Relatively unpopular opinions about any and everything

AgentRedgrave

Weapon X
Messages
1,181
Points
2,375
Saying this because I just spent the day binge watching Daredevil season 3.

But I've read a lot of people didn't like Daredevil's suit in this show (I mean the actual devil suit, not the ninja outfit, but I'll agree even that is cool. Simple but cool), and I just don't get it. I think the suit looks awesome. Like if I had to go to a costume party, and say it was MCU themed (Since the Netflix shows, do in-fact share canon with the movies). I'd go as Daredevil, easily, love his costume.......Either him or Punisher, I mean Daredevil's my favorite of these shows, but Punisher's my favorite character.
 

Carlos

A powerful demon
Messages
572
Points
3,600
Twitter
CarlosX360
That scene you're describing is the Protector; not Ong Bak. It's great to see another Tony Jaa fan. I don't recommend the Protector 2, and Ong Bak 3 you will find disappointing.

Thanks for the correction. I was trying to remember which film I was watching. The Protector as a name is forgettable, but the fight scenes are memorable. I don't remember many films doing one shot scripts. The whole scene is one long-form audition, really. It's awesome. Tony Jaa is very, very underrated. I don't know if he's still doing films or whatever, but if more producers discovered him, I feel he could be the new Van Damme if they chose to. In my opinion, he's being underused, and not used very well. Don't get me wrong, but The Protector as a story is a little boring for worldwide audiences, but if you could use his talents, use it in high-octane action films like Hard Target, Double Impact, or Double Team as a framework for ideas of how to incorporate his talents but with the intent of making him more "in" with the crowd. Kickboxer, The Quest are good starter frameworks he should be starring himself in, and go from there to the more action films so that the producers can understand how to use his talents more.

I tried tracking down Ong Bak 2, went to watch it, and was disappointed. It's obvious why Tony Jaa is being "buried." Because producers don't see talent.
My problem with the Bourne films (more so 2-4) is that I hate shaky cam. 4 was just unnecessary and dismal. I consider 1 to be the best followed by 3,2, and 4. Legacy should have been its own movie. While this not the film series nor Greengrass's fault it lead to a huge, over saturation of films/TV shows/Quantam Break's live-action segments with ****ty quick cuts, worse shaky-cam, and most spy thrillers/standard action films in general, taking themselves to seriously at times to a fault. Bourne Id. had the most personality and a sense of humor, Bourne Suprem was the most serious (but the action was at its worse before 4 manage to outshine 2), Ultimatum manage to slide back in to a good balance in seriousness and humor while toning down shaky cam, and Jason Bourne was a lazy retread of all 3 films with a convoluted, stupid, retcon. The film should have been kept as a trilogy.
I can see why they were using the "shaky" cam design philosophy as a framework to evoke understanding that these flashbacks are PSTD's to Bourne. Everyone seems to misunderstand why the shaky cam is there. Otherwise, the rest of the filmwork should not have been bothering you. The other shaky cams (the one that seems live) are there because the person behind Bourne or at least the mechanical camera has to swing to zoom in fast to get the action as exactly envisioned by the director/producer. You have to understand how films are made to really understand why the shaky camera is there. For example, it looks like it's harder to do the rooftop films, because normally, when films are made, there's either someone walking behind them, or there's a vehicle design to do the film. Obviously, you can't put the vehicle behind the person on the rooftop, so it's either a person or a string (like you would see in a football game).

That rooftop scene when Matt Damon jumps from one building to the window doesn't look easy to do. It looks like they had to do 5 to 10 shots to get it where they want it to be.
Even most of Jet Li's average films I find better than the sh$t Hollywood puts out.

My favorite Van Damme films are Double Impact (the one that is basically Double Dragon) and Hard Target.
Point taken. And I agree on the favorite films. I love Hard Target. Double Impact to me seems forgettable in my opinion, but I do like that Double Dragon storyline going on there. My favorite scene is when the lady starts to take off Damme's belt. I can't be the only one who was turned on by that ****, lol.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Messages
319
Points
170
Tony Jaa is very, very underrated. I don't know if he's still doing films or whatever, but if more producers discovered him, I feel he could be the new Van Damme if they chose to. In my opinion, he's being underused, and not used very well. Don't get me wrong, but The Protector as a story is a little boring for worldwide audiences, but if you could use his talents, use it in high-octane action films like Hard Target, Double Impact, or Double Team as a framework for ideas of how to incorporate his talents but with the intent of making him more "in" with the crowd. Kickboxer, The Quest are good starter frameworks he should be starring himself in, and go from there to the more action films so that the producers can understand how to use his talents more.
Technically, Scott Adkins is the next Van Damme, but I could use more Jaa. I still highly recommend Adkins, as his movies are just straight up action, and not constant bloated CG fests. I have a huge respect for CG, but it has gotten over saturated for certain action genres. I am always a bigger fan of practical effects.

