|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 19, 2017 16:15:01 GMT -5
I'm kind of wondering who WB could even get to direct The Batman when it's pretty well-known by now that they want a stooge who does exactly what they say. I mean, who would willingly go for that, especially for a failing franchise? They want a stooge, but they also want a director with name value. It's why this franchise is a f***ing disaster. Once the "we made it for the fans" excuses come out from the director of the next film out, expect another shit show of a film.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 19, 2017 17:17:43 GMT -5
I'm kind of wondering who WB could even get to direct The Batman when it's pretty well-known by now that they want a stooge who does exactly what they say. I mean, who would willingly go for that, especially for a failing franchise? This doesn't sound that different from how Marvel operates. as stated earlier Marvel pretty much let Gunn do whatever the hell he wants with the GotG.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Feb 19, 2017 17:28:49 GMT -5
I'm kind of wondering who WB could even get to direct The Batman when it's pretty well-known by now that they want a stooge who does exactly what they say. I mean, who would willingly go for that, especially for a failing franchise? They want a stooge, but they also want a director with name value. It's why this franchise is a f***ing disaster. Once the "we made it for the fans" excuses come out from the director of the next film out, expect another shit show of a film. It's kind of funny how transparent the "We made it for the fans" line is when you consider how other successful movies don't need to use it. as stated earlier Marvel pretty much let Gunn do whatever the hell he wants with the GotG. Yeah, Marvel definitely gives its directors more freedom. I'm sure there was stuff shot down as with any movie, but certainly not to WB's level.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 19, 2017 17:32:35 GMT -5
Whenever anyone uses the "we made it for the fans" excuse, it means the fans hated it.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 19, 2017 17:54:03 GMT -5
They want a stooge, but they also want a director with name value. It's why this franchise is a f***ing disaster. Once the "we made it for the fans" excuses come out from the director of the next film out, expect another shit show of a film. It's kind of funny how transparent the "We made it for the fans" line is when you consider how other successful movies don't need to use it. as stated earlier Marvel pretty much let Gunn do whatever the hell he wants with the GotG. Yeah, Marvel definitely gives its directors more freedom. I'm sure there was stuff shot down as with any movie, but certainly not to WB's level. I mean Wright left Ant-man because of differences (but one of them wash e was taking his damned time making it as it was announced Immediately following Iron Man) another big difference. Marvel is Marvel Warner Brothers IS NOT DC Comics. Yeah with Marvel Studios being separate it's a bit hazier but it's still a different situation.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 19, 2017 18:05:45 GMT -5
It's kind of funny how transparent the "We made it for the fans" line is when you consider how other successful movies don't need to use it. Yeah, Marvel definitely gives its directors more freedom. I'm sure there was stuff shot down as with any movie, but certainly not to WB's level. I mean Wright left Ant-man because of differences (but one of them wash e was taking his damned time making it as it was announced Immediately following Iron Man) another big difference. Marvel is Marvel Warner Brothers IS NOT DC Comics. Yeah with Marvel Studios being separate it's a bit hazier but it's still a different situation. The baffling thing with that was they opened a division specifically to handle this one property. Seems it's as successful as the Crusierweight Division.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Feb 19, 2017 18:41:55 GMT -5
Bring back Tim Burton. Let him direct a movie featuring old Bruce (Michael Keaton) handing over the reigns to a new Batman. Any chance we can get that Nicolas Cage Superman movie too? Mullet or No Buys
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Feb 19, 2017 18:48:14 GMT -5
as stated earlier Marvel pretty much let Gunn do whatever the hell he wants with the GotG. I guess my complaint is that there isn't that much difference between how WB and Marvel make their movies. Since the popular perception is that Marvel makes better movies or more enjoyable movies than WB, maybe this the reason why people are willing to give Disney a pass when creative difficulties come to light. So to me, arguments being made because LOL DC should bear a bit of scrutiny, especially when the same arguments can easily be applied to Marvel given that studio's track record. For instance, Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins had problems with Marvel during the pre-production of Ant-Man and Thor 2. After Thor 2 and Age of Ultron, Alan Taylor and Joss Whedon complained about the Marvel process. Nobody evinced the amount of hand-wringing about director negotiations like people have with Matt Reeves not doing Batman when Ava DuVernay was in talks to do Black Panther. Marvel has had problems with big name actors like Edward Norton and Natalie Portman, which isn't that different from Affleck's rumoured discontent. And in the past Marvel has been stingy with paying their actors. And as much as people laugh at how DC's movie schedule has fallen apart, Marvel has also been quick to abandon its plans, which they actually did a big press event for a couple of years ago no less, to bump movies with a black hero lead and a woman hero lead so that Spider-Man can get another cinematic chance. I'm certainly no DC movie defender, but both WB and Marvel have had the same kinds of problems over the years. Marvel's just been lucky or smart enough to avoid making more mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Feb 19, 2017 19:34:19 GMT -5
