Re: Movies are awesome
Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 11:40 am
The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.
Welcoming all views from the Transformers community
https://tfviews.com/forums/
I think we have to assume that most people would be happy to have missing family and friends back, and that it will be worth all the problems that situation creates. Scott Lang's daughter certainly doesn't complain about "another mouth to feed" or anything along those lines. She's just glad to see her dad alive.Dominic wrote:The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.
Finding temporary housing until their homes could be fixed up really wouldn't be a big issue. Again, pointing to Fukushima as an example, Japan's government set up for the people that had to be evacuated to stay someplace else until their homes were safe to return to (while many understandably chose to move elsewhere). Really, given the unprecedented nature of having half the population disappearing, I'd have to imagine the government and other organizations would set up various programs to forgive things like late mortgage payments, finding new jobs and the like. And it's really not a situation of the population just suddenly doubling. That makes it sound like that population never existed before. Rather, it's the population returning. A lot of what had been in place when they disappeared would still be in place when they returned, making the transition a little bit easier. I'm not saying it wouldn't be with out difficulties, but it wouldn't be any more or less potentially disastrous as half the population disappearing in the first place.Shockwave wrote:I don't think structures or infrastructure would be the main problem. There's a whole show about derelict homes being renovated into livable properties and some of those are in nice neighborhoods. The biggest problem would be for people whose homes fell into disrepair or otherwise became unlivable and needing somewhere to go while it's being restored. Some people might have jobs waiting for them. Most probably wouldn't and that would probably be the biggest strain. Also, people's homes probably wouldn't be theirs anymore after years of not being able to make mortgage payments and what not. It would be a pretty big disaster and I definitely think having the world's population suddenly double would be a strain no one would be prepared to deal with. Losing half the population would be bad as well, but would be easier to manage in terms of available resources.
Like andersonh1 said, the movie understandably doesn't really address it all that much.Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.
Exactly. And it's obviously very much debatable the situation would be a "much worst problem". Plus, I'd have to assume the upcoming movies will address some of this.andersonh1 wrote:I think we have to assume that most people would be happy to have missing family and friends back, and that it will be worth all the problems that situation creates. Scott Lang's daughter certainly doesn't complain about "another mouth to feed" or anything along those lines. She's just glad to see her dad alive.Dominic wrote:The problem is that the Avengers do not solve a problem so much as they create a much worse problem. And, the movie ignores this entirely.
I think they will, though how much is up for debate. With all the ongoing narratives in the movies so far, they're not going to stop that approach any time soon. We already knowSparky Prime wrote: Plus, I'd have to assume the upcoming movies will address some of this.
I don't think that's necessary. I've been mousing over them anyway. I'm still going to see it and enjoy it and reading what happens isn't going to affect that.andersonh1 wrote:Are we still doing spoiler tags? I think I'll just be mostly vague.Shockwave wrote:Also, I haven't seen Endgame, my comments are solely based on the context in the discussion here.
It's very good, so don't let these questions about the implications of the plot make you think it's a poorly thought out movie. It just doesn't always hit some of these big questions head on, preferring to focus on the reaction of the main characters and how they attempt to deal with the problem, which is understandable. We're not going to a superhero movie to find out about the social problems of a devastated universe, but to watch superheroes tackle that problem.
You do see some indications of abandoned housing and how loss has affected the the population, confined to some brief scenes early in the movie. Apart from Captain America at a sort of group grief counseling session, we mostly see the situation through Scott Lang's point of view. He missed Thanos and the five year aftermath for reasons that come from the what happens to him at the end of Ant Man and the Wasp, so we get to see what he sees as he tries to learn what happened. But the movie never delves too deeply into the logistics being discussed here, and to be fair, it would probably bog down the plot if it did.
You're missing the point. Under a crisis situation, such as needing to evacuate a 12 mile radius around a nuclear power plant due to a nuclear disaster, the government (among other organizations) provided for the people. This would be no different. There'd be programs and the like set up to ensure people got the help they needed.Shockwave wrote:Regarding the Fukushima example, those people were still there and alive and didn't just disappear presumably never to return again. I think banks and corporations and even governments MIGHT forgive some of the debts, but they'd more likely go after any surviving kin, which could potentially put a lot of people into poverty.
I'd have to say that they don't hold up at all personally. I loved these films when they first came out, but I can't even stand to sit through any of them anymore. They just feel so over the top cheesy now. And I never thought Maguire was right for the role of Spider-Man. But I will say I still think they did a good job with the villains. Alfred Molina as Doc Ock especially. And JK Simmons as JJJ was perfect.andersonh1 wrote:we binge-watched the Tobey Maguire series over the weekend. It's the first time I'd watched them in a number of years, and overall they hold up pretty well and remain solid examples of a good superhero movie, albeit with more melodrama and less self-awareness than more modern productions.
The first one is... a decent enough film. There's a few things I didn't like about it in terms of the writing. And with Orci and Kurtzman writing the screenplay for the second one... It's pretty bad. Lots of action and stuff that sounds like it'd be cool, but not a lot of thought behind any of it. Garfield I felt was a much better Spider-Man than Maguire.I have not seen the two reboot movies with Andrew Garfield. Any thoughts on those?