Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I guess you remember that I didn't like that movie? It was extremely overrated.In all sincerity I do hope the next one is much better.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Molina has a lot of screen time and appears early (trailer spoiled it), so it won't be a long wait.
Good to know. Thanks.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Dafoe has less, but he makes it count and does his own stunts.Not sure if you know, but that was his agreement with Disney. Either they allow him to perform his own stunts - despite his age - or he quits.
Interesting. What's the deal with that? Why did he insist on doing his own stunts?
You made a thread dedicated to Dafoe, you should know.
He is not like other actors. Willem is not a pussy.
Not only he has the biggest cock in the Hollywood (seriously, watch his nude scenes), he does his own stunts, because he likes to. Man digs action.
'Listen, I don't want to just pop in there as a cameo or just fill in in close-ups. I want to do the action because that's fun for me."
"It's really impossible to add any integrity or any fun to the character if you don't participate in these things because all that action stuff informs your relationship to the characters and the story, and also it makes you earn your right to play the character."
Article:
https://www.insider.com/spider-man-no-way-home-willem-dafoe-didnt-want-contrived-cameo-2021-12
Youtube (less than 5 minutes):
Right, because he's a dedicated actor. That seems like a no-brainer!
Thanks for the info, though.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
You made a thread dedicated to Dafoe, you should know.
I know. I have sinned. Please forgive me, Holy One!
I just haven't given a single shit about the new Spiderman, and honestly I'm a little mad at Disney for forcing me to watch it, haha.. I will probably eventually.
Plenty of good actors who are afraid of doing any stunts.
Willem just operates on a different level. Love the way he elaborated on the subject, too - makes perfect sense.
He is 66 now, so it's not as easy as it sounds. Not only you need to be in a great shape, you need to get the studio to agree, too.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I just haven't given a single shit about the new Spiderman
Yeah, because you're anti-MCU and anti-popular.
Look, if you enjoyed his Osborn in the first Raimi film, you'll love him in this one, too.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Plenty of good actors who are afraid of doing any stunts.
Sure.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
He is 66 now, so it's not as easy as it sounds. Not only you need to be in a great shape, you need to get the studio to agree, too.
Yeah, it's impressive. But they're getting to live childhood dreams making these movies. It's extraordinarily fun, I guarantee.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Yeah, because you're anti-MCU and anti-popular.
Not entirely true. There are some great and terrible MCU films. And everything inbetween. I'm interested in entertaining and/or smart films. I like big spectacle stuff as much as the next guy, but I just prefer there to be some substance to it or at least some impressive craft. I think that's what annoyed me so much about Doctor Strange was that it was such a potentially interesting and subtle concept, but it was wasted with awful Beyonce "jokes" and awful astral projection gimmicks. And so far the MCU Spiderman just screams "We Want $$$$$" to me, and not a lot of artistic integrity. Sam Raimi's films were artful and had a singular filmmaker's skillful craft behind them. They were a singular vision and didn't just look like a big corporate money-machine (that is until the 3rd one of course). That and pre-pubescent Peter Parker is just annoying to me. It just doesn't work as well on screen, even though I get that it may actually be more true to the comic character. And while what the MCU has done is impressive and revolutionary, there is also a little bit of the element of kitsch mass-produced products shoved down consumers' throats. When they were delivering good films it was tolerable, but when they shoehorned in Captian Marvel and Spiderman Homecoming when they weren't necessary (and actually hurt the overarching story they were doing with Thanos) it became cringey. So yes, I do like stuff that can cut across the grain a little bit. A little subversion and rebelliousness is often a good thing. Big, corporate committee films tend not to do that.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Look, if you enjoyed his Osborn in the first Raimi film, you'll love him in this one, too.
And I will watch it eventually. For those reasons alone. 🙂
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Sure.
Stuntsmen are treated like shit by Hollywood. Just look at the guy who did stunts for John Rhys-Davies in Lord of the Rings - Brett Beattie. Internet is full of the new articles on this subject. Made me feel really sorry for him and you should know I'm not exactly the most empathetic person on KMC.
