BvS fallout beginning....

[crazy_asian_man]

Well- Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman (I presume) are safe from interference- maybe.
Will be interesting to see how the rest shakes out.

Pity the George Miller doing Green Lantern 2 turned out to be bogus, though- mainly looking forward to Wonder Woman under Patty Jenkins and how the Batfleck films and Justice League turn out.

If WB is smart, they'll just payoff the actor hired for Flash, and use the tv Flash actor instead.

In any case- got a feeling a lot of WB execs would rather Marvel Studios didn't exist, and that they could have continued to keep their superhero properties in limbo, rather than being forced to keep up by Marvel...

birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/04/29/crisis-on-finite-dc-movieverses

[Metallo]

Suicide Squad is pretty much done. Not much could be done. I've got faith in Ayer but it also depends on how influential Snyder is. I felt Seth Grahame-Smith was far too green to direct a film like this. He'd never directed anything. As a writer I think he could capture the right tone so I'm glad they're keeping some of his script work. But on the other hand why the he|| hire someone so untested in the first place? Either way WB looks foolish. The big issue is "creative differences." Just what does that mean? Does it mean he wasn't doing good enough work or they were forcing him to make the movie he didn't sign on to make? If its the latter all that director driven creative freedom bs was just that--bs. Is it another Edgar Wright type of situation but worse?

As for Aquaman...WB needs James Wan more than he needs them. If he wants to bail he will easily get work on another big movie. A nagging question is how much these guys have to follow what Snyder has laid out. WW and SS already look to be following some of Snyders visual cues (deep filters and desaturated colors). They really shouldn't have to. It's the opposite problem of Marvel: Bland interchangeable sometimes TV movieish flat visuals vs DC/WBs overly stylized dark glossy cgi washed video game world directing. Flash isn't batman. Shared universe or not WB would be wise to remember that.

The Snyderites are doing damage control and blowin all this off as a good thing as if WB is fixing the mistakes but we really don't know. It could make things better or worse. It could mean they see the problems or they are panicking and rudderless. After BvS there is a lot of evidence that they might have some real problems behind the scenes. We've heard very little from such a big shoot as JL.

[Metallo]

CAM, it's WBs own fault for letting marvel dictate everything they do. Or their shareholders fault. Whatever. WB should have explained you can't rush these things. They still need some one in a Feige type of role. Something this big needs to have one vision shepherding it. There's too many moving parts to not have someone whose only job is to oversee. WB has certain people trying to direct produce and write all this and it's a small committee plus exec input. That just doesn't work. TASM 2 and Fantfourstic proved that.

Even if they wanted to use JLA to launch everything at once they should have carefully planned this all out and had one talented qualified knowledgable person at the helm steering the DC ship. But they should have also understood that the multiple film buildup was part of the marketing that got Agengers to 1.5 billion. They can't start colder and expect the same results...especially if they start with some weak films.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 1, 2016 15:39:37 GMT -5 Metallo said:

CAM, it's WBs own fault for letting marvel dictate everything they do. Or their shareholders fault. Whatever. WB should have explained you can't rush these things. They still need some one in a Feige type of role. Something this big needs to have one vision shepherding it. There's too many moving parts to not have someone whose only job is to oversee. WB has certain people trying to direct produce and write all this and it's a small committee plus exec input. That just doesn't work. TASM 2 and Fantfourstic proved that.

Even if they wanted to use JLA to launch everything at once they should have carefully planned this all out and had one talented qualified knowledgable person at the helm steering the DC ship. But they should have also understood that the multiple film buildup was part of the marketing that got Agengers to 1.5 billion. They can't start colder and expect the same results...especially if they start with some weak films.

I have a feeling that they were hoping/thinking that Snyder was going to be their Kevin Feige.
Oh well....

[Metallo]

BvS is - financially speaking - one of those film concepts that should be idiot proof. WB just never met the right idiot before.




This is what happens when you put Simple Zack in charge.

[atp]

I remember when MoS came out and people were raving because of the shadow when Superman was flying over the cliffs and because he made sonic booms.

