Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 31, 2016 18:38:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 1, 2016 13:42:13 GMT -5
I haven't seen "Dope", but I believe it got good reviews. The only thing that makes me have interest in this (since they're not using Grant Justin) - is that the writers of the Lego movie are doing the script.... and I haven't heard anything to suggest that the screenwriters are unhappy about any changes or demands by WB. What puzzles me is that- if they have an airtight script- why not just get reliable tv directors who have a bit of visual flair? This worked for Captain America 2 and 3. But then again.... it also worked (at least the first one) for STM as well!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 1, 2016 16:02:49 GMT -5
I was thinging the same thing as far as tv directors. In a perfect world you'd want someone with great visual flair but...this is going to be the studio and producers movie more than any directors so why not? Ideally I think someone like Whedon could be a good fit for Flash because of all the character stuff. I've even read people online saying Kevin Smith. He's directed episodes of the tv show so if he made a good pitch I could see WB choosing him especially since he's a company guy who will do what WB wants.
Like you said lord and Miller wrote it and would have been perfect for this but being studio shills and hired guns is beneath them at this point. They're on the road to having enough clout to call some of their own shots.
I think this is a case of wbs own direction continually biting them in the @ss. This director wanted something edgy which contradicts Lord and millers comedy strengths. It sounds like he wanted to do something more personable that fit his sensibilities but there was no way that was going to happen with something like this. Then there's Snyders vision for DC clashing with Geoff Johns. Not picking the right direction in the first place is now catching up with them. Finally, the movie will be competing with the tv show in the arena of public opinion. They can pretend like it won't but it will be especially since it's going to cover so much of the same ground. The best thing the movie could do is NOT adapt the Flash rebirth/Flashpoint material since the tv show already has. I
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 2, 2016 13:32:51 GMT -5
I was thinging the same thing as far as tv directors. In a perfect world you'd want someone with great visual flair but...this is going to be the studio and producers movie more than any directors so why not? Ideally I think someone like Whedon could be a good fit for Flash because of all the character stuff. I've even read people online saying Kevin Smith. He's directed episodes of the tv show so if he made a good pitch I could see WB choosing him especially since he's a company guy who will do what WB wants. Like you said lord and Miller wrote it and would have been perfect for this but being studio shills and hired guns is beneath them at this point. They're on the road to having enough clout to call some of their own shots. I think this is a case of wbs own direction continually biting them in the @ss. This director wanted something edgy which contradicts Lord and millers comedy strengths. It sounds like he wanted to do something more personable that fit his sensibilities but there was no way that was going to happen with something like this. Then there's Snyders vision for DC clashing with Geoff Johns. Not picking the right direction in the first place is now catching up with them. Finally, the movie will be competing with the tv show in the arena of public opinion. They can pretend like it won't but it will be especially since it's going to cover so much of the same ground. The best thing the movie could do is NOT adapt the Flash rebirth/Flashpoint material since the tv show already has. I Funny thing is: The Kevin Smith episode I thought should have been a piece of cake, but I thought a lot of moments were really flubbed that normally were done well by the regular tv directors. I thought it was Smith's own scripts that made some awkwardness, but from that episode, I thought the other 'no-name' tv directors on Flash were much better on that show. Oh well... as long as they keep the Lord and Miller script intact, hopefully it'll be worth watching. If not, I'll be hunting down the script!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 2, 2016 15:09:20 GMT -5
Smiths a better writer than he is director. He's certainly never been a great action adventure material director. Smiths a DC yes man. I was watching the behind the scenes material for his episode and he had no drive to do anything special with it. It's basically what you said. Anyone could have directed his episode.
