|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 27, 2016 19:37:39 GMT -5
Tony Stark had little personality (from the books I'd read anyways)- kind of a 'b' tech version of Bruce Wayne, but RDJ made Iron Man Han Solo, to a degree.
RDJ adds the spark and is the 'bad boy' that Hawkeye was supposed to be. (Seeing him as 'Family Man' in Avengers 2 made me want to hurl)
Thor's movie grosses have been underwhelming- I wonder if Marvel is trying to retire his character after the third. One thing for sure: Helmsworth movie career hasn't soared from Thor- right now I think he needs it more than vice versa.
Maguire and Raimi had their own blend for Spiderman.... I never thought Maguire had the physical look quite right, but in rewatching the first two movies, they get SO MUCH right in adapting the Lee/Ditko books and taking it to another level, that I don't feel that the rebooted Garfield films were even close to the Raimi ones quality-wise, even if I liked Garfield better for the role.
Cavill had to feel a bit slighted more than once to see MOS not get a real sequel, then, afterwards, see his role chopped in BvS.... but the writing isn't there for his Superman. His 'return' will be such a non-event in the next movie, it's just sad. The whole reboot of Superman is sad, actually.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 27, 2016 21:54:12 GMT -5
Tony Stark had little personality (from the books I'd read anyways)- kind of a 'b' tech version of Bruce Wayne, but RDJ made Iron Man Han Solo, to a degree. RDJ adds the spark and is the 'bad boy' that Hawkeye was supposed to be. (Seeing him as 'Family Man' in Avengers 2 made me want to hurl) Thor's movie grosses have been underwhelming- I wonder if Marvel is trying to retire his character after the third. One thing for sure: Helmsworth movie career hasn't soared from Thor- right now I think he needs it more than vice versa. Maguire and Raimi had their own blend for Spiderman.... I never thought Maguire had the physical look quite right, but in rewatching the first two movies, they get SO MUCH right in adapting the Lee/Ditko books and taking it to another level, that I don't feel that the rebooted Garfield films were even close to the Raimi ones quality-wise, even if I liked Garfield better for the role. Cavill had to feel a bit slighted more than once to see MOS not get a real sequel, then, afterwards, see his role chopped in BvS.... but the writing isn't there for his Superman. His 'return' will be such a non-event in the next movie, it's just sad. The whole reboot of Superman is sad, actually. Comic book Tony really was more of the generic suave billionaire type that a lot of superheroes are. I think that at least leaves a replacement something to work with while not copying Downey. With Thor they could recast and even use a built in explanation for why he looks different by using the Eric Masterson version. Hemsworth was one of those guys Hollywood always had its eye on to be the next it guy. We've seen it over and over. Hemsworth's got all the tools but the age of the movie star as box office draw is dead and the types of movies he's picked just haven't hit. If anything that's one thing that reminds me of Christopher Reeve except I don't think anyone had any expectations for Reeve to be the next big leading man pre Superman. That's a good point you make about Spider-man. If Maguire was the Ditko era Spidey I think Garfield is the Romita era Spidey. Garfield suffered the misfortune of being a good choice in poor movies like so many actors in superhero movies.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 28, 2016 2:07:12 GMT -5
Tony Stark had little personality (from the books I'd read anyways)- kind of a 'b' tech version of Bruce Wayne, but RDJ made Iron Man Han Solo, to a degree. RDJ adds the spark and is the 'bad boy' that Hawkeye was supposed to be. (Seeing him as 'Family Man' in Avengers 2 made me want to hurl) Thor's movie grosses have been underwhelming- I wonder if Marvel is trying to retire his character after the third. One thing for sure: Helmsworth movie career hasn't soared from Thor- right now I think he needs it more than vice versa. Maguire and Raimi had their own blend for Spiderman.... I never thought Maguire had the physical look quite right, but in rewatching the first two movies, they get SO MUCH right in adapting the Lee/Ditko books and taking it to another level, that I don't feel that the rebooted Garfield films were even close to the Raimi ones quality-wise, even if I liked Garfield better for the role. Cavill had to feel a bit slighted more than once to see MOS not get a real sequel, then, afterwards, see his role chopped in BvS.... but the writing isn't there for his Superman. His 'return' will be such a non-event in the next movie, it's just sad. The whole reboot of Superman is sad, actually. Comic book Tony really was more of the generic suave billionaire type that a lot of superheroes are. I think that at least leaves a replacement something to work with while not copying Downey. With Thor they could recast and even use a built in explanation for why he looks different by using the Eric Masterson version. Hemsworth was one of those guys Hollywood always had its eye on to be the next it guy. We've