riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 16, 2017 16:54:47 GMT -5
Were you following the news regarding the production of Wonder Woman? Every online article from critics with a pro-Marvel mindset stated the following "Studio executives scrambling on the set of Wonder Woman", "Rewrites and reshoots galore!", "Gal Gadot upset on the set of Wonder Woman", or "Patty Jenkins is thinking about leaving the movie!" There was always a negative article and nothing positive at all. It just so happened that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press and was highly praised and successful. But don't think for a second that there wasn't some form of an agenda from various critics. Yeah... but when the movie came out the critics agreed the movie was good. did some people jump on the doom and gloom train before hand... yeah, but they had history behind them because WB have been putting out terrible movies up to that point. Yes, those critics had to eat a lot of crow. But they were the same ones who were jumping on the bandwagon and tearing the film apart before it was released. Whether or not WB put out terrible films is subjective. The problem is you have a lot of critics with an agenda and pass off their opinion as an absolute fact.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 16, 2017 17:03:17 GMT -5
Basically this. Put out a good movie, critics will generally praise it. Put out a bad movie, critics will generally trash it. The mythical pro-Marvel, anti-DC critics don't exist in numbers large enough to move the needle on aggregated score sites like RT and Metacritic. And if we accept that they do exist, we must also accept that there's those who favour DC too. But I've never seen any of either on aggregate sites, to be honest. Not to mention... if people were Anti-DC there wouldn't be nearly as many angry reviews of these properties.. because the Marvel fanboys would want DC to fail. It's generally the people that like DC comics that are making the most noise about their movies. I definitely believe there's this reality of Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. I'll give you an example. I was watching a clip of Man of Steel on YouTube and it was the first flight scene, skimming through some of the comments afterwards there was one that caught my eye. To paraphrase it as best as I can it was in the vein of this: "Man of Steel came out around the same time as Iron Man 3. Marvel was receiving a lot of flack for the Mandarin twist, lack of Iron Man, and the scaling back of the concept after Avengers. Man of Steel came out and all of a sudden it was Superman didn't smile enough, Superman didn't save anyone, there wasn't any jokes, it was too depressing, and Superman and Zod destroyed everything." After reading that comment I realized there was a lot of truth to it. The second Marvel got wind of fans being pissed over the Mandarin twist and all of a sudden there was this lets trash Man of Steel, along with the upcoming Batman vs. Superman before it was released. Now could WB/DC have done things differently? Absolutely. If I was in charge I would've stayed the course, kept the tone the same, and just continued moving the franchise along and not pay attention to Marvel fanboys, critics, etc But because it's all about jokes, humor, and big action set pieces these days WB/DC went into full panic mode instead of staying the course.
|
|
|
Post by WoodStoner1 on Nov 16, 2017 17:20:43 GMT -5
Not to mention... if people were Anti-DC there wouldn't be nearly as many angry reviews of these properties.. because the Marvel fanboys would want DC to fail. It's generally the people that like DC comics that are making the most noise about their movies. I definitely believe there's this reality of Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. I'll give you an example. I was watching a clip of Man of Steel on YouTube and it was the first flight scene, skimming through some of the comments afterwards there was one that caught my eye. To paraphrase it as best as I can it was in the vein of this: "Man of Steel came out around the same time as Iron Man 3. Marvel was receiving a lot of flack for the Mandarin twist, lack of Iron Man, and the scaling back of the concept after Avengers. Man of Steel came out and all of a sudden it was Superman didn't smile enough, Superman didn't save anyone, there wasn't any jokes, it was too depressing, and Superman and Zod destroyed everything." After reading that comment I realized there was a lot of truth to it. The second Marvel got wind of fans being pissed over the Mandarin twist and all of a sudden there was this lets trash Man of Steel, along with the upcoming Batman vs. Superman before it was released. Now could WB/DC have done things differently? Absolutely. If I was in charge I would've stayed the course, kept the tone the same, and just continued moving the franchise along and not pay attention to Marvel fanboys, critics, etc But because it's all about jokes, humor, and big action set pieces these days WB/DC went into full panic mode instead of staying the course. Trying to follow what you're saying. That it wasn't a coincidence that MOS criticisms were "unleashed," as it were, at the time of the Iron Man backlash? Otherwise, this is why I made the TNA comparison above. You have WB/DC going against the leader in their field, fueled by a giant corporation, usually having the best production quality and all...but still more often than not having its flaws and maybe having a somewhat toned-down product (but when it hits the mark, it hits it). Can they be an alternative? Possibly but their execution grows more and more off. So now they try Plan B: use talent formerly associated with Marvel products and more signifcantly, try to out-Marvel them with the same practices. Would I want DC to provide a different kind of product? Sure...but if they're not competent at it, what's the use? BTW, MOS criticisms were mostly spot-on, of course. They wanted to continue their Dark Knight mojo and tried to shoehorn Clark into something he doesn't fit. There's tons of serious Superman stories in the comics and some on TV that shows both could co-exist. Hmmmm...what did people dislike more: the Mandarin twist or Super-killer?
