|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 8, 2013 22:45:40 GMT -5
I remember reading an article years back, where (back when Speilberg was at his peak and had the most influence in Hollywood)- Speilberg's name was listed as producer for a project--- then when asked about his involvement, said that he would allow his name to be used for this/that project, and that would open the door for the producers to get it moving just because his name was on it. Probably the same deal..... Nolan has said before he really wasn't a comic book fan. It's probably not dissimilar to having Geoff Johns listed as a producer for Green Lantern..... which means, yeah, no real influence or participation whatsoever. But.... If Bale is involved, I have a hunch he's not afraid to pull punches if he thinks something isn't going right there---- (although it doesn't quite explain how Terminator 4 ended up such a big mess....)  |
|
Rod
New Member
Believe it or not
Posts: 498 
|
Post by Rod on Mar 8, 2013 23:03:22 GMT -5
well, nolan's name is a quality seal to calm down fans.
he is not really involved but he should know what is going down. i hope so.
|
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on Mar 9, 2013 1:03:11 GMT -5
My brother and I have a kind of inside joke whenever we see "Quentin Tarantino Presents" in front of a movie, often something schlocky or martial arts related.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 1:42:34 GMT -5
From the production assistants that brought you "The Marine 2" ...
|
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Mar 9, 2013 2:18:04 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Mar 9, 2013 8:18:04 GMT -5
They just keep slapping his name on shit he has NOTHING to do with, outside of saying "Yeah, put my name on the poster & then pay me, bitches." BRILLIANT! ;D Here's the funny thing about all of that: Most fanboys are smart enough to know he's not really involved at the creative level. And the people who are just going because it's popular, don't care or know the name of any producer or director. It means nothing to them. ;D ;D ;D Branding is mega important. Attachments i.e. star name gives producers and studios some assurance, which in turn persuades them to open up their purses. In this case, I think Nolan is like a godfather to the project, he's around to give advice and shepherd a project to production. He doesn't have day-to-day involvement, but at least it gives the moneymen confidence. Producers run on fear, star names, IPs, branding gives them the confidence. It's quite important, otherwise nothing will get made, especially the more expensive movies. Fanboys don't know the reality of the business. It's quite an eyeopener. Film-makers, especially the newcomers, don't know anything when it comes to putting something together to lure investments to make their films. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Mar 9, 2013 12:15:11 GMT -5
All sad & true.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 9, 2013 12:52:09 GMT -5
Fanboys don't know the reality of the business. I don't know about that. Thanks to the internet and the wealth of news and rumor, many fans have access to a lot of inside information and are able to see the big picture. Especially savvy are the cynical fans who know the studio is run by a bunch of morons, and plan their enthusiasm accordingly. As for the "fanboys" who don't give a damn about the process and just want to be titillated or numbed for two hours, who cares what they think? ;D They get what they pay for. |
|
|
|
Post by MAVERICK on Mar 9, 2013 13:11:59 GMT -5
Exaaaaaactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 15:04:09 GMT -5
There are some freaking great movies that might never have been made without a producer-in-name-only credit attached. Back to the Future being one of them (with Spielberg as producer). District 9's existence owes a great deal to Peter Jackson's involvement. For that reason alone, I'm totally cool with powerful people in Hollywood casually tossing their names around to give someone a career boost. Might as well use the juice while you have it.
Man, Spielberg really wasn't shy about it though. During the 90s, it seemed like every other thing on TV/in theaters was Presented By Steven Spielberg. The quality.......varied.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 11, 2013 18:33:03 GMT -5
Speaking of Batman being shoehorned into other movies... ;D
|
|
botz1
New Member
Posts: 422
|
Post by botz1 on Mar 11, 2013 18:59:47 GMT -5
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Mar 15, 2013 16:55:55 GMT -5
Fanboys don't know the reality of the business. I don't know about that. Thanks to the internet and the wealth of news and rumor, many fans have access to a lot of inside information and are able to see the big picture. Especially savvy are the cynical fans who know the studio is run by a bunch of morons, and plan their enthusiasm accordingly. As for the "fanboys" who don't give a damn about the process and just want to be titillated or numbed for two hours, who cares what they think? ;D They get what they pay for. I don't think they are morons - it's easy to label them as such, though. They are stuck between art and commerce, having to answer to accountants, shareholders and various other investors. Forget the internet, the reality is different when you are actually there. This business surprises me all the time. The guys who you think are fighting the good fight are not necessarily so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2013 3:09:49 GMT -5
By this rationale, I could write a script and get Peter Guber to slap his name on it, right? So, what you're saying is there's hope, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 17, 2013 11:33:35 GMT -5
I watched a PBS show once on Hollywood about the execs in Hollywood- although it was a few years ago, I kind of doubt things have changed much.