Clearly that's important.

[crazy_asian_man]

Snyder makes beautiful looking trailers...

But... so does Michael Bay.

What's weird/odd is of course how Marvel's bar for success is so high critically and boxoffice wise, that anything less than a billion dollars is a bit of a disappointment and failure.

It'll be interesting to see how "Suicide Squad" shakes out-

Really hard for me to see how audiences will flock to this, just based on the concept... but.... who knows?

[Metallo]

Suicide Squad has a lighter burden of success. If it could do the same numbers as the early MCU movies it'll be a financial success. Quality is another matter but again I trust Ayer. A lot depends on how much control Snyder and the rest of the WB suits/DCEU braintrust had.

I think I was one person saying I had a lot of faith in Affleck because of his history and what we were seeing in the trailers and he turned out to be arguably the most well received thing in the movie. With SS I'm seeing some good stuff but we've seen so much less of it than we saw in BvS's marketing.

[EnriqueH]

When I was last here, I mentioned that I thought Zack Snyder would be phased away following the 2 "disappointing" boxoffice performances of both his tentpole projects, similar to the way Paramount phased out Gene Roddenberry from producer to executive consultant following the "disappointment" of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

But it seems like it's going to be a pretty public thing with James Wan walking away from the DCU.

I enjoyed BvS more than MOS, so I was surprised it was so savagely reviewed by critics and fans alike. But then my expectations were pretty low because, as most of you know, I wasn't the biggest fan of the first Zack Snyder Superman movie.

Still, in the weeks since I saw it, a lot of things have occurred to me about the film that I didn't think made a lot of sense storywise, i.e. Superman leaving Batman to save Superman's mom from a bunch of normal goons when Superman could've swooped in and done it in under 5 seconds (in fairness, I can't remember if there was Kryptonite in that scene). The death of Superman should've felt poignant and impactful the way Spock died in Wrath of Khan, but I don't think Superman's death rang any emotional bells for the audience---I mean, he's portrayed in a pretty negative light throughout the film, and the flow of the film didn't allow for Superman's sacrifice to feel emotional or very important.

If there was one ugly, disappointing moment in BvS, it was the way Jimmy Olsen was brutally murdered in the film. Now don't get me wrong: Killing off Jimmy Olsen didn't bother me in and of itself, but the way it was handled on and off screen made me feel that Zack Snyder not only doesn't seem to respect Superman and his world very much, but also seems to have a certain contempt for the character and his universe. It's as if Snyder were embarrassed about Superman. That may or may not be the case, but that's the perception I have.

Some people are ready to burn Zack Snyder at the stake for the 2 films. I'm not feeling that way, but I do feel now---as I did back when I saw MOS---that Snyder was the wrong guy for this assignment. I didn't think his style suited the character, and it's apparent now from the things he says that he's not the biggest fan of the character. I might've given him a lower tier DCU character to handle to see what he could do with that, but it now seems that he's destroyed whatever good will that Nolan Bat films have created for the DC films.

It's really unfortunate a higher caliber director with a handle on story and action couldn't have directed the first rebooted Superman movie. Who that person could've, should've, would've been? I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that Zack Snyder has proven himself to NOT be that person.

Sure, you might say, "But you enjoyed BvS" and that would be true, but enjoyment is a matter of degree. I casually enjoyed it, but I should've been blown away. In a day where you have emotional, action packed and flawlessly executed geek films like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", "The Dark Knight", and "The Avengers" causing emotional earthquakes inside the audience's chests, Zack Snyder's efforts seem more like the excitement you feel when driving over a pothole---quick, fleeting, forgettable.

[Metallo]

Good post. I think you laid it all out there pretty well. The basic conflict of the movie is just flawed. Superman is a hypocrite. How do you (Superman) tell Batman to stop when you're just as bad? It just makes no sense. Then they fight cause they kidnap Clarks mom. Then they make up cause...ugh.