Flash has been on a decline and is in a real rut now. I though last nights episode was mostly crap with a few nice moments from Barry's new lab partner. His bits were the only worthwhile things. Meanwhile Agents of Shield had maybe it's best episode ever. Certainly one of its best. I'd dare say AOS is the best comic book show on network tv right now. DCs tv is it's best asset right now but even that's sinking overall. Supergirl is better this season but LOT is spotty and Arrow and Flash are on a decline. I don't give a crap about Dr Destiny or Church.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 2, 2016 18:11:08 GMT -5
Smiths a better writer than he is director. He's certainly never been a great action adventure material director. Smiths a DC yes man. I was watching the behind the scenes material for his episode and he had no drive to do anything special with it. It's basically what you said. Anyone could have directed his episode. Flash has been on a decline and is in a real rut now. I though last nights episode was mostly crap with a few nice moments from Barry's new lab partner. His bits were the only worthwhile things. Meanwhile Agents of Shield had maybe it's best episode ever. Certainly one of its best. I'd dare say AOS is the best comic book show on network tv right now. DCs tv is it's best asset right now but even that's sinking overall. Supergirl is better this season but LOT is spotty and Arrow and Flash are on a decline. I don't give a crap about Dr Destiny or Church. I'll lay it all on the showrunner plus thier ability to be continually creative within its constrictions (keeping the same cast/ staying in the budget/ not pissing off the network) Buffy had many amazing seasons, that didn't feel like it held anything back. Trek and its spinoffs were pretty darn fresh for many seasons. At the same time... There might be a limit to how far they can stretch a DC character that DC will allow. With Trek, Roddenberry seemed to letup on his 'no conflict ever within the Federation' as the series went on, and the show got even better. I don't know if I want Kara to go through a journey through darkness for a whole season- but there has to be genuine growth and journeys within the character to keep it fresh. (Along with Flash, Arrow, etc.) I have a feeling that there are parameters as to what DC/WB will allow for the characters to deal with. Flash has hit a lot of great notes dealing with family--- but once you play all those out- there's got to be other interesting things to deal with (Trek has saved a lot of 'family' stories until the last seasons as 'easy fallbacks'). Because there's a lot of stuff dealt with superficially....it's got to be tricky to keep it engaging and fresh if there are too many limitations. The worst thing for all these shows would be to keep going on past the point of welcome. I do notice, though, that with many overseas tv shows, many seem to be a lot shorter than the 22-episode season orders that happen in the U.S. Maybe all the Berlianti shows would be better off as Netflix (shorter) series?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Nov 10, 2016 12:21:57 GMT -5
Trek is odd because Roddenberrys ideas of what it should be changed so much between TOS and TNG. He never was the driving force behind the day to day decisions of what made TOS great. He was a great concept and character man. What made TOS was people like Coon and Justman and Fontana. With TNG we got to see Roddenberry more unleashed but the show didn't become great until after he stepped back.
I think with the DC shows they are limited by their formulas and by their networks demands. Even AGENTS of SHIELD is pushing its limits in ways they can't.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Nov 12, 2016 12:58:04 GMT -5
Trek is odd because Roddenberrys ideas idea what it should be changed so much between TOS and TNG. He never was the driving force behind the day to day decisions of what made TOS great. He was a great concept and character man. What made TOS was people like Coon and Justman and Fontana. With TNG we got to see Roddenberry more unleashed but the show didn't not become great until after he stepped back. I think with the DC shows they are limited by their formulas and by their networks demands. Even AGENTS of SHIELD is pushing its limits in ways they can't. True about Roddenberry. There's a documentary that shares just what a mess the writers' room was in the first two seasons. But--- without Roddenberry's restrictions (no conflicts between the crew members) and mandate for an optimistic future- it wsa probably harder to write for that show with the restrictions, but in the end, the restrictions I think made/make the Roddenberry TNG era filled with as much goodwill as it does. When things get darker in real life, pulling out the more optimistic Trek feels more like comfort food than the JJ Abrams produced films. If Abrams said that he wanted to update optimism in the movies, it's hard to see it.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 25, 2017 21:15:06 GMT -5
