|
|
Post by foxley on Oct 2, 2017 18:25:41 GMT -5
Catwoman! Would it have killed them to have the movie have some connection to the comic book character?! And don't get me started on them using (bad) CGI instead of actual stunt work.
One of the most iconic female characters in comics and they can't get a single damn thing right!
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 22, 2017 19:59:24 GMT -5
Nowhere near the worst as a film, but Dr. Strange was my second biggest cinematic disappointment after Man of Steel. At one point, while Strange and companions were running across sideways buildings, spinning their "sling rings" in 365 degree arcs, I just started laughing and decided I couldn't take the film seriously any longer.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 22, 2017 20:39:32 GMT -5
Nowhere near the worst as a film, but Dr. Strange was my second biggest cinematic disappointment after Man of Steel. At one point, while Strange and companions were running across sideways buildings, spinning their "sling rings" in 365 degree arcs, I just started laughing and decided I couldn't take the film seriously any longer. We've had this conversation before, I know, but yeah...it was a major disappointment for me too. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Nov 22, 2017 21:36:29 GMT -5
We've had this conversation before, I know, but yeah...it was a major disappointment for me too. I'm sorry I missed that conversation. The Doc Strange movie, while a marked improvement over the Peter Hooten/Jessica Walter vehicle, still left much to be desired and/or discarded. Remember though that the good Doctor originally arrived unheralded, buried in the back of Strange Tales #110 behind a generic Human Torch cover. An inauspicious beginning with grave portent. I'm willing to withhold judgment until we see Dr. Strange in his second outing, in full command of his abilities. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,218
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 22, 2017 22:03:06 GMT -5
We've had this conversation before, I know, but yeah...it was a major disappointment for me too. I'm sorry I missed that conversation. The Doc Strange movie, while a marked improvement over the Peter Hooten/Jessica Walter vehicle, still left much to be desired and/or discarded. The short, Reader's Digest version of my thoughts on the film were that, as soon as you start to compare it to the source material it runs into trouble. The problems with the film, as I saw it, were: the CGI effects were wildly uneven; the silly Sling Rings that Strange and others had (which I presume were insisted upon because it was decided that audiences wouldn't buy into Strange entering magical dimensions using just his hands, he needed some kind of "wand") were an out-of-continuity annoyance; it had that same de-saturated look that most of the other Marvel Studios movies have and consequently it looked annoyingly "corporate", for want of a better term; and the total lack of any of Strange's colourful catchphrases, such as "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or "By the Flames of the Flawless Faltine!" were a glaring omission. I basically enjoyed the film while it was playing, but in the days after I saw it, I began to pick holes in it and decided that, actually, it was a 5/10 superhero movie and a 3/10 Dr. Strange movie. Remember though that the good Doctor originally arrived unheralded, buried in the back of Strange Tales #110 behind a generic Human Torch cover. An inauspicious beginning with grave portent. I'm willing to withhold judgment until we see Dr. Strange in his second outing, in full command of his abilities. I think that, given the ropy start that the franchise was given in the first film, the cinematic Dr. Strange is probably dead to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Nov 22, 2017 23:22:27 GMT -5
I think that. . .the cinematic Dr. Strange is probably dead to me.  Actually, thank you for recapping your take. It's clear you have an abiding love for the character and your criticisms are solid. Maybe in two years, we'll re-visit the topic.  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 23, 2017 8:13:19 GMT -5
I'm sorry I missed that conversation. The Doc Strange movie, while a marked improvement over the Peter Hooten/Jessica Walter vehicle, still left much to be desired and/or discarded. The short, Reader's Digest version of my thoughts on the film were that, as soon as you start to compare it to the source material it runs into trouble. The problems with the film, as I saw it, were: the CGI effects were wildly uneven; the silly Sling Rings that Strange and others had (which I presume were insisted upon because it was decided that audiences wouldn't buy into Strange entering magical dimensions using just his hands, he needed some kind of "wand") were an out-of-continuity annoyance; it had that same de-saturated look that most of the other Marvel Studios movies have and consequently it looked annoyingly "corporate", for want of a better term; and the total lack of any of Strange's colourful catchphrases, such as "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or "By the Flames of the Flawless Faltine!" were a glaring omission. I basically enjoyed the film while it was playing, but in the days after I saw it, I began to pick holes in it and decided that, actually, it was a 5/10 superhero movie and a 3/10 Dr. Strange movie. Remember though that the good Doctor originally arrived unheralded, buried in the back of Strange Tales #110 behind a generic Human Torch cover. An inauspicious beginning with grave portent. I'm willing to withhold judgment until we see Dr. Strange in his second outing, in full command of his abilities. I think that, given the ropy start that the franchise was given in the first film, the cinematic Dr. Strange is probably dead to me. Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 23, 2017 8:47:56 GMT -5
I think that, given the ropy start that the franchise was given in the first film, the cinematic Dr. Strange is probably dead to me. Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. Last time I checked, He was being written as the quipping guy in the comics. |
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Nov 23, 2017 8:49:33 GMT -5
I thoroughly enjoyed the Dr. Strange film. I think they got the essence of the books and was not bothered by the changes. (I think the change in Mordo was an improvement from the one dimensional comic character)
The only thing I didn't like was the design of Dormammu. The classic flaming head would have been very cool in CG and what they came up with was weak.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 23, 2017 8:59:59 GMT -5
Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. Last time I checked, He was being written as the quipping guy in the comics. Probably why I don't read the new stuff. I think he's got a "sling ring" there too. The comics are being written to align with the movies now. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Nov 23, 2017 9:05:19 GMT -5
But we'll always have Paris.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 23, 2017 9:35:53 GMT -5
The short, Reader's Digest version of my thoughts on the film were that, as soon as you start to compare it to the source material it runs into trouble. The problems with the film, as I saw it, were: the CGI effects were wildly uneven; the silly Sling Rings that Strange and others had (which I presume were insisted upon because it was decided that audiences wouldn't buy into Strange entering magical dimensions using just his hands, he needed some kind of "wand") were an out-of-continuity annoyance; it had that same de-saturated look that most of the other Marvel Studios movies have and consequently it looked annoyingly "corporate", for want of a better term; and the total lack of any of Strange's colourful catchphrases, such as "By the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth!" or "By the Flames of the Flawless Faltine!" were a glaring omission. I basically enjoyed the film while it was playing, but in the days after I saw it, I began to pick holes in it and decided that, actually, it was a 5/10 superhero movie and a 3/10 Dr. Strange movie. I think that, given the ropy start that the franchise was given in the first film, the cinematic Dr. Strange is probably dead to me. Let me add to all of this that he was Tony Stark in a floating cape. While both characters do begin in similar places, Dr. Strange becomes a very different character once he has completed his training, but Marvel doesn't want accomplished, sure-footed heroes in their films. They want the quipping, inexperienced, self-depracating guys you can have a beer with. That isn't Dr. Strange. Since Tony Stark under Bendis is the future Sorcerer Supreme, that does make a certain amount of sense. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,874
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 23, 2017 10:13:47 GMT -5
But we'll always have Paris. Hey, the CCF is all about reliving Paris  |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 23, 2017 11:02:15 GMT -5
The water-tight doors on the Helicarrier amused me to no end on that one, as an ex-sailor.
"We have a hull breech in deck 13, compartment C!"
"Sound general quarters! Close all water-tight doors to prevent the spread of the flooding......"
"Sir?"
"We're in the air, right?"
"Yes, sir."
"So, what's flooding into the compartment is...."
"Air, sir."
"And we breath air, right?"
"Yes, sir."
"So, all that would spread is...."
"More air, sir."
"Right. Um, okay everyone, relax."
Of course, you'd still need a pressurized hull; but, you wouldn't need the same set-up as an ocean vessel, exactly.
Also, HYDRA looked like they shopped at a surplus store.
As dumb and cheesy as that was, it was still better than Fox's other attempts on tv. This was MST3K-level fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2017 13:11:22 GMT -5
Well, Stark and Strange are the:  |
|