as stated earlier Marvel pretty much let Gunn do whatever the hell he wants with the GotG. I guess my complaint is that there isn't that much difference between how WB and Marvel make their movies. Since the popular perception is that Marvel makes better movies or more enjoyable movies than WB, maybe this the reason why people are willing to give Disney a pass when creative difficulties come to light. So to me, arguments being made because LOL DC should bear a bit of scrutiny, especially when the same arguments can easily be applied to Marvel given that studio's track record. For instance, Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins had problems with Marvel during the pre-production of Ant-Man and Thor 2. After Thor 2 and Age of Ultron, Alan Taylor and Joss Whedon complained about the Marvel process. Nobody evinced the amount of hand-wringing about director negotiations like people have with Matt Reeves not doing Batman when Ava DuVernay was in talks to do Black Panther. Marvel has had problems with big name actors like Edward Norton and Natalie Portman, which isn't that different from Affleck's rumoured discontent. And in the past Marvel has been stingy with paying their actors. And as much as people laugh at how DC's movie schedule has fallen apart, Marvel has also been quick to abandon its plans, which they actually did a big press event for a couple of years ago no less, to bump movies with a black hero lead and a woman hero lead so that Spider-Man can get another cinematic chance. I'm certainly no DC movie defender, but both WB and Marvel have had the same kinds of problems over the years. Marvel's just been lucky or smart enough to avoid making more mistakes. With the exception of a few examples I'd take issue with (Norton is NOTORIOUSLY difficult to work with, the rights to their flagship character falling back into their laps is obviously going to bump films for C-list characters), you're exactly right. In fact, pretty much all films go through clashes between the actors, directors, writers, producers...it isn't a unique property of making a comic book film, or even a blockbuster. The key difference is in the finished product. I think Thor 2 is universally hailed as one of, if not the, weakest MCU film but it's still a decent film. Not great, but at worst you see it and sort of forget about it. So when directors complain about the process, it's sort of met with a shrug when you see the movie and think "Eh". When you hear all these horror stories about Dawn of Justice, then go to see it and it's a freight train composed of exploding dumpsters, that's when you get the "What the f*** is going on at WB?" stories. And when you hear the same stories and see the same results on Suicide Squad and hear the same stories for Wonder Woman...you've lost the benefit of the doubt. Marvel's first effort was amazing and still one of their better movies. None of the films have been critical or commercial failures (DC's haven't been commercial failures, either) and they've had several great ones that sort of wipe the slate clean for the lesser efforts strewn in between. That's why they get the benefit of the doubt DC isn't being afforded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2017 19:48:11 GMT -5
None of the films have been critical or commercial failures (DC's haven't been commercial failures, either) I'd kiiiind of call BvS one. It made a f***ton of money, definitely, and I wouldn't call it a flop, but it's a major, major misstep that they had their three biggest names onscreen together and sold it as a showdown of the two biggest, and coming off of two Batman movies that made over a billion, and couldn't even come close to a billion themselves. Should've been an easy route getting there and I'd call it a failure that it didn't. Granted same token I'd call Suicide Squad a major success, despite not really making all that much of a profit due to its ludicrous budget, since really it was kind of a miracle for a poorly reviewed, meh word of mouth movie starring a bunch of unknowns to do that well.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Feb 19, 2017 19:53:18 GMT -5
I guess my complaint is that there isn't that much difference between how WB and Marvel make their movies. Since the popular perception is that Marvel makes better movies or more enjoyable movies than WB, maybe this the reason why people are willing to give Disney a pass when creative difficulties come to light. So to me, arguments being made because LOL DC should bear a bit of scrutiny, especially when the same arguments can easily be applied to Marvel given that studio's track record. For instance, Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins had problems with Marvel during the pre-production of Ant-Man and Thor 2. After Thor 2 and Age of Ultron, Alan Taylor and Joss Whedon complained about the Marvel process. Nobody evinced the amount of hand-wringing about director negotiations like people have with Matt Reeves not doing Batman when Ava DuVernay was in talks to do Black Panther. Marvel has had problems with big name actors like Edward Norton and Natalie Portman, which isn't that different from Affleck's rumoured discontent. And in the past Marvel has been stingy with paying their actors. And as much as people laugh at how DC's movie schedule has fallen apart, Marvel has also been quick to abandon its plans, which they actually did a big press event for a couple of years ago no less, to bump movies with a black hero lead and a woman hero lead so that Spider-Man can get another cinematic chance. I'm certainly no DC movie defender, but both WB and Marvel have had the same kinds of problems over the years. Marvel's just been lucky or smart enough to avoid making more mistakes. With the exception of a few examples I'd take issue with (Norton is NOTORIOUSLY difficult to work with, the rights to their flagship character falling back into their laps is obviously going to bump films for C-list characters), you're exactly right. In fact, pretty much all films go through clashes between the actors, directors, writers, producers...it isn't a unique property of making a comic book film, or even a blockbuster. The key difference is in the finished product. I think Thor 2 is universally hailed as one of, if not the, weakest MCU film but it's still a decent film. Not great, but at worst you see it and sort of forget about it. So when directors complain about the process, it's sort of met with a shrug when you see the movie and think "Eh". When you hear all these horror stories about Dawn of Justice, then go to see it and it's a freight train composed of exploding dumpsters, that's when you get the "What the f*** is going on at WB?" stories. And when you hear the same stories and see the same results on Suicide Squad and hear the same stories for Wonder Woman...you've lost the benefit of the doubt. Marvel's first effort was amazing and still one of their better movies. None of the films have been critical or commercial failures (DC's haven't been commercial failures, either) and they've had several great ones that sort of wipe the slate clean for the lesser efforts strewn in between. That's why they get the benefit of the doubt DC isn't being afforded. There's no excuse for a movie with Batman, Superman AND Wonder Woman to not make a billion. No excuse.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 19, 2017 20:05:29 GMT -5
It just floors me that WB didn't learn their lesson immediately after Batman v Superman.
