|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 14, 2016 10:59:35 GMT -5
Some reviews of CIVIL WAR are coming out- and they're raves.
While I liked BvS, it's got to be a kick in to the gut for WB-
BvS looks to be (finger quotes)"struggling" (assuming that it's counting on a billion to be a success) box office wise, and the reviews haven't been all that heartwarming.
Again, I would LOVE to be able to be in the boardroom at WB and hear how things are being 'figured out' as to the future of WB/DC properties.
On the flip side, I do think the Wonder Woman movie might be pretty good (but also, again, wondering what WB needs for it not to be a 'disappointment') - and I actually was never a fan of Suicide Squad (though some people are loving the trailers), but am mildly curious about it- (while also thinking of a dozen other heroes I'd love movies of instead).
|
|
|
Post by doomsday1 on Apr 15, 2016 9:48:38 GMT -5
I reckon Civil War will be a good solid film, you can at least guarantee a focussed well structured story for these films.
However the reviews mean nothing to me, you could release any old crap and as long as it had the MARVEL name on it, it would get a good review. Look at the likes of Ant-Man, pretty forgettable dirge but still got good write ups.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on Apr 15, 2016 11:58:31 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that. I think a lot of people enjoyed Antman so I guess that's purely on tatses or opinion.
But if Marvel released a truly crappy film critics wouldn't give it a total pass. Iron man 2 is proof of that. Not that I think IM2 is totally crappy but it's got a lot of problems. They've got a few things in the pipeline that I really don't think would work.
Also...does the Marvel name count for Fox and Sony released films because critics crapped all over the Amazing Spider-Man 2.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 15, 2016 19:17:23 GMT -5
I reckon Civil War will be a good solid film, you can at least guarantee a focussed well structured story for these films. However the reviews mean nothing to me, you could release any old crap and as long as it had the MARVEL name on it, it would get a good review. Look at the likes of Ant-Man, pretty forgettable dirge but still got good write ups. Reviews make me curious- but it won't stop me if I really want to see a movie. If I'm 50/50 on going to see it in the first place- then it COULD (but not necessarily) tip the scales for me. A good thought out review can make me take a second look or take a step back if they're sharp enough and point out a different way of looking at something. On the other hand, I really enjoyed much of the FIRST Wolverine- even though a majority of critics and fans just hate the heck out that movie. In reference to my post, though, I know that filmmakers look for SOME validation- what fans and critics both think may not destroy them, but if they're human, what someone feels about his/her work has to affect them (to what degree, who knows).
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 15, 2016 19:25:53 GMT -5
I wouldn't say that. I think a lot of people enjoyed Antman so I guess that's purely on tatses or opinion. But if Marvel released a truly crappy film critics wouldn't give it a total pass. Iron man 2 is proof of that. Not that I think IM2 is totally crappy but it's got a lot of problems. They've got a few things in the pipeline that I really don't think would work. Also...does the Marvel name count for Fox and Sony released films because critics crapped all over the Amazing Spider-Man 2. True- On rotten tomatoes- (left side critics' overall rating, right side fans' rating) Marvel named movies- Elektra... 10%/ 30% Wolverine: Origins 38%/59% Daredevil 44%/ 35% (The audiences actually rated this one LESS than the critics!)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 4, 2016 11:10:26 GMT -5
Marvel understands that a heroes actions speak even louder than their words even in the face of overwhelming odds. They laid out what kind of man Captain America was from the very beginning. Steve Rogers was a hero before he ever got the super soldier treatment. You could strip his abilities away and he'd still try to fight for what's right.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 5, 2016 13:09:15 GMT -5
Mr Sunday movies weighs in on DOJ vs CW.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 6, 2016 2:49:49 GMT -5
Just saw "Civil War". WOW.
The beginning setup is suprisingly much slower than I was used to for a Marvel movie - nothing wrong with it, but I was suprised that it took awhile to get going. (I think having the trailers get right TO the core of the situation made me assume that the movie was going to have that same pace in the beginning.)
But once it does- I have to admit that I don't think it was as 'tight' as some of the better Marvel movies. Many of the pieces are great, but I also admit that it at times felt like it suffered from a feeling of 'ok, we're not going to fully explore 'x' or 'y' because we're saving it for a future movie.
