I'm so glad you're going to react more on vanoss crew stuff. look at the Mission Failed Compilation of theirs, or even Lethal Company, that'd be so funny
Chapters 0:00 Reality TV Is Hell 6:59 Batman And The Nolan Trilogy 41:52 Is Batman REALLY A Fascist? 58:50 The Batman (2022) Is PEAK Cinema 1:24:05 When The MCU Refuses To Innovate 1:42:46 Is Fan Service REALLY A Bad Thing?
I respect thinking the first Into the Spiderverse was better than the sequel, but personally I disagree and it’s not recency bias. I think the story is bigger, it’s funnier, it explores more universes, Gwen is better, the villains are even cooler (and there’s 2 of them), the stakes have been raised to an extreme level. I just think overall it is a step up. However, I still think Into the Spiderverse is still top tier (I just like Across Better). Though don’t know if anything can beat the “scared of the dark” and “leap of faith” scenes
Have to disagree with your take on Hobie aka Spider-Punk. You even honed in on why in your own diatribe against his animation. He's supposed to be out of sync with everyone else. His animation style is an intentional choice and it's *supposed* to be jarring. Different parts of him are animated on different timings like his guitar and his body aren't using the same framerate as everyone else in the movie.
I am a huge spider-man fan.. Wanted to work on a spider-man movie my whole life. Finally managed to do it in Far from home. We did the illusion battle sequence. Man.. it kills me so much when people keep saying its the worst spider-man movie T_T
I feel like all the people that place TASM 2 above it only see is cool visuals and think the film is good. Gwen and Peter are great in TASM but extremely frustrating in TASM 2, all 3 villains look horrible and are horrible, and the sub plot with his dad really ruins it the most. I don’t understand how anyone could hate Far From Hope with a passion but put TASM 2 or even Spider-Man 3 on a pedestal above it.
For me, the issue is more that it is less of a Spider-Man story. It feels more like Pete getting roped into an Avengers movie or Iron Man 4. Makes sense as the entire conflict is because of Tony Stark (all the villain group care about is Tony, not Pete). In general, a lot of the Spider-Man movies focus on the themes of power and responsibility. The numbered titles are obvious (1 is where he balances, 2 is where he is overwhelmed by responsibility and foregoes the power briefly, and 3 is giving insane power with no responsibility), Amazing leans into the consequences of the job (such as Gwen's death or the crane swing) and the MCU's movies are mixed. Homecoming is almost an inverse 2, with Pete being reckless and taking responsibility for a "bigger fish" (Vulture) and being punished for it, only to still fight and earn the power attached. No Way Home, like 2 in a way, is given what he sees as too much responsibility and tries to cheat his way out of it, leading to him needing to take responsibility for what he did and try to make things right. And then there's Far From Home, where the only times the idea of Responsibility come in is with his friends almost dying and giving Mysterio the glasses. Instead, the main "responsibility" focused aspect is that he is being forced into Spider-Man work (good thing super-heroes only seem to exist in the USA, so Nick couldn't call any European super). Yes, changing the setting to Europe is cool and allows for great set pieces (Off the top of my head, Hydroman in Venice and the finale are the main ones) and it has the best scene showcasing Spider-Sense since the Spider-Man matrix shot (For the scene, it's when he's being fired upon from all directions in a cramped hallway and somehow dodged them all). It is definitely better than Amazing 2 and 3 tho.
A number of people probably didn't care for the movie is because they made mcu Spider-man capitalize off of Iron-man. He took on Vulture, a guy with a grudge against Tony Stark, Mysterio, another character with a grudge against Tony Stark. I wish mcu Spider-man actually had villains that didn't have grudges against other marvel heroes first.
@mightguy3118 I agree. I am simply reffering that Spider-man in the mcu was in four films by the time they got to far from home and audiences still have yet to see a Spider-man that isn't relying on help from Tony Stark or his technology him or the company has made to resolve his problems. No Way Home does set the groundwork for it, but Sony wanting to make it a bigger multiverse story than no way home and marvel wanting to add a number of characters to the next Spider-man film makes me curious if it going to end up being heavily a multiverse film or being more an Avengers movie than Spider-man 's movie.
All they see is cool visuals so they think the film is good. Gwen and Peter are great in TASM but extremely frustrating in TASM 2, all 3 villains look horrible and are horrible, and the sun plot with his dad really ruins it the most…
@@keithpace9870 sadly sony only thinks about money and what's been popular recently But never think About what's best for the Future. Getting a classic street level spiderman which we haven't gotten in so long is bound to make a ton of money. Especially since this will be the first time tom hollands Spider-Man can finally be the independent Spider-Man we're used to and not be a wannabe iron man
The mcu Spider-Man has always bored the hell out of me. The jokes were always cringey and embarrassing, even in the theater. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is underrated imo
Solos ship is not sinking. He did his part in helping Jacob get over - clearly enjoying the carnage. Solo is doing what needs to be done to help the team get over. He has the best interests of the team in mind. He is not just thinking of himself.
I'd be down with a sequel if there was zero human characters. Just dinosaurs fucking around doing dinosaurs shit. They do dinosaurs well we don't need human characters. And if you have to have them give them no dialogue and they just get eaten.