If they'd just stuck to what the trailers seemed to push as the motivations it would have worked. Instead they overthought the movie. You brought up the force awakens. The death in that movie was far better handled than any death in BvS. His reasoning for killing Jimmy is because they had no room. Not because it made the movie more interesting. The problem with that is he took a piece off the board for a future director down the road. Snyders dictating certain things for this universe going forward when we're not even sure if he's the guy in charge of it. I never thought I'd say this but I wish JJ Abrams would take over Superman.

Snyders reasoning for superman not finding Martha or knowing she was in trouble was such bs. That's his problem. He constructs these scenarios that don't play out naturally and make no sense. if Batman could find her surely Superman could. There was no Kryptonite. From what I understand Batman had gotten all of it from Lexcorp.

Civil War MIGHT be the highest opening Marvel movie ever. More than The Avengers. That's crazy. Who ever thought Marvels b and c list characters could trounce DC's top 3 heroes? It was unthinkable ten years ago. But here we are because Marvel threw their hat in the ring knowing they had a good game plan and a good coach.

[atp]

May 4, 2016 16:09:30 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

When I was last here, I mentioned that I thought Zack Snyder would be phased away following the 2 "disappointing" boxoffice performances of both his tentpole projects, similar to the way Paramount phased out Gene Roddenberry from producer to executive consultant following the "disappointment" of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

But it seems like it's going to be a pretty public thing with James Wan walking away from the DCU.

I enjoyed BvS more than MOS, so I was surprised it was so savagely reviewed by critics and fans alike. But then my expectations were pretty low because, as most of you know, I wasn't the biggest fan of the first Zack Snyder Superman movie.

Still, in the weeks since I saw it, a lot of things have occurred to me about the film that I didn't think made a lot of sense storywise, i.e. Superman leaving Batman to save Superman's mom from a bunch of normal goons when Superman could've swooped in and done it in under 5 seconds (in fairness, I can't remember if there was Kryptonite in that scene). The death of Superman should've felt poignant and impactful the way Spock died in Wrath of Khan, but I don't think Superman's death rang any emotional bells for the audience---I mean, he's portrayed in a pretty negative light throughout the film, and the flow of the film didn't allow for Superman's sacrifice to feel emotional or very important.

If there was one ugly, disappointing moment in BvS, it was the way Jimmy Olsen was brutally murdered in the film. Now don't get me wrong: Killing off Jimmy Olsen didn't bother me in and of itself, but the way it was handled on and off screen made me feel that Zack Snyder not only doesn't seem to respect Superman and his world very much, but also seems to have a certain contempt for the character and his universe. It's as if Snyder were embarrassed about Superman. That may or may not be the case, but that's the perception I have.

Some people are ready to burn Zack Snyder at the stake for the 2 films. I'm not feeling that way, but I do feel now---as I did back when I saw MOS---that Snyder was the wrong guy for this assignment. I didn't think his style suited the character, and it's apparent now from the things he says that he's not the biggest fan of the character. I might've given him a lower tier DCU character to handle to see what he could do with that, but it now seems that he's destroyed whatever good will that Nolan Bat films have created for the DC films.

It's really unfortunate a higher caliber director with a handle on story and action couldn't have directed the first rebooted Superman movie. Who that person could've, should've, would've been? I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that Zack Snyder has proven himself to NOT be that person.

Sure, you might say, "But you enjoyed BvS" and that would be true, but enjoyment is a matter of degree. I casually enjoyed it, but I should've been blown away. In a day where you have emotional, action packed and flawlessly executed geek films like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", "The Dark Knight", and "The Avengers" causing emotional earthquakes inside the audience's chests, Zack Snyder's efforts seem more like the excitement you feel when driving over a pothole---quick, fleeting, forgettable.

How do feel about Cavill now? Do you think he is the right person to be Superman?

[Metallo]

I know you didn't ask me but I think he's got the look but he's an absolute stiff in these movies. Maybe it's the way he's directed and the way it's written but personally I think he's a bigger stiff than what people claimed Routh was. I just don't find myself interested in the character at all when Cavills on the screen and some of his lines have atrocious delivery. I laughed when he scream-growled after Lex told him Martha had been kidnapped.