www.joblo.com/movie-news/warner-bros-tasks-joby-harold-with-performing-a-rewrite-on-the-flash-205They just can't seem to get anything right. If the rewrite helps then that's good but they never should have announced a solid date for this movie with that many behind the scenes problems. If the film needs a COMPLETE rewrite then it makes me wonder how far off the mark the previous script was. It just looks bad to make all these big plans and dates public only for so much of it to fall apart. This movie WILL get pushed back now. It's not even a question anymore.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 25, 2017 23:52:30 GMT -5
www.joblo.com/movie-news/warner-bros-tasks-joby-harold-with-performing-a-rewrite-on-the-flash-205They just can't seem to get anything right. If the rewrite helps then that's good but they never should have announced a solid date for this movie with that many behind the scenes problems. If the film needs a COMPLETE rewrite then it makes me wonder how far off the mark the previous script was. It just looks bad to make all these big plans and dates public only for so much of it to fall apart. This movie WILL get pushed back now. It's not even a question anymore. This makes me wonder a few things: #1: Is this the norm for movies in general to be this chaotic? While Marvel isn't exactly the norm it seems- Marvel had the fallout with Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins, but it seemed like the exception versus the norm. Plus, they delivered everything on time (so far) #2: Is WB just constantly screwed up, far more than other studios that own properties? Superman certainly seemed to take forever to get off the ground. And... from SR to MOS took forever as well. It seems like Marvels' success put pressure on the owner of the second most popular supehero property company to deliver SOME films.... but I guess we'll see how the rest plays out from Wonder Woman on... In any case- the original two screenwriters (I believe the guys who wrote Lego movie and Jump Street, right?) are superhot in Hwood- if they decided to jetison THAT script, it really puts a lot of doubt on WB's judgement....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 26, 2017 13:38:17 GMT -5
Usually movies that had problems used to deal with it before they announced a firm set in stone down to the day release date. That changed by the 90s. Alien 3 set a date before it was anywhere close to ready and stubbornly stuck to it. That kind of process for making movies fails because it doesn't leave much wiggle room.
Marvel has gotten past that because while their directors may leave because of disagreements they at least have a decent script hammered out and they find a director who agrees with their vision. Everyone gets on the same page before the point of no return.
The way WB does it is they hire a director then pull the rug out from under them late in the game. The scripts end up being poor all around. Marvel doesn't wait until the middle of production to fix the issues. They settle things before it's time to shoot. DC tries to fix bad scripts and bad cuts after or during principle photography.
It's the plus of having one guy with a strong vision in charge vs a bunch of people with varying levels of talent with different visions all pulling in their own directions.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 27, 2017 1:09:17 GMT -5
Usually movies that had problems used to deal with it before they announced a firm set in stone down to the day release date. That changed by the 90s. Alien 3 set a date before it was anywhere close to ready and stubbornly stuck to it. That kind of process for making movies fails because it doesn't leave much wiggle room. Marvel has gotten past that because while their directors may leave because of disagreements they at least have a decent script hammered out and they find a director who agrees with their vision. Everyone gets on the same page before the point of no return. The way WB does it is they hire a director then pull the rug out from under them late in the game. The scripts end up being poor all around. Marvel doesn't wait until the middle of production to fix the issues. They settle things before it's time to shoot. DC tries to fix bad scripts and bad cuts after or during principle photography. It's the plus of having one guy with a strong vision in charge vs a bunch of people with varying levels of talent with different visions all pulling in their own directions. I remember watching a pbs documentary years ago that talked about presidents of studios having (basically) only one year to prove themselves, hence, they had to 'lock in' some summer blockbuster packages so that (whether fully ready or not) at the end of the year, they would have a higher chance of overall box office success with the projects that he/she would have greenlighted over the year.... so after that, I