When Vanderohe realized he was bitten and gonna die and the movie just ends.
I was like god damn it we actually have 1 bad ass character make it out alive, and Dieter pushing him in the safe actually saved his life, and now he's gonna enjoy life and having lots of money, then he's fucking bitten and the only real survivor is Batista's boring ass dumb daughter.
So they made Dieter's sacrifice pointless and just gave us yet another gut punch after Batista died.
That's what happens when you live in a feminist society where movie makers are woke and all straight (white) males have to be undermined.
Now we're at the stage where even straight non-white males have to be undermined in movies.
Go back sucking your momma's tit you insecure little man.
shareIt's like you realized you were wrong and tried to cover it with your last sentence by acting like that obvious contradiction is in line with your thinking. "Now we're at the stage where even straight non-white males have to be undermined in movies."
You could then further write "And even most all the woman are undermined."
In real life, finding a physically heroic woman is like finding a needle in a haystack. Meanwhile, physically heroic men are a dime a dozen, and there was a point in time where movies reflected this naturally occurring heroism. That heroism is now on a rapidly burning shoestring hanging over an open grave for fiction.
shareWe don't live in a "feminist society". We live in a highly misogynist, patriarchist and chauvinist society. It is SO misogynist, patriarchist and chauvinist that you see only a couple of movies with strong female protagnists, in a sample space in which the vast majority of films STILL have male protagonists, and you think that because of this tiny little change the whole world became "feminist".
Please, get a life and stop being dumb.
It is SO misogynist, patriarchist and chauvinist that you see only a couple of movies with strong female protagnists, in a sample space in which the vast majority of films STILL have male protagonists,
Logan, Avengers Endgame, Mad Max Fury Road, Mission Impossible Fallout, John Wick series etc.
shareLogan was a sequel and finale to Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, where he was replaced by a little Mexican girl.
Avengers: Endgame was a sequel finale for the ten year MCU story and it was an ensemble cast, not headlined by a single-straight white male.
Mad Max Fury Road literally had Max playing second fiddle to Furiosa the entire film.
Mission Impossible Fallout does not star a buff white male, it stars a tiny little Tom Cruise.
John Wick does star a straight white male, but he's certainly not buff nor reminiscent of the action heroes from the 80s and 90s.
Thanks for failing miserably and proving my point.
Lol so Logan does not count now? Hugh Jackman is the lead not the little Mexican girl.
Avengers Endgame is an ensemble but it stars several straight buff white males. It has Captain America, and Thor. I also did not mention Guardians movie which the main star is Chris Pratt.
You said buff white male protagonist. I gave you one in some of the films listed mainly Logan. There is also Karl Urban's Judge Dredd from Dredd. There is also the Expendables which I think are terrible films but in the end made good money and star several buff white protagonists.
Okay fair enough about Wick and Mission Impossible. However you still literally side stepped Logan, Avengers Endgame, Mad Max Fury Road. Are there as many buff white males as in the 80's? No but they still exist.
So no I did not fail you side stepped many of examples that fit your requirements.
Lol so Logan does not count now? Hugh Jackman is the lead not the little Mexican girl.
Avengers Endgame is an ensemble but it stars several straight buff white males. It has Captain America, and Thor. I also did not mention Guardians movie which the main star is Chris Pratt.
You said buff white male protagonist. I gave you one in some of the films listed mainly Logan.
There is also Karl Urban's Judge Dredd from Dredd.
There is also the Expendables which I think are terrible films but in the end made good money and star several buff white protagonists.
Mad Max Fury Road
So since it was the end of a franchise it does not count got it.
Yep things go through trends in Hollywood that is life buddy. Remember when wearing black trench coats was cool? The 90's and early 2000's, Face Off Blade, The Matrix, Blade 2, The Matrix Reloaded, Underworld etc. That trend is over, I liked that trend but unlike you I am mature enough to realize that things go through trends. Do I like all of them? Nope but that is life man.
Four years is rather recent lol. So okay then.
The Expendables are excellent films? Wow I did not think your taste in cinema could get worse but wow I guess I was wrong! The Expendables is absolute garbage! It is a nostalgia bait film that banks off of star power to sell tickets. Every expendables film got outclassed by other action movies the same year they were released. In 2010 Scott Pilgrim vs the World, 13 Assassins. In 2012 The Raid, Dredd, The Avengers, and The Dark Knight Rises, in 2014 Edge of Tomorrow, Captain America the Winter Soldier, The Raid 2, and John Wick. I know you do not care about critics so I will reference users. Every single one of those films absolutely destroyed all those films when measured by the users. Even when factoring in your favorite Metacritic. Every single one of those films got better critical acclaim and acclaim by users. Expendables is a garbage franchise! I love stuff like that if it is well done. Predator, Die Hard is all great not that it is trash.
If you also checkout the user reviews most helpful on imdb you will see it is loaded with bad scores. Seriously I am asking you what makes those films excellent? The action is uninspired, generic flat and just flat out bad. The use of blood explosions is awful the shootouts are completely forgettable and it is filled with cringe worthy dialogue. Then to top it off they make the third one pg-13! Yeah a movie starring gritty action heroes we really want a pg-13 rating. It is a damn joke that a movie with Michael Cera Scott Pilgrim Vs the World as the lead had better staged action sequences than a movie with that ensemble of action heroes. You have to honestly try to fail that miserably. Although honestly not surprising you would like it. A mostly white cast with guys acting macho and MANLY! Which for you makes it an immediate 10/10. The funny thing is that is not even a good version of that type of idea. You want that watch any 80's movie such as First Blood, Robocop, Predator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Commando, Mad Max Road Warrior etc. All those absolutely put Expendables to shame.
He is the protagonist of the film.
So since it was the end of a franchise it does not count got it.
I liked that trend but unlike you I am mature enough to realize that things go through trends. Do I like all of them? Nope but that is life man.
The Expendables is absolute garbage! It is a nostalgia bait film that banks off of star power to sell tickets.
Seriously I am asking you what makes those films excellent? The action is uninspired, generic flat and just flat out bad.
The use of blood explosions is awful the shootouts are completely forgettable and it is filled with cringe worthy dialogue.
Then to top it off they make the third one pg-13! Yeah a movie starring gritty action heroes we really want a pg-13 rating.
You want that watch any 80's movie such as First Blood, Robocop, Predator, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Commando, Mad Max Road Warrior etc. All those absolutely put Expendables to shame.
He is the protagonist of the film.
Every hero meets their end. Logan was actually a great sendoff to Hugh Jackman's Wolverine that he deserved. There has not been a sequel and honestly am fine with it ending there. Passing of the torch has been done poorly but in that film it ended so appropriately.
See but that is a silly thing to think also. So basically you want things to stay the same and not change. Female action heroines were not as popular until Ellen Ripley catapulted them into the mainstream. You mad that changed also?
I like what it is selling itself as. Unfortunately all they did was get the stars and failed to deliver a good film. You still need to make a good film you can't just put the nostalgia pieces in place and expect me to enjoy it.
See and that is it. At best the fight between Stallone and Van Damme was average? Really that is it average? Should we be praising mediocrity? It reminds me of when a new Terminator film comes out and people say well at least it was not as bad as whichever sequel after the second they refer to. Oh wow so we are not concerned if it is good or not we are saying well even though it is bad at least it is not as bad as this other one. People say that as if it is something to be optimistic and happy about. That is the bar not whether it is good but if it's less crappy than another thumbs up there guys that makes me optimistic.
I do not enjoy them because they were not even done in a tasteful way. Arnold's exchange with Bruce Willis was absolute cringe! You can't just go oh look your heroes said the lines of the past but now Arnold said it and Bruce Willis said Arnold's line! Genius!
All of them sucked! The third one just got worse because it was watered down. A I said before how does Scott Pilgrim vs the world a movie with Michael Cera have better framed, staged, edited and choreographed action than a movie starring Jet LI, Stallone, Arnold, Mickey Rourke and Statham? You have to try to be that bad it is insane.
Guess what I am actually with you on a lot of those movies. I love Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Predator, Aliens, First Blood, Mad Max, Mad Road Warrior, Robocop, Commando etc. I love those films to pieces. The thing is though you can't just put nostalgia on something and that is good enough.
