Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Feb 15, 2017 6:45:58 GMT -5
Y'know what the best way out of this would be? Make Batfleck Azbats and tell the story backwards in The Batman. The real Bruce Wayne had his back broken by Bane. There was this insane guy running around originally going by the name of Azrael afterwards that Bruce was forced to have replace him as both Batman and Bruce Wayne. He ends up getting Robin killed by Joker and goes on a murder spree while Bruce is away recovering. The "real" Batman returns, disgusted by BatAzfleck's actions, and challenges him for the mantle of The Bat. We now have a new, rebuilt Batman in the role and Affleck can go do what he likes, free of the stink. I think they have already proven that they refuse to put as much effort into this as you have. According to an article I read today from a few months ago, where someone relayed that WB execs didn't care about the plot of The Batman or how much of a mess the script was because they just want to sell it overseas and make money off of it, you're definitely right there. I just don't get why we can't have both. If you know overseas markets don't care about the story, they just want to see spectacle, then why not make the extra effort to make a good story and give all audiences something to latch onto, and make more money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 7:28:21 GMT -5
Its way too soon for a batman reboot anyway.
Why not just stick to the justice league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 8:29:23 GMT -5
Its way too soon for a batman reboot anyway. At least it'll have been fourteen years since the last new Batman series if this does come out in 2019, as unlikely as that looks. I think that's a lot more justifiable than, say, Spider-Man being rebooted twice in five. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:21:15 GMT -5
Its way too soon for a batman reboot anyway. At least it'll have been fourteen years since the last new Batman series if this does come out in 2019, as unlikely as that looks. I think that's a lot more justifiable than, say, Spider-Man being rebooted twice in five. It'll be fourteen years since Part 1 of the last reboot. It'll only be seven years since the last film in that series. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:25:02 GMT -5
At least it'll have been fourteen years since the last new Batman series if this does come out in 2019, as unlikely as that looks. I think that's a lot more justifiable than, say, Spider-Man being rebooted twice in five. It'll be fourteen years since Part 1 of the last reboot. It'll only be seven years since the last film in that series. True, but I meant just between when different universes start up. And even then I really wouldn't consider seven years between Batman movies to be unreasonable either. Hell, that much time between Superman Returns and Man of Steel and don't think anyone was saying the latter was too soon. |
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 87,493 
Member is Online
|
Post by chrom on Feb 15, 2017 9:26:02 GMT -5
WB has a winning lottery ticket in each hand and are just wiping their ass with them. It's friggin Batman and Superman. This shouldn't be this hard. Marvel took a group of characters who were obscure to anyone except the hardcore comic fanbase and made them household names. DC has taken their top two characters who anyone can recognize immediately on sight and made them into punchlines |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Feb 15, 2017 9:29:02 GMT -5
say, Spider-Man being rebooted twice in five. Spider-man has been rebooted once in 5 years. If you are allowing the first Batman reboot to be 17 years from the first, the first spider-man came out in 2002, and Amazing came out in 2012. It's also different as this time it's not the same company making the reboot like it would be for Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by Rolent Tex on Feb 15, 2017 9:38:52 GMT -5
Just pull the plug on this whole thing, WB. It's time to go back to scratch with Johns and do something that doesn't look like you're constantly trying to swim in Marvel's wake. The problem is they didn't try to swim in Marvel's wake. They tried to jump onto Marvel's boat and act like they put the work in to be there. I'd have zero issue with them using the Marvel plan of slow build of several solid (some only semi-solid) solo outings to start. I've said all along they should have done 3-4 solo movies leading into Justice League. Instead the stupid bastards go straight from Captain America to Civil War to Guardians to Thor to Avengers. |
|
|
|
Post by Rest easy big bro on Feb 15, 2017 10:08:30 GMT -5
On a strictly personal level, This is great news.
I do not care for Affleck (AFLAC!).
That aside this is exactly what happens when you try to do what MCU did over the course of 6 years in the span of a few movies.
