|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2016 0:07:10 GMT -5
I saw it again, enjoyed it much better on a second viewing- as mentioned, the trailers kind of ruined it for me, to a degree. Also, getting used to it primarily being a Captain America movie and not an Avengers movie (though they might as well have gone the extra mile and added more scenes and called it Avengers 3) was easier the second time around.... though I'm hoping there's an extended cut eventually (though Marvel seems pretty stingy on those). I hear you about taking 'good' movies for granted. With blu rays and streaming always just around the corner, I think it becomes less of an 'event' to wait in line hours before/etc.- But... talking about expectations- if "Civil War" has/had giant expectations to live up to, I think the Infinity Wars movies- for sure. Though, from reading those early Thanos stories in the comics back then, it's hard for me to envision a movie with Thanos as the villain without the male Captain Marvel or Warlock around.... I'm planning on seeing it again. With expectations in check I think it'll be a more interesting experience. I enjoyed it a lot but I think I'll be able to focus on stuff I didn't the first time. I get all the Avengers 2.5 talk because at times it did become that but for the most part I felt it was a Captain America movie first and an Avengers movie second. I felt this may have been the best Tony Stark character work and story arc since the first Iron Man. I loved the character interaction. I could watch a whole movie with Bucky and Sam. In was interesting and believable to see which side everyone fell on. I liked seeing Sam Wilson and Jim Rhodes arguing over the accords. Sam got out of the military because of what he'd seen. Rhodey stayed in as a career soldier who always followed the rules. Wanda was being held a prisoner and Clint owed her brother his life. Scott Lang went to prison blowing the whistle on the system. Vision is a being of logic more than passion. Black Widow was trying to make up for last sins. Everyone's choice made sense. I can't wait for the Spiderman reboot and I'm dying to see Black Panther. Especially with Klaw already set up as a bad guy. I don't get the hate for Zemo. I thought he was servicable. Better than some other MCU bad guys. It's like if every villian isn't a Ledger Joker or Hiddleston Loki they "suck." What Marvel is doing is different from what DC films in particular have done. They're focusing on the heroes and it seems they don't want the villians to steal the show the way they have on the past. In other films the villians could be more interesting and more entertaining than the hero. For Marvel studios the villians are usually more plot devices than characters. I'd have it another way but they're heroes are more fleshed out then most other studios producing comic book films. Here's how I'd rank th MCU films so far. I wanted to wait for Doctor Strange but couldn't help it. Once X-Men Apocalypse comes out I think I'll re rank every marvel based film. It's been a while. The Avengers Captain America: The Winter Soldier Captain America: Civil War Iron Man Guardians of The Galaxy Thor Captain America: The First Avenger Antman Avengers: Age of Ultron Iron Man 3 The Incredible Hulk Iron Man 2 Thor: The Dark World Interesting... I'm not totally sure about the ranking exactly for me, as some of the movies more and more feel like 'chapters' of a movie rather than real standalones. I have a more general 'pretty good to excellent' category 'A', and 'middling to meh' category 'B': In no particular order: "A" (pretty good to excellent) Avengers 1 and 2 Captain America 1, 2, 3 Iron Man 1 Guardians of the Galaxy Antman Incredible Hulk "B" (middling to meh) Iron Man 2 Thor 1 and 2 If I was to rank, that'd take more time--- moreso with blending in the X-men, which is a whole other ball of wax.  |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2016 12:05:24 GMT -5
Nice. Where would you rank iron man 3? Some of them are by consensus the superior films while others are surprisingly all over different peoples rankings. Some rank Cap 1 high while others rank it low. Same with iron man 3.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 11, 2016 13:09:05 GMT -5
Seems like over at Collider they see Afflecks new job title the same way Enrique does. It's not good for Snyder. Either it's a clear message to Snyder that he needs someone to say "no" to him or of the movie sucks Snyder gets the blame and if it's amazing Affleck gets the credit.
They also think it might be too little too late but Atfleck was probably involved with the script before filming started.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2016 16:12:15 GMT -5
Nice. Where would you rank iron man 3? Some of them are by consensus the superior films while others are surprisingly all over different peoples rankings. Some rank Cap 1 high while others rank it low. Same with iron man 3. Cap1 I thought was great on the character side, but the red skull and hydra toooo one dimensional and corny, not scary and layered (which I feel could have been done with a short scene or two)- but everything else was excellent IMO. Iron Man 3 falls in between 'excellent' and 'LAME!' IMO. The first half I loved, until Tony's beach house gets trashed. Then, I like bits and pieces, but it really felt all over the place. Add to that the weird inconsistency (referenced to in civil war) about blowing up the iron legion, then bringing them back in Ultron. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 11, 2016 16:14:51 GMT -5
Seems like over at Collider they see Afflecks new job title the same way Enrique does. It's not good for Snyder. Either it's a clear message to Snyder that he needs someone to say "no" to him or of the movie sucks Snyder gets the blame and if it's amazing Affleck gets the credit. They also think it might be too little too late but Atfleck was probably involved with the script before filming started. Snyder probably has given up reading the Internet after '300', and ignores everything outside doing whatever film he's on. Kinda can't blame him, though I'm also a hater. |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823 
|
Post by atp on May 12, 2016 0:08:19 GMT -5
So, now that there seems to be a wide backlash against BvS and Snyder, does that mean that we were right to be critical of MoS after all?
