Ranking the DCEU films.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 8, 2019 9:13:45 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Kinberg is highly overrated. Most of the successful films he was involved with were successful because of someone else. People
Forget the guy co-wrote X-men the last stand. Dark Phoenix looks to be a behind the scenes clusterf*fk. I’m sure it was fox that wanted him to make it but he was still the wrong guy for it.

I was going to suggest that Jane Goldman might have been the 'go to' person to script..... but in seeing some of her other work with Matthew Vaughn (Stardust being his best imo)- I've been so underwhelmed or disappointed with their films, that I think more and more Singer's influence on First Class and DOFP is what made those two films great, rather than Goldman.

In any case.... it's a pity that new blood wasn't chosen to write it and/or - better yet- a different storyline!

As a good friend mentioned, 'is Dark Phoenix the ONLY X-men storyline worth making???'. With Kinsberg (or Ratner?) destroying both the Dark Phoenix and the Joss Whedon stories--- I have to remind myself that I did say at one point that I was just happy to see at least one more try with this cast before it goes back to Marvel, but if this is a real underwhelming film (I still think it has a chance IF there are suprising other great character scenes beyond the Phoenix storyline--- or if they can 'retro-fix' some of the damage with Apocalypse's last act by flashbacks or just going DEEPER with the characters so it doesn't feel like a bad soap opera with no texture or real consequences).... I could definitely end up changing my tune.

I imagine Kinsberg got the greenlight because of just being around the projects long enough and - as you mentioned- perhaps getting wayyy too much credit. If Singer couldn't see the errors on the last act of Apocalylpse, the screenwriter should have before it got shot.

[Metallo]

It’s lazy money driven lack of vision by the studio more than anything. Dark Phoenix is to Fox what The wrath of khan is to paramount. It’s one of the most popular stories so they keep trying to milk it. How many times have we seen trek try to rehash twok? First contact was the first time. Then Nemesis. Then Star Trek 09 did a Spock centric version. Then Into Darkness went for a straight up remake. The X-men films are the same. They keep going to the same well. It’s ALSO sort of like WB Batman and dark knight returns.

As for who made the later X-men films good I think it was a mix. Singer was there for Apocalypse and that was a disaspointment on almost every level. I think singer and Vaughn together made FC and DOFP so good. They cover for each other’s weaknesses Singers films have depth and intelligence but Vaughn’s films have flair and a certain energy or excitement.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 13, 2019 17:37:07 GMT -5 Metallo said:

It’s lazy money driven lack of vision by the studio more than anything. Dark Phoenix is to Fox what The wrath of khan is to paramount. It’s one of the most popular stories so they keep trying to milk it. How many times have we seen trek try to rehash twok? First contact was the first time. Then Nemesis. Then Star Trek 09 did a Spock centric version. Then Into Darkness went for a straight up remake. The X-men films are the same. They keep going to the same well. It’s ALSO sort of like WB Batman and dark knight returns.

As for who made the later X-men films good I think it was a mix. Singer was there for Apocalypse and that was a disaspointment on almost every level. I think singer and Vaughn together made FC and DOFP so good. They cover for each other’s weaknesses Singers films have depth and intelligence but Vaughn’s films have flair and a certain energy or excitement.

I think of the template of Wrath of Kahn as something I don't mind being re-used over and over again, as long as the characters are fresh or different enough from one another.... but it has to have all the proper components imo to feel new enough.

Trek into Darkness was the first flat-out failure imo to use that template. I thought the other Treks were fine mirroring Khan in different ways....

Nemesis was problematic, but I didn't feel that the borrowing was the problem-

Nemesis' problem I feel came partly from casting- The movie felt laughable (not in a good way) with Tom Hardy cast as the young version of Picard.... but it was necessary for you to believe it for that story to have any weight- the second part that made Nemesis a creative failure I feel was not really feeling like there was a real center to the characters' journey. It's such a pity that Frakes didn't direct Nemeis.

The first half of Apocalypse I thought was (mostly) well done- (particularly if you add the bits that Singer shot but sadly cut out), but it's the back half that doesn't land imo. I wonder if the train was just running too fast on making Apocalypse or if Singer's judgement was just way off on that one.

[Metallo]

Probably both. I think Singer was burnt out on X-men by then. I think any unfinished business he had with the franchise he got out of the way with FC and DOFP. With FC and DOFP I felt he was getting to do things in these movies he’d wanted to do with the original trilogy but either didn’t have the budget or he didn’t get to make the film. With Apocalypse it felt like he was doing it just to do it. Like he was doing it for the studio instead of being something he had a great idea for that he just had to make happen. About the only thing I could say he wanted to try again was Phoenix but that needed more time to develop.

With Star Trek and TWOK it’s a question of writing. First Contact was probably the most focused and best written of those films. Look who wrote what on all of them and it becomes pretty clear. Also much like Kirk and Khan Picard and the Borg had an on-screen history that we’d seen. With all those other movies to use TWOK for inspiration their stories really came out of nowhere.