seen it over and over. Hemsworth's got all the tools but the age of the movie star as box office draw is dead and the types of movies he's picked just haven't hit. If anything that's one thing that reminds me of Christopher Reeve except I don't think anyone had any expectations for Reeve to be the next big leading man pre Superman. That's a good point you make about Spider-man. If Maguire was the Ditko era Spidey I think Garfield is the Romita era Spidey. Garfield suffered the misfortune of being a good choice in poor movies like so many actors in superhero movies. With Tony Stark, I think they'd be smart to just use him for cameos and pass on the torch to Rhodey for Iron Man. For Thor, I don't know if recasting would work- but maybe do it in a way that passes the torch (literally) to another character/actor to be the 'new' Thor in a scene.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 28, 2016 7:24:34 GMT -5
Well that's sort of what Eric Masterson is. He gets the power of Thor. With iron man I thought for a long time that's what they were going to do but now I don't think so. It'll either be a new actor or a new character in the iron man armor.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 28, 2016 23:01:21 GMT -5
Well that's sort of what Eric Masterson is. He gets the power of Thor. With iron man I thought for a long time that's what they were going to do but now I don't think so. It'll either be a new actor or a new character in the iron man armor. Here's hoping it's a new character. While still giantly successful, I think the movie series would have been a bit stronger if Marvel was more flexible and kept the original actors for Hulk/Banner and Rhodey.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 29, 2016 9:10:10 GMT -5
People at marvel are hinting pretty strongly that the Infinity War movies will lead to some kind of reset. It's just my gut but I think we are going to see some kind of reset universe. Maybe not a total reboot but some kind of relaunch with some new cast and maybe a deal with Fox.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 29, 2016 9:16:40 GMT -5
People at marvel are hinting pretty strongly that the Infinity War movies will lead to some kind of reset. It's just my gut but I think we are going to see some kind of reset universe. Maybe not a total reboot but some kind of relaunch with some new cast and maybe a deal with Fox. Makes sense. Iron man is almost a 10 year old movie. As time passes I am curious to see how the whole Marvel series stands up to the test of time.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 29, 2016 9:26:51 GMT -5
Hard to say since there's never really been anything like this. Some will be remembered fondly and some will be kind of forgotten about. As a whole franchise it'll be seen as groundbreaking as a concept but as an overall story and entertainment I think it'll be mixed. That'll still be better than the DCEU being seen as one big mediocre missed opportunity though.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 29, 2016 12:20:15 GMT -5
Hard to say since there's never really been anything like this. Some will be remembered fondly and some will be kind of forgotten about. As a whole franchise it'll be seen as groundbreaking as a concept but as an overall story and entertainment I think it'll be mixed. That'll still be better than the DCEU being seen as one big mediocre missed opportunity though. It's interesting. I just watched Return Of The King for the first time in 7-8 years. Back in 2003 I was blown away by the intensity and scale of the battles whilst always having a subconscious feeling that it was disguising a threadbare plot( and no substantial villain). Well after just watching it this afternoon i was dismayed by just how "flat" the whole thing felt.It felt ....dare I say it.....very DOJ....lol. The fact that there was no real villain(obscured by a horde of CGI Uruks) worked back in 2003......but today in 2016.....personally for me....the whole thing just felt bloated and not dissimilar to the more recent Hobbit flicks which were exposed as hollow trash. Now I need to watch The Phantom Menace....maybe it will attain a "Blade Runner" type status (just kidding) So the Marvel stuff that is cool now(The Avengers) may atrophy in the same manner that the CGI infested Return Of The King has(IMHO of course).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 29, 2016 13:09:18 GMT -5
Hard to say since there's never really been anything like this. Some will be remembered fondly and some will be kind of forgotten about. As a whole franchise it'll be seen as groundbreaking as a concept but as an overall story and entertainment I think it'll be mixed. That'll still be better than the DCEU being seen as one big mediocre missed opportunity though. It's interesting. I just watched Return Of The King for the first time in 7-8 years. Back in 2003 I was blown away by the intensity and scale of the battles whilst always having a subconscious feeling that it was disguising a threadbare plot( and no substantial villain). Well after just watching it this afternoon i was dismayed by just how "flat" the whole thing felt.It felt ....dare I say it.....very DOJ....lol. The fact that there was no real