Ant-Man and the Wasp

[Pizzabeak]

I liked Ant-Man and the Wasp, as I found it somewhat less predictable than the first one. It was also unusually funny, I thought.

At first I didn't like Michael Douglas as Pym, who is known to have a temper, and he depicted it well enough. I didn't like how the film wasn't about that and instead jumped to Lang. Anytime Luis (Michael Peña, the Mexican guy from Observe and Report) said anything, it was just thought provoking to me.

When they showed the sub-atomic realm in the first film I thought it looked interesting. None of my high dose mushroom (you can go to South America, Brazil, to try those and/or a Hoasca tea, where the government allows the Santo Daime and UDV churches to responsibly use the teas for "healing" or "religious purposes" ) or LSD experiences (trips) necessarily put me into places like that, or the mind realm from Dr. Strange. Instead, when Lang went to the quantum realms in this sequel it was more beautiful, needless to say, I would imagine. I wonder why no one talks about that kind of thing? It was also creepy in a way, such as when the waterbear/tardigrades tried to eat him.

I didn't like the first one because it tried too hard to be funny. For some reason this one was hilarious, the humor, in which not every film needs, was at the right level. Once again I thought Giant-Man was a miracle to behold. I wanted to see other heroes like Iron Man or Hawkeye make an appearance and socialize but they didn't. In trying to think of any negative things to say or constructive criticism, I might point out Pym's suit that was in development that Lang wore to assist Hope was a plot device and all it did was make the conflict more challenging for our protagonists. It got tense when it kept not changing when he wanted it to, and made me think about the analog nature of pressing buttons. It's always annoying, I suppose, when something doesn't work when you want it to. It must really invoke the concept of "flow", staying in the groove so as to not miss a beat. Again while Avengers is nice in how it depicts conflict within interpersonal relationships in a tense way, that wasn't as pronounced in this film, and instead featured more pleasant sides of socialization, not always for comedic effect, but to show the reality of archetypes in a process of being put to use.

It had good action although it was more story based. I'm not sure which film had the best fight scenes or excitement.

Infinity War was good, dare I say fun. Winter Soldier and Civil War were probably the craziest.

 

[Jennywocky]

Rewatched Ant-Man/Wasp last night on Netflix.

It's not much to talk about but made me laugh regularly. it seems to succeed mostly on the strength of performance, they have a decent cast, Paul Rudd is extremely likable / sympathetic, and there's some genuinely funny bits in it. Dramatically, though, it's kind of "eh" -- there's even a few clumsy scenes in it (like Bill Foster and Hank Pym talking) that felt like they were written/acted for a B film.

Basically, it could have been stronger, but the writing was a bit under par and and the director really doesn't seem to have much skill in how to direct the cast for emotional continuity over course of the film -- he just tosses them in a scene and lets them act their way through it, which since the casting is good enables the film to not be a wash.

I definitely am tired of the next "science mumbo jumbo" just being tossed clumsily into films. Right now it's "quantum." I think a character even made fun of this in the film (which helps a bit) -- something about "Do you guys even know what this word means, or do you just toss Quantum in front of every sentence to sound smart?" or something).

Even the villains were kind of underwhelming, so it was really about just empathizing with Scott and seeing him succeed.

The repeated stupidity of the FBI/police guy could have been really dumb but I actually found him funny due to the rambled/unpredictable nature of his delivery. Even the end joke, when they're talking about dinner... it goes further than one would expect and it's timed perfectly...

 

[Pizzabeak]

Rewatched Ant-Man/Wasp last night on Netflix.

It's not much to talk about but made me laugh regularly. it seems to succeed mostly on the strength of performance, they have a decent cast, Paul Rudd is extremely likable / sympathetic, and there's some genuinely funny bits in it. Dramatically, though, it's kind of "eh" -- there's even a few clumsy scenes in it (like Bill Foster and Hank Pym talking) that felt like they were written/acted for a B film.

Basically, it could have been stronger, but the writing was a bit under par and and the director really doesn't seem to have much skill in how to direct the cast for emotional continuity over course of the film -- he just tosses them in a scene and lets them act their way through it, which since the casting is good enables the film to not be a wash.

I definitely am tired of the next "science mumbo jumbo" just being tossed clumsily into films. Right now it's "quantum." I think a character even made fun of this in the film (which helps a bit) -- something about "Do you guys even know what this word means, or do you just toss Quantum in front of every sentence to sound smart?" or something).

Even the villains were kind of underwhelming, so it was really about just empathizing with Scott and seeing him succeed.

The repeated stupidity of the FBI/police guy could have been really dumb but I actually found him funny due to the rambled/unpredictable nature of his delivery. Even the end joke, when they're talking about dinner... it goes further than one would expect and it's timed perfectly...