What's great: * The camera and 'real world' feeling that the scriptwriters & Russos infuse Civil War with, WITHOUT losing their sense of humanity.
* The action sequences are fresh and even feel a little dangerous at times- which is a small miracle in and of itself, given how CGI- fatigued we are.
* SPIDERMAN. I'm still wary about young Aunt Marisa Tomei May- but Tom Holland plays Spiderman/Peter Parker like a 'kid' version of Tobey Maguire, and it's perfect. The dialogue between the Avengers and Spiderman during the fighting sequences are fantastic.
What's not so great:
* The pacing of the first section.... BUT it's most likely due to seeing the trailers ahead of time, and thinking that it could/was going to start with the registration announcement- so I can only blame myself. Gah!
* The juggling with all the characters in Avengers 1 and 2 gave each character a real arc and balance. In Captain America: Winter Soldier, even though it's a Captain America and not an Avengers ensemble movie, sometimes one gets caught up now and then and wonder: 'are we going back to character 'x' or 'y'?'-
What I have a love/not sure if this was the best choice relationship with:
* The ending (no spoilers, no worry) wasn't what I expected. It gave me a real punch and intensity, but I'm mixed on the last 5-10 minutes.
Anyhow- compared to BvS? Well.... expectations going in were MUCH different.
I expected perfection from Civil War, and I felt that the trailers gave away too many plot points. I ruined it for myself.
I expected dog food from BvS, and thought it much, much better than I expected.
At the same time: There are portions of BvS that make me want to see it again, but not NEARLY as many as Civil War.
Oddly, Civil War makes me long for a three-hour version and maybe Joss Whedon to script assist to give some of the actors a little more to do or an extra scene or two. In a way, you could say I'm penalizing CW for being 'too good'. I love the new additions of Black Panther and SPiderman 3.0, love the bits with the original actors and characters- but I still wanted.... more.
BvS had the burden of me feeling like they already had a misfire with the Superman character carried over into BvS. And then there's the Jimmy being killed, and Jenny not. Also, it has the giant disadvantage of only three heroes we're not THAT familiar with yet, versus all the character development and goodwill of the Avengers in Civil War prior to the movie.
Anyhow- I'm glad BvS came out before Civil War. If I saw Civil War first, it would have hurt what I enjoyed in BvS. Will be curious to see if Civil War is another billion dollar hitter for Marvel....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 6, 2016 10:59:39 GMT -5
Its being projected to open as high as $210 million so it's got a real chance of making a billion. Age of Ultron didn't even open that high. I'm planing on seeing it this weekend and I'm dying. Trying to keep my own anticipation and hype on check since I think that hurt my enjoyment of AOU. What'd you think of Black Panther?
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 6, 2016 14:05:14 GMT -5
I think everything they introduced was pretty great (aside from Marisa Aunt May)....but in some cases with the supporting Avengers, I wanted even more. But,as mentioned, the trailers made the pacing of the setup feel slow, when it was probably fine (plus the fast pace right at the starting gate of both Avengers flicks probably didn't help)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 6, 2016 15:55:12 GMT -5
Much like the Kents they've been making Aunt May younger and younger for years to make them more appealing. True it makes sense for May not to be ancient with a teenage nephew but it's going to take some time getting used to May Parker being cougar hot.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 7, 2016 9:53:31 GMT -5
Much like the Kents they've been making Aunt May younger and younger for years to make them more appealing. True it makes sense for May not to be ancient with a teenage nephew but it's going to take some time getting used to May Parker being cougar hot. I hope that Marvel actually has a good reason for changing Aunt May beyond that, though. At the same time, I'm more than a little disappointed that the Ancient One has been changed (according to Marvel) because it might alienate China's government and they don't want to lose the potential movie dollars. (As well as Thor 2's decision to tell the only asian on Asgard to stay on his own planet. Pfah.) So, Marvel Studios aren't totally 'pure' when it comes to creative decisions over biz worries- but then again, I still think I would have preferred the original actor who played Rodi in Iron Man 1, too.... and supposedly it was because Marvel didn't want to pay the actor for the sequel. (I'll still argue that as much as I like Don Cheadle, it's hard to picture Tony Stark hanging out with Cheadle's Rodi, versus the original actor)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 7, 2016 11:23:49 GMT -5
Yeah I read an interview with Feige where his reasoning for the Ancient One casting change was clearly dodgy bs. I'm disappointed that they'd try to spin it as being more enlightened (when they really just want to make money from an oppressive regime) but I'm not suprised. That's why is show BUSINESS. Business comes first. I get that. But Marvels explanation just insults my intelligence. Anyone with half a brain can see why they really made the change.