You still need to make a good film! I appreciate the return to past things of course but am I supposed to like it simply because it reminds me of my nostalgia? I was a huge Dragonball Z fan. I watched every episode I loved it! I like Dragonball as well have even read the manga. I watched Dragonball GT it was disappointing. Neat ideas but not good execution. Feels like bad fan fiction. Anyway when I saw Super coming I was like hmmm is it going to be good?
I was skeptical. Guess what it is garbage! All Super is is a lame cash grab on nostalgia. The writing is awful, the animation even worse than any of Z's worst animation and the character arcs are gone. It is Goku and Vegeta everyone else get out of here. It is because they are the fan favorite and they know thats where their money is. The series is overruled with transformations so that they can sell more toys. The exposition dialogue is simply dreadful. Anyway people tell me you just do not like Dragonball! You are not a true fan! No it is because even though I love that show to pieces I am not going to swallow up something simply because it has brand recognition of what I love. Do I expect things to top their predecessors? Nope but you still need to make a quality product. It is why I can't stand Terminator after the second one. There are two terminator films and that is it. Dragonball ended at Z for me there is no more.
Mad Max Fury Road is an example of bringing back a franchise that we all loved but did it exceptionally well! Regardless of it is your favorite Mad Max movie it kicked ass and took names and killed it with a great film. Same goes for Blade Runner 2049.
Every hero meets their end. Logan was actually a great sendoff to Hugh Jackman's Wolverine that he deserved.
So basically you want things to stay the same and not change. Female action heroines were not as popular until Ellen Ripley catapulted them into the mainstream. You mad that changed also?
See and that is it. At best the fight between Stallone and Van Damme was average? Really that is it average? Should we be praising mediocrity?
Dragonball ended at Z for me there is no more.
Mad Max Fury Road is an example of bringing back a franchise that we all loved but did it exceptionally well!
That would rain true if there ever was a sequel to Logan. It was intended as a sendoff for Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. With how much money they made with Logan there easily could have been a sequel. I respected Fox for leaving it on it's own.
I know there were female heroines before Ripley but she did definitely help get the ball rolling further. Never said we needed to replace action fanfare but simply that things are different now. There exist plenty of good action movies today you just need to look. The commercialization killed Terminator after the second one. This is not exactly new. Tons of franchises have suffered this same exact fate. Money is the death to all art. Terminator Salvation was not feminist and it still sucked. Sometimes you need to know when to pull the plug. Terminator 2 ended the series beautifully. There does not need to be anymore. The only thing that could have worked was the idea Salvation had but they screwed it up. Salvation actually had the right idea by not riding off the coattails of the first two and placing it in the future with John Connor. Unfortunately it was no executed well. Every other film tries to ride off the coattails of the second. All feel like fanfiction.
This is where I do not understand your logic. You have other action movies the same year each of those movies were released that were way better. Scott Pilgrim vs The World, 13 Assassins in 2010, The Raid, The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd in 2012, Edge of Tomorrow, The Raid 2, Captain America Winter Soldier and John Wick in 2014. You got your buff straight white guy that was not an ensemble in The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd and Captain America the Winter Soldier. Quit sad Dredd bombed it was actually rather good yet trash like the Expendables makes loads of cash. Why would I watch Expendables and accept mediocrity when I have those to choose from? You said well that is the movie business um no there were better films at that time.
[deleted]
I could not get into anything in Super at all. The only thing I felt that was semi okay was Beerus being a God. He at least a tad different from other villains they faced. Frieza coming back I absolutely loathed! They brought him back because it is a nostalgia cash grab. Freiza is played out! I loved him he was a classic villain on the show but to revive him is taking away from his defeat! Look him even coming back after Namek was pushing it. However the introduction to Trunks was so awesome that it made us accept and actually like it. That was the last time we should have seen him. What is the point in defeating him?
When will we know he is officially done for good? I wanted to like it but I did not. I hate how there are like 100 different transformations now. Remember when Super Saiyan was awesome? Remember when you had to struggle to get powers by intense training? Remember when villains showed their power rather than hamfisted exposition telling you how strong they are? Show don't tell good grief. When Cell was introduced in Z he did not even have to say a word. Once you saw his horrific power in motion you knew this creature is bad news! Remember when characters other than Goku and Vegeta had arcs? Yeah I miss those days.
Does not matter. I would rather have that then the character I idolized being in some forgettable piece of trash like the Expendables.
With how much money they made with Logan there easily could have been a sequel. I respected Fox for leaving it on it's own.
Never said we needed to replace action fanfare but simply that things are different now.
Terminator Salvation was not feminist and it still sucked.
Salvation actually had the right idea by not riding off the coattails of the first two and placing it in the future with John Connor. Unfortunately it was no executed well.
You got your buff straight white guy that was not an ensemble in The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd and Captain America the Winter Soldier.
James Mangold was not on board for that project. Of course any stupid producer is going to want to capitalize on whatever franchise they can. This is nothing new.
I hate to break this to you but the days of the big actor or action star like in the past is over. I doubt you will ever see actors be as big as people like Deniro, Pacino, Brando or any of those people ever again. Same goes for action heroes. The days of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Arnold, Stallone, Mel Gibson, Bruce Willis are over. The reason being is you do not need an actor to sell your movie like in the past. For instance look how they got Nicholson to play Joker. Or Jim Carrey to play Riddler and Arnold as Freeze. They do this because they knew those names were recognizable. They would sell tickets because of their start power. Things have changed. Do I like all of that no but it is what it is man.
Which shows that it was not the feminist stuff which dragged down Terminator it sucked far before that.
Bale was stunt casted, they knew he was hot off Batman and was a huge name. While I think Bale is a great actor to me the casting did not feel completely genuine. I do not dislike it but stunt casting is hard for me to be totally in love with. He could could have been solid if given the right script and direction though.
Blade is a comic book movie as is Dredd. Thing is those films are so unapologetically violent that they fit right in with movies like Die Hard or lethal Weapon from the 80's. The other superhero films I get not fitting into this category. Winter Soldier is espionage action but in the end it accomplishes it's goals better than the Expendables does.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World,
You said well that is the movie business um no there were better films at that time.
I would rather have that then the character I idolized being in some forgettable piece of trash like the Expendables.
No actually wrong. Scott Pilgrim vs The World was a box office dud. The Expendables made more money than it did. Not a box office smash but it was successful enough. That shows you about how dumb the movie going public is actually. Scott Pilgrim vs the world was a far better film than the Expendables was. So how did that movie move that hipster soy boy thing forward when it was a box office bomb?
Dredd was also a box office bomb. The Expendables 2 made way more money than it did. Again proving that the movie going public is ignorant. Dredd literally had your 80's action aesthetic that you love. So the movie that did this idea better tanks where as the movie that does this idea horribly does way better in the box office. The Expendables knew it could rely on nostalgia to pull people in the theaters. Thankfully I had friends tell me these films were garbage and I never went to theaters to see them. I simply rented them off netflix. I would have been pissed if I had went to the theaters what a waste of money that would be! The raw truth is Hollywood is going to cater to what people pay to see. No one paid to see Dredd and you wonder why these films do not exist anymore? How about you support the good versions of these ideas rather the crappy nostalgia bait films the Expendables were. You called these excellent films my hell are you insane?
You are in the minority on that. Mad Max Fury Road is considered a great film by the majority. Hamfisting of any kind whether it be fanfare or hamfisted politics it is tedious to watch. So hamfisted nostalgia is okay but not left leaning politics. This shows your hypocrisy.
I hate to break this to you but the days of the big actor or action star like in the past is over.
Which shows that it was not the feminist stuff which dragged down Terminator it sucked far before that.
Blade is a comic book movie as is Dredd. Thing is those films are so unapologetically violent that they fit right in with movies like Die Hard or lethal Weapon from the 80's.
No actually wrong. Scott Pilgrim vs The World was a box office dud. The Expendables made more money than it did.
So the movie that did this idea better tanks where as the movie that does this idea horribly does way better in the box office.
So hamfisted nostalgia is okay but not left leaning politics. This shows your hypocrisy.
I didn't say there were no action stars that were famous but even by your own admission it isn't the same as in the past. The rock also doesn't fit your white checklist. Anyway you misread what I wrote. Action stars and big celebrities are not like it was in the past. Star power doesn't carry films like it used to so nope you are wrong.