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 16, 2017 17:24:18 GMT -5
I definitely believe there's this reality of Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. I'll give you an example. I was watching a clip of Man of Steel on YouTube and it was the first flight scene, skimming through some of the comments afterwards there was one that caught my eye. To paraphrase it as best as I can it was in the vein of this: "Man of Steel came out around the same time as Iron Man 3. Marvel was receiving a lot of flack for the Mandarin twist, lack of Iron Man, and the scaling back of the concept after Avengers. Man of Steel came out and all of a sudden it was Superman didn't smile enough, Superman didn't save anyone, there wasn't any jokes, it was too depressing, and Superman and Zod destroyed everything." After reading that comment I realized there was a lot of truth to it. The second Marvel got wind of fans being pissed over the Mandarin twist and all of a sudden there was this lets trash Man of Steel, along with the upcoming Batman vs. Superman before it was released. Now could WB/DC have done things differently? Absolutely. If I was in charge I would've stayed the course, kept the tone the same, and just continued moving the franchise along and not pay attention to Marvel fanboys, critics, etc But because it's all about jokes, humor, and big action set pieces these days WB/DC went into full panic mode instead of staying the course. Trying to follow what you're saying. That it wasn't a coincidence that MOS criticisms were "unleashed," as it were, at the time of the Iron Man backlash? Otherwise, this is why I made the TNA comparison above. You have WB/DC going against the leader in their field, fueled by a giant corporation, usually having the best production quality and all...but still more often than not having its flaws and maybe having a somewhat toned-down product (but when it hits the mark, it hits it). Can they be an alternative? Possibly but their execution grows more and more off. So now they try Plan B: use talent formerly associated with Marvel products and more signifcantly, try to out-Marvel them with the same practices. Would I want DC to provide a different kind of product? Sure...but if they're not competent at it, what's the use? BTW, MOS criticisms were mostly spot-on, of course. They wanted to continue their Dark Knight mojo and tried to shoehorn Clark into something he doesn't fit. There's tons of serious Superman stories in the comics and some on TV that shows both could co-exist. Hmmmm...what did people dislike more: the Mandarin twist or Super-killer? If I am completely honest if they wanted to be fair they'd hate both. But don't make it seem like one is worse than the other. Be fair across the board is what I am trying to say. The Mandarin twist and "Super-Killer" as you put it deserve a lot of flack. But Superman has killed in the comics before so it's not a new concept. As I said, were I in charge of the WB/DC film division I'd stay the course. DC has always had the darker, more serious, and emotional stories and characters anyways. I wouldn't have allowed Marvel fanboys or critics to determine what direction I would be taking the stories or characters.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Nov 16, 2017 17:58:27 GMT -5
f*** waiting, just shitcan Affleck now and start moving forward. Gyllenhaal has become an incredible actor, and I like the idea of Batman not being portrayed as an old fart.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 16, 2017 18:10:03 GMT -5
f*** waiting, just shitcan Affleck now and start moving forward. Gyllenhaal has become an incredible actor, and I like the idea of Batman not being portrayed as an old fart. Gyllenhaal is wrong for Batman. Affleck looks like Bruce Wayne and actually is inspired casting. If they want to do a film showcasing a younger Batman prior to Batman vs. Superman and Justice League then fine. But Gyllenhaal replacing Affleck is wrong by all accounts.