They started this whole thing off saying they wanted to be a franchise that would let filmmakers do their thing, have some creative freedom and experiment a little bit, yet it's abundantly clear that has not been the case. Cram in more characters here, rush to catch up with Marvel there, leave the actual plot on the cutting room floor, run around in a panic when the bad reviews come pouring in, repeat process until you've driven everybody away, apparently.
To this day I still think Man of Steel was pretty good; not perfect, of course, but I saw it and felt "yeah, they could grow a franchise from here if they tighten a few things up". Since then it's been just an onslaught of ridiculous decisions and horrid executive meddling. Don't get me wrong, people like Snyder still need to take responsibility for their flaws, but given the backdrop of the production of the last few flicks I have a hard time imagining almost any directors having much success, which may be what drove Affleck away.
What sucks so much is that I was hyped to have a DC cinematic universe that would be tonally different from Marvel's; the "dark aesthetic" or whatever never bothered me in and of itself. But these issues run so[/] much deeper, and it's jaw dropping. I'll get on Disney's case sometimes because a lot of their franchises feel a bit repetitive, but say what you will, Disney at least has a formula that clicks and works in terms of pleasing a wider audience. With WB, there's just no rhyme or reason to speak of right now, they're handling what should be a crown jewel like they're Inspector Clouseau trying to move and hide the Pink Panther.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Feb 19, 2017 21:52:18 GMT -5
Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad film yet. At their weakest, you could say they're mediocre.
That's why they get leeway.
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Feb 20, 2017 1:01:03 GMT -5
Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad film yet. At their weakest, you could say they're mediocre. That's why they get leeway. In a way, mediocre films are worse. Even though it's unentertaining, BvS is interesting to talk about precisely because it doesn't work. I think that it's the perfect snapshot of what American culture was in 2016. But movies like Ant-Man or Thor 2 aren't even interesting to discuss as mediocrities. Forgettable art is the worst kind of art. But realistically, Marvel and DC movies are giant, expensive commercials for their IPs, so perhaps mediocre is appropriate.. They'll keep making them that way because people keep paying for them! At this point, I'd rather see WB do a bunch of movies that aren't in continuity with one another since the idea of a shared universe is going to need some time to be forgotten before a reboot. Gotham by Gaslight. The Great Darkness Saga. Sandman: Prelude and Nocturnes. Sgt. Rock. Jack Knight Starman. Wonder Woman super spy. Superman vs. Muhammad Ali. Adam Strange. Hard Travelling Heroes.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Feb 20, 2017 1:07:00 GMT -5
None of the films have been critical or commercial failures (DC's haven't been commercial failures, either) I'd kiiiind of call BvS one. It made a f***ton of money, definitely, and I wouldn't call it a flop, but it's a major, major misstep that they had their three biggest names onscreen together and sold it as a showdown of the two biggest, and coming off of two Batman movies that made over a billion, and couldn't even come close to a billion themselves. Should've been an easy route getting there and I'd call it a failure that it didn't. It needed to make a minimum of $800 million at the box office to break even. It ended with $837 million. In my mind that is as close to a bomb as you can get without it actually being one - for the hype, the cast, and the landmark event of being the first big screen, blockbuster meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman barely squeaking out a tiny profit is a massive failure.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Feb 20, 2017 1:11:14 GMT -5
I'd kiiiind of call BvS one. It made a f***ton of money, definitely, and I wouldn't call it a flop, but it's a major, major misstep that they had their three biggest names onscreen together and sold it as a showdown of the two biggest, and coming off of two Batman movies that made over a billion, and couldn't even come close to a billion themselves. Should've been an easy route getting there and I'd call it a failure that it didn't. It needed to make a minimum of $800 million at the box office to break even. It ended with $837 million. In my mind that is as close to a bomb as you can get without it actually being one - for the hype, the cast, and the landmark event of being the first big screen, blockbuster meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman barely squeaking out a tiny profit is a massive failure. WB undoubtedly see it that way as well, considering that Geoff Johns was immediately promoted to oversee the cinematic universe over Zack Snyder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2017 2:12:39 GMT -5
Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad film yet. At their weakest, you could say they're mediocre. That's why they get leeway. Pretty much. There've been a few Marvel movies I've personally disliked - Thor 2 and Winter Soldier come immediately to mind, and wasn't really big on Age of Ultron - but I can still see why someone would enjoy them. I don't really know why you'd sit down and rewatch Suicide Squad just for the fun of it and I thought it was the best of the three.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Feb 20, 2017 5:19:30 GMT -5
Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad film yet. At their weakest, you could say they're mediocre. That's why they get leeway. In a way, mediocre films are worse. Even though it's unentertaining, BvS is interesting to talk about precisely because it doesn't work. I think that it's the perfect snapshot of what American culture was in 2016. But movies like Ant-Man or Thor 2 aren't even interesting to discuss as mediocrities. Forgettable art is the worst kind of art. I'm pretty sure the goal is to make money, not generate discussion, though I'd love to see that argument. Marvel: "Ant-Man was pretty financially successful for us." WB: "Oh yeah? Well people can't stop talking about how much they hate our movies!"
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Feb 20, 2017 6:59:26 GMT -5
Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad film yet. At their weakest, you could say they're mediocre. That's why they get leeway. In a way, mediocre films are worse. Even though it's unentertaining, BvS is interesting to talk about precisely because it doesn't work. I think that it's the perfect snapshot of what American culture was in 2016. But movies like Ant-Man or Thor 2 aren't even interesting to discuss as mediocrities. Forgettable art is the worst kind of art. But realistically, Marvel and DC movies are giant, expensive commercials for their IPs, so perhaps mediocre is appropriate.. They'll keep making them that way because people keep paying for them! At this point, I'd rather see WB do a bunch of movies that aren't in continuity with one another since the idea of a shared universe is going to need some time to be forgotten before a reboot. Gotham by Gaslight. The Great Darkness Saga. Sandman: Prelude and Nocturnes. Sgt. Rock. Jack Knight Starman. Wonder Woman super spy. Superman vs. Muhammad Ali. Adam Strange. Hard Travelling Heroes. Well, no. Not for most people. Generally the public is going to movies, especially superhero movies for escapism and a good time, and that's all. It's not that there's not merit in your approach; but again, for the most part Marvel gets leeway because when the vast majority go to superhero movie they're looking for an enjoyable two hour escape above all else and they know that's what they're gonna get.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 20, 2017 7:46:01 GMT -5
In a way, mediocre films are worse. Even though it's unentertaining, BvS is interesting to talk about precisely because it doesn't work. I think that it's the perfect snapshot of what American culture was in 2016. But movies like Ant-Man or Thor 2 aren't even interesting to discuss as mediocrities. Forgettable art is the worst kind of art. But realistically, Marvel and DC movies are giant, expensive commercials for their IPs, so perhaps mediocre is appropriate.. They'll keep making them that way because people keep paying for them! At this point, I'd rather see WB do a bunch of movies that aren't in continuity with one another since the idea of a shared universe is going to need some time to be forgotten before a reboot. Gotham by Gaslight. The Great Darkness Saga. Sandman: Prelude and Nocturnes. Sgt. Rock. Jack Knight Starman. Wonder Woman super spy. Superman vs. Muhammad Ali. Adam Strange. Hard Travelling Heroes. Well, no. Not for most people. Generally the public is going to movies, especially superhero movies for escapism and a good time, and that's all. It's not that there's not merit in your approach; but again, for the most part Marvel gets leeway because when the vast majority go to superhero movie they're looking for an enjoyable two hour escape above all else and they know that's what they're gonna get. Yeah, for me, a poor movie is far, far worse than a mediocre one. I wasn't especially fascinated by BvS so much as I was annoyed and frustrated by it. And I've seen plenty of okayish, so-so films that I've found extremely interesting to discuss. To be honest, if you offered me the chance to talk about all the things I liked and some of the things I didn't about Ant-Man, I'd be up for it. Especially since people have already dissected BvS to death, re-animated it, then killed and dissected again. I'm totally up for more experimental superhero films. But I want them to be enjoyable and well written first and foremost.
|
|