I was checked out from Terminator before that. I've been checked out since Salvation failed. No more it's over leave it alone.
So then why is Dredd not celebrated by you? It's far better made than the expendables. Oh yeah no nostalgia bait.
Ha totally wrong. Dredd is seen as the better film by every metric. Better user score on metacritic and better critical reception. You are in the minority thinking Expendables is equal or better than Dredd. Action is nothing great but at least it's competent. Also aside from that it's a competent film. It doesn't throw a bunch of nostalgia berries hoping it will distract you from a garbage film.
The fight between Stallone and JCVD sucked!
Nostalgia is only entertaining when it's executed well, in which it was not in expendables. So no I disagree. Anything can be good if it's executed well. Mad Max Fury Road has feminist undertones and you can label it a feminist film. It's seen as much better than Expendables across the board whether it be critics or users on metacritic. So looks like it's more entertaining than nostalgia bait trash to the majority. As to quote Ebert it's not what it's about it's how it's about it.
Star power doesn't carry films like it used to so nope you are wrong.
So then why is Dredd not celebrated by you? It's far better made than the expendables. Oh yeah no nostalgia bait.
You are in the minority thinking Expendables is equal or better than Dredd.
So looks like it's more entertaining than nostalgia bait trash to the majority.
Superhero films are the big thing these days. Hollywood is going to follow the money.
There are no memorable action scenes in Expendables either. Then to top it off the script is terrible! The only reason I see you giving the Expendables the edge is because it is nostalgia bait. I disagree I think Karl Urban did great and looked just fine.
More money reflects what is more marketable not which is better seen by the majority. Transformers movies makes more money than Mad Max Fury Road or any Blade Runner film it does not mean they are seen as better than those. No Expendables 2 was garbage it simply relied on nostalgia to get people in the theaters. People like you are easy to market to. Just lay on the nostalgia bait and it does not matter if the movie is good you will give it a pass.
It does not matter if it changes your issue, it showcases the majority does not have your mindset. You said feminism is not entertaining nostalgia is. That is your opinion and you are in the minority. Nostalgia is cool but you need to deliver on making a good film. Do I like female action heroines? Yep when they are good character properly executed. Do I like male action heroes yep again when properly executed. You give things a pass on the basis of what you prefer.
Oh I like those 80's movies it is paying homage to or trying to recreate it is a great film! More to judging films than liking something. Oh I like Dragonball Z so I will look past all the garbage storytelling in Dragonball Super because I mean hey I like Dragonball! Hey I like BVS Dawn of Justice because hey I love Batman man it is a great film! This is literally your logic. Yet you consider yourself the better judge of cinema? I question you deeply after thinking those movies are good. I call out when a film that is even leaning left or is feminist is bad where as a film full of a white cast with macho guys gets a pass. Rather ridiculous dude.
Superhero films are the big thing these days. Hollywood is going to follow the money.
There are no memorable action scenes in Expendables either.
That is your opinion and you are in the minority.
You give things a pass on the basis of what you prefer.
I question you deeply after thinking those movies are good.
Nope we still do get them as John Wick is doing great. In the end though selling out and making Expendables 3 rated pg-13 showcases that even they sold out.
All of that is garbage! You mean the fight where stock footage is used? Watch the fight again. JCVD's spinning kick is reused during the fight. A film so lazy they actually use stock footage during a fight scene. If that is what you are boasting about as being good you know the film sucks. Captain America the Winter Soldier has better choreographed fights and it is a pg-13 film. How does a pg-13 film have better action than a rated r film? With the r rating you are less limited as to what you can show.
Also again you are attempting to equate box office success to what people rate it. Star Wars is going to make money regardless of how good it is because it is Star Wars. It is marketable. It is more marketable than something like Mad Max Fury Road. The Expendables has more wide appeal than some of the films you listed because of it's star power. That does not make it a better film or better received simply more marketable. I never said you were in the minority in paying money to see them I said you are in the minority in thinking they are good films. Mad Max Fury Road a feminist movie is seen as better than any Expendables film. I love this it dismantles your BS about nostalgia being better than feminism. Films are about execution not just judging them simply based on what they want to be or are alluding to. Mad Max shows that a feminist film can be a great film. Do I think expendables could have been awesome? Oh absolutely but unfortunately it was garbage.
Nope not true. Myself I prefer dark comic book movies over lighthearted ones. Give me, Sin City, The Dark Knight or Logan over any Marvel film, or Raimi Spider-man film. Thing is I can recognize when something which is lighthearted is better than a dark film. Just because something is darker does not make it better by default it is just my preference.
There are good and bad of dark and lighthearted comic book films. Good lighthearted films are Superman the Movie, Superman 2, Spider-man, Spider-man 2, The Avengers, Scott Pilgrim vs the World etc. There are good dark comic book movies such as Batman 1989, Batman Returns, Sin City, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Logan. Bad lighthearted comic book movies Fantastic Four 2005, Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer, Batman & Robin Superman IV the quest for peace etc.
Bad dark comic book movies, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance, Fantastic Four 2015, and BVS Dawn of Justice. So since I prefer dark comic book films over light that means I would prefer BVS Dawn of Justice over Spider-man 2 right? I mean BVS is dark and Spider-man 2 is lighthearted. This is your logic. You prefer off the basis of preference of what it is rather than the basis of quality. You also lack the ability to logically see how anyone who breaks it down can see Spider-man 2 is a better made film than BVS Dawn of Justice. There are certain films I prefer over others but I also have a brain and can logically tell if something is better made than my particular preference.
I am not going to shell out my own hard earned money just because it something I like if the product is garbage. You want my support you have to earn it, you are not entitled to it simply because you own a property of something I like.
Nope we still do get them as John Wick is doing great.
How does a pg-13 film have better action than a rated r film?
I said you are in the minority in thinking they are good films.
You want my support you have to earn it
I am not denying we get loads of sjw crap that sucks. Where I think you are ignorant is you assume because it is nostalgia bait it is better than a feminist film. Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film but it is loads better than the Expendables is. It is seen as a better film by the mass majority as well. I already pointed to you in liking Dredd. I saw that film in theaters. I thought it was actually good. Was it a masterpiece? No but it is a good film. Expendables is not even competent it sucks! You like it because it has your favorite action heroes it goes no further than that. Dredd should have been the movie to make the money not Expendables. Unfortunately though people do not reward the right things they go off name recognition.
Okay and does that excuse the fight scene? Tons of movies have shooting issues scheduling issues etc. We judge the film as a finished product not what goes on behind the scenes.
The score from the imdb page of most helpful reviews is loaded with negative reviews. The user score is also not good even when looking at metacritic. Even Aquaman has better user scores on both imdb and metacritic let that sink in... So no I would not say the majority thinks they are good films. They have a built in audience yes but they are most unanimously known as bad movies. Why support trash? Do they have your lifetime membership because you have nostalgia with them? Go support good versions of this idea such as Dredd.
Mad Max Fury Road was a good film and earned it's stripes. If it had been feminist and bad I would have called it crap. See that is the difference I judge the film for it's quality. You give Expendables a pass because it caters to what you like. I like that stuff also! I already told you man I love those old action movies I really do! However just because I like nostalgia does not give you a free pass from me to be a bad product. For instance I thought Ghostbusters 2016 sucked as well. It is a bad film. I am a huge Dragonball fan own the manga does that mean that I owe them a lifetime subscription because I love that and it is nostalgic for me? I like Batman does that mean I need to like BVS and give it a pass? Sorry bud I do not see it that way.
Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film but it is loads better than the Expendables is.
Unfortunately though people do not reward the right things they go off name recognition.
Okay and does that excuse the fight scene?
Go support good versions of this idea such as Dredd.
Lmao! I can't believe you said that publicly. First that is your opinion one that thankfully isn't shared by the majority. Mad Max Fury Road beat all expendables in every conceivable way. It did better in box office despite not having the star power, not to mention the third one being pg13. It was better received by both critics and users unanimously. Yet you were getting all up in arms that lots of users preferred Black Panther over Blade. This showcases you don't think critically or judge things fairly. I'm a feminist but I will call out a product if it's badly made. You don't see me defending Ghostbusters 2016, the new fantastic four or anything poorly made. You lack this ability as evident with this statement. Write a review how expendables is better than mad max Fury road. Make it logical and convincing I would pay money to see you fumble over words attempting to do that.