Was it wrong to write our opinions off as simply being "unable to move past the Reeve films"?
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 0:28:05 GMT -5
So, now that there seems to be a wide backlash against BvS and Snyder, does that mean that we were right to be critical of MoS after all? Was it wrong to write our opinions off as simply being "unable to move past the Reeve films"? People should have the right to their own opinions on films without being made to feel bad for differing opinions, but- when people get emotional about things, manners are the first to go out of the window, unfortunately. I'll give Snyder this: one article stated how Snyder was a great visual storyteller, but terrible dramatist, and I'll agree on that. No matter what, MOS and BvS are far, far, far better (and rewatchable imo) than something that felt as bland and underwhelming as Green Lantern, where the performances were fine- but the story and characters were done in such a blah way, (Sinistro and Abin Sur were great, though, I have to say) that there's little joy in rewatching that film. MOS has enough in it that I think would make a good film with a good fan editor. BvS I enjoyed, though that's a far cry from calling it genius. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 9:12:41 GMT -5
So, now that there seems to be a wide backlash against BvS and Snyder, does that mean that we were right to be critical of MoS after all? Was it wrong to write our opinions off as simply being "unable to move past the Reeve films"? Ok not gonna say right or wrong. Opinions are opinions people are free to like what they want. That wasnt the issue but the way those opinions were expressed while others were suppressed was. I think we had every right to criticize MOS for what we saw as its flaws without being told to shut up about it. Like I said before I do feel a sense of vindication because I felt Snyders approach was of poor quality and flawed and would hurt WB's plans for a series of DC films and so far it has. Snyder isn't a story guy or a character guy and that's what these movies need. The brand has been damaged even if to a small extent and going forward many people ARE trepidatious. There's a real possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Many people feel burned. Some feel burned twice and aren't going to put themselves in a position for that to happen again. Now Justice league could be amazing and turn all that around but it'll have to look mind blowingly good in the trailers. Justice league doesn't have the built in name value as batman and superman even thought it's all their top characters together. If you say Justice league to the average person on the streets they aren't going to be able to tell you nearly as much. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 11:55:46 GMT -5
So, now that there seems to be a wide backlash against BvS and Snyder, does that mean that we were right to be critical of MoS after all? Was it wrong to write our opinions off as simply being "unable to move past the Reeve films"? Ok not gonna say right or wrong. Opinions are opinions people are free to like what they want. That wasnt the issue but the way those opinions were expressed while others were suppressed was. I think we had every right to criticize MOS for what we saw as its flaws without being told to shut up about it. Like I said before I do feel a sense of vindication because I felt Snyders approach was of poor quality and flawed and would hurt WB's plans for a series of DC films and so far it has. Snyder isn't a story guy or a character guy and that's what these movies need. The brand has been damaged even if to a small extent and going forward many people ARE trepidatious. There's a real possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Many people feel burned. Some feel burned twice and aren't going to put themselves in a position for that to happen again. Now Justice league could be amazing and turn all that around but it'll have to look mind blowingly good in the trailers. Justice league doesn't have the built in name value as batman and superman even thought it's all their top characters together. If you say Justice league to the average person on the streets they aren't going to be able to tell you nearly as much. Honestly speaking, Marvel has 'ruined' things for DC just by the raising the bar so, so high in showing what can and should be done in bringing superhero comics to the big screen. If it wasn't for Marvel (and Singer's Xmen and Raimi's Spiderman), I probably would be far more supportive of Snyder's work on superhero films- but only because I'd have the 'well, it's better than NUTHIN' attitude. Instead- my feeling is: "you've got EVERY resource in the world at your fingertips- as well as a model on how to do it right- HOW can you possibly muck it up???" I think there's a better than average possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Reasons: 1- Whoever didn't like BvS, dunno if they're coming back. 2- "Avengers" was a breakthrough 'first' that had never been done before. Even Avengers 2 didn't do as well boxofficewise. To have JLA be about a superhero group comes REALLY late if it wants to coast on being a novelty. ((Not to mention X-men: Days of Future Past's mix and match of superheroes already getting there as well.)) 3- I don't feel like anyone's really gotten to know any of the characters THAT well to bond with them. Even Batfleck, and I even like what they've done with him. Maybe the Wonder Woman movie will help with JLA (probably will), but still... 4- Some superhero fatigue already lingering on tv and movies that seems to be present. While it's odd to read (maybe they were joking?) the Russos say that BvS's project got them to mention to Feige that it was time to change things up seriously and that's how Civil War started.... I imagine SOMEONE had to figure out ahead of time that things had to evolve or change a bit and not just be a formula.... ((though "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Antman" definitely aren't 'playing it safe' and I imagine were there long before BvS was in pre-production)) In any case- I think there would be an uphill battle for the audience's attention even if everyone trusted the writing and directing. With there being doubt and not necessarily good will--- well, I have to say- I'd be suprised if Snyder is feeling less pressure. One wonders if Batfleck offered up that he'd be quality control to get the studio to ease up on Snyder- but, you're right: if it sucks, it's Snyder. If it's any good, it'll be attributed to Batfleck. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 14:08:40 GMT -5
I think you covered it all. The shared movie universe isn't as special or new anymore. No matter what WB does its influence by Marvel somehow. Why suddenly get the lead out of their @ss and do Justice league as a shared universe at all? Movies like this should be a good time at some level. Instead we're already two dour installments in and Superman is an even less interesting more insufferably miserable block of wood. BvS should have been huge based on name value and concept alone. Hard to see how JL will do any better.