villain(obscured by a horde of CGI Uruks) worked back in 2003......but today in 2016.....personally for me....the whole thing just felt bloated and not dissimilar to the more recent Hobbit flicks which were exposed as hollow trash. Now I need to watch The Phantom Menace....maybe it will attain a "Blade Runner" type status (just kidding) So the Marvel stuff that is cool now(The Avengers) may atrophy in the same manner that the CGI infested Return Of The King has(IMHO of course). . Well I can answer some of that right now. Avengers is no brilliant piece of film making. It's a popcorn film. But a really good one. But the appeal of that film isn't the writing or even directing (which is kind of tv movie-ish despite the huge budget). It's the the fact that it was built up to an event and was something we'd never seen done before. When you take it out of the theater and that first time event atmosphere you DO lose something even though it's still entertaining. DC and WB have failed to make their movies that level of event and when they even come close they let too many people down. On LOTR: ROTK we'd seen fantasy movies before. Great ones. Just none on that scale. I think while its good people also got caught up in the hype of that. The original trilogy is certainly better than the Hobbit films but it still relied on huge set pieces and moments while at the same time being kind of monotonous (them fifty five f*cking endings to ROTK). Of course with the Hobbit films it didn't take people ten years to realize they were overstuffed boring mediocrity. I know I figured that out while I was watching the first one in the theater. They were more padded and we'd seen it all before. But let's be real most action/fantasy/sci fi genre films aren't going to be as well remembered as films of the past are today. They aren't making that pop culture impact in the same way. You don't see them referenced or parodied like Star Wars or Superman or Rambo or Indiana Jones or other films of that era. Even the biggest hits like Avatar and Avengers aren't. They are generic assembly line cgi blockbusters with not nearly as much identity. Jurrasic World made over a billion dollars but it's not making the impact on pop culture the way the original is. Fury Road was the pick of the cinematic litter but it's not going to be endlessly referenced or parodied the way The Road Warrior has been.
|
|
dejan
New Member
Posts: 823
|
Post by dejan on Aug 29, 2016 13:36:18 GMT -5
It's interesting. I just watched Return Of The King for the first time in 7-8 years. Back in 2003 I was blown away by the intensity and scale of the battles whilst always having a subconscious feeling that it was disguising a threadbare plot( and no substantial villain). Well after just watching it this afternoon i was dismayed by just how "flat" the whole thing felt.It felt ....dare I say it.....very DOJ....lol. The fact that there was no real villain(obscured by a horde of CGI Uruks) worked back in 2003......but today in 2016.....personally for me....the whole thing just felt bloated and not dissimilar to the more recent Hobbit flicks which were exposed as hollow trash. Now I need to watch The Phantom Menace....maybe it will attain a "Blade Runner" type status (just kidding) So the Marvel stuff that is cool now(The Avengers) may atrophy in the same manner that the CGI infested Return Of The King has(IMHO of course). . Well I can answer some of that right now. Avengers is no brilliant piece of film making. It's a popcorn film. But a really good one. But the appeal of that film isn't the writing or even directing (which is kind of tv movie-ish despite the huge budget). It's the the fact that it was built up to an event and was something we'd never seen done before. When you take it out of the theater and that first time event atmosphere you DO lose something even though it's still entertaining. DC and WB have failed to make their movies that level of event and when they even come close they let too many people down. On LOTR: ROTK we'd seen fantasy movies before. Great ones. Just none on that scale. I think while its good people also got caught up in the hype of that. The original trilogy is certainly better than the Hobbit films but it still relied on huge set pieces and moments while at the same time being kind of monotonous (them fifty five f*cking endings to ROTK). Of course with the Hobbit films it didn't take people ten years to realize they were overstuffed boring mediocrity. I know I figured that out while I was watching the first one in the theater. They were more padded and we'd seen it all before. But let's be real most action/fantasy/sci fi genre films aren't going to be as well remembered as films of the past are today. They aren't making that pop culture impact in the same way. You don't see them referenced or parodied like Star Wars or Superman or Rambo or Indiana Jones or other films of that era. Even the biggest hits like Avatar and Avengers aren't. They are generic assembly line cgi blockbusters with not nearly as much identity. Jurrasic World made over a billion dollars but it's not making the impact on pop culture the way the original is. Fury Road was the pick of the cinematic litter but it's not going to be endlessly referenced or parodied the way The Road Warrior has been. Could not have said it better myself Metallo! I too think Fury Road was the best of the bunch from last year/this year. You may even argue that the film makers are aware of the short term life span(in terms of popular culture) that the current crop of sci-fi/fantasy flicks have. So they are already thinking about reboots and resets long before the end of the current cycle. Almost like the reboot concepts are built into the internal planning of the projects themselves. And all at the expense of quality.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Aug 29, 2016 20:15:08 GMT -5