As for making aunt may younger I'm cool with it because like I said I never bought it made much sense that May was 200 years old and looked like Boris Karloff in the Mummy. Sure it's possible but it takes some work to make it work with the age of Peters parents. I guess Richard Parker could have been a lot older than Mary Parker.
The only real issue I have with making May younger is her being older in the comics felt like one more burden of responsibility for young Peter. He's a kid and they don't have much money coming into the house. He has to support himself and his frail elderly aunt. It made for a sympathetic relatable hardship for Peter. At her age it wasn't easy for her to go out and get any job she wanted so financially you could believe that the Parkers went through hard times.
The problem I have with the Kents being younger is I feel older adoptive parents probably shaped Clarks outlook on life in a different way. It probably made him more appreciative of certain things. The Kents were wiser with age so they had a lot more experience and knowledge to pass on to Clark
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 7, 2016 13:50:04 GMT -5
Yeah I read an interview with Feige where his reasoning for the Ancient One casting change was clearly dodgy bs. I'm disappointed that they'd try to spin it as being more enlightened (when they really just want to make money from an oppressive regime) but I'm not suprised. That's why is show BUSINESS. Business comes first. I get that. But Marvels explanation just insults my intelligence. Anyone with half a brain can see why they really made the change. As for making aunt may younger I'm cool with it because like I said I never bought it made much sense that May was 200 years old and looked like Boris Karloff in the Mummy. Sure it's possible but it takes some work to make it work with the age of Peters parents. I guess Richard Parker could have been a lot older than Mary Parker. The only real issue I have with making May younger is her being older in the comics felt like one more burden of responsibility for young Peter. He's a kid and they don't have much money coming into the house. He has to support himself and his frail elderly aunt. It made for a sympathetic relatable hardship for Peter. At her age it wasn't easy for her to go out and get any job she wanted so financially you could believe that the Parkers went through hard times. The problem I have with the Kents being younger is I feel older adoptive parents probably shaped Clarks outlook on life in a different way. It probably made him more appreciative of certain things. The Kents were wiser with age so they had a lot more experience and knowledge to pass on to Clark Metallo, agree with you completely on Feige's cash-in. I have no problem with compromising for $$$ in show business- but be straight about it, or don't even comment rather than feed a line. Also agreed on how/why Lee and Ditko probably made Aunt May so old-looking from the get-go. Even now, I think it was ballsy for them them to do way back then for a youthful superhero comic. At first, I thought it was Maria Hill on the couch with RDJ in Civil War, rather than Aunt May! Anyhow- suprisingly, I was shocked how John Schneider was able to be a GREAT Pa Kent- albeit a tougher, more stubborn guy. I was ready to hate, with him being a former Dukes of Hazzard and all- but he made a great alternative Pa Kent imo. Costner, on the other hand, undone by misdirected writing.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,769
|
Post by atp on May 7, 2016 14:04:07 GMT -5
Why did Costner repeat, repeat words in every line he had in MoS?