|
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Nov 16, 2017 18:56:02 GMT -5
f*** waiting, just shitcan Affleck now and start moving forward. Gyllenhaal has become an incredible actor, and I like the idea of Batman not being portrayed as an old fart. Gyllenhaal is wrong for Batman. Affleck looks like Bruce Wayne and actually is inspired casting. If they want to do a film showcasing a younger Batman prior to Batman vs. Superman and Justice League then fine. But Gyllenhaal replacing Affleck is wrong by all accounts. Gyllenhaal is a chameleon actor now. He's a lot like Christian Bale in that regard. And as far as looks, he's tall and handsome with dark features. That's just as Bruce Wayne as Affleck. Besides, we can't get hung up 100% on looks when we've got Ezra Miller playing Barry Allen.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
|
Post by The Ichi on Nov 16, 2017 18:59:37 GMT -5
I've always liked old grizzled Batman personally. Not every superhero has to be in their 20s.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,150
|
Post by andrew8798 on Nov 16, 2017 19:00:43 GMT -5
BOM has it doing 118 million this weekend
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 19:08:45 GMT -5
At first glance Gyllenhaal as Bats seems like an odd choice, but he did look pretty brutal in South Paw so I can see him getting there with the physicality. It all has to do with the script, tbh.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,650
|
Post by The Ichi on Nov 16, 2017 19:11:15 GMT -5
John Hamm is still my Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 16, 2017 19:17:25 GMT -5
I definitely believe there's this reality of Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. I'll give you an example. I was watching a clip of Man of Steel on YouTube and it was the first flight scene, skimming through some of the comments afterwards there was one that caught my eye. To paraphrase it as best as I can it was in the vein of this: "Man of Steel came out around the same time as Iron Man 3. Marvel was receiving a lot of flack for the Mandarin twist, lack of Iron Man, and the scaling back of the concept after Avengers. Man of Steel came out and all of a sudden it was Superman didn't smile enough, Superman didn't save anyone, there wasn't any jokes, it was too depressing, and Superman and Zod destroyed everything." Ignoring the idea that there was a conscious effort to spin Man of Steel criticisms into a deflection of the Iron Man 3 criticisms, of course there's Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. There's also DC fanboys wanting Marvel to fail. It's a very partisan issue for a lot of people, particularly those who don't have the maturity to accept it's possible to like and enjoy both franchises. After reading that comment I realized there was a lot of truth to it. The second Marvel got wind of fans being pissed over the Mandarin twist and all of a sudden there was this lets trash Man of Steel, along with the upcoming Batman vs. Superman before it was released. Fanboys will be fanboys. These are the same types of people who cast ratings en masse for movies that aren't even released yet (for example, Justice League had a 91% approval rating from almost 8,000 ratings two weeks before it was released), organise mass vote campaigns to lower average ratings of movies on the opposing side, and write reviews that generally consist of "Not seen it yet, but f*** the critics, f*** Marvel/DC! 10/10!" as if they're some sort of oppressed underground movement. Now could WB/DC have done things differently? Absolutely. If I was in charge I would've stayed the course, kept the tone the same, and just continued moving the franchise along and not pay attention to Marvel fanboys, critics, etc But because it's all about jokes, humor, and big action set pieces these days WB/DC went into full panic mode instead of staying the course. Man of Steel didn't quite live up to financial expectations. Batman v Superman underperformed by at least $250 million. That's why WB-DC changed course. Staying the course wasn't winning over the general audience who have no emotional investment in the DC properties. WB-DC have already got the money of their devoted fans, as have Marvel, but it's the people ho don't read comics that make up the bulk of their profits, and those are the people who like the jokes, humour, and big action set pieces. Critics and fanboys have minimal influence on the direction of movie franchises when they're successful. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Saw, the Star Wars prequels... all individual entries have been critical failures (with one or two exceptions) and are slated by fanboys, but they stay the course because they continue to make money.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips on Nov 16, 2017 19:18:17 GMT -5
BOM has it doing 118 million this weekend That would be a slightly smaller opening than Ragnarok. While that movie was bonkers awesome, DC's biggest gun not outgrossing the MCU's "least" franchise would be a really bad sign for this thing moving forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2017 19:30:10 GMT -5
BOM has it doing 118 million this weekend That would be a slightly smaller opening than Ragnarok. While that movie was bonkers awesome, DC's biggest gun not outgrossing the MCU's "least" franchise would be a really bad sign for this thing moving forward. I go back and forth about that. Yes, ideally a JL movie should blow Thor out of the water, but conversely DC films in general has a bigger hill to climb in terms of audience acceptance/perception. It's hard to say how WB will perceive that kind of reception in terms of labeling it a success or not. Also, that's domestic. Internationally they're projecting $355MM...so ymmv depending on how that all shakes out. The US box office isn't the priority it used to be.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 16, 2017 19:30:55 GMT -5