|
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 12, 2016 14:51:48 GMT -5
I heard Snyder's going to join Facebook ao that he doesn't need to see any negative opinions about MoS.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 16:40:49 GMT -5
I heard Snyder's going to join Facebook ao that he doesn't need to see any negative opinions about MoS.  |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 16:45:34 GMT -5
I think you covered it all. The shared movie universe isn't as special or new anymore. No matter what WB does its influence by Marvel somehow. Why suddenly get the lead out of their @ss and do Justice league as a shared universe at all? Movies like this should be a good time at some level. Instead we're already two dour installments in and Superman is an even less interesting more insufferably miserable block of wood. BvS should have been huge based on name value and concept alone. Hard to see how JL will do any better. I think the thing is: Snyder feels like he really is following Nolan's approach in making it 'real' and 'gritty'. The problem is: while I loved the first two Batman films by Nolan, which were 'dead serious', though I was okay with it- but I also feel like even Nolan mishandled the third one. So, I don't mind a superhero film approach that's humorless- I think it CAN work, but it has to handled properly imo, and I think MOS misfired in a few too many spots to truly enjoy it as is, without editing... |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 12, 2016 20:00:45 GMT -5
If your going to chart a creative course you'd better stick to it. For a realistic take on DC comics characters Snyders films are dumb, poorly thought out and full of holes where things don't get explored or tied up even though the films started to.
Nolan actually tried to make sure his films were well thought out and well written. Snyders films have this facade of intelligence and depth but once you scratch the surface it's all bulls***.
Nolan and his films didn't come off nearly as pretentious and arrogant as Snyder and his so they didn't look nearly as bad when they failed to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 12, 2016 22:13:58 GMT -5
If your going to chart a creative course you'd better stick to it. For a realistic take on DC comics characters Snyders films are dumb, poorly thought out and full of holes where things don't get explored or tied up even though the films started to. Nolan actually tried to make sure his films were well thought out and well written. Snyders films have this facade of intelligence and depth but once you scratch the surface it's all bulls***. Nolan and his films didn't come off nearly as pretentious and arrogant as Snyder and his so they didn't look nearly as bad when they failed to work. Nolan's two Batman films are FANTASTIC and I'm glad that they seem to have made some mainstream audiences realize superhero films can be 'art'- all in the execution. I love that Nolan seems like a gent and very modest about it, though. By contrast, Snyder' work has been very pretty and Snyder has been pretty vocal about how smart his choices are. Ugh. I think there are things Snyder can do right- (art director! cinematographer!) I just think that they should have picked a better successor to Nolan. |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 14, 2016 0:58:16 GMT -5
Ok not gonna say right or wrong. Opinions are opinions people are free to like what they want. That wasnt the issue but the way those opinions were expressed while others were suppressed was. I think we had every right to criticize MOS for what we saw as its flaws without being told to shut up about it. Like I said before I do feel a sense of vindication because I felt Snyders approach was of poor quality and flawed and would hurt WB's plans for a series of DC films and so far it has. Snyder isn't a story guy or a character guy and that's what these movies need. The brand has been damaged even if to a small extent and going forward many people ARE trepidatious. There's a real possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Many people feel burned. Some feel burned twice and aren't going to put themselves in a position for that to happen again. Now Justice league could be amazing and turn all that around but it'll have to look mind blowingly good in the trailers. Justice league doesn't have the built in name value as batman and superman even thought it's all their top characters together. If you say Justice league to the average person on the streets they aren't going to be able to tell you nearly as much. Honestly speaking, Marvel has 'ruined' things for DC just by the raising the bar so, so high in showing what can and should be done in bringing superhero comics to the big screen. If it wasn't for Marvel (and Singer's Xmen and Raimi's Spiderman), I probably would be far more supportive of Snyder's work on superhero films- but only because I'd have the 'well, it's better than NUTHIN' attitude. Instead- my feeling is: "you've got EVERY resource in the world at your fingertips- as well as a model on how to do it right- HOW can you possibly muck it up???" I think there's a better than average possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Reasons: 1- Whoever didn't like BvS, dunno if they're coming back. 2- "Avengers" was a breakthrough 'first' that had never been done before. Even Avengers 2 didn't do as well boxofficewise. To have JLA be about a superhero group comes REALLY late if it wants to coast on being a novelty. ((Not to mention X-men: Days of Future Past's mix and match of superheroes already getting there as well.)) 3- I don't feel like anyone's really gotten to know any of the characters THAT well to bond with them. Even Batfleck, and I even like what they've done with him. Maybe the Wonder Woman movie will help with JLA (probably will), but still... 