It got a bit got a bit annoying.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 7, 2016 20:24:55 GMT -5
Yeah I read an interview with Feige where his reasoning for the Ancient One casting change was clearly dodgy bs. I'm disappointed that they'd try to spin it as being more enlightened (when they really just want to make money from an oppressive regime) but I'm not suprised. That's why is show BUSINESS. Business comes first. I get that. But Marvels explanation just insults my intelligence. Anyone with half a brain can see why they really made the change. As for making aunt may younger I'm cool with it because like I said I never bought it made much sense that May was 200 years old and looked like Boris Karloff in the Mummy. Sure it's possible but it takes some work to make it work with the age of Peters parents. I guess Richard Parker could have been a lot older than Mary Parker. The only real issue I have with making May younger is her being older in the comics felt like one more burden of responsibility for young Peter. He's a kid and they don't have much money coming into the house. He has to support himself and his frail elderly aunt. It made for a sympathetic relatable hardship for Peter. At her age it wasn't easy for her to go out and get any job she wanted so financially you could believe that the Parkers went through hard times. The problem I have with the Kents being younger is I feel older adoptive parents probably shaped Clarks outlook on life in a different way. It probably made him more appreciative of certain things. The Kents were wiser with age so they had a lot more experience and knowledge to pass on to Clark Metallo, agree with you completely on Feige's cash-in. I have no problem with compromising for $$$ in show business- but be straight about it, or don't even comment rather than feed a line. Also agreed on how/why Lee and Ditko probably made Aunt May so old-looking from the get-go. Even now, I think it was ballsy for them them to do way back then for a youthful superhero comic. At first, I thought it was Maria Hill on the couch with RDJ in Civil War, rather than Aunt May! Anyhow- suprisingly, I was shocked how John Schneider was able to be a GREAT Pa Kent- albeit a tougher, more stubborn guy. I was ready to hate, with him being a former Dukes of Hazzard and all- but he made a great alternative Pa Kent imo. Costner, on the other hand, undone by misdirected writing. Schneider successfully did what Costner was trying to do. Like ATP I thought Costner was a great choice but the writing is garbage and Snyder has no idea how to handle weighty emotional scenes. It all came off as cold and mean or downright stupid. Schneider was able to find just the right balance of the characters goodness and hopes with his fears and apprehension. As for Aunt May I should never want to f--- Aunt May yet I do. And that feels wrong.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 8, 2016 10:23:32 GMT -5
Metallo, agree with you completely on Feige's cash-in. I have no problem with compromising for $$$ in show business- but be straight about it, or don't even comment rather than feed a line. Also agreed on how/why Lee and Ditko probably made Aunt May so old-looking from the get-go. Even now, I think it was ballsy for them them to do way back then for a youthful superhero comic. At first, I thought it was Maria Hill on the couch with RDJ in Civil War, rather than Aunt May! Anyhow- suprisingly, I was shocked how John Schneider was able to be a GREAT Pa Kent- albeit a tougher, more stubborn guy. I was ready to hate, with him being a former Dukes of Hazzard and all- but he made a great alternative Pa Kent imo. Costner, on the other hand, undone by misdirected writing. Schneider successfully did what Costner was trying to do. Like ATP I thought Costner was a great choice but the writing is garbage and Snyder has no idea how to handle weighty emotional scenes. It all came off as cold and mean or downright stupid. Schneider was able to find just the right balance of the characters goodness and hopes with his fears and apprehension. As for Aunt May I should never want to f--- Aunt May yet I do. And that feels wrong. Maybe that's the effect Kevin Feige is going for w/Aunt May.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2016 12:07:29 GMT -5
How Civil War could have been avoided. It's amazing. Everything Feige warned Sony about over Amazing Spider-Man 2 happened no Marvel gets to use him and Spidey is one of the most praised things in Civil War. Seems like Feige knew what he was talking about.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 0:51:46 GMT -5
How Civil War could have been avoided. It's amazing. Everything Feige warned Sony about over Amazing Spider-Man 2 happened no Marvel gets to use him and Spidey is one of the most praised things in Civil War. Seems like Feige knew what he was talking about. I don't agree with all of Feige's ideas (I think it would have been more fun to have had a movie or two where RDJ would have to struggle with a secret identity before he revealed it to the world; and having no depth for the villain in Iron Man 2 and Cap 1 were giant mistakes imo)- but he definitely looked justified in rebooting in the few minutes where we got to see Peter Parker.... though I do wonder how Feige plans to incorporate the past history (Uncle Ben's killing/etc.), even if it's not going to be an origin story. On a similar note- Singer talked in short tones about how Feige felt in watching Xmen: DOFP, and I'd be curious about a more lengthy writeup on what Feige would do with X-men at this stage. For my two cents, I'm glad that (sorta/kinda/it looks like) Singer has been able to sorta reboot/sorta go full circle with the series of X-men films and make it better. I'm a little worried with some of the negative reviews on Apocalypse already, (if it continues, it might be the first time a Singer X-film gets a rotten score), but if it bridges the gap well between the First Class x-men and the X-men that we first saw in 2000 (For the most part), I'll be happy. On another Singer X-men note: not happy to hear that the tv shows will be parallel (non-connected) to the movies.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 8:48:53 GMT -5
I was fine with the Red Skull. I've always felt he was unjustly lumped in with other lesser MCU villians. He's a Nazi. He's never had much depth just like most action adventure movie Nazis don't. It's like the nazis from the Indiana Jones films. Sebastian Shaw from the Singer produced First Class was also a Nazi and was really no better. As a matter of fact I wish they'd gone more classic with the heckfire Club and Shaw like they did with Red Skull. I was disappointed how much they watered down the Nazi ties in First Avenger to focus more on Hydra but...eh.