I definitely believe there's this reality of Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. I'll give you an example. I was watching a clip of Man of Steel on YouTube and it was the first flight scene, skimming through some of the comments afterwards there was one that caught my eye. To paraphrase it as best as I can it was in the vein of this: "Man of Steel came out around the same time as Iron Man 3. Marvel was receiving a lot of flack for the Mandarin twist, lack of Iron Man, and the scaling back of the concept after Avengers. Man of Steel came out and all of a sudden it was Superman didn't smile enough, Superman didn't save anyone, there wasn't any jokes, it was too depressing, and Superman and Zod destroyed everything." Ignoring the idea that there was a conscious effort to spin Man of Steel criticisms into a deflection of the Iron Man 3 criticisms, of course there's Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. There's also DC fanboys wanting Marvel to fail. It's a very partisan issue for a lot of people, particularly those who don't have the maturity to accept it's possible to like and enjoy both franchises. After reading that comment I realized there was a lot of truth to it. The second Marvel got wind of fans being pissed over the Mandarin twist and all of a sudden there was this lets trash Man of Steel, along with the upcoming Batman vs. Superman before it was released. Fanboys will be fanboys. These are the same types of people who cast ratings en masse for movies that aren't even released yet (for example, Justice League had a 91% approval rating from almost 8,000 ratings two weeks before it was released), organise mass vote campaigns to lower average ratings of movies on the opposing side, and write reviews that generally consist of "Not seen it yet, but f*** the critics, f*** Marvel/DC! 10/10!" as if they're some sort of oppressed underground movement. Now could WB/DC have done things differently? Absolutely. If I was in charge I would've stayed the course, kept the tone the same, and just continued moving the franchise along and not pay attention to Marvel fanboys, critics, etc But because it's all about jokes, humor, and big action set pieces these days WB/DC went into full panic mode instead of staying the course. Man of Steel didn't quite live up to financial expectations. Batman v Superman underperformed by at least $250 million. That's why WB-DC changed course. Staying the course wasn't winning over the general audience who have no emotional investment in the DC properties. WB-DC have already got the money of their devoted fans, as have Marvel, but it's the people ho don't read comics that make up the bulk of their profits, and those are the people who like the jokes, humour, and big action set pieces. Critics and fanboys have minimal influence on the direction of movie franchises when they're successful. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Saw, the Star Wars prequels... all individual entries have been critical failures (with one or two exceptions) and are slated by fanboys, but they stay the course because they continue to make money. Fair enough, but at the same time, there has to be some form of accountability for critics bashing the general audience with their opinions as if they're a fact. Whatever happened to allowing people to make up their own minds?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 16, 2017 19:58:52 GMT -5
Ignoring the idea that there was a conscious effort to spin Man of Steel criticisms into a deflection of the Iron Man 3 criticisms, of course there's Marvel fanboys wanting DC to fail. There's also DC fanboys wanting Marvel to fail. It's a very partisan issue for a lot of people, particularly those who don't have the maturity to accept it's possible to like and enjoy both franchises. Fanboys will be fanboys. These are the same types of people who cast ratings en masse for movies that aren't even released yet (for example, Justice League had a 91% approval rating from almost 8,000 ratings two weeks before it was released), organise mass vote campaigns to lower average ratings of movies on the opposing side, and write reviews that generally consist of "Not seen it yet, but f*** the critics, f*** Marvel/DC! 10/10!" as if they're some sort of oppressed underground movement. Man of Steel didn't quite live up to financial expectations. Batman v Superman underperformed by at least $250 million. That's why WB-DC changed course. Staying the course wasn't winning over the general audience who have no emotional investment in the DC properties. WB-DC have already got the money of their devoted fans, as have Marvel, but it's the people ho don't read comics that make up the bulk of their profits, and those are the people who like the jokes, humour, and big action set pieces. Critics and fanboys have minimal influence on the direction of movie franchises when they're successful. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, Saw, the Star Wars prequels... all individual entries have been critical failures (with one or two exceptions) and are slated by fanboys, but they stay the course because they continue to make money. Fair enough, but at the same time, there has to be some form of accountability for critics bashing the general audience with their opinions as if they're a fact. Whatever happened to allowing people to make up their own minds? Whatever happened to taking a critic's opinion as just that - an opinion? The top critics have to go through years of training to be able to effectively critique the objective experience of a movie, like the technical aspects, quality of the writing, the structure, etc. That's the foundation of a critical review, with the subjective issue of whether they enjoyed it being built on top. Many of the movies I've enjoyed most are objectively bad movies. Transformers: The Movie is probably my ultimate guilty pleasure, despite its generic storyline and hackneyed script, and it quite rightly got slaughtered by critics. But Subjectively I still love it, because I enjoy it and can overlook its flaws. Equally, movies like Jaws, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane bore the crap out of me. Objectively I recognise the craft that has gone into making these movies, and they're obviously great movies, but they do nothing for me subjectively. The problem with critics nowadays is that any dumbass fanboy with a blog or a YouTube channel who gets enough followers can be considered influential, and a good number of those get by less on technical knowledge and more on being entertaining characters. Those are the kinds of critics I avoid, because that's where agendas tend to hide.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Nov 16, 2017 20:13:11 GMT -5