[EnriqueH]

May 4, 2016 21:55:16 GMT -5 atp said:

May 4, 2016 16:09:30 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

When I was last here, I mentioned that I thought Zack Snyder would be phased away following the 2 "disappointing" boxoffice performances of both his tentpole projects, similar to the way Paramount phased out Gene Roddenberry from producer to executive consultant following the "disappointment" of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

But it seems like it's going to be a pretty public thing with James Wan walking away from the DCU.

I enjoyed BvS more than MOS, so I was surprised it was so savagely reviewed by critics and fans alike. But then my expectations were pretty low because, as most of you know, I wasn't the biggest fan of the first Zack Snyder Superman movie.

Still, in the weeks since I saw it, a lot of things have occurred to me about the film that I didn't think made a lot of sense storywise, i.e. Superman leaving Batman to save Superman's mom from a bunch of normal goons when Superman could've swooped in and done it in under 5 seconds (in fairness, I can't remember if there was Kryptonite in that scene). The death of Superman should've felt poignant and impactful the way Spock died in Wrath of Khan, but I don't think Superman's death rang any emotional bells for the audience---I mean, he's portrayed in a pretty negative light throughout the film, and the flow of the film didn't allow for Superman's sacrifice to feel emotional or very important.

If there was one ugly, disappointing moment in BvS, it was the way Jimmy Olsen was brutally murdered in the film. Now don't get me wrong: Killing off Jimmy Olsen didn't bother me in and of itself, but the way it was handled on and off screen made me feel that Zack Snyder not only doesn't seem to respect Superman and his world very much, but also seems to have a certain contempt for the character and his universe. It's as if Snyder were embarrassed about Superman. That may or may not be the case, but that's the perception I have.

Some people are ready to burn Zack Snyder at the stake for the 2 films. I'm not feeling that way, but I do feel now---as I did back when I saw MOS---that Snyder was the wrong guy for this assignment. I didn't think his style suited the character, and it's apparent now from the things he says that he's not the biggest fan of the character. I might've given him a lower tier DCU character to handle to see what he could do with that, but it now seems that he's destroyed whatever good will that Nolan Bat films have created for the DC films.

It's really unfortunate a higher caliber director with a handle on story and action couldn't have directed the first rebooted Superman movie. Who that person could've, should've, would've been? I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that Zack Snyder has proven himself to NOT be that person.

Sure, you might say, "But you enjoyed BvS" and that would be true, but enjoyment is a matter of degree. I casually enjoyed it, but I should've been blown away. In a day where you have emotional, action packed and flawlessly executed geek films like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", "The Dark Knight", and "The Avengers" causing emotional earthquakes inside the audience's chests, Zack Snyder's efforts seem more like the excitement you feel when driving over a pothole---quick, fleeting, forgettable.

How do feel about Cavill now? Do you think he is the right person to be Superman?

Mostly good. I think of him as a Timothy Dalton/Pierce Brosnan type in that I think they were great for the role but were not given great scripts. I know many here feel Dalton was the best, and I did like him, but neither Dalton or Brosnan, IMO, got their own Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me or Casino Royale. But I also agree with Metallo: there are moments where he doesn't come across very well.

I hate to say this because I have a soft spot for Dalton, but I did feel his performance was occasionally too serious. It was like he thought he was in Casino Royale, but the direction of the movies were a cross between Fleming and leftover Roger Moore material, giving Dalton a sometimes weird feel. But I blame the filmmakers not the actor.

[Metallo]

I've always had a soft spot for Dalton. To me he's the most underrated Bond but you're right he never had that one truly great movie like FRWL, Goldfinger, TSWLM, Casino Royale, or even a Goldeneye or Skyfall. And yeah it's like he was playing literary Bond in a Roger Moore movie. Someone who used to post here years ago said Dalton's films never had their own identity. He needed a new director, cinematographer, etc instead of holdovers from the Moore era and I'd agree. He needed the chance Brosnan and Craig got. He was on his way towards that with LTK but it never got a chance to go all the way.