Which shows you only care about nostalgia baiting star power. I don't need a big star in order for me to enjoy the film. Heath Ledger was nowhere near the star Nicholson was but he was a fantastic Joker. Sometimes the star's power can take away from the film. Stallone is a way bigger star than Urban but Urban's Dredd was far better made.
Which again I love how stupid this mindset is. Well it was better than that other gorilla turd therefore I'm satisfied. That's seriously your gauge? That's not a high bar to clear. Being accepting of something because it's less shit than another product is not an arena or mentality I care to play or exist in. What a depressing dumb counterproductive way to think.
They have them but there are less. Just like how I stated there are less movies with trench coats and stuff. That's not the craze anymore. It's hypocritical how you had no issue when white buff dudes ruled the action movie scene. Now you don't like that things are flipped and lots of action stories center around females or ethic leads.
Write a review how expendables is better than mad max Fury road. Make it logical and convincing I would pay money to see you fumble over words attempting to do that.
Stallone is a way bigger star than Urban but Urban's Dredd was far better made.
Now you don't like that things are flipped and lots of action stories center around females or ethic leads.
Nope Mad Max Fury Road actually is a perfect example of show don't tell. The characters went through arcs and grew in the end. Just because it circled back around does not mean the characters were in the same place in terms of character arcs. The payoff was a damn delight to watch in the cinema. The action is constantly referenced and it is edited pristinely. In every single way Mad Max Fury Road crushes the Expendables. When measuring film history Expendables will never come close to being considered as good as Mad Max Fury Road. Your opinion does not change this it is an objective fact.
The action was awful! The editing as well as choreography was trash in those films. You are seriously defending a fight scene that uses stock footage. Notice you had no retort to that. I do not care about that kick big deal. A cool kick does not make a fight scene good.
Seriously watch the fight with Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbQq9PILi10 The editing in that fight is cancer for my eyes. Not only that but man the choreography is absolutely weak! Watch Jet Li in Fist of Legend and tell me that fight holds a candle to any of his fights in Fist of Legend.
Could have been good but we already got that with Urban's Dredd. It was actually good and to be honest I am glad it did not have some big star.
Nope if a feminist film is good it has an audience. Mad Max Fury Road says hi.
The payoff was a damn delight to watch in the cinema. The action is constantly referenced and it is edited pristinely.
I do not care about that kick big deal. A cool kick does not make a fight scene good.
Watch Jet Li in Fist of Legend and tell me that fight holds a candle to any of his fights in Fist of Legend.
Again you are in the minority in thinking that. Mad Max Fury Road got better reception by both critics and users over Road Warrior. I love Road Warrior but I think Fury Road is actually better. Either way the majority disagrees with you. See this is what I do not get about you. Since you claim Road Warrior is better than Fury Road both excellent movies but you think Road Warrior is better, therefore you hold that against Fury Road even though it is great. With Expendables you make stupid excuses for it's awful quality. You go well at least it was not as bad as this and to you that gives it a free pass. What a joke man. With Fury Road your big argument is it is not as good as Road Warrior. My argument with Expendables is not just oh it is not as good as the past films it is paying homage to it is that it sucks in and of itself.
No that would be you who does not appreciate it. Notice how I broke down the editing, the choreography and you made excuses for it and for whatever reason you are an apologist for these films. Unlike you I call out bad quality even if it caters to my preferences. How are you any better than someone who is the opposite of you? What if someone who is a leftist gives a leftist film praise just because it is a feminist film isn't that dumb? You do this very thing with Expendables. Oh look it caters to what I like therefore I will give it a pass and look past the awful quality.
I do not care if it was supposed to be between JCVD and Jet li I am judging it as a finished product. I do not care about his fight sequence being huge but good grief why was it edited so badly?
Again you are in the minority in thinking that.
You do this very thing with Expendables. Oh look it caters to what I like therefore I will give it a pass and look past the awful quality.
I do not care about his fight sequence being huge but good grief why was it edited so badly?
Ha I figured you would try and use this argument. Back to the Future came out before the internet came out and it still has a higher user rating than any Avengers movie does. Same with the first two Godfather films. Casablanca as well. Blade Runner has a higher user rating than Blade Runner 2049. Which both Blade Runners were box office bombs. So nope your logic does not work here sorry bud.
Stupid logic. So because it is a dying breed and it is a genre you like then we should just accept something if it is terrible? No we need to have standard and judge it fairly regardless if it is a dying breed or not. I judge things as I see them, I do not rate things on a curve and give it leniency like you just because it is the last of it's kind and it happens to cater to what I enjoy. Batman films were dying off and so were superhero films in general around the late 90's. Does that mean we give Batman & Robin a pass simply because it was a dying breed at the time? No absolutely not!
Lol see and you just conceded to even the film maker being disappointed in the end result. Point to me any sequence like this in Fury Road. You can't. All you can do is attempt to say well it is not as good as Road Warrior. Which as I already pointed out is not the majority's opinion.
Back to the Future came out before the internet came out and it still has a higher user rating than any Avengers movie does.
So because it is a dying breed and it is a genre you like then we should just accept something if it is terrible?
All you can do is attempt to say well it is not as good as Road Warrior.
Back to the Future was not the only one I listed. You missed several others that are not played on tv all the time. Hara-Kiri a film made in 1962 you can bet is not played anywhere close to what Back to the Future is. It still has a higher user rating than the Marvel films. So nope not true. The second and third Back to the Future were always liked but nowhere near as much as the original.
Sorry we will find no agreement here. I judge a movie on it's own merits. If a movie is good it is good if it is bad it is bad. As I said so by your logic since I prefer dark over light that means I should see BVS Dawn of Justice as a better film than Spider-man 2? See and this also proves you give the edge to the Expendables over Mad Max Fury Road not because of the quality of the film but because of it's brand. Which showcases you are not better than a raging leftist who favors a film simply because it is feminist. You are a hypocrite. You will take a rotten meal simply because it is served by a conservative over a freshly made meal served by a liberal. It is not about quality to you it is about who is serving it. Pathetic buddy. Notice I can call out trash on my end where as you can not. Ghostbusters 2016 and Fantastic Four 2015 suck and they suck bad! However I will take your approach I have changed I think those films are great because they are feminist. You are an idiot! This shows you have no credibility when it comes to critiquing movies.
Also no you are wrong. Okay but even if you were correct. You said Road Warrior had the best chase scene ever. Okay so if something does not live up to that does that mean it is crap? See this is how stupid your point is. Even people who like Godfather 1 over 2 admit yeah but 2 is still a great movie. Or vice verse. People who prefer 2 can go Godfather 1 is still great though. Your whole premise is it is bad because it is not as good as the other. With Expendables it is the opposite it is good because it is not as crap as the others lol. You seriously are a joke!
Hara-Kiri a film made in 1962 you can bet is not played anywhere close to what Back to the Future is. It still has a higher user rating than the Marvel films.
See and this also proves you give the edge to the Expendables over Mad Max Fury Road not because of the quality of the film but because of it's brand.
Your whole premise is it is bad because it is not as good as the other.
If it ain't white, it ain't right?
shareI am responding to you up here since that thread was getting too long.
Again you can go back to classics which have tons of votes that have higher ratings than the MCU films. This disproves your notion in saying that just because something is newer that it will by default get a better rating. Back to the Future and The first two Godfather films have higher ratings than MCU films. Does not matter if they are niche or not it contradicts what you attempted to say.
No, it's because -- as I said -- the Expendables is a rarity now for cinema goers. We don't get masculine action films anymore.
Back to the Future and The first two Godfather films have higher ratings than MCU films. Does not matter if they are niche or not it contradicts what you attempted to say.
If there were plenty of masculine action movies to choose from at the time of Expendables would it be a good film?
What a joke man! Go and watch the behind the scenes to mad max Fury Road there is plenty of stunt work that is magnificently done and practical.
