riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:34:56 GMT -5
Wonder Woman was getting trashed left and right during its production. Facebook memes, articles on this site, and YouTube videos literally had those same people that I mentioned calling it a failure, massive rewrites and reshoots, saying the production was a mess, and people posting that stupid Chris Evans laughing meme as well. It's a miracle that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press that it was receiving before it was released. That's not agenda or bad press, though. Wonder Woman did have a troubled production and did have studio meddling. Those are facts, and they were reported on. The negativity came from the established pattern at that point. BVS and Suicide Squad both had troubled productions also, and both had studio meddling. Both turned out to be unmitigated disasters, so why at that point should people have expected Wonder Woman to be any different? When it was released critics loved it, naysayers had to eat some crow, and everybody was happy. Justice League again followed the same pattern of troubled production and studio meddling, but the real damage was done by BVS. As much as fanboys drooled over it, it turned off a lot of the casual audience, and those are the people who haven't come back. They were reported on and continually repeated throughout the process. I couldn't tell you how many anti-Wonder Woman memes that I saw on Facebook that were posted by the official Marvel Cinematic Universe Facebook page, along with many others sharing those same memes, making sexist remarks about Gal Gadot, and making fun of her appearance as by saying she looks like a frail transvestite. I mean it was absolutely awful. The fact that it overcame such venom is truly a testament to how good it is.
|
|
mo
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
"Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..."
Posts: 16,661
|
Post by mo on Nov 27, 2017 15:36:56 GMT -5
I don't buy the Marvel critic bias stuff at all. I didn't need Rotten Tomatoes to tell me that Batman vs. Superman was a terrible movie, I watched it and figured it out myself first hand I still haven't seen the movie yet because if BvS and Suicide Squad are the best they can give us, then I don't really feel the need to rush out and see this one. Shame too, considering how quick I am to jump on anything Batman media related.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Nov 27, 2017 15:37:04 GMT -5
Wasn't it that since Superman died, that allowed Steppenwolf to return? The lack of a hero of that strength and magnitude caused fear and left a huge opening to attack. You're right thematically that that's why. It just felt way too quick and 'oh ok he's back'. If JL had been two movies like originally planned, it probably wouldn't have felt as rushed. Also, I think it's a wash with how he was brought back in the books vs the movie. Don't see either as inherently silly. Though in the comics the reasoning was a)The Eradicator took his body to preserve Kryptonian culture and bring him back & actually convinced itself it was him and b)he came back over a period of about a year. During that time, you saw the despair of the world, the pretenders etc. Thematically it wasn't significantly different from the movie; just timeframe/what we saw on-screen. They made an attempt to voice the hope gone etc; it's just that it fell a bit flat given we didn't actually see it play out AND in the last movie he was in, half the world was against him. Neither is thematically any MORE silly, it was just a lil rushed movie wise Yeah, it sounds like what the DCEU has been doing in all these movies of wanting the big moment without any build on both sides. maybe the two movies would have given them time to at least show the world without Superman... but I'm not sure they'd would have gone a full movie with Superman with their previous outings...
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:43:57 GMT -5
Obviously WB/DC could've made better decisions. If I were in charge of the films I would've done Man of Steel first, The Batman second, Man of Steel sequel, possibly Worlds Finest as the first Batman/Superman pairing, Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Green Lantern, and then do Justice League while introducing Cyborg in the process. Of course that's how I would've done it.
Maybe do a Justice League sequel with Superman dying at the hands of Doomsday or do the Injustice storyline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 15:44:50 GMT -5
I'm going to stop your quote right there because you're just ignoring the point HMark said above. Grading does not work that way. When something's been graded, there's usually just one teacher that knows what they're doing and that mark comes from a system established on what gets the best marks and either what is correct and factual or what is written to the standard the person grading the test wants. RT takes an estimate of someone's review, categorises it out of 10 and then puts that with all the other grades to make a bigger percentage of all the other reviews. The grade you see is NOT, and this needs to be repeated again NOT, what each individual critic thought of the film. It's an estimate. It's a flawed estimate because, as it has been shown, people take THAT part of the process seriously and what's been said. I know of critics that liked the film. I know of more critics that DIDN'T like the film. Those are going to make up a bigger degree of the overall percentage no matter their actual more indepth thoughts. Some of those critics might not even like the other Marvel movies. You'd have to read all the reviews and figure it out yourself instead of, honestly, throwing out contrived conspiracy theories. And I'm the guy that would give away my little brother for a damn good Green Lantern movie. Once again, if scores don't matter as you put it. Why are they continually thrown around then? Get Out received a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and I saw where it said 87% liked it. Okay, why is the 99% so focused on then? Scores don't matter right? You look on the Get Out DVD cover and it says "Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes". People look it up and they see 99%. People look up Justice League and see 35% or 40%. I think you're overestimating a movie studios competency when it comes to promoting their own films. For a big film like a superhero or F&F or TF, which are all basically the same thing, people have already made up their minds before the first critic has screened it. Studios think they can motivate more people to see a movie by putting up how critically beloved it is, but that's not a sure fire success strategy. Like I said, there are many movies that used the "critics loved it!" angle and it still flopped. They put the "critics loved it" stuff out there to get likely a very small portion of people who have no knowledge of the characters/story. In the case of the 27th MCU film or the latest Fast/Furious film - you could honestly put "Not screened for critics!!" in big bold letters and people might still turn out en masse for these things. For Get Out - no one knew wtf it was so to hear a smaller, unknown film got critical praise might turn a few heads, I suppose, but not for an already well-known, well-promoted film.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:47:29 GMT -5
