. Mods don't need to get in the middle of every petty squabble, but I can guarantee you if we have to in something as inane as this? It's likely neither side will enjoy the result. Refer to the old adage (enter debate about what is considered an adage) - whenever you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.

 

[IowaRam]

Debate the term spoof all day long. But knock this shit off. Mods don't need to get in the middle of every petty squabble, but I can guarantee you if we have to in something as inane as this? It's likely neither side will enjoy the result. Refer to the old adage (enter debate about what is considered an adage) - whenever you point a finger, three are pointing back at you.

The Mods have spoken

 

[LesBaker]

I agree with Scorsese even though I like Dead Pool. I like Dead Pool because it spoofs the genre which I can't stand. Even those "actors" will soon be CGI.

It won't be long before all the actors and sets will be CGI. When the costs come down it'll happen.

 

[RamFan503]

It won't be long before all the actors and sets will be CGI. When the costs come down it'll happen.

The CGI in that new Netflix movie with De Niro, Cousin Vinny, and the woman smeller is just plain awful. But at least the movie itself sucks worse.

 

[coconut]

It won't be long before all the actors and sets will be CGI. When the costs come down it'll happen.

In how many years do you think? Imagine how much more profitable movies would be for the studios.

 

[Angry Ram]

Again I agree with Scorsese.

Of course you do. He shares your opinion, based on movies you don't watch.

While I don't watch the recent incarnation of superhero CGI movies for the grown ass man that wants to run around his neighborhood in a cape and speedo I have seen the TV commercials and the trailers in the theatre as well as what I hear from my son.

There it is. You don't watch the movies or anything comic book related, and based on this statement (and that you claimed it yourself earlier) you hate the genre. So whatever opinion you may have on this subject is clearly biased.

Sure, you are entitled to it, and I am not forcing you or anyone else to like the genre. At least try to learn about something before being so anti to it.

So your given name is Francis?

Thought you watched the movies. Reference = over the hedge.

BTW definition of 'spoof'- a mocking imitation of someone or something, usually light and good-humored; lampoon or parody

Yeah, and again, Deadpool ain't mocking the entire superhero movie catalog.

‘Deadpool’ as a Parody of the Superhero Genre

The character itself is actually a parody of popular DC Comics supervillain/anti-hero, Slade Wilson aka Deathstroke. When Liefeld showed his first designs for the character, Nicieza called him and stated “This is Deathstroke from the Teen Titans” (Polygon.com). However, the two creators decided to go ahead and create the character, even going so far as to mock Deathstroke’s real name by naming Deadpool “Wade Wilson.”

This is very common on the superhero world. Firestorm is Human Torch, Captain America is Superman, The Atom is Ant-Man, Ms. Marvel is Wonder Woman. I could go on.

I read every word at that opinion piece and it said exactly what I've been saying this whole time. Deadpool is a Marvel created superhero that's aware he's a superhero. That's it. The character is literally the same in all other forms of media he's in, except for the Wolverine orgins movie. The movie itself is the same superhero movie. Yes, he talks to the audience and says fun things about the studio and the real names of actors, and that's exactly how he is in the comics. Again, it's like saying GoTG is parodying The Avengers.

At least the author is a superhero fan, I'll give you that.

 

[LesBaker]

The CGI in that new Netflix movie with De Niro, Cousin Vinny, and the woman smeller is just plain awful. But at least the movie itself sucks worse.

What?

 

[coconut]

Yeah, and again, Deadpool ain't mocking the entire superhero movie catalog.

I never said it did except for the older versions of Batman, Superman etc. As for 'Francis' I watched each Deadpool movie when they came out and forgot the reference.

 

[RamFan503]

What?

When?

 

[Angry Ram]

I never said it did except for the older versions of Batman, Superman etc. As for 'Francis' I watched each Deadpool movie when they came out and forgot the reference.

I like Dead Pool because it spoofs the genre which I can't stand

Yes it's an irreverent spoof of the genre.

Umm, yeah you did.

And that's the only response you had? Lol. Leave the comic book analysis to us comic book nerds.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

I wonder what Martin Scorsese thinks of all the James Bond movies


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgBxkmdguCQ

He hates it
Have you seen the Irishman - what a dud. Snoozefest with not one decent sequence

 

[Dieter the Brock]

It won't be long before all the actors and sets will be CGI. When the costs come down it'll happen.

Most actors (or people that want fame and see acting as the way to go about it) are basically whores. Trust me on this - it doesn’t take much for an attention starved soul to show up to perform tricks in front of a camera.

Sets maybe - most sets are green screen nowadays — but acting No.

If you have seen Final Fantasy or seen the Zemeckis debacles you know CGI is never gonna happen.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

In how many years do you think? Imagine how much more profitable movies would be for the studios.

Nope.
Let’s take porn for example.
If you’re gonna rub one out do you go to a cartoon/CGI creation? Maybe..... but you’ll have to dig for it. And most likely will be some pixar “spoof” of let’s say Woody from toy story banging a slinky. It’s gonna be a novelty and only that.

And there is a reason for it and it’s because there are so many sad souls who are willing to fuck on camera for a few dollars - look at the vast amounts of porn. Zero production value, zero talent cost. And that’s because it isn’t expensive to get real humans to do the dirty deed on camera.

But the main reason why it won’t happen is because humans want to see humans have sex. Not cartoons. And the same thing applies for other genres of filmmaking besides porn. People won’t pay to see cartoon renderings act. It’s just not something that will ever happen.