Batman 1989 was a huge cultural hit when it was released. Batman Begins was not as big of a hit as Batman 1989 was. It was a moderate success in the box office. It got word of mouth by a lot of dvd sales. Batman 1989 gets played on tv all the time. Batman Begins still has a higher user score. Superman the movie has a higher user score than Man of Steel. This contradicts your point.
You are so hypocritical it hurts. See you can't stand critics giving a pass to Black Panther because of it being a black ensemble cast. Yet you are doing this exact thing with Expendables. I judge a movie on it's own merits not if it is the last of it's kind or if it caters to my beliefs. So by your logic then if BVS Dawn of Justice was the last Batman movie ever and there were no other superhero films we should suddenly rate it higher?
The Matrix, and Mad Max Fury Road do not abandon practicality. They do have cgi but it does not replace character development. Terminator 2 fits this same mold. It revolutionized special effects. Did Expendables revolutionize anything? Did it have good action no? The movie hits all the check boxes on what makes a fight scene bad. Stock footage used during a fight check, bad lighting and shot in the dark so you can barely see anything check, bad editing check, bad choreography check, shaky cam check. See this is another issue with that garbage film. It is supposed to be a love letter to those old action films of the 80's. Guess what one thing people hated that was adopted in the early 2000's was quick cutting and shaky cam. The Bourne series made this popular. Part of the charm of those old films was you got to see all the action. So then why film it by adopting the very style that is new if you are going for something old and vintage? The Matrix, Terminator 2, and Fury Road are all seen as better films than the Expendables.
Batman 1989 gets played on tv all the time. Batman Begins still has a higher user score. Superman the movie has a higher user score than Man of Steel. This contradicts your point.
See you can't stand critics giving a pass to Black Panther because of it being a black ensemble cast. Yet you are doing this exact thing with Expendables.
They do have cgi but it does not replace character development.
LMAO you fell right into a trap that I knew you would. You said metacritic is a better gauge of user ratings. So we will go by them. You claimed Batman begins got a higher user rating because it is less campy than Batman 1989. Well Spider-man 2 has a higher user rating on Metacritic than Batman Begins does. That film is more campy and lighthearted than both Batman 1989 and Batman Begins. Explain that one. Man of Steel is trash but it shows that just because it is darker or newer does not by default mean it will get better user scores.
Why should that determine the film's quality? You openly admitted that Expendables would be a garbage film if it came out around the time of Commando. Which shows you are giving it a free pass simply because it is the last of it's kind. Supporting it is fine but you are legitimately saying it is better than Mad Max Fury Road. I understand paying to see it to support it but to say it is a good film because it is the last of it's kind is the worst defense I have ever heard of for a film. You already supported it by paying to see it but now you took it a step further by saying it is better than Mad Max Fury Road. Do you honestly believe that? If so damn!
Yeah because you can totally do a storm like that practically! Use your brain you idiot. Some stuff is not possible without the use of cgi. The point is like Terminator 2 there is plenty of practicality still on display.
Well that tells me you are not worth listening to and are not credible. I do not excuse anything I judge it as I see it. You apparently lack this ability.
Well Spider-man 2 has a higher user rating on Metacritic than Batman Begins does. That film is more campy and lighthearted than both Batman 1989 and Batman Begins.
Why should that determine the film's quality? You openly admitted that Expendables would be a garbage film if it came out around the time of Commando.
Yeah because you can totally do a storm like that practically! Use your brain you idiot. Some stuff is not possible without the use of cgi.
Yeah Spider-man 2 is more campy and lighthearted than Batman 1989 is. Just because it has dark moments or deep moments does not mean it is not a campy or lighthearted film. Superman the movie has a lot of profound deep dark moments but in the end it is a lighthearted campy film. Batman 1989 is darker than both those films. That is what it is credited for is bringing darkness to comic book films. Yet still Spider-man 2 got better user scores on metacritic. Which contradicts your statement. Spider-man 2 has better user scores than Logan did on metacritic. You know Logan is darker than Spider-man 2 so what happened?
Wow dude do you not comprehend what you read? So if there were other films that were similar but of higher quality which is not hard it would be considered a garbage film. Which there were when Commando was out. Which means the only reason you are giving it a pass is because it is the last of its kind. That is the only reason you are letting it slide which shows you are not logical and biased. I am going to ask again because you side stepped it before. If there were no other superhero films anymore and BVS got released would that suddenly make it a good film? Answer that yes or no?
Not according to the majority. The majority preferred Mad Max Fury Road over Road Warrior. Just as most people prefer Terminator 2 over the first. Back when Road Warrior was made cgi was not in the mainstream like it is today. Now with the technology it can actually be a neat tool for the artist to truly use it to bring their ideas to life. Can it go overboard? Yes but it is fine so long as you only cgi the things you have to. A sandstorm has to be cgi. Spider-man has to use cgi you have no option.
Which contradicts your statement. Spider-man 2 has better user scores than Logan did on metacritic. You know Logan is darker than Spider-man 2 so what happened?
If there were no other superhero films anymore and BVS got released would that suddenly make it a good film? Answer that yes or no?
Just as most people prefer Terminator 2 over the first.
No remember your point was Batman Begins beat out Batman 1989 in user ratings was because it was less campy. At the end of the day both Batman 1989 and Batman Begins are well made films. SPpider-man 2 is far more campy and lighthearted than Logan is. Yet it got high user scores than Logan again what happened? Explain this.
Expendables does not really have any redeeming qualities either. It is nostalgia bait that is it. The action sequences sucked and were not special by any stretch of the imagination. As I said before it has every ding against it in terms of providing a good action scene. Shaky cam check, bad editing check, ugly cinematography where it is so dark you can barely comprehend what is going on check, Bad choreography check. If you are making an homage to old 80's movies why not use the old techniques we loved in those films to begin with? A camera pulled back, no editing or shaky cam that sucks. Also as bad as BVS is people always reference that fight scene in the warehouse. What if I was to go well at least we got that and excuse the rest of the film's awfulness? Even if I loved that fight scene I would never call BVS a good film under any circumstance it is a garbage film! You lack this logical ability. Oh look it is masculine therefore masterpiece. I do not give a crap if it is the last of it's kind I judge a film on it's own merits.
Not the majority of people. Terminator 2 beats out Terminator in user ratings. So a lot of people does not mean the majority. Sorry bud.
No remember your point was Batman Begins beat out Batman 1989 in user ratings was because it was less campy.
SPpider-man 2 is far more campy and lighthearted than Logan is. Yet it got high user scores than Logan again what happened? Explain this.
The action sequences sucked and were not special by any stretch of the imagination.
Also as bad as BVS is people always reference that fight scene in the warehouse. What if I was to go well at least we got that and excuse the rest of the film's awfulness?
Not the majority of people. Terminator 2 beats out Terminator in user ratings.
Your argument still falls flat. Batman 1989 is rated higher than BVS which is actually even darker and less campy than Batman 1989. Also Fantastic Four 2005 is rated higher than Fantastic Four 2015. Fantastic Four 2015 is darker than Fantastic Four 2005.
Nope as I proved above with Fantastic Four 2015 and BVS that is false.
No they were garbage. Notice you can't refute any critique I make to them which shows I am right.
I do not care either but people do reference that scene. People like that action scene but people like you would point to that scene and go see that excuses the film when it does not. You do this for Expendables.
The chart has spoken. Terminator 2 beats it on imdb, metacritic and Rottentomatoes. Read the user scores on all those sites and weep.
Batman 1989 is rated higher than BVS which is actually even darker and less campy than Batman 1989.
Nope as I proved above with Fantastic Four 2015 and BVS that is false.
No they were garbage. Notice you can't refute any critique I make to them which shows I am right.
People like that action scene but people like you would point to that scene and go see that excuses the film when it does not. You do this for Expendables.
The chart has spoken. Terminator 2 beats it on imdb, metacritic and Rottentomatoes. Read the user scores on all those sites and weep.
So is the Expendables yet you say it is a better film than Mad Max Fury Road. BVS does have that action sequence that people liked but the movie is trash just like the Expendables.
Which proves that simply because a movie is darker does not automatically assume it will be seen as better by the majority.
Which shows you only like it for a subjective reason. You have no logical justification for any of it's failures yet you claim these films are better than Mad Max Fury Road? Nope I call Fantastic Four 2015, Ghostbusters 2016 both trash because they are. I care about good film making whether it is right wing or a left wing film.