Yeah I think it is. We are in a time where Hollywood feels they can reboot a movie in five years. They keep coming faster and faster. I didn't understand why The Hitman Movie was being rebooted in 7 years or whatever it was. Now Spider-Man is being rebooted five years after the last reboot. Before that it took ten years. Three different Spider-Man film series in 15 years. Seems ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 29, 2016 22:07:53 GMT -5
It's interesting. I just watched Return Of The King for the first time in 7-8 years. Back in 2003 I was blown away by the intensity and scale of the battles whilst always having a subconscious feeling that it was disguising a threadbare plot( and no substantial villain). Well after just watching it this afternoon i was dismayed by just how "flat" the whole thing felt.It felt ....dare I say it.....very DOJ....lol. The fact that there was no real villain(obscured by a horde of CGI Uruks) worked back in 2003......but today in 2016.....personally for me....the whole thing just felt bloated and not dissimilar to the more recent Hobbit flicks which were exposed as hollow trash. Now I need to watch The Phantom Menace....maybe it will attain a "Blade Runner" type status (just kidding) So the Marvel stuff that is cool now(The Avengers) may atrophy in the same manner that the CGI infested Return Of The King has(IMHO of course). . Well I can answer some of that right now. Avengers is no brilliant piece of film making. It's a popcorn film. But a really good one. But the appeal of that film isn't the writing or even directing (which is kind of tv movie-ish despite the huge budget). It's the the fact that it was built up to an event and was something we'd never seen done before. When you take it out of the theater and that first time event atmosphere you DO lose something even though it's still entertaining. DC and WB have failed to make their movies that level of event and when they even come close they let too many people down. On LOTR: ROTK we'd seen fantasy movies before. Great ones. Just none on that scale. I think while its good people also got caught up in the hype of that. The original trilogy is certainly better than the Hobbit films but it still relied on huge set pieces and moments while at the same time being kind of monotonous (them fifty five f*cking endings to ROTK). Of course with the Hobbit films it didn't take people ten years to realize they were overstuffed boring mediocrity. I know I figured that out while I was watching the first one in the theater. They were more padded and we'd seen it all before. But let's be real most action/fantasy/sci fi genre films aren't going to be as well remembered as films of the past are today. They aren't making that pop culture impact in the same way. You don't see them referenced or parodied like Star Wars or Superman or Rambo or Indiana Jones or other films of that era. Even the biggest hits like Avatar and Avengers aren't. They are generic assembly line cgi blockbusters with not nearly as much identity. Jurrasic World made over a billion dollars but it's not making the impact on pop culture the way the original is. Fury Road was the pick of the cinematic litter but it's not going to be endlessly referenced or parodied the way The Road Warrior has been. My two cents.... here's the thing. I never had a 'blank slate' for the Marvel (or DC) superhero films. I came to them with the love of reading the comics as a kid- so seeing them adapted and then (in the better cases) ELEVATED to a point where the material becomes a great movie, won't ever change for me. I saw the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy not having read them, but having seen the Bakshi animated movie and the musical 'Hobbit' tv special decades ago- and thought that the movies were great because of the dramatic bits between the characters, not as much with the endless videogame zoom-overs. But- I would imagine for anyone that reads the Tolkien books at the right age and the right time, that the movie adaptation will mean way more for them, than someone like me, who had only mild interest in the material to begin with. Suprisingly, the technical sfx portion of the movies I've found not as important to me as far as enjoying a movie as time goes on- To me, The Amazing Spiderman movie had state of the art CGI- far superior technically to the Tobie Maguire one, but imo the newer ones are far inferior to the older Sam Raimi ones, because of what they chose to emphasize in the story and in the characters. Historically, the ones that seem to be the most personal to the director seem to be the ones that are better remembered because they usually have the most substance to them. With Marvel sometimes compromising movies in order to cram in crossovers or introduce characters just for the sake of introducing characters- they may be increasing their box office, but at the same time, I think they're also undermining the best movie that can be made in more than one instance.* (*As much as I really enjoyed "Civil War", I can't help but think that there was a more personal and interesting draft of the final Cap/Bucky storyline that didn't involve all the Avengers).