Well sure, all decent opinions. I just wanted to see how they'd tie it all together.

The villains in here weren't the most super compared to, say, Baron Zemo in Civil War or any of the bad guys (antagonists) Iron Man faced. Even Zemo's portrayal wasn't the most accurate to the source material, which they don't always go for, much to the detriment of people who want to see the movie, and therein they try to find out everything about it, in excitement, before it even comes out. They use some artistic licensing in adaptations as the creators either "don't care" what the adapters do, have no control/no say in the deal, or it's that they are separate works altogether, not always tie ins, or just statements and irony or critique expounding a moral lesson as theatre is known to do. Even though his face wasn't messed up at first they still went with that version, unless it was just an origin story then in any sequels he'll wear a costume. I don't call myself an "intellectual", and pretty much stopped watching films a few years ago, although I still discuss them theoretically and if I see any new ones it makes me want to watch some classics. It's hard for film to compete with TV these days as a lot of folk consider it more advanced than cinema now.

It made me think maybe they were doing a Dr. Doom reference since Fantastic Four was remade and they turned Victor von Doom into a computer nerd introvert loner. He didn't use his feelings enough or had a harder time being warm to others compared to Reed. Julian McMahon's Doom wasn't really the "true" one or the original representation of him, since he only had small scars he donned the helmet for more protection. However, his face ended getting burned anyway because the Human Torch (Iron Man doesn't have this problem, maybe Doom can imbue his with extra protection abilities). Even when his face gets healed and goes back to normal he still used it, for protection and to prevent extra damage, regardless how long it may last. The mask is a "theme". He got into an accident as a scholar in college and then it was only further exacerbated, and most people know the version of the story of how he didn't "read the fine print" and had the mask mess his face up even more. It doesn't mean that if you know about the character in real life the same exact thing has to happen to you (I'm not sure what kind of social opportunism that is). Like I said, Iron Man is a good example of a character to use for that then, or maybe even The Hulk or Dr. Manhattan. It doesn't quite make sense.

I definitely am tired of the next "science mumbo jumbo" just being tossed clumsily into films. Right now it's "quantum." I think a character even made fun of this in the film (which helps a bit) -- something about "Do you guys even know what this word means, or do you just toss Quantum in front of every sentence to sound smart?" or something).

Yeah there was pretty decent comedy, partly because I didn't want to laugh but it surprised me and wasn't troubling to get into. When I'm busy it's hard to watch a movie or show or cartoon and pay attention to it, since I think people are usually multitasking and just have the TV on in the back for extra noise or anything, so even though it wasn't the deepest film or Marvel MCU entry, it was still decent and like I said, better than the first, I thought. I didn't hate the first, just was thinking about how they made a Lang movie instead of Pym. And yeah, quantum physics was always supposed to be discombobulating to the mind's ability to ponder, at first. Now, we have made more developments in physics and the goal was to produce a GUT, so usually, if anyone says they understand it or aren't confused by it, you could take it to mean they're lying since not everyone has a Masters or Graduate Degree in Science or Physics. Even laymen aren't experts who just read a popular science book. I've been in school my whole life taking science classes and studying it. It takes 15+ years of math starting from basic arithmetic to college level differential equations and statistics just to get a basic grasp of the geometry. That all works for jokes, you can basically say if someone doesn't have a degree then they can't talk about it. You have to take a test and prove you can? Anything like that doesn't mean other people are proficient at deconstructing any "logical inconsistencies" even though they may be able to merely point something similar out. Some people do just talk out of their ass the whole time, because they just look at you, then can "see what's missing", hoping saying something out loud and using breath/air proves their smarter than someone else at last.

It's more so about time and chance, statistically. Physics is obviously about motion, and so quanta just describes packets of energy. Sounding smart and being smart can be described as two different things, if you got a science degree in physics does that mean you're smart or intelligent? According to that all you have to do is say "you're not smart", then that means it's true? Is it the artists, poets, writers, musicians who are intelligent instead of the people who work in a lab? Is a rapper or guitar player or lead singer smarter than an engineer or scientist? What if someone is multi-talented? What would the smartest thing for them to focus on be? Should all their skills and talents be of equal practicality?

 

[Jennywocky]

The villains in here weren't the most super compared to, say, Baron Zemo in Civil War or any of the bad guys (antagonists) Iron Man faced. Even Zemo's portrayal wasn't the most accurate to the source material, which they don't always go for, much to the detriment of people who want to see the movie, and therein they try to find out everything about it, in excitement, before it even comes out. They use some artistic licensing in adaptations as the creators either "don't care" what the adapters do, have no control/no say in the deal, or it's that they are separate works altogether, not always tie ins, or just statements and irony or critique expounding a moral lesson as theatre is known to do. Even though his face wasn't messed up at first they still went with that version, unless it was just an origin story then in any sequels he'll wear a costume. I don't call myself an "intellectual", and pretty much stopped watching films a few years ago, although I still discuss them theoretically and if I see any new ones it makes me want to watch some classics. It's hard for film to compete with TV these days as a lot of folk consider it more advanced than cinema now.