Yeah because it is no deeper than it reminds me of macho films like Commando. Thing is it does not even do anything well.
Not misguided when the majority disagrees buddy. You lost today kid but that does not mean you have to like it.
So is the Expendables yet you say it is a better film than Mad Max Fury Road.
Which proves that simply because a movie is darker does not automatically assume it will be seen as better by the majority.
Which shows you only like it for a subjective reason.
That is also your opinion. I hate both films with a passion! I can't decide on which I hate worse honestly. I think BVS warehouse scene was at least better than any fight scene in the Expendables. Although BVS has a much more cringe villain so I do not know but both are awful films.
Again this logic does not make sense. BVS is darker and less campy than Batman 1989 yet the mass majority still prefers Batman 1989. Both are Batman films. Fantastic Four 2015 is seen as worse than Fantastic Four 2005 despite it being darker. So this goes back to my original point simply being darker does not mean it will be seen as better. It is about the execution of the film.
How did I ruin entertainment? I went and supported Dredd, John Wick and any good masculine action film. I think people like you ruin entertainment. You do not judge it by execution but by your preferred genre. Notice if you only have subjectivity with no logic it is a weak opinion. There is no logical reason other than subjectivity to say Expendables is better than Mad Max Fury Road. It is not even like it is close. Either way Mad Max Fury Road will always be seen as better than that garbage film. Movies get measured by cultural impact, and reception from users and critics. It crushes Expendables in every category that is an objective fact.
I think BVS warehouse scene was at least better than any fight scene in the Expendables.
BVS is darker and less campy than Batman 1989 yet the mass majority still prefers Batman 1989. Both are Batman films.
How did I ruin entertainment?
We are not talking about how each action sequence serves the narrative. That is a completely different point. Both films have terrible narratives and garbage storytelling. So you just conceded that BVS had a better edited and choreographed action scene than anything in the Expendables. See what if someone went well since this is the last Batman movie I will look past the awful film and say but wasn't that action sequence great? This is exactly what you are doing with Expendables. You are not judging it fairly. You are judging it on a curve simply because you like it and it is not the mainstream anymore. I wouldn't care if Fury Road was the last feminist film on earth I will still rate it the same. The quality of a film is what determines my rating. You judge it by brand and political leanings.
You alluded to people liking it simply because of it's tone. I was pointing out to you that a dark tone does not guarantee you will be better received.
LMAO! In what way do I support trash? Enlighten me. I saw Dredd when no one else would and I have seen all John Wick films in theaters.
We are not talking about how each action sequence serves the narrative.
I will look past the awful film and say but wasn't that action sequence great?
You are judging it on a curve simply because you like it and it is not the mainstream anymore.
LMAO! In what way do I support trash? Enlighten me. I saw Dredd when no one else would and I have seen all John Wick films in theaters.
That plays a part in it but measuring the action scene in and of itself is what I was referring to. Both films have bad narratives. So it really is not even worth discussing how the action serves the story because in both cases it does not serve the film well. Now if you are talking Batman Begins vs Batman 1989 both good films then that is a different story. Also film likes Batman Begins have better narratives and writing than the John Wick films. Although most people would tell you John Wick has better action scenes. Of course there are movies that have good action that have terrible narratives but in the end both Expendables and BVS are not well received films. Both are bad.
You are not doing that. You are letting the Expendables pass simply because it is nostalgia bait macho porn. Since those are rare you think it excuses that awful film.
Your reasons are ignorant. As I said why not hey if the film is good it is good or if it is bad it is bad? Do not rate things on curve simply because you like what it is trying to do. I like what Terminator Salvation was trying to do but in the end it sucked.
I support good movies regardless of the genre. Which is why I saw Mad Max Fury Road in theaters multiple times. Mad Max Fury Road is a better film than Expendables and the majority wholeheartedly agrees. You do not see me seeing Ghostbusters 2016, or Fantastic Four 2015 because they were garbage! Just like how I will not be seeing any Expendables film because they are absolute garbage. Now John Wick? I will watch that all day long.
So it really is not even worth discussing how the action serves the story because in both cases it does not serve the film well.
Since those are rare you think it excuses that awful film.
Batman was saving Superman's mom. As much as I hate that film it did serve a purpose. So no wrong.
Then go support Dredd. Since you fans support macho entertainment why did that bomb? I can tell you it is because you guys can't see past nostalgia bait. Dredd>>Expendables.
It wouldn't matter if Mad Max Fury Road was the last feminist film on earth I would rate it the same. That is the difference between you and me I do not rate things on a curve simply because it is my preference. By that logic if all feminist films were gone except Ghostbusters 2016 would that make it go up in ratings? I would say no but by your logic it should be rated higher in that scenario. See how idiotic that is?
Batman was saving Superman's mom. As much as I hate that film it did serve a purpose. So no wrong.
Then go support Dredd. Since you fans support macho entertainment why did that bomb?
By that logic if all feminist films were gone except Ghostbusters 2016 would that make it go up in ratings?
The scene was stupid yes but once again I am talking about the action scene in and of itself. In and of itself it is better than anything in Expendables. I hate to admit that because I hate that film with a passion! It however is true.
No it bombed because people are shallow and have no taste. They can't look beyond nostalgia bait and flash. I take a competently made film over something that makes the hero look cool on a poster. Sure if a hero looks cool it is a bonus but in the end for me substance over flash. Dredd>>>Expendables all day everyday.
Also blatantly false. Mad Max Fury Road is a feminist film but it is not trying to push any agenda, it just is a good film. What is the agenda for that one women are strong? Escaping tyranny? Not all feminist films are trying to push an agenda. Just like not all macho films are trying to push an agenda. There are some right wing films that push agendas as well. You are being hypocritical. If a film is good it is good. It is not what it is about it is how it's about it as to quote Roger Ebert.
In and of itself it is better than anything in Expendables.
No it bombed because people are shallow and have no taste
Not all feminist films are trying to push an agenda.
Does not matter as I said I was talking about the action in and of itself. John Wick had better filmed and choreographed fights than the dark knight trilogy. Overall The dark knight films are considered better films.
I do not need a big star in order for me to enjoy a film.
We judge them in case by case basis. Mad Max Fury Road>>>Expendables bottom line. There are right wing films that push agendas as well. The only difference is it's not the majority. If it was flipped it would be the same just reversed.
I do not need a big star in order for me to enjoy a film.
The only difference is it's not the majority
Well and that is where ignorance comes in. With that logic how would you ever give up and coming actors a chance if you will only watch big stars? Second I enjoy a star I like as much as the next guy, but I would rather watch a competently made film than a garbage film with my favorite star in it. Which is why Dredd is seen as a better film than Expendables by critics and users.
Again irrelevant. If the script was flipped you would get pandering right wing films as well. How about those marijuana commercials back in the day huh? Those had no agenda at all and were completely truthful lol.
Well and that is where ignorance comes in. With that logic how would you ever give up and coming actors a chance if you will only watch big stars?
If the script was flipped you would get pandering right wing films as well.
Yeah but again what if someone goes nope not seeing that they are not a big star? They start by being no names and people watching the film. As I stated earlier I would rather watch a competently made film with no big star than a garbage film with my favorite star in it.
Which is why I said IF genius.
Yeah but again what if someone goes nope not seeing that they are not a big star? They start by being no names and people watching the film.
Again this could have been a breakout role had people simply watched the film. Also no to both of those choices! Statham is a good action star but lacks the height to make Dredd imposing. Vin Diesel has the height and voice but is uninspired casting. I do not want to see Riddick again. Urban makes for a great Dredd and it is not riding off the star's power. I personally prefer that. A competent film with no stars is better than a garbage film with stars in it.
shareAgain this could have been a breakout role had people simply watched the film.
Urban makes for a great Dredd and it is not riding off the star's power. I personally prefer that
Once again responding up here because the thread is too long.
This is also completely false. Judge Dredd and Dredd are actually rather comparable in terms of box office. Judge Dredd had a budget of 85-90 million dollars. It grossed 113.5 million in the box office. Dredd had a budget of 30-45 million it grossed 41.5 million in the box office. So the edge goes to Judge Dredd but barely it is rather close. That had Stallone as the star in it. Now one was a terrible film and the other was good but in the end people need to look past star power. A shallow way to judge a film. Also Dredd being an established character makes no difference. Jackman got a gigantic career boost from Wolverine as did Bale for Batman. So no you do not need a big name people simply need to look past star power.