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Aug 29, 2016 22:09:23 GMT -5
People at marvel are hinting pretty strongly that the Infinity War movies will lead to some kind of reset. It's just my gut but I think we are going to see some kind of reset universe. Maybe not a total reboot but some kind of relaunch with some new cast and maybe a deal with Fox. Goodness... I sure hope not. They still have PLENTY of characters and groups to bring to the big screen, without needing to reboot. (i.e.- Spiderman!)
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 2, 2016 18:21:49 GMT -5
. Well I can answer some of that right now. Avengers is no brilliant piece of film making. It's a popcorn film. But a really good one. But the appeal of that film isn't the writing or even directing (which is kind of tv movie-ish despite the huge budget). It's the the fact that it was built up to an event and was something we'd never seen done before. When you take it out of the theater and that first time event atmosphere you DO lose something even though it's still entertaining. DC and WB have failed to make their movies that level of event and when they even come close they let too many people down. On LOTR: ROTK we'd seen fantasy movies before. Great ones. Just none on that scale. I think while its good people also got caught up in the hype of that. The original trilogy is certainly better than the Hobbit films but it still relied on huge set pieces and moments while at the same time being kind of monotonous (them fifty five f*cking endings to ROTK). Of course with the Hobbit films it didn't take people ten years to realize they were overstuffed boring mediocrity. I know I figured that out while I was watching the first one in the theater. They were more padded and we'd seen it all before. But let's be real most action/fantasy/sci fi genre films aren't going to be as well remembered as films of the past are today. They aren't making that pop culture impact in the same way. You don't see them referenced or parodied like Star Wars or Superman or Rambo or Indiana Jones or other films of that era. Even the biggest hits like Avatar and Avengers aren't. They are generic assembly line cgi blockbusters with not nearly as much identity. Jurrasic World made over a billion dollars but it's not making the impact on pop culture the way the original is. Fury Road was the pick of the cinematic litter but it's not going to be endlessly referenced or parodied the way The Road Warrior has been. My two cents.... here's the thing. I never had a 'blank slate' for the Marvel (or DC) superhero films. I came to them with the love of reading the comics as a kid- so seeing them adapted and then (in the better cases) ELEVATED to a point where the material becomes a great movie, won't ever change for me. I saw the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy not having read them, but having seen the Bakshi animated movie and the musical 'Hobbit' tv special decades ago- and thought that the movies were great because of the dramatic bits between the characters, not as much with the endless videogame zoom-overs. But- I would imagine for anyone that reads the Tolkien books at the right age and the right time, that the movie adaptation will mean way more for them, than someone like me, who had only mild interest in the material to begin with. Suprisingly, the technical sfx portion of the movies I've found not as important to me as far as enjoying a movie as time goes on- To me, The Amazing Spiderman movie had state of the art CGI- far superior technically to the Tobie Maguire one, but imo the newer ones are far inferior to the older Sam Raimi ones, because of what they chose to emphasize in the story and in the characters. Historically, the ones that seem to be the most personal to the director seem to be the ones that are better remembered because they usually have the most substance to them. With Marvel sometimes compromising movies in order to cram in crossovers or introduce characters just for the sake of introducing characters- they may be increasing their box office, but at the same time, I think they're also undermining the best movie that can be made in more than one instance.* (*As much as I really enjoyed "Civil War", I can't help but think that there was a more personal and interesting draft of the final Cap/Bucky storyline that didn't involve all the Avengers). You've got a point. After rewatching the evil dead trilogy Raimi had a stronger style than Marc Webb and he brought it to Spider-man. His film felt more like HIS film. His fingerprints are all over it. Webbs movies look like something anyone could have done. Webb was an indie drama director who was good at showing relashionships and that's unsurprisingly where his Spider-man films shined. But he was still the same old story of a promising small film director with some talent who Sony could push around to make THEIR film. The amazing spider-man movies are textbook examples by committee studio films. Raimi is a genre director and he's a silver age Spidey fan.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 3, 2016 1:31:21 GMT -5