I do think he was a better Bond than Cavill is a Superman. Dalton had a good grasp of the character and a good take to play whereas I feel Cavill is kind of directionless. He's depending more on the director and writers to form the character than Dalton did with Bond. Dalton could show personality, emotion, and nuance. He did little things that at least made it interesting. Probably doesn't hurt that he was a far better more well rounded actor in the 80s than Cavill is now. Flash Gordon and Uncle were both bombs but Dalton stretched a lot more in that campy material. That's quite the range.

[atp]

Dalton was the best Bond. He even displaced Sean Connery for me, which is equivalent to someone displacing Reeve as Superman. (Before 1987, I was one of the secret and elusive Connery Only People.)


That's why I don't think that Superman has yet had a Dalton.

I would say Cavill's Superman is more like Daniel Craig's Bond. Looks good in the part, but a more rugged version. Both have been let down by crap scripts that try and turn them into moody Batman-like characters with conflicted personalities and backstories. And both manage to distract audiences from the crap by having shirtless scenes with six pack abs.

(I still maintain that Dalton would have been praised for LTK the same way Craig was for CR if only he'd come out of the ocean with pumped pecs and abs.)

[atp]

May 5, 2016 11:06:47 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I've always had a soft spot for Dalton. To me he's the most underrated Bond but you're right he never had that one truly great movie like FRWL, Goldfinger, TSWLM, Casino Royale, or even a Goldeneye or Skyfall. And yeah it's like he was playing literary Bond in a Roger Moore movie. Someone who used to post here years ago said Dalton's films never had their own identity. He needed a new director, cinematographer, etc instead of holdovers from the Moore era and I'd agree. He needed the chance Brosnan and Craig got. He was on his way towards that with LTK but it never got a chance to go all the way.

I do think he was a better Bond than Cavill is a Superman. Dalton had a good grasp of the character and a good take to play whereas I feel Cavill is kind of directionless. He's depending more on the director and writers to form the character than Dalton did with Bond. Dalton could show personality, emotion, and nuance. He did little things that at least made it interesting. Probably doesn't hurt that he was a far better more well rounded actor in the 80s than Cavill is now. Flash Gordon and Uncle were both bombs but Dalton stretched a lot more in that campy material. That's quite the range.

I think The Living Daylights feels like it has leftovers from Roger Moore. The music in particular gives it the same sort of feel as Octopussy.

But I found LTK already broke away from that. The music was different (including opening gunbarrel). And even though there were some corny stunts and jokes, they didn't feel like they belonged to the Moore films.

[Metallo]

May 5, 2016 13:22:41 GMT -5 atp said:

Dalton was the best Bond. He even displaced Sean Connery for me, which is equivalent to someone displacing Reeve as Superman. (Before 1987, I was one of the secret and elusive Connery Only People.)


That's why I don't think that Superman has yet had a Dalton.

I would say Cavill's Superman is more like Daniel Craig's Bond. Looks good in the part, but a more rugged version. Both have been let down by crap scripts that try and turn them into moody Batman-like characters with conflicted personalities and backstories. And both manage to distract audiences from the crap by having shirtless scenes with six pack abs.

(I still maintain that Dalton would have been praised for LTK the same way Craig was for CR if only he'd come out of the ocean with pumped pecs and abs.)

There are times when Dalton is my favorite bond. I like all of them but for me its between Connery Dalton and Craig. Those guys bring more of the elements that I like to the character. I think Connery was the most well rounded bu like I said before Dalton is more of a personal favorite. I like that he tried to do something different while bringing a human side.

About the only thing Cavill and Craig have in common is the rugged macho personality and muscular build. Criag brings toughness coolness and vunerability to Bond as well as a dark sense of humor. He's not a quippy clevver Bond but there is a devilishness to him. Cavill...is bland at least as Superman. Even when he tries to play funny as Superman it goes over like a lead ballon. Chris Reeve and George Reeves had charm and wit. They could do that.