got why 'locking in' theatre dates ahead of time was so crucial and why studios are also a bit hesitant to give up early spots because they're competing with other studios for prime spots during the year. So, I understand (but still get irritated by) projects like Spiderman 3 that go awry, but won't slow down to meet the promised theatre release date. With Marvel, I used to think that they had it down to an art- until Iron Man 2.... then in reading interviews with the screenwriter and Mickey Rourke, it revealed that things weren't THAT solid with the process and that some of the craziness we read/hear about on other projects looks like happens also at Marvel Studios.... BUT.... at the same time- whether or not Iron Man 2 was just a 'speed bump' or Marvel/Feige straightens the ship fast enough at some point..... their success rate and production rate still kills everyone else around. I've read that Whedon had criticism with Marvel- BUT, that he was glad that even with restrictions, the creative restrictions given to him didn't change every five minutes like it had on other projecst, like "Dollhouse". Similarly, it did bother me when Shane Black mentioned that the original villain for Iron Man 3 was a woman, but that Marvel nixed it because of the projected toy sales based solely on that choice. So....I know that there are still things that (when I read about it) irritate me about the behind the scenes at the MCU- but, again, if the final product still shines, while the process might be questionable at times, it's all I'll care about (for the most part).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 27, 2017 10:25:11 GMT -5
I remember watching a pbs documentary years ago that talked about presidents of studios having (basically) only one year to prove themselves, hence, they had to 'lock in' some summer blockbuster packages so that (whether fully ready or not) at the end of the year, they would have a higher chance of overall box office success with the projects that he/she would have greenlighted over the year.... so after that, I got why 'locking in' theatre dates ahead of time was so crucial and why studios are also a bit hesitant to give up early spots because they're competing with other studios for prime spots during the year. So, I understand (but still get irritated by) projects like Spiderman 3 that go awry, but won't slow down to meet the promised theatre release date. With Marvel, I used to think that they had it down to an art- until Iron Man 2.... then in reading interviews with the screenwriter and Mickey Rourke, it revealed that things weren't THAT solid with the process and that some of the craziness we read/hear about on other projects looks like happens also at Marvel Studios.... BUT.... at the same time- whether or not Iron Man 2 was just a 'speed bump' or Marvel/Feige straightens the ship fast enough at some point..... their success rate and production rate still kills everyone else around. I've read that Whedon had criticism with Marvel- BUT, that he was glad that even with restrictions, the creative restrictions given to him didn't change every five minutes like it had on other projecst, like "Dollhouse". Similarly, it did bother me when Shane Black mentioned that the original villain for Iron Man 3 was a woman, but that Marvel nixed it because of the projected toy sales based solely on that choice. So....I know that there are still things that (when I read about it) irritate me about the behind the scenes at the MCU- but, again, if the final product still shines, while the process might be questionable at times, it's all I'll care about (for the most part). Iron Man 2 was still relatively early in the history of Marvel Studios but even then it's still watchable. It's still better than most of the the DC movies released by WB. If that's their worst it's a masterpiece compared to Catowman or Jonah Hex. Iron Man 2's problem was rushing it out to capitalize on a hit. Iron Man 1 didn't have a solid script either but they got lucky that it all came together and they had a solid base concept with the origin story. With Whedon and AOU I think in a few cases Marvel was right to get Whedon to make changes. Other times Whedon was right. He did want some things that I thought were odd. Didn't he push for the Widow/Banner romance? A lot of people didn't care for that. As far as the female villain toy thing in iron Man 3 that was because of Ike Perlmutter. He killed that idea because before he ran Marvel he ran a toy company and many of his decisions were based on toy sales. Now that Feige doesn't have to answer to Perlmutter marvel doesn't care as much. It's looking like the main villain in Thor Ragnorok is going to be Hela -- a woman.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 27, 2017 14:22:59 GMT -5