4- Some superhero fatigue already lingering on tv and movies that seems to be present. While it's odd to read (maybe they were joking?) the Russos say that BvS's project got them to mention to Feige that it was time to change things up seriously and that's how Civil War started.... I imagine SOMEONE had to figure out ahead of time that things had to evolve or change a bit and not just be a formula.... ((though "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Antman" definitely aren't 'playing it safe' and I imagine were there long before BvS was in pre-production)) In any case- I think there would be an uphill battle for the audience's attention even if everyone trusted the writing and directing. With there being doubt and not necessarily good will--- well, I have to say- I'd be suprised if Snyder is feeling less pressure. One wonders if Batfleck offered up that he'd be quality control to get the studio to ease up on Snyder- but, you're right: if it sucks, it's Snyder. If it's any good, it'll be attributed to Batfleck. Good post, but I'm going to focus on superhero fatigue. In a way, I think Marvel and DC would do very well to study the history of Star Trek because Star Trek is an important lesson in what to do AND what not to do with your money making franchise. You have all these fun movies, but you also have the TV shows. Now the Marvel movies have lots of good word of mouth, but they have to up their game as far as raising the stakes for these characters so that the MCU franchise feels like it's alive and evolving. With this kind of output, you probably are going to burn audiences out if the stories don't evolve. But I don't see that in the near future. At least Marvel has good will and good word of mouth on its side and their movies are of consistently good quality. However, the bigger issue at present is that I think that there's just so many comic book properties out right now that not all of them can be a hit. You're forcing people to choose. For me, I can tell you that---as much as i wouldn't mind dedicating hours and hours to comic book movies and shows---I can't watch all those superhero shows and have a life at the same time. Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Gotham, Daredevil, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, a new Punisher is coming out now. AND the movies to go along with it? Holy sh_, man, that's too much! Maybe if I was retired with millions in the bank, I can watch all that, but with a career, wife and family? Forget it. No way can I keep up with all that." Since I don't have time to rewatch movies the way I used to, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the movies. I really, really wanted to see Deadpool and Ant Man, especially Deadpool (I even bought a Deadpool shirt and winter hat before the movie came out) and I just couldn't find the time. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 14, 2016 12:11:47 GMT -5
Honestly speaking, Marvel has 'ruined' things for DC just by the raising the bar so, so high in showing what can and should be done in bringing superhero comics to the big screen. If it wasn't for Marvel (and Singer's Xmen and Raimi's Spiderman), I probably would be far more supportive of Snyder's work on superhero films- but only because I'd have the 'well, it's better than NUTHIN' attitude. Instead- my feeling is: "you've got EVERY resource in the world at your fingertips- as well as a model on how to do it right- HOW can you possibly muck it up???" I think there's a better than average possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Reasons: 1- Whoever didn't like BvS, dunno if they're coming back. 2- "Avengers" was a breakthrough 'first' that had never been done before. Even Avengers 2 didn't do as well boxofficewise. To have JLA be about a superhero group comes REALLY late if it wants to coast on being a novelty. ((Not to mention X-men: Days of Future Past's mix and match of superheroes already getting there as well.)) 3- I don't feel like anyone's really gotten to know any of the characters THAT well to bond with them. Even Batfleck, and I even like what they've done with him. Maybe the Wonder Woman movie will help with JLA (probably will), but still... 4- Some superhero fatigue already lingering on tv and movies that seems to be present. While it's odd to read (maybe they were joking?) the Russos say that BvS's project got them to mention to Feige that it was time to change things up seriously and that's how Civil War started.... I imagine SOMEONE had to figure out ahead of time that things had to evolve or change a bit and not just be a formula.... ((though "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Antman" definitely aren't 'playing it safe' and I imagine were there long before BvS was in pre-production)) In any case- I think there would be an uphill battle for the audience's attention even if everyone trusted the writing and directing. With there being doubt and not necessarily good will--- well, I have to say- I'd be suprised if Snyder is feeling less pressure. One wonders if Batfleck offered up that he'd be quality control to get the studio to ease up on Snyder- but, you're right: if it sucks, it's Snyder. If it's any good, it'll be attributed to Batfleck. Good post, but I'm going to focus on superhero fatigue. In a way, I think Marvel and DC would do very well to study the history of Star Trek because Star Trek is an important lesson in what to do AND what not to do with your money making franchise. You have all these fun movies, but you also have the TV shows. Now the Marvel movies have lots of good word of mouth, but they have to up their game as far as raising the stakes for these characters so that the MCU franchise feels like it's alive and evolving. With this kind of output, you probably are going to burn audiences out if the stories don't evolve. But I don't see that in the near future. At least Marvel has good will and good word of mouth on its side and their movies are of consistently good quality. However, the bigger issue at present is that I think that there's just so many comic book properties out right now that not all of them can be a hit. You're forcing people to choose. For me, I can tell you that---as much as i wouldn't mind dedicating hours and hours to comic book movies and shows---I can't watch all those superhero shows and have a life at the same time. Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Gotham, Daredevil, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, a new Punisher is coming out now. AND the movies to go along with it? Holy sh_, man, that's too much! Maybe if I was retired with millions in the bank, I can watch all that, but with a career, wife and family? Forget it. No way can I keep up with all that." Since I don't have time to rewatch movies the way I used to, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the movies. I really, really wanted to see Deadpool and Ant Man, especially Deadpool (I even bought a Deadpool shirt and winter hat before the movie came out) and I just couldn't find the time. Agreed. I used to salivate over ANYTHING superhero related in tv/movies because it was such a rarity that something would be greenlit, let alone have any production values whatsoever. ((Hence, my love of STM came at the perfect time.)) But- yeah.... the good/bad about the 'speed the movies out...but not TOO fast' machine that is Marvel has the trouble of burning people out by having everything 'go back to normal' by the last act, with no consequence. With "Civil War", that changed it up- but up to a point, only. In many ways, I feel like Avengers 2 should have ended a little more somber for Tony's character- by building in some of the remorse for what he'd done at the end that instead became some of "Civil War". Marvel Studios NOW 'diving into' a more 'real-ish' world feels a little odd because of the timing... but I'm hoping there's more of a real plan with this change in tone. It's interesting how you brought up the Trek movies- which, imo- were great when they were 'standalone' but started to crumble with oversaturation with the tv shows/whatnot (though I think the main thing that killed it was having movies that had wildly inconsistent direction and quality).... I'm really wondering if the standalone core superhero series and appearances of the 'main three' are slated to end (No Iron Man 4 nor Captain America 4 announced) outside of Infinity Wars, and if Marvel is really fine with just starting new 3-picture franchises with Dr. Strange/ Ant-man/ Captain Marvel/ Black Panther, and not look back to the original 3 Avengers. While there's a giant catalogue of heroes to choose from, one does wonder what Feige/Marvel has in their long long LONG range plans.... |
|
atp
New Member
Resident Troll
Posts: 6,823
|
Post by atp on May 14, 2016 13:35:36 GMT -5
Honestly speaking, Marvel has 'ruined' things for DC just by the raising the bar so, so high in showing what can and should be done in bringing superhero comics to the big screen. If it wasn't for Marvel (and Singer's Xmen and Raimi's Spiderman), I probably would be far more supportive of Snyder's work on superhero films- but only because I'd have the 'well, it's better than NUTHIN' attitude. Instead- my feeling is: "you've got EVERY resource in the world at your fingertips- as well as a model on how to do it right- HOW can you possibly muck it up???" I think there's a better than average possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Reasons: 1- Whoever didn't like BvS, dunno if they're coming back. 2- "Avengers" was a breakthrough 'first' that had never been done before. Even Avengers 2 didn't do as well boxofficewise. To have JLA be about a superhero group comes REALLY late if it wants to coast on being a novelty. ((Not to mention X-men: Days of Future Past's mix and match of superheroes already getting there as well.)) 3- I don't feel like anyone's really gotten to know any of the characters THAT well to bond with them. Even Batfleck, and I even like what they've done with him. Maybe the Wonder Woman movie will help with JLA (probably will), but still... 4- Some superhero fatigue already lingering on tv and movies that seems to be present. While it's odd to read (maybe they were joking?) the Russos say that BvS's project got them to mention to Feige that it was time to change things up seriously and that's how Civil War started.... I imagine SOMEONE had to figure out ahead of time that things had to evolve or change a bit and not just be a formula.... ((though "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Antman" definitely aren't 'playing it safe' and I imagine were there long before BvS was in pre-production)) In any case- I think there would be an uphill battle for the audience's attention even if everyone trusted the writing and directing. With there being doubt and not necessarily good will--- well, I have to say- I'd be suprised if Snyder is feeling less pressure. One wonders if Batfleck offered up that he'd be quality control to get the studio to ease up on Snyder- but, you're right: if it sucks, it's Snyder. If it's any good, it'll be attributed to Batfleck. Good post, but I'm going to focus on superhero fatigue. In a way, I think Marvel and DC would do very well to study the history of Star Trek because Star Trek is an important lesson in what to do AND what not to do with your money making franchise. You have all these fun movies, but you also have the TV shows. Now the Marvel movies have lots of good word of mouth, but they have to up their game as far as raising the stakes for these characters so that the MCU franchise feels like it's alive and evolving. With this kind of output, you probably are going to burn audiences out if the stories don't evolve. But I don't see that in the near future. At least Marvel has good will and good word of mouth on its side and their movies are of consistently good quality. However, the bigger issue at present is that I think that there's just so many comic book properties out right now that not all of them can be a hit. You're forcing people to choose. For me, I can tell you that---as much as i wouldn't mind dedicating hours and hours to comic book movies and shows---I can't watch all those superhero shows and have a life at the same time. Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Gotham, Daredevil, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, a new Punisher is coming out now. AND the movies to go along with it? Holy sh_, man, that's too much! Maybe if I was retired with millions in the bank, I can watch all that, but with a career, wife and family? Forget it. No way can I keep up with all that." Since I don't have time to rewatch movies the way I used to, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the movies. I really, really wanted to see Deadpool and Ant Man, especially Deadpool (I even bought a Deadpool shirt and winter hat before the movie came out) and I just couldn't find the time. Are you turning into a Marvel Only Person? |
|
|
|
Post by EnriqueH on May 14, 2016 20:19:37 GMT -5
Ha, if you're referring to 2012 to present day, yes.
I did see a couple of Arrow episodes that I enjoyed, though.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 16, 2016 18:22:37 GMT -5
Honestly speaking, Marvel has 'ruined' things for DC just by the raising the bar so, so high in showing what can and should be done in bringing superhero comics to the big screen. If it wasn't for Marvel (and Singer's Xmen and Raimi's Spiderman), I probably would be far more supportive of Snyder's work on superhero films- but only because I'd have the 'well, it's better than NUTHIN' attitude. Instead- my feeling is: "you've got EVERY resource in the world at your fingertips- as well as a model on how to do it right- HOW can you possibly muck it up???" I think there's a better than average possibility of Justice League making less than BvS. Reasons: 1- Whoever didn't like BvS, dunno if they're coming back. 2- "Avengers" was a breakthrough 'first' that had never been done before. Even Avengers 2 didn't do as well boxofficewise. To have JLA be about a superhero group comes REALLY late if it wants to coast on being a novelty. ((Not to mention X-men: Days of Future Past's mix and match of superheroes already getting there as well.)) 3- I don't feel like anyone's really gotten to know any of the characters THAT well to bond with them. Even Batfleck, and I even like what they've done with him. Maybe the Wonder Woman movie will help with JLA (probably will), but still... 4- Some superhero fatigue already lingering on tv and movies that seems to be present. While it's odd to read (maybe they were joking?) the Russos say that BvS's project got them to mention to Feige that it was time to change things up seriously and that's how Civil War started.... I imagine SOMEONE had to figure out ahead of time that things had to evolve or change a bit and not just be a formula.... ((though "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Antman" definitely aren't 'playing it safe' and I imagine were there long before BvS was in pre-production)) In any case- I think there would be an uphill battle for the audience's attention even if everyone trusted the writing and directing. With there being doubt and not necessarily good will--- well, I have to say- I'd be suprised if Snyder is feeling less pressure. One wonders if Batfleck offered up that he'd be quality control to get the studio to ease up on Snyder- but, you're right: if it sucks, it's Snyder. If it's any good, it'll be attributed to Batfleck. Good post, but I'm going to focus on superhero fatigue. In a way, I think Marvel and DC would do very well to study the history of Star Trek because Star Trek is an important lesson in what to do AND what not to do with your money making franchise. You have all these fun movies, but you also have the TV shows. Now the Marvel movies have lots of good word of mouth, but they have to up their game as far as raising the stakes for these characters so that the MCU franchise feels like it's alive and evolving. With this kind of output, you probably are going to burn audiences out if the stories don't evolve. But I don't see that in the near future. At least Marvel has good will and good word of mouth on its side and their movies are of consistently good quality. However, the bigger issue at present is that I think that there's just so many comic book properties out right now that not all of them can be a hit. You're forcing people to choose. For me, I can tell you that---as much as i wouldn't mind dedicating hours and hours to comic book movies and shows---I can't watch all those superhero shows and have a life at the same time. Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Gotham, Daredevil, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, a new Punisher is coming out now. AND the movies to go along with it? Holy sh_, man, that's too much! Maybe if I was retired with millions in the bank, I can watch all that, but with a career, wife and family? Forget it. No way can I keep up with all that." Since I don't have time to rewatch movies the way I used to, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the movies. I really, really wanted to see Deadpool and Ant Man, especially Deadpool (I even bought a Deadpool shirt and winter hat before the movie came out) and I just couldn't find the time. I feel it's more superhero overexposure/overload than fatigue. Even if the films continue to be good and people continue to enjoy them there's just so much out there. The bar has been raised to high it takes more and more to impress people and at a certain point these world ending scenario movies begin to blur together or lose their impact. That's why I liked Deadpool and Antman. There was no monster bad guy threatening to take over or destroy the planet at the end of the movie. Deadpool was also something that was desperately needed right now: something different. It sent up the the genre and sort of reinvented it at just the right time. Star Trek suffered from burnout, overexposure, and poor quality. Voyager was generic and uninspired and Enterpise suffered the same problems as a lot of prequels. Both of them had heir moments of good but wasted their premises. Now we can't say Star Trek is overexposed because we only get a movie every three or four years but the hype for the third movie and the fiftieth anniversary is at an all time low since the reboot. The novelty wore off and people aren't impressed with the marketing. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 16, 2016 23:14:52 GMT -5
Good post, but I'm going to focus on superhero fatigue. In a way, I think Marvel and DC would do very well to study the history of Star Trek because Star Trek is an important lesson in what to do AND what not to do with your money making franchise. You have all these fun movies, but you also have the TV shows. Now the Marvel movies have lots of good word of mouth, but they have to up their game as far as raising the stakes for these characters so that the MCU franchise feels like it's alive and evolving. With this kind of output, you probably are going to burn audiences out if the stories don't evolve. But I don't see that in the near future. At least Marvel has good will and good word of mouth on its side and their movies are of consistently good quality. However, the bigger issue at present is that I think that there's just so many comic book properties out right now that not all of them can be a hit. You're forcing people to choose. For me, I can tell you that---as much as i wouldn't mind dedicating hours and hours to comic book movies and shows---I can't watch all those superhero shows and have a life at the same time. Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Gotham, Daredevil, Arrow, Flash, Supergirl, a new Punisher is coming out now. AND the movies to go along with it? Holy sh_, man, that's too much! Maybe if I was retired with millions in the bank, I can watch all that, but with a career, wife and family? Forget it. No way can I keep up with all that." Since I don't have time to rewatch movies the way I used to, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the movies. I really, really wanted to see Deadpool and Ant Man, especially Deadpool (I even bought a Deadpool shirt and winter hat before the movie came out) and I just couldn't find the time. I feel it's more superhero overexposure/overload than fatigue. Even if the films continue to be good and people continue to enjoy them there's just so much out there. The bar has been raised to high it takes more and more to impress people and at a certain point these world ending scenario movies begin to blur together or lose their impact. That's why I liked Deadpool and Antman. There was no monster bad guy threatening to take over or destroy the planet at the end of the movie. Deadpool was also something that was desperately needed right now: something different. It sent up the the genre and sort of reinvented it at just the right time. Star Trek suffered from burnout, overexposure, and poor quality. Voyager was generic and uninspired and Enterpise suffered the same problems as a lot of prequels. Both of them had heir moments of good but wasted their premises. Now we can't say Star Trek is overexposed because we only get a movie every three or four years but the hype for the third movie and the fiftieth anniversary is at an all time low since the reboot. The novelty wore off and people aren't impressed with the marketing. I think it's not just the novelty that starts to disappear when there are similar projects (told in mostly a similar tv movie way)- but when there are what I call 'franchise insurance elements'--- for example, popular supporting characters that you know won't die because they want to have the freedom to do a sequel--- then, the special feeling that you're viewing a one-time event, rather than another episode of a tv show where nothing truly significant is in danger or change will ever happen. (This is especially true with the endless giant destruction of cities where no one truly feels the weight of it, or cares anymore because it's CGI) While I respect Marvel Studios for what it gives the fans, it's also painful for what it doesn't in its compromise for commerce and the long-term dollar. (Same with WB/DC) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2016 8:27:08 GMT -5
Yeah that does get stale. You know everyone will be ok there won't be much that's truly shocking. When I first read your post I thought you'd go into how all these movies use the same tropes and I agree. Basically it's a lot of the same stuff over and over again. Antman was using the framework of Iron Man. JL's alien invasion has already been seen in The Avengers. The Spider-man movies followed the basic progress of the superman films. Dead parents. I hope I never see the "bad guy get intentionally caught just to have a conversation with the hero while he's in a cell" gommick ever again.  Although...looking back at the beginning it's interesting to see how much the MCU has changed in the last 8 years. It's more than you'd think. |