Not as much a deviation as the Mandarin was in Iron Man 3, honestly.

I was okay with Zemo. I've seen a lot of scarred super villains. (Heck, Crossbones was in the same film. Yawn.) They could have called him anything else, I guess, to avoid tying it to an existing character. I found him more interesting than Strucker. I could identify with his motivations. I like the idea that a non-powered person could find the means to destroy the Avengers, the entire movie's kind of a fake-out but not in a way that feels as cheap as The Mandarin can, because it's hinted at throughout the film.

Someone was commenting on GoT regarding "good" reveals vs "bad" ones, and the good ones typically are both surprising and unsurprising because as soon as the reveal happens, you realize all the evidence was there but you were just misdirected.

Yeah there was pretty decent comedy, partly because I didn't want to laugh but it surprised me and wasn't troubling to get into. When I'm busy it's hard to watch a movie or show or cartoon and pay attention to it, since I think people are usually multitasking and just have the TV on in the back for extra noise or anything, so even though it wasn't the deepest film or Marvel MCU entry

yeah, one reason I had this on again was because I was doing my daily steps in my living room and thus needed to walk for an hour. I knew the film wasn't that demanding in terms of paying attention. So it has its uses.

. And yeah, quantum physics was always supposed to be discombobulating to the mind's ability to ponder, at first. Now, we have made more developments in physics and the goal was to produce a GUT, so usually, if anyone says they understand it or aren't confused by it, you could take it to mean they're lying since not everyone has a Masters or Graduate Degree in Science or Physics. Even laymen aren't experts who just read a popular science book. I've been in school my whole life taking science classes and studying it. It takes 15+ years of math starting from basic arithmetic to college level differential equations and statistics just to get a basic grasp of the geometry. That all works for jokes, you can basically say if someone doesn't have a degree then they can't talk about it. You have to take a test and prove you can? Anything like that doesn't mean other people are proficient at deconstructing any "logical inconsistencies" even though they may be able to merely point something similar out. Some people do just talk out of their ass the whole time, because they just look at you, then can "see what's missing", hoping saying something out loud and using breath/air proves their smarter than someone else at last.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-common-myths-quantum-physics.html

It's more so about time and chance, statistically. Physics is obviously about motion, and so quanta just describes packets of energy. Sounding smart and being smart can be described as two different things, if you got a science degree in physics does that mean you're smart or intelligent? According to that all you have to do is say "you're not smart", then that means it's true? Is it the artists, poets, writers, musicians who are intelligent instead of the people who work in a lab? Is a rapper or guitar player or lead singer smarter than an engineer or scientist? What if someone is multi-talented? What would the smartest thing for them to focus on be? Should all their skills and talents be of equal practicality?

All skills are useful in the right context. Even Animal Handling could save your party's life in DnD, although Stealth and Acrobatics might have more obvious value in fights.

People are attuned to different types of patterning and different types of data integration / recall. Think about all the uses there are for computers; some might take a little storage, some a lot; some can take immense processing power, others little; but the output can still be insightful and revelatory, depending on what it is and what you were looking for.

Each situation and package of goals calls for its own disciplines and expertise.

 

[Pizzabeak]

The villains in here weren't the most super compared to, say, Baron Zemo in Civil War or any of the bad guys (antagonists) Iron Man faced. Even Zemo's portrayal wasn't the most accurate to the source material, which they don't always go for, much to the detriment of people who want to see the movie, and therein they try to find out everything about it, in excitement, before it even comes out. They use some artistic licensing in adaptations as the creators either "don't care" what the adapters do, have no control/no say in the deal, or it's that they are separate works altogether, not always tie ins, or just statements and irony or critique expounding a moral lesson as theatre is known to do. Even though his face wasn't messed up at first they still went with that version, unless it was just an origin story then in any sequels he'll wear a costume. I don't call myself an "intellectual", and pretty much stopped watching films a few years ago, although I still discuss them theoretically and if I see any new ones it makes me want to watch some classics. It's hard for film to compete with TV these days as a lot of folk consider it more advanced than cinema now.

Not as much a deviation as the Mandarin was in Iron Man 3, honestly.

I was okay with Zemo. I've seen a lot of scarred super villains. (Heck, Crossbones was in the same film. Yawn.) They could have called him anything else, I guess, to avoid tying it to an existing character. I found him more interesting than Strucker. I could identify with his motivations. I like the idea that a non-powered person could find the means to destroy the Avengers, the entire movie's kind of a fake-out but not in a way that feels as cheap as The Mandarin can, because it's hinted at throughout the film.