That TNA/WWE comparison was apt. It's their free on tv Bound For Glory going against Marvels Wrestlemania.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 10:23:15 GMT -5
I look forward with Justice League with Tommy Wiseau as John Stewart. OH HAI GUY YOU ARE TEARING ME APART, KATMA! I'M SICK OF DIS WORL! *becomes Parallax because why not* |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 10:23:50 GMT -5
The problem is they didn't try to swim in Marvel's wake. They tried to jump onto Marvel's boat and act like they put the work in to be there. I'd have zero issue with them using the Marvel plan of slow build of several solid (some only semi-solid) solo outings to start. I've said all along they should have done 3-4 solo movies leading into Justice League. Instead the stupid bastards go straight from Captain America to Civil War to Guardians to Thor to Avengers. I remember reading around the time Avengers came out someone saying DC should start off their own universe with the Flash rather than going straight with the A-listers. I don't know that I agree with that, if only because it'd be Barry Allen and I REALLY don't care about that particular Flash, especially with the stupid dead mom thing they crowbarred in then proceeded to consume the entire character, but do agree with the overall sentiment that they wouldn't been better off starting with a middle-of-the-road sort to lay the groundwork for other stories. Helps that there's kind of the other issue in that Batman is a bit too small to start out with - Batman doesn't really work for fate of the world stories or anything outside of the Justice League - and Superman is too big since usually stories have to severely nerf him to make whoever he's teaming with look needed. To be fair they TRIED that with Green Lantern so points there just, y'know, Green Lantern was absolutely awful. And really it says it all about how deluded DC is that they already have plans for another Green Lantern movie when it's not been all that long and it's one of the biggest money-losing movies of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Feb 15, 2017 10:28:07 GMT -5
I've said all along they should have done 3-4 solo movies leading into Justice League. Instead the stupid bastards go straight from Captain America to Civil War to Guardians to Thor to Avengers. I remember reading around the time Avengers came out someone saying DC should start off their own universe with the Flash rather than going straight with the A-listers. I don't know that I agree with that, if only because it'd be Barry Allen and I REALLY don't care about that particular Flash, especially with the stupid dead mom thing they crowbarred in then proceeded to consume the entire character, but do agree with the overall sentiment that they wouldn't been better off starting with a middle-of-the-road sort to lay the groundwork for other stories. Helps that there's kind of the other issue in that Batman is a bit too small to start out with - Batman doesn't really work for fate of the world stories or anything outside of the Justice League - and Superman is too big since usually stories have to severely nerf him to make whoever he's teaming with look needed. To be fair they TRIED that with Green Lantern so points there just, y'know, Green Lantern was absolutely awful. And really it says it all about how deluded DC is that they already have plans for another Green Lantern movie when it's not been all that long and it's one of the biggest money-losing movies of all time. I've said before I kinda like parts of Green Lantern... the problem is they crammed an entire Trilogy worth of movies into a single one without giving any of the story time to actually happen. Which is kinda the exact problem they are having setting up their universe when you think about it... Starting with a Wonder Woman movie probably wouldn't have been a terrible idea either...She's a big enough name that most people know of her... she strong and faces massive things but will need help for planet threatening villains. But that would have required DC not to keep claiming that Wonder woman would be too unbelievable for years... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 10:36:56 GMT -5
I remember reading around the time Avengers came out someone saying DC should start off their own universe with the Flash rather than going straight with the A-listers. I don't know that I agree with that, if only because it'd be Barry Allen and I REALLY don't care about that particular Flash, especially with the stupid dead mom thing they crowbarred in then proceeded to consume the entire character, but do agree with the overall sentiment that they wouldn't been better off starting with a middle-of-the-road sort to lay the groundwork for other stories. Helps that there's kind of the other issue in that Batman is a bit too small to start out with - Batman doesn't really work for fate of the world stories or anything outside of the Justice League - and Superman is too big since usually stories have to severely nerf him to make whoever he's teaming with look needed. To be fair they TRIED that with Green Lantern so points there just, y'know, Green Lantern was absolutely awful. And really it says it all about how deluded DC is that they already have plans for another Green Lantern movie when it's not been all that long and it's one of the biggest