My two cents.... here's the thing. I never had a 'blank slate' for the Marvel (or DC) superhero films. I came to them with the love of reading the comics as a kid- so seeing them adapted and then (in the better cases) ELEVATED to a point where the material becomes a great movie, won't ever change for me. I saw the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy not having read them, but having seen the Bakshi animated movie and the musical 'Hobbit' tv special decades ago- and thought that the movies were great because of the dramatic bits between the characters, not as much with the endless videogame zoom-overs. But- I would imagine for anyone that reads the Tolkien books at the right age and the right time, that the movie adaptation will mean way more for them, than someone like me, who had only mild interest in the material to begin with. Suprisingly, the technical sfx portion of the movies I've found not as important to me as far as enjoying a movie as time goes on- To me, The Amazing Spiderman movie had state of the art CGI- far superior technically to the Tobie Maguire one, but imo the newer ones are far inferior to the older Sam Raimi ones, because of what they chose to emphasize in the story and in the characters. Historically, the ones that seem to be the most personal to the director seem to be the ones that are better remembered because they usually have the most substance to them. With Marvel sometimes compromising movies in order to cram in crossovers or introduce characters just for the sake of introducing characters- they may be increasing their box office, but at the same time, I think they're also undermining the best movie that can be made in more than one instance.* (*As much as I really enjoyed "Civil War", I can't help but think that there was a more personal and interesting draft of the final Cap/Bucky storyline that didn't involve all the Avengers). You've got a point. After rewatching the evil dead trilogy Raimi had a stronger style than Marc Webb and he brought it to Spider-man. His film felt more like HIS film. His fingerprints are all over it. Webbs movies look like something anyone could have done. Webb was an indie drama director who was good at showing relashionships and that's unsurprisingly where his Spider-man films shined. But he was still the same old story of a promising small film director with some talent who Sony could push around to make THEIR film. The amazing spider-man movies are textbook examples by committee studio films. Raimi is a genre director and he's a silver age Spidey fan. One thing I'll give WB credit for: they gave Singer free rein and (it seems like) Chris Nolan as well- but doing the same for Snyder wasn't a great idea, it looks like. But if WB is taking over, I wonder if it'll be even worse (will see with Justice League).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 3, 2016 8:22:00 GMT -5
I think it'll be just as bad but in a different way. In the Justice league trailer it looks like they went too far with their course correction. The humor felt forced and not very good to me. It's like they are trying to copy Avengers but don't understand it. Everything Flash said felt unnatural.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 3, 2016 11:06:04 GMT -5
I think it'll be isn't as bad but in a different way. In the Justice league trailer it looks like they went too far with their course correction. The humor felt forced and not very good to me. It's like they're trying to copy Avengers but don't understand it. Everything Flash said felt unnatural. Almost EVERYTHING that's a talking scene in a Zack Snyder movie feels unnatural, though.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 3, 2016 11:15:09 GMT -5
True...but between marvels sucess, DCs failure, and the positive reactions to the more comedic suicide squad trailers it felt like the actors were trying way too hard to be funny in the Justice league trailer. Affleck went from angry grim batman to tony stark snark.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 3, 2016 11:18:50 GMT -5
True...but between marvels sucess, DCs failure, and the positive reactions to the more comedic suicide squad trailers it felt like the actors were trying way too hard to be funny in the Justice league trailer. Affleck went from angry grim batman to tony stark snark. Fortunately, Marvel Studios decisions seem to be getting stronger (in general, I'm still pissed at the Ancient One's casting) in general--- so other studios will still look at MARVEL as the bar, and unlikely ever WB.... unless the boxoffice starts faltering, but it doesn't look like it'll happen. I SO wish I worked in a WB boardroom to hear what they're saying everytime Marvel has another breakout success. Do the execs shake in fear or never mention Marvel's name in that room?