Fair enough, but at the same time, there has to be some form of accountability for critics bashing the general audience with their opinions as if they're a fact. Whatever happened to allowing people to make up their own minds? Whatever happened to taking a critic's opinion as just that - an opinion? The top critics have to go through years of training to be able to effectively critique the objective experience of a movie, like the technical aspects, quality of the writing, the structure, etc. That's the foundation of a critical review, with the subjective issue of whether they enjoyed it being built on top. Many of the movies I've enjoyed most are objectively bad movies. Transformers: The Movie is probably my ultimate guilty pleasure, despite its generic storyline and hackneyed script, and it quite rightly got slaughtered by critics. But Subjectively I still love it, because I enjoy it and can overlook its flaws. Equally, movies like Jaws, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane bore the crap out of me. Objectively I recognise the craft that has gone into making these movies, and they're obviously great movies, but they do nothing for me subjectively. The problem with critics nowadays is that any dumbass fanboy with a blog or a YouTube channel who gets enough followers can be considered influential, and a good number of those get by less on technical knowledge and more on being entertaining characters. Those are the kinds of critics I avoid, because that's where agendas tend to hide. You're letting logic get in the way of a perfectly absurd knee jerk reaction conspiracy theory. Duh.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 16, 2017 20:20:05 GMT -5
Whatever happened to taking a critic's opinion as just that - an opinion? The top critics have to go through years of training to be able to effectively critique the objective experience of a movie, like the technical aspects, quality of the writing, the structure, etc. That's the foundation of a critical review, with the subjective issue of whether they enjoyed it being built on top. Many of the movies I've enjoyed most are objectively bad movies. Transformers: The Movie is probably my ultimate guilty pleasure, despite its generic storyline and hackneyed script, and it quite rightly got slaughtered by critics. But Subjectively I still love it, because I enjoy it and can overlook its flaws. Equally, movies like Jaws, Casablanca, and Citizen Kane bore the crap out of me. Objectively I recognise the craft that has gone into making these movies, and they're obviously great movies, but they do nothing for me subjectively. The problem with critics nowadays is that any dumbass fanboy with a blog or a YouTube channel who gets enough followers can be considered influential, and a good number of those get by less on technical knowledge and more on being entertaining characters. Those are the kinds of critics I avoid, because that's where agendas tend to hide. You're letting logic get in the way of a perfectly absurd knee jerk reaction conspiracy theory. Duh. That's the thing, it is all knee-jerk. Thin-skinned fanboys see a headline and score they don't approve of and descend into a red-misted haze talking of agendas and conspiracies. Even the positive reviews of Justice League point out that it is an objectively flawed movie, particularly in the case of where they've grafted Whedon's reshoots to Snyder's original material. I do have to wonder, if one were to strip away all the DC branding from JL and replace it with generic action hero characters would those crying foul be so outraged by the low scores?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 16, 2017 20:22:11 GMT -5
You're letting logic get in the way of a perfectly absurd knee jerk reaction conspiracy theory. Duh. That's the thing, it is all knee-jerk. Thin-skinned fanboys see a headline and score they don't approve of and descend into a red-misted haze talking of agendas and conspiracies. Even the positive reviews of Justice League point out that it is an objectively flawed movie, particularly in the case of where they've grafted Whedon's reshoots to Snyder's original material. I do have to wonder, if one were to strip away all the DC branding from JL and replace it with generic action hero characters would those crying foul be so outraged by the low scores? So basically they literally did Suicide Squad again... where they frankenstein'd two movies that had similar characters together?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 16, 2017 20:28:23 GMT -5
That's the thing, it is all knee-jerk. Thin-skinned fanboys see a headline and score they don't approve of and descend into a red-misted haze talking of agendas and conspiracies. Even the positive reviews of Justice League point out that it is an objectively flawed movie, particularly in the case of where they've grafted Whedon's reshoots to Snyder's original material. I do have to wonder, if one were to strip away all the DC branding from JL and replace it with generic action hero characters would those crying foul be so outraged by the low scores? So basically they literally did Suicide Squad again... where they frankenstein'd two movies that had similar characters together? I haven't seen it myself yet, but based on the dozen or so reviews I've read and the messages from two of my friends who saw it this evening Whedon's stuff sticks out like a sore thumb. He rewrote enough of the script to earn a writing credit, which only happens when there's been significant changes to the original work.
|
|