Now Vanko in IM2 I'll agree on because while they tried to give him depth and a strong motivation it was a total misfire. The character was underwritten and after his father died he wasn't sympathetic. He didn't talk much. He didn't show much range. He's probably the weakest iron man movie villian. Justin Hammer far outshined him in the same movie.
I think they'll cover Ben Parkers death the same way Burton covered the Waynes death in Batman. It'll be in flashback or mention and it'll be quick but meaningful.
If Feige had the X-Men he'd probably go more comic accurate with the stories and the costumes and the overall look more than Singer has. He'd go for a more classic incarnation of the team. Cyclops would be highlighted more and Everyone would take less of a backseat to Wolverine. Marvel resisted the temptation to let Tony Stark totally dominate the screen time and stories as much as Wolverine did even though Stark was clearly the character best featured in the Avengers films. Singers trying to bring the flare of the comics into his movie universe when it isn't the easiest fit.
You'd see the Rogue of later comic books after she kept some of Ms Marvels power. Fox can't use Ms Marvel but they could have figured out some way to give her those powers.
Sucks to hear about the X-men Apocalypse reviews. It's still early though so maybe the film will turn out fine. On the outside looking in I did feel that maybe Singer was biting off more than he could chew. Trying to go too big too soon and do too much in a universe not designed for something like this to try and compete with DC FILMS and Marvel studios.
I'm looking forward to it and have loved Singers films but after directing four films I'm ready for a new vision for the X-men. I have no idea what it'll do box office wise. Even though it's the biggest Singer movie there's still a feeling of been there done that. That's why I'm ready for a new director with some fresh eyes and fresh ideas. I'm ready for a break from Magneto and Mystique to make room for some newer villians. Marvel studios is facing the same problem of sameyness hurting anticipation but the Singerverse of the X-men has been running twice as long as the MCU so the problem is worse. Things may have peaked with his movies with DOFP which was brilliant but they combined the best of the original films cast and the first class cast in one of the classic comic book stories. I'm not sure if Singer can deliver something more satisfying and better than that.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 11:40:34 GMT -5
I was fine with the Red Skull. I've always felt he was unjustly lumped in with other lesser MCU villians. He's a Nazi. He's never had much depth just like most action adventure movie Nazis don't. It's like the nazis from the Indiana Jones films. Sebastian Shaw from the Singer produced First Class was also a Nazi and was really no better. As a matter of fact I wish they'd gone more classic with the heckfire Club and Shaw like they did with Red Skull. I was disappointed how much they watered down the Nazi ties in First Avenger to focus more on Hydra but...eh. Now Vanko in IM2 I'll agree on because while they tried to give him depth and a strong motivation it was a total misfire. The character was underwritten and after his father died he wasn't sympathetic. He didn't talk much. He didn't show much range. He's probably the weakest iron man movie villian. Justin Hammer far outshined him in the same movie. I think they'll cover Ben Parkers death the same way Burton covered the Waynes death in Batman. It'll be in flashback or mention and it'll be quick but meaningful. If Feige had the X-Men he'd probably go more comic accurate with the stories and the costumes and the overall look more than Singer has. He'd go for a more classic incarnation of the team. Cyclops would be highlighted more and Everyone would take less of a backseat to Wolverine. Marvel resisted the temptation to let Tony Stark totally dominate the screen time and stories as much as Wolverine did even though Stark was clearly the character best featured in the Avengers films. Singers trying to bring the flare of the comics into his movie universe when it isn't the easiest fit. You'd see the Rogue of later comic books after she kept