I can see why they were using the "shaky" cam design philosophy as a framework to evoke understanding that these flashbacks are PSTD's to Bourne. Everyone seems to misunderstand why the shaky cam is there. Otherwise, the rest of the filmwork should not have been bothering you. The other shaky cams (the one that seems live) are there because the person behind Bourne or at least the mechanical camera has to swing to zoom in fast to get the action as exactly envisioned by the director/producer. You have to understand how films are made to really understand why the shaky camera is there.
That's main problem, though. The ones playing following the leader to shaky cam, neither understand nor care, or use it as a crutch to excuse "realism". When in actuallity, they can't direct an action scene worth sh@t! See the Taken films, Transporter 3 (there are some decent action scenes), Colombiana, Salt, or some of Michael Bays films. While Bourne's shaky cam's don't make see sick looking at them (I can't say the same for certain others), I still don't like them. I get the point and intent, but I am not a fan. The PTSD/becoming mentally unstable was unique back then for the shaky cam, but is a dime over a dozen later in the 2000s (movie and TV) and nowadays. Usually minus the PTSD though. The Raid is the best action film to use shaky cam. Not contest. The Raid 2 rarely uses it, but works hugely in its favor.

This video sums up my thoughts and feelings:

 
Last edited:

Carlos

A powerful demon
Messages
572
Points
3,600
Twitter
CarlosX360
Technically, Scott Adkins is the next Van Damme, but I could use more Jaa. I still highly recommend Adkins, as his movies are just straight up action, and not constant bloated CG fests. I have a huge respect for CG, but it has gotten over saturated for certain action genres. I am always a bigger fan of practical effects.

That's main problem, though. The ones playing following the leader to shaky cam, neither understand nor care, or use it as a crutch to excuse "realism". When in actuallity, they can't direct an action scene worth sh@t! See the Taken films, Transporter 3 (there are some decent action scenes), Colombiana, Salt, or some of Michael Bays films. While Bourne's shaky cam's don't make see sick looking at them (I can't say the same for certain others), I still don't like them. I get the point and intent, but I am not a fan. The PTSD/becoming mentally unstable was unique back then for the shaky cam, but is a dime over a dozen later in the 2000s (movie and TV) and nowadays. Usually minus the PTSD though. The Raid is the best action film to use shaky cam. Not contest. The Raid 2 rarely uses it, but works hugely in its favor.

This video sums up my thoughts and feelings:

I'll watch the video tomorrow morning. I didn't know who Scott Adkins was as an actor until I googled him. I was like "Oh, him?" My opinion? Nah. I don't think he's like... at Van Damme's level of fame yet. At least from where I sit. In the wikipedia entry, it was stated that he's best known as "undisputed." I say forgettable. He is as generic a fighter (and actor) as they come. He needs to put himself into more Hollywood films. The undisputed films are cool, but the whole point of the franchise is to highlight new, upcoming stars... Why do you think they even use "Boyka" as the main "boss," the main villain? It's because they wanted a boogeyman character for the series. That one person to kill, but is legendary. Wesley Snipes kicked the the series into higher gear, and it's been building to a climax. But, it's one of those film franchises that highlight new stars.

As for the shaky cam convo. I understand your ire. In Taken, the producers wanted to do two things: Hide Liam's shortcomings and his age. This is not to say Liam's acting sucks, but he's not a martial artist. I don't think the producers want him to overdo the action, and only do what he can do so, they spend time with each cut to make it seem like there's action, I say the same for Columbiana, and Transporter 3.

Jason Statham can do more than Liam, but instead of working around Statham, they want to work around stunt doubles, extras, and other actors.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups!
Messages
319
Points
170
CinemaWins > CinemaSins.