Does not matter what people will shell out the bucks to see. Dredd is seen as a better film than the Expendables is. Unfortunately nostalgia bait fooled people into seeing Expendables over Dredd.
This is also completely false. Judge Dredd and Dredd are actually rather comparable in terms of box office. Judge Dredd had a budget of 85-90 million dollars. It grossed 113.5 million in the box office. Dredd had a budget of 30-45 million it grossed 41.5 million in the box office. So the edge goes to Judge Dredd but barely it is rather close.
Jackman got a gigantic career boost from Wolverine as did Bale for Batman. So no you do not need a big name people simply need to look past star power.
Unfortunately nostalgia bait fooled people into seeing Expendables over Dredd.
Nope remember it also had a much larger marketing budget as well. Also remember we are talking gross wise which Dredd and Judge Dredd had similar results. The Blair Witch is considered one of the most profitable films of all time because of it's budget vs it's gross in the box office. Judge Dredd and Dredd actually did similar numbers when you account for budget. Dredd had a much smaller budget than Judge Dredd did which means it had less money to advertise itself. You care about what is marketable to the sheep of the world, I care about quality film making. I personally do not need a big star to enjoy a film. As I said before I take a competent well made film with no stars than a crap film starring my favorite star. Unfortunately sheep such as yourself are more into nostalgia bait than you are quality film making. Why did Dredd receive better scores unanimously over Expendables despite grossing less money? So would it make more money? Yes but you are not accounting for something. If you get a big star that costs more money which means less can go into the film itself. Therefore you have less money to put into the film. Unless the star is willing to take a small check which lots of times does not happen.
Does not really matter buddy. You side stepped Bale as well. Anyway as you see now Urban is starring in the Boys which is considered a great tv series. That could have been a breakout role if people had just shown up to see it. Most big films do anchor it down by casting big stars but in the end that is not a requirement to make a great film. What big stars did District 9 have? It was the best scifi the year it was released. District 9 was a way better film than Terminator Salvation was. Even though Salvation had Bale in it. You and other sheep may need that I do not I prefer quality film making over name recognition.
Well do what you want I take competent film making over marketability.
. Judge Dredd and Dredd actually did similar numbers when you account for budget.
If you get a big star that costs more money which means less can go into the film itself. Therefore you have less money to put into the film. Unless the star is willing to take a small check which lots of times does not happen.
You side stepped Bale as well.
Anyway as you see now Urban is starring in the Boys which is considered a great tv series. That could have been a breakout role if people had just shown up to see it.
See but that is just it he could have done it had people not been ignorant. District 9 is a great film despite not having any big stars to back it. As I said before I believe sometimes having a big star takes away from a film. Jim Carrey being the Riddler in Batman Forever made me not see the character but Jim Carrey doing his daily routine. I do not need Stallone or some big star to be entertained and think the film is good. District 9 is great despite not having any big stars in the film.
Yes but it still plays into what I said. Do you always need a big name to sell an action film? District 9 says hi. Second I prefer the actor getting the role because they are best suited for the job not because of their star power. Carrey got the Riddler because of who he is not because he was the most suited for the role. Urban was more suited for the role than Stallone would be in 2012.
Yes but Batman Begins really launched his stardom.
See but that is your opinion. To me people should look past star power and prefer a competently made film over a crap film with their favorite star in it. I do not buy into paying dues. Either the star did good or they did not. You do not judge films on a curve on whether the actor has paid their dues or not. By that logic we should downvote Sharlto Copley's performance in District 9.
District 9 is a great film despite not having any big stars to back it.
Jim Carrey being the Riddler in Batman Forever made me not see the character but Jim Carrey doing his daily routine.
District 9 says hi.
To me people should look past star power and prefer a competently made film over a crap film with their favorite star in it
I do not buy into paying dues
Again that really should not matter to people. Would District 9 have been any better with a big star in the film? Yes it's selling point was it's special effects but it showcases that you do not need a big star to make a great film. Dredd was a well made film it just did not get support from audiences. It is shallow to not give a film a chance simply because there are no big stars in it. Use your brain and support well made films over nostalgia bait. You are making excuses for the masses to be sheep. The marketing is a problem of the marketing not the movie itself. Your logic is also flawed here because Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford and Jared Leto were in Blade Runner 2049 and it still did not do well in the box office.
It was a bad film but my point stands. Carrey got the role of the Riddler because of his star power not because they thought he was the best suited for the role. This can work but I prefer more inspired acting performances. Ledger's Joker was better than Nicholson's a large part because of this reason.
Neither was Blade Runner 2049 and it still did not perform that well.
I am aware that is not how the real world works, but it should. Watch a terrible film with my favorite star in it or watch a good film with no stars in it? You should not even have to contemplate this decision it is an obvious one. Nostalgia bait matters more to you than quality film making. Which is why you made the ignorant claim Expendables were excellent films and better than Mad Max Fury Road.
No actually by that logic no actor would have been nominated for an Oscar for an acting debut. Anna Paquin won an Oscar for her acting debut in the Piano. Quvenzhané Wallis was nominated for an Oscar in for the film Beasts of the Southern Wild. I could continue but that illustrates my point rather well.
Yes it's selling point was it's special effects but it showcases that you do not need a big star to make a great film.
It is shallow to not give a film a chance simply because there are no big stars in it.
Your logic is also flawed here because Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford and Jared Leto were in Blade Runner 2049 and it still did not do well in the box office.
Watch a terrible film with my favorite star in it or watch a good film with no stars in it?
No actually by that logic no actor would have been nominated for an Oscar for an acting debut.
First of all Independence Day while a bigger box office hit was nowhere near the film District 9 was. Second yes but this proves my point you can make a good film without having a big star attached to it. Poor marketing is not how we judge a film when watching it. We judge the film in and of itself. Many great films are marketed poorly that does not make them any less of a film. It just dampens their success.
No it is called being shallow and not using your brain. I myself am a fan of Adkins but in the end I can see pasty brand and you can not. Who was Joe Taslim, Iko Uwais and Yayan Ruhian before the Raid? The Raid is what put all those guys on the map and was considered a great action film. Something like the Expendables is going to make more simply because of name recognition and nostalgia bait. It is quite similar to how no matter how crap McDonalds food is, it is a recognizable brand that people will always pay for. As people we should have higher standards than that.
Wow you could not be more wrong! Blade Runner 2049 was one of the best science fiction films ever and one of the best sequels in years. Poor word of mouth? Blade Runner 2049 got great acclaim from critics and audiences. It has a user score of 8.1 on metacritic, 4/5 score from audience on Rottentomatoes and it has a 8.0 on imdb. So um no the overwhelming majority considers it a great film. The reason it tanked was not word of mouth it is because your average Joe does not like more slow subtle nuanced films that make you think. The first Blade Runner did not do well in the box office either even though it had a huge star in Harrison Ford as the lead. Now it is considered a classic piece of cinema. So no you could not be more wrong here.
No I stand by what I said. I do not care who is in a film if it is garbage. I will watch a good film with no stars over a garbage film with stars I like in it.
Not the same thing. That means that person is not well suited for the role.
Second yes but this proves my point you can make a good film without having a big star attached to it.
The Raid is what put all those guys on the map and was considered a great action film.
So um no the overwhelming majority considers it a great film. The reason it tanked was not word of mouth it is because your average Joe does not like more slow subtle nuanced films that make you think.
Not the same thing. That means that person is not well suited for the role.
Dredd the main character had a helmet on the entire film. Lets say you cast a big name star and it is exactly the same film just swap out actors. People want to se the face of a big name actor in movies they do not want them fully covered. The people you are mentioning are fully exposed therefore their charisma can fully shine through. Bruce Campbell and Kurt Russel are not covered like Karl Urban is.
Even though it is not great and is a bit subdued it is competent. The Expendables is not even competent it is awful. Again Bruce Campbell and Kurt Russel are exposed in those films do you want that same thing for Dredd? Aren't you one who is dead set on the character looking like their comic book counterpart?