I think it helps Craig's had better movies than Cavill. CR is a strong movie and even though Skyfall is flawed is still a good exciting time. MOS and BvS were mindless yet somehow pretentious cgi bloated bores.

Dalton could play Bond just as human and cold and wounded as Craig. Maybe even more so...but he lacked Craig's machismo. In a lot of ways he was the forerunner to what Criag would do almost 20 years later.

[Metallo]

May 5, 2016 13:26:45 GMT -5 atp said:

May 5, 2016 11:06:47 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I've always had a soft spot for Dalton. To me he's the most underrated Bond but you're right he never had that one truly great movie like FRWL, Goldfinger, TSWLM, Casino Royale, or even a Goldeneye or Skyfall. And yeah it's like he was playing literary Bond in a Roger Moore movie. Someone who used to post here years ago said Dalton's films never had their own identity. He needed a new director, cinematographer, etc instead of holdovers from the Moore era and I'd agree. He needed the chance Brosnan and Craig got. He was on his way towards that with LTK but it never got a chance to go all the way.

I do think he was a better Bond than Cavill is a Superman. Dalton had a good grasp of the character and a good take to play whereas I feel Cavill is kind of directionless. He's depending more on the director and writers to form the character than Dalton did with Bond. Dalton could show personality, emotion, and nuance. He did little things that at least made it interesting. Probably doesn't hurt that he was a far better more well rounded actor in the 80s than Cavill is now. Flash Gordon and Uncle were both bombs but Dalton stretched a lot more in that campy material. That's quite the range.

I think The Living Daylights feels like it has leftovers from Roger Moore. The music in particular gives it the same sort of feel as Octozippy mongoose.

But I found LTK already broke away from that. The music was different (including opening gunbarrel). And even though there were some corny stunts and jokes, they didn't feel like they belonged to the Moore films.

I know they cut some of the more humorous Mooreesque stuff like the magic carpet. I do feel LTK WAS getting away from that but it didn't do it enough. John Glen was still director (who I liked) and he directed every bond movie of the 1980s. I liked Kamens score and I like the darkness of the film but it needed a fresher look. Much like Marvel now Eon pushed for an in house style and that was what Glen represented. You still had Glen in the chair but six years later Brosnan got a real shot at his Bond kicking off with a more distinct identity. He kept some of that Eon style but Martin Campbell was fresh to the series and love him or hate him Eric Serra brought a different kind of sound. Goldeneye was a changing of the guard all around with Derek Meddings and Cubby Broccoli passing on soon after.

[crazy_asian_man]

Great post, Enrique.

If there was one ugly, disappointing moment in BvS, it was the way Jimmy Olsen was brutally murdered in the film. Now don't get me wrong: Killing off Jimmy Olsen didn't bother me in and of itself, but the way it was handled on and off screen made me feel that Zack Snyder not only doesn't seem to respect Superman and his world very much, but also seems to have a certain contempt for the character and his universe. It's as if Snyder were embarrassed about Superman. That may or may not be the case, but that's the perception I have.

Some people are ready to burn Zack Snyder at the stake for the 2 films. I'm not feeling that way, but I do feel now---as I did back when I saw MOS---that Snyder was the wrong guy for this assignment. I didn't think his style suited the character, and it's apparent now from the things he says that he's not the biggest fan of the character. I might've given him a lower tier DCU character to handle to see what he could do with that, but it now seems that he's destroyed whatever good will that Nolan Bat films have created for the DC films.

It's really unfortunate a higher caliber director with a handle on story and action couldn't have directed the first rebooted Superman movie. Who that person could've, should've, would've been? I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that Zack Snyder has proven himself to NOT be that person.

Sure, you might say, "But you enjoyed BvS" and that would be true, but enjoyment is a matter of degree.