CS has gotten boring, annoying, and dumb. Jeremy's got a huge ego up his ass and has some big issues. He can't take critcism relying on the "it's satire excuse". Okay then, it's bad satire. Just because it is satire, does not make something good. Not to mention, he ignores obvious plot detaisl, character interactions, story developments, etc. all for a long winded joke or tired running gag. His contempt for people who enjoy the Fast and Furious movies put him on Moviebob levels of hate. See his Furious 7 video.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash

Foxtrot94

Elite Hunter
Supporter Gold
Messages
7,017
Points
14,915
I've come to realize that the reasons people say that the Mass Effect 3 explanation of Reapers and their motives don't make sense simply stems from them absolutely not understanding it at all in the first place (I know, what's new... entitled gamers at their finest).

Among the arguments I've seen, three are most prominent. 1) The Intelligence says he wants to preserve organic life but uses the Reapers to just kill a bunch of it, 2) the Intelligence claims the Reapers are necessary because of the inevitability of conflict between organics and synthetics despite Shepard's actions leading to peace between Quarian and Geth, and EDI's relationship with Joker proving otherwise - assuming the player choices lead to those results, and 3) the Intelligence supposed "false analogy" with fire.

As for number 1.
I guess these guys just missed the hundreds of times it's said in the game(s) that the Reapers HARVEST advanced civilizations. The Intelligence at the end of ME3 says it outright: organic life is STORED in the form of the Reapers so that it's not lost forever in the conflict between machines and organics, a conflict that has always happened without fail, resulting in entire civilizations getting erased from existence. The ones harvested by the Reapers are integrated in them and assume that form, which is preferable to otherwise inevitable deletion.

As for number 2.
That's just cherry picking and doesn't "prove" anything, let alone that the Intelligence is wrong about the inevitability of war between synthetics and organics. Sure you can make it so the Quarian and the Geth reach peace, but that doesn't change the fact that two wars still happened between them before that, leading to the Quarian race seriously risking extinction, and also similar wars had happened in the countless cycles before Shepard's, without fail. One exception in one cycle doesn't mean anything. Just because peace is possible doesn't mean it WILL happen and certainly doesn't change the fact that conflict still DID arise.

And number 3.
It's just not a false equivalence. The argument supporting that it is basically says that fire has no free will when it burns, whereas the Reapers do. So the Intelligence claiming the Reapers are like fire, simply doing what they're meant to do rather than actively being interested in was is bullshit.
Except it's all wrong.
The Reapers DON'T have free will. Being sentient and acting high and mighty when you talk to them doesn't mean having free will. Once again, the Intelligence spells it out for your dumb asses at the end of the game: they're his tools. They're his means to achieve his goal, they do what he wants them to do. "My creators gave them form. I gave them purpose." Just another line a lot of pointlessly angry people missed, apparently. The Reapers have no choice in what they do. Whoever controls them (including Shepard himself in case you choose the Control ending) gets to decide what their purpose is, and they simply act upon that purpose with no decision making of their own. Just like fire burning a wooden log isn't "at war" with that log, the Reapers aren't "at war" with organics. They just carry on their function, nothing more.
Even when you talk to them, they are so detached, deadpan, they keep saying "there is no war, only the harvest". Cause they don't give a **** about war, they're not "hostile" per se. They simply do what they're made to do, period. Of course you as a player are guided (intentionally so) to perceive them as the enemy throughout the games, to think that they actually have ill will against the Galaxy. But it is explained pretty clearly by the end, they have no will in the first place, besides that of whoever controls them.



Frankly, it's beyond me how so many people just missed all of this. Although to be fair, they more likely just intentionally ignored it to justify their personal dislike towards the ending, but it's not like that makes it any less irritating.
 

V's patron

I have no name for I am but 2 days old ;).
Messages
7,270
Points
12,415
I'm a fan of Buffy/angel shows but I don't care for Buffy/Angel the canon relationship. I don't hate it but because i got into both shows after they ended so i just saw it as the past. In a reboot I'd probably do it down the road than right away.

I'm not against Sony trying to build a universe with the C/D-listers like Morbius and other Spidey characters like Black Cat/Silver Sable. It's still a long shot as it's more closer to Universal's Dark Universe than MCU/DCEU.

I wouldn't mind if Malificient stayed dead after KH1. She was great in 1 but has contributed little to the series since. Turning her into Jessie from Team Rocket to go along with Pete feels like an insult. They are so mismatched I'm surprised she hasn't killed him yet.

Im ok with Lady and Trish not returning for DMC6. I don't want them to be killed off but they haven't contributed much and don't feel as essential to stick around. They feel wasted than incorporated well to me.
 
Last edited:
Top