Being 100% honest here... Jurassic Park was a fantastic movie, with massive flaws that didn't age well. For example There are two different T-rex designs in that movie, one for the animatronic, one for the CG and they don't actually look the same so it's a little jarring to see the t-rex transform between scenes. The reason people hold it in such high regard is because there are sequels. Let's say only the first movie existed? 95% of the fanbase and community wouldn't exist either, and Jurrasic Park would be a random no-name movie that included Dinosaurs by this point. One of those films that was at one point big but got overshadowed by later productions, and was niche in its approach to begin with so had a hard time reaching a wider audience. Whenever you talk to the modern Jurassic Park community it's almost never the first movie that got them into the franchise. For most people it's the Lost World, or Jurassic Park III. I have multiple friends who have only watched Jurassic World and that's what their experience of the franchise is. In fact I know someone who specifically states that the reason she'll never watch Jurassic Park I, II, or III is because the community of those movies are "Elitist pricks with a stick shoved so far up their ass that they don't know the difference between a Dilophosaurus and a Monolophosaurus but will try to lecture you on them anyway" I'm not even sure I'd call Jurassic park the best of the movies anymore tbh. Like thinking about that Movie in Hindsight I can only really remember the introduction of the Brachiosaurus, The T-rex chasing the Car, the Velociraptors, and the Final segment clearly. And whenever I look back at the movie it's basically "A movie about dinosaurs eating people" and that's pretty much it. In terms of world building it presents a really fun and interesting world, but doesn't explore it, the movie hyper focuses on one location, and that isolated element helps what the movie does good, but as time has gone on has become a part of the negative side of the movie. In essence Jurassic Park is a good movie, but it aged terribly such as when it had issues with continuity where in one scene the car door is open during the T-rex attack, then the next scene it's closed. And even the T-rex looked notably different between scenes. If I were to rank The Jurassic Park/World video Media I've seen it'd look like this: S: Chaos Theory > Battle at Big Rock A: Camp Cretaceous > Jurassic Park: The Lost World B: Jurassic Park III > Jurassic World > Jurassic Park Novel > Jurassic Park: The Lost World Novel C: Jurassic Park > Jurassic World: Dominion Prologue D: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom > Lego Jurassic Park/World Media F: Jurassic World: Dominion And it's important to state that if we're talking about Jurassic Park on Release, within the cultural context of its release I'd put it in A tier, or bottom of S Tier. But at this stage? It's important to acknowledge that the movie was important to cinematic history, and to the development of recent generations, But it's not a 'good' movie by modern standards. I started with Jurassic Park, but I'm also Fully aware that the reason most people think it's amazing is because of rose tinted nostalgia glasses Especially since so many aspects of the movie do not hold up to the standard expected of modern movies, or even at the time. But the film culture was different on its release and at the time it was amazing within that context, but that culture has changed now, and the context that Jurassic Park originally existed in doesn't persist anymore. Generally movies need more content to them now, and the fans of Jurassic Park have updated the franchise successfully with Camp Cretaceous and Chaos Theory which bring back a lot of the atmosphere from the original movies, but updated to current viewing culture. I'd say Jurassic World is better than Jurassic Park, but only because it actually builds on Jurassic Park, and explores the world and lore in a much greater degree while having a theme and message which makes sense inside the context of the Jurassic Franchise, and also outside of it. The biggest complaint I've heard anyone make about Jurassic World is about the CG, and if that's the only thing people can really complain about then that speaks for itself. Other issues the movie has are mainly franchise issues, aka issues that afflict the franchise as a whole rather than the individual movies. Jurassic Park definitively has better characters than Jurassic World, but it's also important to note that Jurassic World focuses on the world of the setting, where Jurassic Park focuses on the characters in the setting. So it's expected for a movie to do better at the thing it focuses on. However the Jurassic World franchise proceeds to build those characters up through the course of the movies where Jurassic Park drops them nearly immediately.
im fine with saying the world trilogy sucks but saying lost world and even to an extent 3 shouldnt exist is criminal and even world has some unique ideas that couldve been made better i think if they didnt go directly from failed idea of an overly ambitious rich man to massive theme park and instead kept world as a smaller park less akin to disney world and more as a zoo wouldve been so much scarier and better and the sequels inability to create any real horror is a masssive dissapointment. i think the scope and scale of the park destroy the more compact and claustrophobic feel of being stuck on an island with dinosaurs and i think thats why camp cretacious gets so much praise since it brings back the feel of lost world etc of exploring abandoned places
Saw this thumbnail next to one that had big text that said "how bad it could it be" and I was thinking that doesn't make sense, The Mummy was great, you got it right.
hi Joker 2 does not Canonize any thing from joker 1 because Arthur and Harley are still unreliable narrators in joker 2 ( they are still insane ) we see the movies through their eyes ( its not that they will remember what you take as true in the first movie and tell it to us in the second movie )
PlayStation is a pay to play console lmaooo I left for the Xbox and don’t regret it got so many games available with gamepass and all PlayStation games on pc now so it’s pointless
This Is What Happens When You Let WWE Cook... What they give the title to someone that has had a title 6 times already it's a new era why not give it to someone that's not had a tilte yet like they did with Damian Priest.
You must really hungry if you say "cook" everytime when it has nothing to do with food. Like who even came with complimenting something saying " they cooked"?