Once again, if scores don't matter as you put it. Why are they continually thrown around then? Get Out received a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and I saw where it said 87% liked it. Okay, why is the 99% so focused on then? Scores don't matter right? You look on the Get Out DVD cover and it says "Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes". People look it up and they see 99%. People look up Justice League and see 35% or 40%. I think you're overestimating a movie studios competency when it comes to promoting their own films. For a big film like a superhero or F&F or TF, which are all basically the same thing, people have already made up their minds before the first critic has screened it. Studios think they can motivate more people to see a movie by putting up how critically beloved it is, but that's not a sure fire success strategy. Like I said, there are many movies that used the "critics loved it!" angle and it still flopped. They put the "critics loved it" stuff out there to get likely a very small portion of people who have no knowledge of the characters/story. In the case of the 27th MCU film or the latest Fast/Furious film - you could honestly put "Not screened for critics!!" in big bold letters and people might still turn out en masse for these things. For Get Out - no one knew wtf it was so to hear a smaller, unknown film got critical praise might turn a few heads, I suppose, but not for an already well-known, well-promoted film. Fair enough. But can we agree that usually critically acclaimed material means it's pretty much well liked? Because I can tell you once I heard how awesome Breaking Bad was and how critically acclaimed it was I fell in love with it too. It helps to have material be loved in general obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 15:54:35 GMT -5
That's not agenda or bad press, though. Wonder Woman did have a troubled production and did have studio meddling. Those are facts, and they were reported on. The negativity came from the established pattern at that point. BVS and Suicide Squad both had troubled productions also, and both had studio meddling. Both turned out to be unmitigated disasters, so why at that point should people have expected Wonder Woman to be any different? When it was released critics loved it, naysayers had to eat some crow, and everybody was happy. Justice League again followed the same pattern of troubled production and studio meddling, but the real damage was done by BVS. As much as fanboys drooled over it, it turned off a lot of the casual audience, and those are the people who haven't come back. They were reported on and continually repeated throughout the process. That's what news media does. It drives clicks to sites, which equals ad revenue. If a big Marvel movie hit trouble during production the exact same thing would happen. I couldn't tell you how many anti-Wonder Woman memes that I saw on Facebook that were posted by the official Marvel Cinematic Universe Facebook page, along with many others sharing those same memes, making sexist remarks about Gal Gadot, and making fun of her appearance as by saying she looks like a frail transvestite. I mean it was absolutely awful. The fact that it overcame such venom is truly a testament to how good it is. There is no official MCU Facebook page. There's official Marvel and Marvel Studios pages, plus official pages for individual movies, TV shows, and country-specific pages for the overall Marvel brand (Marvel UK, Marvel Australia, etc.), and they all post about their own product. There are, however, dozens of Marvel Cinematic Universe pages that are totally unaffiliated. Besides, do you really think that if a page officially sanctioned by Marvel and Disney posted and encouraged that kind of vile crap about Gal Gadot it wouldn't have blown up and gone viral within hours?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Nov 27, 2017 15:57:07 GMT -5
They were reported on and continually repeated throughout the process. That's what news media does. It drives clicks to sites, which equals ad revenue. If a big Marvel movie hit trouble during production the exact same thing would happen. I couldn't tell you how many anti-Wonder Woman memes that I saw on Facebook that were posted by the official Marvel Cinematic Universe Facebook page, along with many others sharing those same memes, making sexist remarks about Gal Gadot, and making fun of her appearance as by saying she looks like a frail transvestite. I mean it was absolutely awful. The fact that it overcame such venom is truly a testament to how good it is. There is no official MCU Facebook page. There's official Marvel and Marvel Studios pages, plus official pages for individual movies, TV shows, and country-specific pages for the overall Marvel brand (Marvel UK, Marvel Australia, etc.), and they all post about their own product. There are, however, dozens of Marvel Cinematic Universe pages that are totally unaffiliated. Besides, do you really think that if a page officially sanctioned by Marvel and Disney posted and encouraged that kind of vile crap about Gal Gadot it wouldn't have blown up and gone viral within hours? Not to mention. the head of Marvel Studios has talked about not having a rivalry with DC and congratulated DC for their successes. Marvel WANT DC to make good movies as that ultimately helps them as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 16:01:34 GMT -5
I think you're overestimating a movie studios competency when it comes to promoting their own films. For a big film like a superhero or F&F or TF, which are all basically the same thing, people have already made up their minds before the first critic has screened it. Studios think they can motivate more people to see a movie by putting up how critically beloved it is, but that's not a sure fire success strategy. Like I said, there are many movies that used the "critics loved it!" angle and it still flopped. They put the "critics loved it" stuff out there to get likely a very small portion of people who have no knowledge of the characters/story. In the case of the 27th MCU film or the latest Fast/Furious film - you could honestly put "Not screened for critics!!" in big bold letters and people might still turn out en masse for these things. For Get Out - no one knew wtf it was so to hear a smaller, unknown film got critical praise might turn a few heads, I suppose, but not for an already well-known, well-promoted film. Fair enough. But can we agree that usually critically acclaimed material means it's pretty much well liked? Because I can tell you once I heard how awesome Breaking Bad was and how critically acclaimed it was I fell in love with it too. It helps to have material be loved in general obviously. I mean, critically acclaimed material is well liked among critics for sure, but like I said the connection between critics and audiences is really far off at times. If there's good word-of-mouth from audiences its more likely to turn people's heads towards a show as opposed to so-and-so from the LA Times (or whatever)...imo.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Nov 27, 2017 16:01:52 GMT -5
Memes prove that critics have an agenda is a new one.