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 3, 2016 11:25:20 GMT -5
I think everyone is going to pay close attention to dr strange. If it's a sucess its going to dictate a lot of decisions on certain superhero films going forward the same way Guardians and Deadpool did. WB wont be able to get Justice League Dark out fast enough. If it's a failure studios are going to be more cautious in trying out certain concepts.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 3, 2016 11:31:45 GMT -5
I think everyone is going to pay close attention to dr strange. If it's a sucess its going to dictate a lot of decisions on certain superhero films going forward the same way Guardians and Deadpool did. WB wont be able to get Justice League Dark out fast enough. If it's a failure studios are going to be more cautious in trying out certain concepts. I think it may end up similar to "Captain America". If it's 'good but not great' box office, then once Dr. Strange appears in the Avengers movie or if there's a crossover, then the second one will get a giant bump. Oddly, I'm a little sad that Ant-man did so well- while I liked it, I would much rather Marvel put their resources on a Nova movie or another character rather than have the Ant-man sequel take that rare slot (after all, only so many movies Marvel can do at one time).
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 4, 2016 21:25:00 GMT -5
I also wonder if any of the avengers or any other MCU characters may make an appearance like in Antman. Strange is in New York so who knows who we might see.
The good thing about Marvel is they try to keep the budgets more reasonable to keep the bar for financial success lower.
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Sept 4, 2016 23:43:00 GMT -5
I also wonder if any of the avengers or any other MCU characters may make an appearance like in Antman. Strange is in New York so who knows who we might see. The good thing about Marvel is they try to keep the budgets more reasonable to keep the bar for financial success lower. To this day, I wonder what it was that made Edgar Wright get booted off/quit Antman. I know the actors said that it was more 'out there' and less conventional (something I didn't like about parts of Antman) with Wright's first script, but I wonder if the (forced?) inclusion of Falcon made Wright walk. From interviews, Marvel Studios isn't perfect in their preproduction and choices- but it seems like they are pretty financially responsible. Haven't heard of anything going over budget yet....
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 16,852
|
Post by Metallo on Sept 10, 2016 19:08:42 GMT -5
That's cause Ike Perlmutter is a tight fisted miser. You hear stories of some of those early marvel studios meetings serving water and crackers. Their offices were in a old corner of the larger marvel offices with not nearly enough space.
After their bankruptcy it made since but he was still being cheap even when they were doing. Well. It's why so many of the actors were low balled on contracts and why Feige wanted The studio out from under Perlmutter's control. It helped the budgets early on and I give him credit for that but Feige knew for the expanding MCU they had to loosen the purse strings a little and spend money in the places it was absolutely necessary.
As for why Wright and Marvel split I think what we've heard is pretty much the truth. It was more complex than just Falcon. That could have been worked out. He had things he wanted to do with the movie that conflicted with where Marvel wanted to go. Remember when Wright first signed on to develop Antman there WAS no MCU. Iron Man was years away from being released. He developed that film for a long time and Marvels situation and their plans simply evolved to a point where fitting in what Wright wanted to do wasn't going to work for them.
For a long time there were rumors that Pym was going to be the villian and there are hints of that left in the movie with a side effect of unregulated use of Pym particles being madness. I think it was stuff like that plus he probably wanted it to be more wild and bizzare and marvel wanted something more mainstream.
|
|