I remember watching a pbs documentary years ago that talked about presidents of studios having (basically) only one year to prove themselves, hence, they had to 'lock in' some summer blockbuster packages so that (whether fully ready or not) at the end of the year, they would have a higher chance of overall box office success with the projects that he/she would have greenlighted over the year.... so after that, I got why 'locking in' theatre dates ahead of time was so crucial and why studios are also a bit hesitant to give up early spots because they're competing with other studios for prime spots during the year. So, I understand (but still get irritated by) projects like Spiderman 3 that go awry, but won't slow down to meet the promised theatre release date. With Marvel, I used to think that they had it down to an art- until Iron Man 2.... then in reading interviews with the screenwriter and Mickey Rourke, it revealed that things weren't THAT solid with the process and that some of the craziness we read/hear about on other projects looks like happens also at Marvel Studios.... BUT.... at the same time- whether or not Iron Man 2 was just a 'speed bump' or Marvel/Feige straightens the ship fast enough at some point..... their success rate and production rate still kills everyone else around. I've read that Whedon had criticism with Marvel- BUT, that he was glad that even with restrictions, the creative restrictions given to him didn't change every five minutes like it had on other projecst, like "Dollhouse". Similarly, it did bother me when Shane Black mentioned that the original villain for Iron Man 3 was a woman, but that Marvel nixed it because of the projected toy sales based solely on that choice. So....I know that there are still things that (when I read about it) irritate me about the behind the scenes at the MCU- but, again, if the final product still shines, while the process might be questionable at times, it's all I'll care about (for the most part). Iron Man 2 was still relatively early in the history of Marvel Studios but even then it's still watchable. It's still better than most of the the DC movies released by WB. If that's their worst it's a masterpiece compared to Catowman or Jonah Hex. Iron Man 2's problem was rushing it out to capitalize on a hit. Iron Man 1 didn't have a solid script either but they got lucky that it all came together and they had a solid base concept with the origin story. With Whedon and AOU I think in a few cases Marvel was right to get Whedon to make changes. Other times Whedon was right. He did want some things that I thought were odd. Didn't he push for the Widow/Banner romance? A lot of people didn't care for that. As far as the female villain toy thing in iron Man 3 that was because of Ike Perlmutter. He killed that idea because before he ran Marvel he ran a toy company and many of his decisions were based on toy sales. Now that Feige doesn't have to answer to Perlmutter marvel doesn't care as much. It's looking like the main villain in Thor Ragnorok is going to be Hela -- a woman. Good points. I DESPISED the 'Hawkeye as family guy' makeover and 'aw, me and Widow are just like brother and sister' that Whedon wanted. The Hulk/Widow romance was also weird.... though with the deleted scene- it could have worked out much better (Banner says something that cuts Widow to the bone and Whedon said that from that point on, supposedly she was sorta/kinda borderline suicidal anyhow- a big change from not havng it in)>
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 27, 2017 15:02:05 GMT -5
I still think Whedon lifted the whole Banner/Romanoff romance idea from The Death of the Incredible Hulk TV movie. He'll never admit it but there are too many similarities.
I agree on Hawkeye. I didn't mind the family stuff but I felt it was also out of character and limited what they could do with him. He just never struck me as a family man. No relashionship with Mockingbird as far as we know. At least he gave him his sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 28, 2017 19:57:50 GMT -5
I still think Whedon lifted the whole Banner/Romanoff romance idea from The Death of the Incredible Hulk TV movie. He'll never admit it but there are too many similarities. I agree on Hawkeye. I didn't mind the family stuff but I felt it was also out of character and limited what they could do with him. He just never struck me as a family man. No relashionship with Mockingbird as far as we know. At least he gave him his sense of humor. On one hand, in loking back, it's nice that there's SOME human element worth defending in the movie.... but on the other hand.... Hawkeye and Black Widow's characters felt really 'off' by having this. .. plus, it went against what I felt was credible in that universe. I think Whedon could have achieved some of the same goals without the Hawkeye family (couldn't it have been a relative with the safehouse?) and the hulk/widow relationship.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 29, 2017 11:00:13 GMT -5