What it explained was how much easier it was for execs and suits to keep their jobs with 'no's' or keeping things in limbo, rather than greenlighting something--- because the costs and risks are far less with limbo.
Once the train starts with a greenlit movie--- there's no turning back, and heads roll if it's a bomb. I'm sure now with the Green Lantern movie trainwreck (even worse that it was 'endorsed' by Geoff Johns, because then WB may feel that they did everything that fans wanted and still got burned).... that keeping things in limbo or keeping things a 'no' is a lot less risky than sinking $250 million into anything.
The logic definitely is easy to understand......risk as little as possible, if you want to keep your job.
It's amazing that ANY good blockbuster films came out of WB with that rationale, though.
|
|
Gandy
New Member
Admiral
Owner & Creator of Superman Cinema
Posts: 17,343
|
Post by Gandy on Mar 23, 2013 8:34:58 GMT -5
No one wants to risk their job. You don't want to risk your job. It's easy to say "no" because they don't want to fail. But it only takes one guy, like Nolan, and they will say "yes". Warners will fight tooth and nail for that guy. He has a lot of power. Nolan pretty much runs Warners.  Would love to meet him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2013 11:43:53 GMT -5
Fuck that, I want to work with him. I want to be his creative consultant. I want to be the guy that everyone who makes a comic book movie goes to.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 25, 2013 2:48:32 GMT -5
I think the difference is: Marvel is doing their job. They fail at times (Punisher, Ghost Rider).... but at least it seems like they're TRYING to make movies. With Superman, Wonder Woman, and JLA movies going in circles for decades, it doesn't even seem like the execs at WB are interested in doing their jobs of making successful movies, just going through the motions.
If it wasn't for Marvel's track record, I think it'd be easier to give WB more of a benefit of a doubt--- but Marvel is getting the job done. WB seems to enjoy pretending to, to keep their paychecks coming, except when it comes to Nolan when they're actually doing something.
|
|
theoj
New Member
Posts: 440
|
Post by theoj on Apr 5, 2013 18:32:26 GMT -5
I think the only way for a Justice League movie to work is to incorporate the story of The Death of Superman and have Doomsday kill Superman, and then for Bruce Wayne / Batman and the rest of the league to come together to find a way to destroy or stop Doomsday for a while until Superman is reborn and finishes the job!
As for introducing all these new Justice League characters before the main events of the story, I have no idea how to do that!
You would need a 5 hour movie!
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Apr 5, 2013 19:31:55 GMT -5
Singer did a pretty good job at showing how to do something like that (that is, showing off multiple characters with multiple powers) in Xmen, but ---- yeah, the studio would have to okay a much longer movie I would think to make things play well. And, you'd have to have someone who could pull off those kinds of movies. ((Given the challenges of this project and some of the recent superhero films that have come out--- the disaster that was Green Lantern REALLY is mind-blowing.... especially as that seemed to have full studio support AND was only ONE character! *sigh* )) |
|
Keith
New Member
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by Keith on May 16, 2013 23:33:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on May 16, 2013 23:34:41 GMT -5
faaaaaaaaaake.
|
|
|
|
Post by SupermanUF on May 17, 2013 2:05:31 GMT -5
Everything is hinged on Man of Steel right now. If it does well, expect them to move ahead with the other properties in a similarly serious tone. I'd bet a dollar that the Ryan Reynolds GL will be bye-bye.
|
|
Keith
New Member
Posts: 3,238
|
Post by Keith on May 17, 2013 11:13:06 GMT -5
That's what I thought. I figured there was no way that WB would go through with bring Ryan back as GL after the disaster that is the GL movie. I figured it was fake, but posted it anways to see what people thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Jun 19, 2013 14:55:17 GMT -5
|
|
Would love to meet him.