some of Ms Marvels power. Fox can't use Ms Marvel but they could have figured out some way to give her those powers. Sucks to hear about the X-men Apocalypse reviews. It's still early though so maybe the film will turn out fine. On the outside looking in I did feel that maybe Singer was biting off more than he could chew. Trying to go too big too soon and do too much in a universe not designed for something like this to try and compete with DC FILMS and Marvel studios. I'm looking forward to it and have loved Singers films but after directing four films I'm ready for a new vision for the X-men. I have no idea what it'll do box office wise. Even though it's the biggest Singer movie there's still a feeling of been there done that. That's why I'm ready for a new director with some fresh eyes and fresh ideas. I'm ready for a break from Magneto and Mystique to make room for some newer villians. Marvel studios is facing the same problem of sameyness hurting anticipation but the Singerverse of the X-men has been running twice as long as the MCU so the problem is worse. Things may have peaked with his movies with DOFP which was brilliant but they combined the best of the original films cast and the first class cast in one of the classic comic book stories. I'm not sure if Singer can deliver something more satisfying and better than that. I think my worries looking at the trailers were: (1) mind control? Not that interesting a conflict- unless pulled off really well, but even then... (2) big end of the world disasters? yawn. BUT--- with so many 'meh' (and less) superhero film directors, (Brett Ratner, James Mangold, the guys who directed Daredevil and Elektra, etc.) even though there could be a director with a better vision than Singer- his standard for character and story has been so high, that I fear that odds are more that a change in directors will end up with it being worse- So... I'm happy for Singer to stay on superhero films as long as he's willing to. To read that he'd be happy to do the Death of Phoenix in space and closer to the comics is fantastic to think about. Also- even with Kevin Feige's strengths in the Marvel universe, while I'd be curious to see what Feige would do with X-men... (I agree most likely more faithful costumes, more focus on the original Lee and Kirby x-characters) - I also think I'm so suprised at what Singer brought to the table outside of the comics (i.e. a better origin really in First Class than even the original comics had, with Magneto/Xavier). X-men has been so profitable, until it starts bombing like Sony's Spiderman, I can't see it going back to Marvel Studios- I'd also be curious what Singer's hopes are/were for X-men if he gets the chance to, with the 'ten-20 year gaps' between movies. The idea of going from the 60's, to 70's, to 80's seemed to work so far and is fascinating... also the idea of his 'rebooting' stories that will be at the core the same because of his introduced idea about the timestream bending mostly to repeat itself. (Allowing Death of Phoenix story to be retold again, but much better). After Singer's done, of course, I'd be happy to see Feige take over. But, I'm hoping Singer isn't done yet and still is allowed to play out his longterm plan, even if it turns out to be a fuzzy plan at this point... Also- I admire his committment to telling the long story. While I'm not thrilled he decided to avoid a superhero battle in SR, I do respect he put character over action.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 14:21:34 GMT -5
I don't see the X-men film rights going back to marvel any time soon. Maybe ever. It would take at least three big bombs on a row from Fox for them to web consider reaching out the way Sony did. Best case scenario is Fox sees they can make even more money by working with Disney and Marvel studios and sharing characters.
It's interesting that you mentioned James Mangold. He's a fine director and writer and while The Wolverine was a good movie the third act went haywire. It didn't really work. I think Fox and other producers stepped in and damaged that film much like the did with Tranks Fantastic Four. Basically the same old fox problems only less severe. The X-men films have been spared much of that interference because of Singer.