The Impact 1/4/10 Thread is proof that Vince McMahon sent Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan to ruin TNA.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Nov 27, 2017 16:07:21 GMT -5
This thread isn't even about JL anymore...
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Nov 27, 2017 16:28:48 GMT -5
Dump the JL concept and just have a series of movies featuring Wonder Woman back in the 1920's fighting various enemies. She's better without the Superman/Batman baggage. Same applies to Aquaman. Let him do this thing in a self contained universe.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Nov 27, 2017 16:44:37 GMT -5
Granted, I'm skimming (STOP BEING SO VERBOSE, GUYS) but are we now talking like the flick is terrible and no one likes it? Everyone I know who has seen it thought it was anywhere from decent fun to legit loving it.
I think people are way too harsh on this movie, I'm sorry.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 16:45:53 GMT -5
This thread isn't even about JL anymore... It's still about Justice League. There are just other discussions going on that still pertain to the film in and of itself.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 16:47:08 GMT -5
Granted, I'm skimming (STOP BEING SO VERBOSE, GUYS) but are we now talking like the flick is terrible and no one likes it? Everyone I know who has seen it thought it was anywhere from decent fun to legit loving it. I think people are way too harsh on this movie, I'm sorry. That's what I've been saying. Of course we're in the small minority of the world obviously. But a lot of the general audience that I work with at my job has expressed how much fun and enjoyable Justice League is. So is the disconnect between comic fans and the general audience that vast?
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Nov 27, 2017 16:48:36 GMT -5
I think comic fans vs. casual fans may be part of it, but some of the people I know that liked to loved it are comic fans also. So, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 27, 2017 16:56:51 GMT -5
Both after credit scenes were great.
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Nov 27, 2017 17:03:27 GMT -5
You'd almost have to have more fun with JL than BvS. That f***er was a funeral dirge, both figuratively and literally. That is one more problem that goes back on BvS now too since JL brought Supes back so quickly: "what was the point of killin him?" they gave lip service to Bats guilt and all, but just like everything else it was unearned. Oh well, at least Clark is happy now. Yeah, which is a big reason why JL felt like a reboot to me; kind of handwaving all that away so quickly as a way of saying "No, we're not going to do it that way now." The truth seems to have been that WB went to Snyder and DC for BvS and said "Marvel's way ahead of us, so take two of our biggest trade paperbacks and work them into your movie", hence getting us the Dark Knight Returns fight and the Death of Superman ending. Ridiculously short-sighted on WB's part, but nobody's accused them of being too competent of late. Meanwhile, using the Death of Superman as part of a cinematic universe's story should be huge, but as the Really That Bad episode said: "You killed Superman, and nobody cared." I guess it would've worked a little better structurally with Snyder's initial idea of doing a two-part Justice League movie, where maybe Supes returns in the second one, but I get them just wanting to move past all of this now. Honestly, also quoting "Really That Bad", it's amazing how Justice League is a "very hard sequel" to Batman v Superman, but it just takes license to basically rewrite the whole thing. For example (re:Cyborg/Mother Box): {Spoiler}At one point, Cyborg implies the Mother Box that created him was only activated upon Superman's death, but the night Superman died, Wonder Woman was watching the file of his creation, seemingly filmed at least days, if not weeks before. As a side note: "Really That Bad" is a great guide to how the DCEU got to where it is now. I never realized how much trouble Warner Bros. had getting Superman off the ground before Man of Steel.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 17:05:10 GMT -5
Granted, I'm skimming (STOP BEING SO VERBOSE, GUYS) but are we now talking like the flick is terrible and no one likes it? Everyone I know who has seen it thought it was anywhere from decent fun to legit loving it. I think people are way too harsh on this movie, I'm sorry. Straight up, I thought BVS was terrible, and it's only gotten worse the more I see it. Justice League is merely okay. It's not terrible, but its flaws really drag it down. I'd best describe it as a mediocre movie punctuated by some genuinely good-to-great moments. As I mentioned a couple of pages back, 5.3 out of 10 seems a pretty fair score to me. It's paying for BVS' sins, no more, no less.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 27, 2017 17:08:27 GMT -5
Kinda funny how loose Bruce is with his ID. "You're the Batman?"
"Yep."
|
|