Wrong. Do I need to point you to the user scores again? What were the user scores for Blade Runner 2049? All of the websites I listed you to it got great acclaim from the mass majority. It simply is a hard sell to a massive audience. Just because something does not make money or is not marketable does not mean it is not a great product. The first Blade Runner suffered the same fate. You telling me that is not a great film now? Blade Runner 2049 is considered a great film by the mass majority you were wrong in claiming it was not.
Serviceable is better than terrible which is what Expendables was.
People want to se the face of a big name actor in movies they do not want them fully covered.
Aren't you one who is dead set on the character looking like their comic book counterpart?
All of the websites I listed you to it got great acclaim from the mass majority.
Blade Runner 2049 is considered a great film by the mass majority you were wrong in claiming it was not.
Yep exactly my point. If you do not see the actors face then why is it such a big deal if they are a big star? Bruce Campbell and Kurt Russel are allowed to showcase their full charisma because they are completely exposed. So yes I know that was a major complaint of the film about him taking his helmet off. Which illustrates my point Dredd was a better film than Judge Dredd despite not having a big star.
Ray Park is loved because of his physical abilities not necessarily his acting range. Which is why he works as darth maul. Little to no lines and covered in heavy makeup. Same goes for Snake Eyes. Bruce Campbell and Kurt Russel get by on their charismatic acting and line delivery not their physical athletic abilities. Bad comparison apples to oranges.
It is what the majority of what people who saw the film thought. Blade Runner is never going to be a massive mega success because it is too nuanced slow and subtle. History repeated itself both times with both Blade Runner films. People should be willing to venture outside of their comfort zone and support good films rather than nostalgia bait and brand recognition.
And? Blade Runner is considered a cinematic classic. Thing is so is Blade Runner 2049. Oh man you were not as good as Citizen Kane for shame! No a movie can still be great while not being quite as good as the predecessor. I personally like Blade Runner 2049 over Blade Runner. I think both are great but I prefer the 2nd one actually. Better paced? No if the first was so perfect why were there so many different versions of it? Your logic is so ignorant it is painful. You said oh Road Warrior had the best chase scene in film history. So since according to you Fury Road did not live up to that it is a gigantic slight against the film. Where as with Expendables you go well at least it was not total crap so then you give it a pass as being an excellent film. Quite stupid buddy.
Yep exactly my point. If you do not see the actors face then why is it such a big deal if they are a big star?
People should be willing to venture outside of their comfort zone and support good films rather than nostalgia bait and brand recognition.
if the first was so perfect why were there so many different versions of it? Your logic is so ignorant it is painful
Where as with Expendables you go well at least it was not total crap so then you give it a pass as being an excellent film.
Again I do not agree. I feel sometimes giving a role to a star simply because they are a star for name recognition reeks of desperation. Karl Urban acted great and was terrific as Dredd. He is a talented actor that had tons of charisma. People like you just could not get on board because you require a big star. When you do not recognize the stars in the film it helps just see the character rather than the star. Which is why Ledger blends into his character being the Joker better than Nicholson did.
See but it is stupid to be that way. I have my preferences as well but I am willing to venture outside of them. If it is good and something I love then I am there all the way to support it. However just because it caters to my likes that does not mean I will give it a pass based on nostalgia or brand recognition. You still need to produce a good quality product.
The Dark Knight does not, Django Unchained does not, Pulp Fiction does not. There are many popular films that do not have multiple cuts.
I caught you in a lie. First you said it was better than Mad Max Fury Road. You also said these words verbatim.
Those are excellent films, and only exist because Stallone produced them and WILLED them into existence, but Expendables 3 came out seven years ago.
I feel sometimes giving a role to a star simply because they are a star for name recognition reeks of desperation.
I have my preferences as well but I am willing to venture outside of them.
There are many popular films that do not have multiple cuts.
Checkmate!
No it did not. That is simply your preference. I myself do not need a big star to sell a character or a film. I judge it based on if the product is good or not. Dredd>>>Expendables bottom line.
The right reason did exist they made a good film. That is all you need to do.
So this disproves your point.
Yes you did lie. Lets quote you verbatim.
Never said it was excellent. Said it was enjoyable for what it was.
Those are excellent films, and only exist because Stallone produced them and WILLED them into existence, but Expendables 3 came out seven years ago.
No it did not. That is simply your preference.
You said those were excellent films which is plural. You did not say the second one specifically is excellent.
Again I can look at plenty of films with big stars that did not do well in the box office. The first Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049, The Thing 1982 which stars your guy Kurt Russel, oh wait remember Big Trouble in Little China also starring him? The insider with Russel Crowe and Al Pacino. The Lone Ranger with Johnny Depp. I could keep going but this disproved your claim. It could have possibly still bombed even with a big star.
No you are backpedaling now. You lied and got caught. If the second Expendables is excellent why did Dredd beat it in critical and by user scores? Dredd is better than any expendables film. Nowhere do you see stock footage used in Dredd during an action scene. Laughable. Also you wouldn't of said those films are excellent you would have specifically referred to the second Expendables specifically. Even if I believed you it would make no difference the second one is far from excellent also.
It could have possibly still bombed even with a big star.
No you are backpedaling now. You lied and got caught. If the second Expendables is excellent why did Dredd beat it in critical and by user scores?
Things also change over time. Either way I proved that a movie can bomb with a big star even if it's a good film.
No that simply means it's more marketable nothing more. Blade Runner is considered a great film it has no chance at beating a film like Star Wars in the box office. Mad Max Fury Road beat Expendables 2 in user scores critical scores and box office. So um how is Expendables 2 better again? The dark knight is better than any Marvel movie but there are MCU films which grossed more than it. So no wrong. You are simply desperate now since you lost the debate.
Either way I proved that a movie can bomb with a big star even if it's a good film.
You are simply desperate now since you lost the debate.
No way to prove that. That is simply an educated guess. How does stuff like the Nice Guys bomb? Big names yet still did poorly in the box office.
No I am dismantling your point. You attempted to use Expendables 2's box office numbers as a means to say it was better than Dredd. You also claimed Expendables 2 to be better than Mad Max Fury Road. How did Mad Max Fury Road beat it at every turn if it is better? Also Dredd is seen as better than any Expendables film. Just because a film is more marketable does not make it the better film.
How does stuff like the Nice Guys bomb? Big names yet still did poorly in the box office.
Just because a film is more marketable does not make it the better film.
Which is a shame since Karl Urban gave a solid performance as Dredd. A shallow way to judge a film. I judge it by if it is a good film or not, not based on who is in it.
Not based on user scores. Expendables 2 is more marketable because of the nostalgia bait and star power. Making more money does not mean people thought it was a better film. If you want something based off nostalgia that is actually done tastefully is Creed. Which is why it got way better user scores than any expendables film.
You do not need a bigger than life martial arts star to play a martial arts action hero. You need a martial artist actor even if they are just starting out. If no one had seen Joe Taslim ever before and he was Sub Zero and they truly showcased his martial arts abilities nobody would complain.
shareI think you missed the point of the ending... it sets it up for the sequel - Army of the Dead: Mexico City
shareTotally agree with this dude. Had the very same reaction. Fuck this movie.
sharehe was a nothing character. even the lead with his cliche father-daughter story was one dimensional. they all should have died.
shareI think he is already a zombie when he finds the bite. He is the next evolution of Snyder zombie.
share!!! Plot twist!!!
This would (quite neatly) explain how he escaped from the safe/fallout from the nuke/absurdly grueling trip to the plane.
Huh.
Too bad there's NO CHANCE this is what actually happens in the next movie. . .
[deleted]
I agree, the ending was really disappointing, especially because I thought Vaderohe was heading to take revenge on Tanaka, but NO, he had to become a zombie instead. Really frustrating.
But what truly pissed me was: how come he only realized he was bitten ON THE PLANE? All the time he spent until that moment, and he never found out that ENORMOUS bite? Is it impossible? Obviously not. But is it likely or credible? NOT AT ALL.
Plot twist, he could have bitten Tanaka and started enough tribe of alpha's. Than Tanaka's surviving henchmen hunt him down for his head.
shareI was a little confused. Didn't we SEE him get bitten? I wasn't surprised because I swear I remember seeing him get bitten by the alpha.
share