If Marvel studios were to get to full creative control of the X-men one thing I'd miss from the Singer era is his ability to make mutants outcasts and doing such a good job with it. Singers films can be just as bland as Marvels in their own certain (but different) ways but marvels are usually even more samey and generic looking than Singers (which do look a bit more distinctively cinematic) while lacking as much of Singers sense of drama and darkness.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 17:00:03 GMT -5
I don't see the X-men film rights going back to marvel any time soon. Maybe ever. It would take at least three big bombs on a row from Fox for them to web consider reaching out the way Sony did. Best case scenario is Fox sees they can make even more money by working with Disney and Marvel studios and sharing characters. It's interesting that you mentioned James Mangold. He's a fine director and writer and while The Wolverine was a good movie the third act went haywire. It didn't really work. I think Fox and other producers stepped in and damaged that film much like the did with Tranks Fantastic Four. Basically the same old fox problems only less severe. The X-men films have been spared much of that interference because of Singer. If Marvel studios were to get to full creative control of the X-men one thing I'd miss from the Singer era is his ability to make mutants outcasts and doing such a good job with it. Singers films can be just as bland as Marvels in their own certain (but different) ways but marvels are usually even more samey and generic looking than Singers (which do look a bit more distinctively cinematic) while lacking as much of Singers sense of drama and darkness. Mangold's other movies I found very watchable and had fantastic performances.... (my favorite being Copland)- but even then, the endings for many of his films during the last act almost always felt unsatisfying to me- and I really was disappointed in the 2nd Wolverine film. In trying to avoid stereotypes, he made almost all the characters bland (except for Yukio) and evil. The main love interest was supposed to be Wolverine's equal, but I found her charmless and cold. In the comics, I read the two love interests as great contrasts- Yukio as a wild warrior like Wolverine, but the main love interest as the person who was 'civilized' and kind, and more of the person he wished he could become. So- anyhow, I'm not sure how much hope I place in Mangold's Wolverine movie. I actually liked the first Wolverine much better, though it's almost universally despised. (The David Beinoff first draft is on the web, interesting to read btw). Singer definitely has some connection to the 'outsiders' feeling for X-men, and isn't afraid to be edgy but with something significant to comment on, so it's not just 'flash'. Marvel Studios' weakness seems to be wanting to make sure things are a little TOO family friendly at times and the conflicts never scarring for any kid.... at least in the MCU. Civil War's last act is probably as dark as I've seen in all of Marvel's movies. One thing both sets of superhero movies seem to miss from those two studios right now is a sense of awe and wonder, even if for a few moments. There are the emotional ones (which maybe are more important), but I kind of miss the 'wow' pop that we used to get from Burton's Batman and Donner's Superman. Maybe it's just from CGI being the norm, maybe it's the need for 'fast fast fast' editing right now, maybe it's Kevin Feige's disdain for 'hero' shots that hang there. I kind of miss them, to tell you the truth. At least BvS had a few of those (Hi WOnder Woman and the Superman rescuing people montage) to its credit.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,854
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 20:13:54 GMT -5
The airport fight on civil war definitely blew my mind. Giant man made me go wow even though I knew it was coming but I agree with what you're saying. You don't have many moments like that now especially since we've seen it all in the cgi age.
I thought the wolverine was much better than origins but I had had much higher expectations for it. Yeah it was bland in spots. The casting could have been better. I so wonder if it would have been better to set it between origins and Xmen 1 instead of after last stand. I know they needed to set up the future events of DOFP with something but for whatever reason the movie felt like it was missing something. I still think it's good but they made some mind boggling creative choices. Viper was like something out of Joel Schumachers batman. It's like fox panicked and felt it wasn't comic booky enough and dumbed it down at the last minute.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 22:10:28 GMT -5
The airport fight on civil war definitely blew my mind. Giant man made me go wow even though I knew it was coming but I agree with what you're saying. You don't have many moments like that now especially since we've seen it all in the cgi age. I thought the wolverine was much better than origins but I had had much higher expectations for it. Yeah it was bland in spots. The casting could have been better. I so wonder if it would have been better to set it between origins and Xmen 1 instead of after last stand. I know they needed to set up the future events of DOFP with something but for whatever reason the movie felt like it was missing something. I still think it's good but they made some mind boggling creative choices. Viper was like something out of Joel Schumachers batman. It's like fox panicked and felt it wasn't comic booky enough and dumbed it down at the last minute. The directors' cut is better- (the fight in the village is FANTASTIC but they said they cut it out because they were going to get an 'r' rating if they left it in) but even then, I wasn't happy with a lot of choices Mangold made in the adaptation- primarily, I think the casting and writing of Mariko just made me not care if she was killed or not- not something I think Mangold intended! Because of Mangold's spotty record creatively, I'm not sure if it was the studio or Mangold- but Mangold seems pretty happy with his choices on the commentary, so I'm thinking he might not be that innocent in the matter. In any case- yeah, if anyone wonders why I worship Singer, it's because of dissatisfaction with so many other directors who seem competent, but disappoint me on their superhero film work...
|
|