money-losing movies of all time. I've said before I kinda like parts of Green Lantern... the problem is they crammed an entire Trilogy worth of movies into a single one without giving any of the story time to actually happen. Which is kinda the exact problem they are having setting up their universe when you think about it... Biggest issue with Green Lantern really is it was trying to be too many things at once. It was trying to be Iron Man in its tone (like that scene with Hal waking up in bed with a woman that was basically directly lifted from it), but with more serious and dark parts at points, and it was trying to set up an expanded universe, but also establish who Hal Jordan is, what the Green Lanterns are, who Hammond is, what Parallax is, who Sinestro is, who all these other Green Lanterns are, and it just wound up a mess. In general the movie would've been better if they'd gone a bit more grounded with it - make it fun and breezy but don't make it the stupid joke it actually was for a lot of it, and just keep it focused on Earth with Hammond as the villain. Should've been no sign of the actual Corps. at all until maybe a teaser at the end and just focused on Hal dealing with the one threat. It didn't help that the movie was severely lacking in likable characters. I find Hal boring and unlikable to begin with, though I guess to be fair the movie wrote him more like he was Guy anyway, but they could've at least tried to sell me on that version of him and instead they just made him a stubborn self-destructive inconsistent moron who the plot keeps bending over backwards to justify the actions of. The love interest existed I guess, Sinestro was fine in his scenes for what he was but they did nothing whatsoever to set up his heel turn at the end, Kilowog might have been fun if he got more than 30 seconds of screentime, Hammond was entertaining but impossible to take seriously, the Guardians were dicks with no logic behind any of their actions (perfect adaptation in that regard at least), Parallax was boring... And seriously who on earth voted to make freaking Parallax the villain of the first movie? That's like if you made a Fantastic Four movie where first order of business they fight Galactus. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Feb 15, 2017 10:45:18 GMT -5
I've said before I kinda like parts of Green Lantern... the problem is they crammed an entire Trilogy worth of movies into a single one without giving any of the story time to actually happen. Which is kinda the exact problem they are having setting up their universe when you think about it... Biggest issue with Green Lantern really is it was trying to be too many things at once. It was trying to be Iron Man in its tone (like that scene with Hal waking up in bed with a woman that was basically directly lifted from it), but with more serious and dark parts at points, and it was trying to set up an expanded universe, but also establish who Hal Jordan is, what the Green Lanterns are, who Hammond is, what Parallax is, who Sinestro is, who all these other Green Lanterns are, and it just wound up a mess. In general the movie would've been better if they'd gone a bit more grounded with it - make it fun and breezy but don't make it the stupid joke it actually was for a lot of it, and just keep it focused on Earth with Hammond as the villain. Should've been no sign of the actual Corps. at all until maybe a teaser at the end and just focused on Hal dealing with the one threat. It didn't help that the movie was severely lacking in likable characters. I find Hal boring and unlikable to begin with, though I guess to be fair the movie wrote him more like he was Guy anyway, but they could've at least tried to sell me on that version of him and instead they just made him a stubborn self-destructive inconsistent moron who the plot keeps bending over backwards to justify the actions of. The love interest existed I guess, Sinestro was fine in his scenes for what he was but they did nothing whatsoever to set up his heel turn at the end, Kilowog might have been fun if he got more than 30 seconds of screentime, Hammond was entertaining but impossible to take seriously, the Guardians were dicks with no logic behind any of their actions (perfect adaptation in that regard at least), Parallax was boring... And seriously who on earth voted to make freaking Parallax the villain of the first movie? That's like if you made a Fantastic Four movie where first order of business they fight Galactus. that's kinda what I meant. It's the origin story, his corps training, and him taking on Parallax... that's a trilogy right there. Hammond didn't get a chance to do anything, the corps training was like a scene... and then Here's parallax that gets to do nothing but we're told is a big threat. and then Sinestro puts on the yellow ring for... reasons ... in the post credit scene. the first movie should have been the setup of the Corps and have Hal skip out of his training to go fight Hammond... maybe have Sinestro lead a group of lanterns to some disturbance, Hal beats Hammond and then goes back to continue training because he was reckless with Hammond or something. Second film, is spent almost entirely with the corps... Sinestro returns weilding the yellow ring... go into his backstory and the existence of Parallax. third focus entirely on Parallax and trying to defeat him. |
|