The other foolish conceit is that CGI is gonna save the studios money. it saves money on locations and stunts but not with actors. Celebrity actors are the reason people show up.

Take Cats for example. It’s all CGI with human characters in it. Taylor Swift is the draw - that’s where studios will invest, pure and simple

 

[IowaRam]

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gyDfi4x2kHg

 

[coconut]

Umm, yeah you did.

And that's the only response you had? Lol. Leave the comic book analysis to us comic book nerds.

What response do you want? My post #510 clearly stated it. Call it a clarification since I won't waste my time on the current genre unless it is a spoof of same such as Deadpool. I've never analyzed anything. I just gave my opinion of Deadpool which I like.

 

[coconut]

Nope.
Let’s take porn for example.
If you’re gonna rub one out do you go to a cartoon/CGI creation? Maybe..... but you’ll have to dig for it. And most likely will be some pixar “spoof” of let’s say Woody from toy story banging a slinky. It’s gonna be a novelty and only that.

And there is a reason for it and it’s because there are so many sad souls who are willing to fuck on camera for a few dollars - look at the vast amounts of porn. Zero production value, zero talent cost. And that’s because it isn’t expensive to get real humans to do the dirty deed on camera.

But the main reason why it won’t happen is because humans want to see humans have sex. Not cartoons. And the same thing applies for other genres of filmmaking besides porn. People won’t pay to see cartoon renderings act. It’s just not something that will ever happen.

The other foolish conceit is that CGI is gonna save the studios money. it saves money on locations and stunts but not with actors. Celebrity actors are the reason people show up.

Take Cats for example. It’s all CGI with human characters in it. Taylor Swift is the draw - that’s where studios will invest, pure and simple

Currently you are correct. But what about the future? I do know the technology will improve tremendously. I believe some day it will happen since there is so much to gain for the studios. Imagine creating a "star". No salary, no complaints, no aging unless desired, a true commodity owned by the studio. You say humans want to see humans. That is true of our generation. But what of those to come? Those who will have gotten a steady diet of ever increasingly realistic CGI from birth? What about a future in which AI interactive holographic "stars" can be most everywhere at any time if not at the same time to promote films or any product? Imagine to be able to talk to the "star" in a studio kiosk at the theatre or airport or wherever?

 

[Dieter the Brock]

Currently you are correct. But what about the future? I do know the technology will improve tremendously. I believe some day it will happen since there is so much to gain for the studios. Imagine creating a "star". No salary, no complaints, no aging unless desired, a true commodity owned by the studio. You say humans want to see humans. That is true of our generation. But what of those to come? Those who will have gotten a steady diet of ever increasingly realistic CGI from birth? What about a future in which AI interactive holographic "stars" can be most everywhere at any time if not at the same time to promote films or any product? Imagine to be able to talk to the "star" in a studio kiosk at the theatre or airport or wherever?

I think robots want to watch robots and people want to watch people

Think about your entire premise - pure CGI characters that put humans out of work cause they do what they are told. As if “not aging, not taking a salary, no complaints,” makes for a good actor.

What would these AI characters who’s prime motive is to replace problematic humans gonna get their chops? From hours and hours of watching Dog Day Afternoon? Like memorizing with their AI brain every twitch and look Pacino gave in Serpico? Well it would have to copy a human. And the final result would be an imitation of a human. So it will always by nature fall short of the requires humanity needed to act.

Who is gonna do the voice of the character? You see how it works today - Scarlett Johansson lends her voice to a cartoon fish. What you are talking about already happens in Pixar but the draw for an audience is Movie Star oriented. And that means Fans.

Fans have to be human. And they have to have Humans actors. Otherwise what would some kid strive to be? An algorithm?? A young kid wants to be like Mitchum or Paul Newman. Girls want to grow up and be like Scarlett Johansson.’ They don’t want to look up and admire digital Code.

Your premise is that humans will want to watch pure CGI characters. Or that studios would want to do this to cut costs and avoid complaints.

I say no way. Not now or in the future

While that may be true today and in the “future” it will be the same % of an audience that today watches animation. A CGI character will always fall under the category of “Animation.” So what your calling for in a sense is that humans will one day allow for the death of the live action film — and I say that’s impossible.

Your response to my point about failed Zemeckis and Final fantasy - that there will possibly be a point in the future where another generation conditioned on CGI will want pure CGI Characters. So basically what you are suggesting is in the future, these audiences (cause of this conditioning to CGI) will be into better produced Zemeckis failure, and a better rendered Final Fantasy.

Will Final Fantasy the Spirit Within be that generations Star Wars??? I mean they already did what you say.

Some weird version of that flick Simone. i mean why stop at Actors? Why not replace writers. I mean the same algorythm or AI super function that can dissect all the Pacino rolls to hypothetically act intelligently like Pacino — what’s to say the same AI creation could grind out a Robert Towne script the same way. Lets get rid of directors while we are at it. Just type in the Robert Altman button to the left and add a bit of David Lean and it’s a wrap. The slipper slope continues to AI editors until it’s just a robot’s digital interpretation of a movie.

Someone may try and people may tune in for the novelty - but again just like in porn it will remain a novelty. People want to fuck people. If you are fucking a robot it’s cause you have no people.

Anyway it’s never gonna happen unless the audience is robots. Cause robots will be down with watching robots. Humans want to watch humans

p.s. deadpool isn’t a spoof