I couldn't agree more about Snyder's sense of contempt for many elements of Superman: I have a sense that Goyer is cut from the same cloth.
Again, I wish I could find Goyer's interview during the Batman Begins' time on youtube where he flatly SAYS that he felt that he couldn't write a Superman movie, that it wasn't in him. (He should have stuck to his instincts).

I know I was giantly disappointed with SR 2 not happening.... but since it took so long for it to OFFICIALLY be terminated, I was ready for Zack Snyder and Nolan to reboot it. The trailer had given me goosebumps and I had high hopes.

The movie that resulted had many good bits in it, I thought- but many truly awful bits as well. I know I've said that a fan cut might fix a lot of the terrible things I had trouble with. (i.e. editing so that Superman doesn't so clearly initiate all the collateral damage in Smallville; Pa Kent's bizzaro death; and the infamous joking around and kissing in devastastated Metropolis).

Would have been interesting if someone like Nolan had final cut and/or was a hands-on producer.... though Nolan's own misfires creatively (Greatly flawed Insterstellar and Dark Knight Returns) make me think even he might not have been able to fix what I felt was wrong in MOS.

Anyhow- Zack's fate may or may not be sealed, it all depends how WB feels they NEED to respond to box office disappointment.

I figure there's only a few approaches that they can take:

(1) Try to clamp down and second guess any creative decisions from this point on and assume a tighter leash on him.
Though.... it wouldn't undo any past errors.

(2) Fire him and pull the plug on everything, like Burton's Batman and Miller's JLA.

(3) See if Richard Lester needs cash and make him an offer.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 5, 2016 14:46:36 GMT -5 Metallo said:

May 5, 2016 13:22:41 GMT -5 atp said:

Dalton was the best Bond. He even displaced Sean Connery for me, which is equivalent to someone displacing Reeve as Superman. (Before 1987, I was one of the secret and elusive Connery Only People.)


That's why I don't think that Superman has yet had a Dalton.

I would say Cavill's Superman is more like Daniel Craig's Bond. Looks good in the part, but a more rugged version. Both have been let down by crap scripts that try and turn them into moody Batman-like characters with conflicted personalities and backstories. And both manage to distract audiences from the crap by having shirtless scenes with six pack abs.

(I still maintain that Dalton would have been praised for LTK the same way Craig was for CR if only he'd come out of the ocean with pumped pecs and abs.)

There are times when Dalton is my favorite bond. I like all of them but for me its between Connery Dalton and Craig. Those guys bring more of the elements that I like to the character. I think Connery was the most well rounded bu like I said before Dalton is more of a personal favorite. I like that he tried to do something different while bringing a human side.

About the only thing Cavill and Craig have in common is the rugged macho personality and muscular build. Criag brings toughness coolness and vunerability to Bond as well as a dark sense of humor. He's not a quippy clevver Bond but there is a devilishness to him. Cavill...is bland at least as Superman. Even when he tries to play funny as Superman it goes over like a lead ballon. Chris Reeve and George Reeves had charm and wit. They could do that.

I think it helps Craig's had better movies than Cavill. CR is a strong movie and even though Skyfall is flawed is still a good exciting time. MOS and BvS were mindless yet somehow pretentious cgi bloated bores.

Dalton could play Bond just as human and cold and wounded as Craig. Maybe even more so...but he lacked Craig's machismo. In a lot of ways he was the forerunner to what Criag would do almost 20 years later.

Interesting comparison...
My own 'best Bonds' actually are between Connery, Brosnan, and Dalton.

Dalton I think shone the best by coming after the over-the-top silliness with "Moonraker". Memory might be wrong, but I recall really liking him as Prince Baron in "Flash Gordon"- and thought he'd be a great fit as Bond.

But- back to topic at hand:

Cavill I thought has/had the presence and physical attributes for Superman, moreso than even Batfleck (which I suprisingly liked)- but the way the scripts are removes his humanity- and what Goyer put in to try to make Superman more human felt a little too cold to really work. (i.e. Pete Ross's five second boyhood friendship in MOS)

Craig works as Bond, but you lose the joy of being Bond, which is something that I think Connery and Brosnan had- and Dalton had to a lesser degree. With Craig, there's no sense of any enjoyment at all being him. (Maybe it's truer to the books, never read them.)