He's been given no credit, but the Fellowship actors considered him their equal --- he even got the "Nine" tattoo, as the rest of them.
When the big league actor wants to do his own stunts, studios knows they can't botch anything up, not anymore --- and they're just not used to that 😂
So, you could easily argue that Dafoe is the true superhero here, knowing no harm will done to any stuntsmen rich people don't give a shit about, at least not in his own scenes.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Yeah, it's impressive. But they're getting to live childhood dreams making these movies. It's extraordinarily fun, I guarantee.
Gotta love how he explains that participating in action makes the character feel more real, too.
This is the man who loves his job and understands what this is all about.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Not entirely true. There are some great and terrible MCU films. And everything inbetween. I'm interested in entertaining and/or smart films. I like big spectacle stuff as much as the next guy, but I just prefer there to be some substance to it or at least some impressive craft. I think that's what annoyed me so much about Doctor Strange was that it was such a potentially interesting and subtle concept, but it was wasted with awful Beyonce "jokes" and awful astral projection gimmicks. And so far the MCU Spiderman just screams "We Want $$$$$" to me, and not a lot of artistic integrity. Sam Raimi's films were artful and had a singular filmmaker's skillful craft behind them. They were a singular vision and didn't just look like a big corporate money-machine (that is until the 3rd one of course). That and pre-pubescent Peter Parker is just annoying to me. It just doesn't work as well on screen, even though I get that it may actually be more true to the comic character. And while what the MCU has done is impressive and revolutionary, there is also a little bit of the element of kitsch mass-produced products shoved down consumers' throats. When they were delivering good films it was tolerable, but when they shoehorned in Captian Marvel and Spiderman Homecoming when they weren't necessary (and actually hurt the overarching story they were doing with Thanos) it became cringey. So yes, I do like stuff that can cut across the grain a little bit. A little subversion and rebelliousness is often a good thing. Big, corporate committee films tend not to do that.
Fair enough.
I was mostly just messing with you, but thanks for the reply.
I'll keep it really short, because we shouldn't hijack this thread too much.
Astral projection gimmicks were necessary, in my humble opinion, because they've always played a big part in Dr. Strange's mythos. You just can't skip that part.
I thought you'd find the mirror dimension or the Cloak of Levitation cosplaying as a damn symbiote more annoying.
No Way Home pays a huge tribute to Raimi's films. And does it well. Whole point of the film.
Uses the power of our nostalgia, granted, but that's what all of us secretly wanted.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
And I will watch it eventually. For those reasons alone. 🙂
Aflred Molina is a pretty damn good reason, too.
^
Spoiler:
Look, I loved Church's performance in SM3, but... in No Way Home... he was heavily CGI'd for the 99% of the film and we only see him in the human form near the end of the movie in a very brief scene... and - IMO at least - it looked like a re-used, modified footage from SM3. Could be wrong.While Foxx is definitely less annoying than in TASM2 (no argument here), I can't say either of the TASM villains delivered a good performance.
Then again, even if they did, they still would be outshined by Dafoe and Molina.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWthe actors who played sandman and lizard had scheduling conflicts that prevented them from appearing live in this movie. so any of their "human" appearances are cg.
^Spoiler:
Look, I loved Church's performance in SM3, but... in No Way Home... he was heavily CGI'd for the 99% of the film and we only see him in the human form near the end of the movie in a very brief scene... and - IMO at least - it looked like a re-used, modified footage from SM3. Could be wrong.While Foxx is definitely less annoying than in TASM2 (no argument here), I can't say either of the TASM villains delivered a good performance.
Then again, even if they did, they still would be outshined by Dafoe and Molina.
they did do the va work though.
Originally posted by DeadpoolXXX
the actors who played sandman and lizard had scheduling conflicts that prevented them from appearing live in this movie. so any of their "human" appearances are cg.they did do the va work though.