They should have given Hawkeye a girlfriend. Maybe a pregnant girlfriend. That's his reason to retire. Makes it more believable since things have changed. Wife kids and farmhouse with the white fence was a bit much.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Jan 30, 2017 1:03:03 GMT -5
They should have given Hawkeye a girlfriend. Maybe a pregnant girlfriend. That's his reason to retire. Makes it more believable since things have changed. Wife kids and farmhouse with the white fence was a bit much. The Widow/Hulk romance already made me lift an eyebrow.... but the 'oh, I have a Hallmark Card family in secret' was wayyyy too much. At least give one of the kids a big zit or something, for heaven's sake. If he had died at the end, that might have made it a little more forgiveable, but at least Civil War suggests something a little darker at least to make it not so ridiculous.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 30, 2017 12:17:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 30, 2017 12:35:00 GMT -5
I guess the question that comes to mind at this point for me is: WB/DC sat on their properties for YEARS and would let it sit, sit, and sit and then rot. Now- WB/DC is rushing like a chicken with its head cut off to show shareholders (I presume) that they're actually being productive. With the results so darned mixed/underwhelming in tv and movies- I GUESS this is better than nothing? Not totally sure.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 30, 2017 14:01:57 GMT -5
I'd rather have one good movie every five years instead of ten mediocre/crappy ones. WB is doing it now because they like everyone else in Hollywood is following the leader. Even Fox is expanding what they did when they were content to do X-men and Wolverine movies for 15 years.
WB never saw the value in this approach before. Their thinking was why make one movie with all your characters when you can make five or six and make five times more money? Marvel comes along and shows everyone that if done right the team ups and interconnectivity can massively increase profits.
It's sad that the third Thor movie with Hulk and Thor meeting up yet again has a real shot at beating the first ever justice League movie. WB could have done a JL movie with Chris Reeve 25 years ago but they never had the vision for it.
CAM, do you think WB should have done JL before BVS? I ask because I think doing BVS first takes away a lot of the novelty of JL.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Oct 30, 2017 17:35:09 GMT -5
I'd rather have one good movie every five years instead of ten mediocre/crappy ones. WB is doing it now because they like everyone else in Hollywood is following the leader. Even Fox is expanding what they did when they were content to do X-men and Wolverine movies for 15 years. WB never saw the value in this approach before. Their thinking was why make one movie with all your characters when you can make five or six and make five times more money? Marvel comes along and shows everyone that if done right the team ups and interconnectivity can massively increase profits. It's sad that the third Thor movie with Hulk and Thor meeting up yet again has a real shot at beating the first ever justice League movie. WB could have done a JL movie with Chris Reeve 25 years ago but they never had the vision for it. CAM, do you think WB should have done JL before BVS? I ask because I think doing BVS first takes away a lot of the novelty of JL. First: I'm assuming you're NOT talking about the George Miller JL at all. As- I would have been fine with ANY superhero film with George Miller, just based on his directing skills. So, about whether or not I'd say JL first or BVS first: I have to say that I did like parts of BVS, given the hole that they were stuck in creatively after MOS.... and it did launch Wonder Woman. Since they were re-introducing Batman + introducing WW, I think if they HAD to go that way, then BVS seems (conceptually) a better way to go, as it at least helped give a little more screen time to Bat and WW before expanding to MORE characters/actors that haven't played these roles before. I DO think that they should have hired Joss Whedon immediately before starting BvS--- but then again, I also think they should have hired Whedon before MOS and Dark Knight Rises! AND.... I absolutely agree- I would rather have fewer superhero films that are great, than quantity and mediocrity (or less, which is what we have now...)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Oct 30, 2017 22:39:35 GMT -5
I mean the dceu JL. Sadly Miller was out of the question by the time MOS had come out because he was busy with Fury Road. I would have at the very least gone for MOS, Batman, Flash, and WW then justice league then done BVS at a much later date.
If Miller had done his JL in 2008 I'd definitly have had BVS later with Miller using Routh and Bale instead of Cotrona and Hammer. I respect Miller a ton but DJ Cotrona as Superman I still don't understand.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,836
|
Post by Metallo on Jan 19, 2018 15:27:48 GMT -5
|
|