Reeve's Superman had joy through being Clark- Routh's was modeled after Reeve's so there's an intentional mimicking of that interpretation.

Cavill/Goyer/Snyder's view of Superman seemed SO alienated from the rest of humanity, (and even Pa Kent) that one wonders at times why he seems to care for humanity when he does in those rare moments, according to the scripts.

[Metallo]

I thought Craig mostly sleepwalked through Spectre. He had moments where he came alive but you can tell he's over being Bond or just tired.

I think Snyder stays out for now. It's a question of how much control he has. How much is WB looking over his shoulder. If JL turns out like BvS he's gone. That's the biggest gun. The tentpole they'll set everything up around.

The strength of Reeves and Reeve were they could be heroes of action but they could be just as interesting in scenes where they sat down and had conversations. Give either one of those guys ten minutes of just dialogue and they could make it work. They sold being in that suit.

[atp]

Do you think there is any point in continuing with the Snyder universe for Superman, or should it be rebooted again? This incarnation has already wrecked a lot of things that cannot be fixed. Jimmy Olsen for example. Maybe it would be best to reboot already.

[crazy_asian_man]

May 6, 2016 1:49:40 GMT -5 atp said:

Do you think there is any point in continuing with the Snyder universe for Superman, or should it be rebooted again? This incarnation has already wrecked a lot of things that cannot be fixed. Jimmy Olsen for example. Maybe it would be best to reboot already.

Unfortunately, Bryan Singer is busy succeeding with X-men again & Marvel Studios already has a full plate, so they couldn't help Supes do a reboot. Who else is there?

[atp]

May 6, 2016 2:52:55 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

May 6, 2016 1:49:40 GMT -5 atp said:

Do you think there is any point in continuing with the Snyder universe for Superman, or should it be rebooted again? This incarnation has already wrecked a lot of things that cannot be fixed. Jimmy Olsen for example. Maybe it would be best to reboot already.

Unfortunately, Bryan Singer is busy succeeding with X-men again & Marvel Studios already has a full plate, so they couldn't help Supes do a reboot. Who else is there?

I actually think Superman needs someone who has NEVER directed a superhero film before. Singer and Snyder had done so, and brought all that baggage with them to the Superman character.

Much like the actor for Superman needed to be an unknown, the director also needs to be new to the area. Someone who understands drama the way Donner did before he took on STM.

If it were me, I would look for a director who has made a name doing dramas with some suspense and some action, but NOT someone who has done any other superhero movies.

The Mel Gibson of 20 years ago (Braveheart era) would have been great.

[Metallo]

May 6, 2016 1:49:40 GMT -5 atp said:

Do you think there is any point in continuing with the Snyder universe for Superman, or should it be rebooted again? This incarnation has already wrecked a lot of things that cannot be fixed. Jimmy Olsen for example. Maybe it would be best to reboot already.

Personally...deep down I want a full on hard reboot. New cast, new directors, new writers. I liked what Affleck did and his Batman is easily salvagable but everything else is tainted to me.

A full reboot would allow them to do certain stories and certain characters right. I truly do think Snyder and Goyer have real contempt for most Superman material and certain tenants of the character. Snyder thought it would be fun to kill Jimmy in a pointless scene. They've done away with the Clark Kent identity. That's something Id be interested in seeing explored (Superman without the classic Clark persona) but they f---ed up the execution of it so badly I'm not interested anymore.

But they'll never hard reboot. The cast isn't a deal breaker for me since I think most of them could do well given better writing and direction. I'd be willing to keep them. Dealing with something more possible I'd like them to use Flash to pull off a Star Trek 09/X-Men DOFP type of situation where history is altered. Maybe a Flashpoint type of situation. Being even more hopeful maybe they could use that to merge the tv shows and films. That's something WB could do to fix things without throwing away everything they've built min their DCEU.