Someone was commenting on GoT regarding "good" reveals vs "bad" ones, and the good ones typically are both surprising and unsurprising because as soon as the reveal happens, you realize all the evidence was there but you were just misdirected.

Yeah there was pretty decent comedy, partly because I didn't want to laugh but it surprised me and wasn't troubling to get into. When I'm busy it's hard to watch a movie or show or cartoon and pay attention to it, since I think people are usually multitasking and just have the TV on in the back for extra noise or anything, so even though it wasn't the deepest film or Marvel MCU entry

yeah, one reason I had this on again was because I was doing my daily steps in my living room and thus needed to walk for an hour. I knew the film wasn't that demanding in terms of paying attention. So it has its uses.

. And yeah, quantum physics was always supposed to be discombobulating to the mind's ability to ponder, at first. Now, we have made more developments in physics and the goal was to produce a GUT, so usually, if anyone says they understand it or aren't confused by it, you could take it to mean they're lying since not everyone has a Masters or Graduate Degree in Science or Physics. Even laymen aren't experts who just read a popular science book. I've been in school my whole life taking science classes and studying it. It takes 15+ years of math starting from basic arithmetic to college level differential equations and statistics just to get a basic grasp of the geometry. That all works for jokes, you can basically say if someone doesn't have a degree then they can't talk about it. You have to take a test and prove you can? Anything like that doesn't mean other people are proficient at deconstructing any "logical inconsistencies" even though they may be able to merely point something similar out. Some people do just talk out of their ass the whole time, because they just look at you, then can "see what's missing", hoping saying something out loud and using breath/air proves their smarter than someone else at last.

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-common-myths-quantum-physics.html

It's more so about time and chance, statistically. Physics is obviously about motion, and so quanta just describes packets of energy. Sounding smart and being smart can be described as two different things, if you got a science degree in physics does that mean you're smart or intelligent? According to that all you have to do is say "you're not smart", then that means it's true? Is it the artists, poets, writers, musicians who are intelligent instead of the people who work in a lab? Is a rapper or guitar player or lead singer smarter than an engineer or scientist? What if someone is multi-talented? What would the smartest thing for them to focus on be? Should all their skills and talents be of equal practicality?

All skills are useful in the right context. Even Animal Handling could save your party's life in DnD, although Stealth and Acrobatics might have more obvious value in fights.

People are attuned to different types of patterning and different types of data integration / recall. Think about all the uses there are for computers; some might take a little storage, some a lot; some can take immense processing power, others little; but the output can still be insightful and revelatory, depending on what it is and what you were looking for.

Each situation and package of goals calls for its own disciplines and expertise.

"The Uncertainty Principle" doesn't mean you have to be uncertain because you could usually know something, like either Schrodinger's Cat or general observation. You don't have to make it obvious, and just by assuming it's about uncertainty in the first place I can tell that guy is an idiot, I'm smarter than him, and I don't need a lecture from him by reading that, so I don't get the point. I guess the only "myth" is that you don't have to use communication only to play games and make jokes in defined ways.

 

[Jennywocky]

"The Uncertainty Principle" doesn't mean you have to be uncertain because you could usually know something, like either Schrodinger's Cat or general observation. You don't have to make it obvious, and just by assuming it's about uncertainty in the first place I can tell that guy is an idiot, I'm smarter than him, and I don't need a lecture from him by reading that, so I don't get the point. I guess the only "myth" is that you don't have to use communication only to play games and make jokes in defined ways.

Frankly, i find your comments difficult to decipher and have to reread multiple times just to respond in some way, but I'm probably just an idiot too.

 

[Pizzabeak]

"The Uncertainty Principle" doesn't mean you have to be uncertain because you could usually know something, like either Schrodinger's Cat or general observation. You don't have to make it obvious, and just by assuming it's about uncertainty in the first place I can tell that guy is an idiot, I'm smarter than him, and I don't need a lecture from him by reading that, so I don't get the point. I guess the only "myth" is that you don't have to use communication only to play games and make jokes in defined ways.

Frankly, i find your comments difficult to decipher and have to reread multiple times just to respond in some way, but I'm probably just an idiot too.

No I think you're pretty smart and didn't mean to insult anyone's intelligence. Misunderstandings lead wrong ideas. I don't know if you've seen Cool Hand Luke or anything similar, maybe read or watched On the Road but it could be a common thing. No one is trying to prove anything. All you need in life is a good career to live happier than any other mind set. They have the same "Elvis" or "James Dean" style characters to them suggestive of more Ne. Supernatural also has similar characters with the "Jack Kerouac" Ni auxiliary character. Whenever you have a bunch of those stereotypes together there's anything like joking or miscommunication.