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 17, 2016 11:55:54 GMT -5
Yeah that does get stale. You know everyone will be ok there won't be much that's truly shocking. When I first read your post I thought you'd go into how all these movies use the same tropes and I agree. Basically it's a lot of the same stuff over and over again. Antman was using the framework of Iron Man. JL's alien invasion has already been seen in The Avengers. The Spider-man movies followed the basic progress of the superman films. Dead parents. I hope I never see the "bad guy get intentionally caught just to have a conversation with the hero while he's in a cell" gommick ever again. Although...looking back at the beginning it's interesting to see how much the MCU has changed in the last 8 years. It's more than you'd think. I thought this was an interesting article about why there SHOULDN'T be an Iron Man 4- thought it sort of related to the topic at hand: www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/why-marvel-studios-shouldnt-make-iron-man-4.html/?a=viewallThe most epic thing that Kevin Feige has done regardless of individual movies is introduce many of the Marvel characters properly (or at all) and with gigantic production values and high calibre casting (for the most part) + the 'innovation' of the crossover cinematic master plan with multiple characters from different movies interacting on the screen in significant ways. On the flip side, the solo and standalone films suffer to different degrees, when it tries to shoehorn in new characters and elements. In that regard, films like Spiderraimiman 2 and Dark Knight happen, when the filmmaker feels like there's no need to address (or include) things that could compromise the movie that they're working on. But- it's a mixed bag, I think. If Donner had done Superman NOW under the Marvel flagship- * Would it have been as epic as it is? While Donner took it as a job, Donner must have also recognized halfway through that it might have been a 'film for all time' as far as superhero films go. Every shot HAD to be perfect under his reign. Not that Donner would have been a slacker, but he would have had to have been aware that there was a bigger machine running behind him rather than being a groundbreaker to do it right. * The turning back time plot device would not have ever been okayed. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing. * Similarly, would Lois have discovered Superman's identity as in SII? I think memory kiss would also have been done away with (also not a bad thing), but the romance would have run its course and more/less been 'done with' in Marvel Studios' STM/SII. * Kevin Feige according to Joss Whedon isn't a fan of stylish 'look at me' shots. Which is a pity, as it would make the Marvel films stand out even more. I loved those in Donner's Superman films. (One thing that Snyder does get right are 'trailer moments') * On the flip side: I think that they would have been totally in sync with Donner as far as the humanity and heart- as well as making it a family film. But the idea of having to also incorporate other heroes would be tricky (Marvel heroes anyways) - in that regard, I think parts of BvS did that part right in the plot. Anyhow- Donner's Superman and Raimi's Spiderman have their fingerprints all over it.... some of which don't look too dissimilar to the Marvel superhero films. However, I wonder if it would have been as distinctive as they are. (though perhaps less battling if they're on the same page to begin with) |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on May 17, 2016 12:42:27 GMT -5
I think Donner would have done fine today. He might not have had as much creative freedom but he dealt with far more bs and interference from the Salkinds than he would now from Feige. Now he'd have different kinds of hurdles but I think the execs at Marvel would be more cordial. Marvel has been known to be overly demanding (iron man 2 and age of Ultron) but I've never heard of there being a level of disrespect like the one Donner had to deal with on Superman. It was a bad break with Marvel and Edgar Wright but the blood wasn't nearly as bad as the blood between the Salkinds camp and Donner. At least Marvel had the good sense not to let Wright go in the middle of shooting.
Interesting enough I read somewhere that Donner may have ghost directed parts of Xmen origins after Fox essentially forced out/took control from Gavin Hood. So he's sort of been on he other side of it (if it's true) even though it wasn't his fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on May 17, 2016 18:10:21 GMT -5
I think Donner would have done fine today. He might not have had as much creative freedom but he dealt with far more bs and interference from the Salkinds than he would now from Feige. Now he'd have different kinds of hurdles but I think the execs at Marvel would be more cordial. Marvel has been known to be overly demanding (iron man 2 and age of Ultron) but I've never heard of there being a level of disrespect like the one Donner had to deal with on Superman. It was a bad break with Marvel and Edgar Wright but the blood wasn't nearly as bad as the blood between the Salkinds camp and Donner. At least Marvel had the good sense not to let Wright go in the middle of shooting. Interesting enough I read somewhere that Donner may have ghost directed parts of Xmen origins after Fox essentially forced out/took control from Gavin Hood. So he's sort of been on he other side of it (if it's true) even though it wasn't his fault. Oddly, I liked X-men Origins.... Though I felt it also suffered from trying to do too much and some questionable choices. Would have loved to have had commentary on that film from the director(s) and/or Beinoff. |
|