Nemesis came off as a film that was oblivious to the previous history we’d seen in TNG and the previous three films. It showed the fundamental problem with the movie was again writing. Either they wanted the audience to come in fresh and not have to know anything about any previous films or tv or they didn’t have time. But the time excuse doesn’t fly because Nemesis came out four years after Insurrection. The same thing happened with Into Darkness. Any rushing of the script meant they wasted time for most of that 4 years and pissed off somehere being distracted by something else.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 14, 2019 14:46:31 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Probably both. I think Singer was burnt out on X-men by then. I think any unfinished business he had with the franchise he got out of the way with FC and DOFP. With FC and DOFP I felt he was getting to do things in these movies he’d wanted to do with the original trilogy but either didn’t have the budget or he didn’t get to make the film. With Apocalypse it felt like he was doing it just to do it. Like he was doing it for the studio instead of being sometime he had a great idea for that he just had to make happen. About the only think I could say he wanted to try again as Phoenix but that needed more time to develop.

With Star Trek and TWOK it’s a question of writing. First contact was probably the most focused and best written of those films. Look who wrote what on all of them and it becomes pretty clear. Also much like Kirk and khan Picard and the Borg had an on-screen history that we’d seen. With all those other movies to use TWOK for inspiration their stories really came out of nowhere.

Nemesis came off as a film that was oblivious to the previous history we’d seen in TNG and the previous three films. It showed the fundamental problem with the movie was again writing. Either they wanted the audience to come in fresh and not have to know anything about any previous films or tv or they didn’t have time. But the time excuse doesn’t fly because Nemesis came out four years after Insurrection. The same thing happened with Into Darkness. Any rushing of the script meant they wasted time for most of that 4 years and pissed off somehere being distracted by something else.

As an aside, there was a great e-book on the web on the making of "Insurrection" that detailed how that script ended up being the mess it was, if only through all the changes that had to be made to get approval from this/that actor. I imagine those obstacles still had to be in place for Nemesis' script as well...

[Metallo]

As much as I loved Stewart and Spiner in their roles some of their demands steered the films into certain directions that were for the worse. Picard became action man instead of the thoughtful captain everyone came to admire. It really became the Picard and Data show. With a weekly series things can be kind of spread out and evened our among the ensemble across a season but a movie doesn’t have that time. Why’s Picard driving a suped up dune buggy? Because Stewart wants to.

Insurrection suffered the same problem The Motion Picture did. It was a tv episode or two part episode stretched out into a feature. Only the problem was magnified with Insurrection because it didn’t have near the budget TMP did. That film looked cinematic even if the pacing was slow. Insurrection tried to have more action but it looked small and cheap in terms of scale and some of the effects.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 14, 2019 18:21:24 GMT -5 Metallo said:

As much as I loved Stewart and Spiner in their roles some of their demands steered the films into certain directions that were for the worse. Picard became action man instead of the thoughtful captain everyone came to admire. It really became the Picard and Data show. With a weekly series things can be kind of spread out and evened our among the ensemble across a season but a movie doesn’t have that time. Why’s Picard driving a suped up dune buggy? Because Stewart wants to.

Insurrection suffered the same problem The Motion Picture did. It was a tv episode or two part episode stretched out into a feature. Only the problem was magnified with Insurrection because it didn’t have near the budget TMP did. That film looked cinematic even if the pacing was slow. Insurrection tried to have more action but it looked small and cheap in terms of scale and some of the effects.

Agreed.... I remember in an interview (complemented by the book) that Stewart didn't like the dark nature of the original "Insurrection" script and wanted things more light like "red Dwarf".... so it was sad (but somewhat fascinating) to read all the things that could make what itinitally sounded like an interesting script go so far astray. Pity that Ron Moore and Braga decided not to write Trek 9 as originally planned....

[Metallo]

I didn’t mind it going a little lighter after First Contact but they went too far. The jokes were awful. Especially the ones involving Data and Worf.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 15, 2019 20:52:56 GMT -5 Metallo said:

I didn’t mind it going a little lighter after First Contact but they went too far. The jokes were awful. Especially the ones involving Data and Worf.

I agree.... plus, having Data revert back to his state prior to his growth in "Generations" and "First Contact" was ridiculous, with the subplot with the little kid. Spiner objected, but he should have objected more to the character regression (which was pointless).

Star Trek IV took a turn for humor--- but the core characters stayed intact, suprisingly, and when it flipped to drama- it did work.

On the flip side, Trek V showed exactly what happens when you sacrifice character for a bad laugh, over and over again.

In many ways- Insurrection = Trek V.... though I must admit the music is nice in Insurrection....

[Metallo]

In IV the humor happened naturally from the fish out of water situation. Insurrection tried to pass it off as the radiation making them act more young and out of character but it was nonsense that only accounted for a few things. V had the same problem. It was a tonal shift with no real explanation. They did it just because they could.

I never liked what they did with data’s emotion chip after generations. Could have been a great way to take the character on a new journey of growth and change but they blew it. They convieniently ignored it when they wanted to.

[crazy_asian_man]

Jan 16, 2019 6:42:38 GMT -5 Metallo said:

In IV the humor happened naturally from the fish out of water situation. Insurrection tried to pass it off as the radiation making them act more young and out of character but it was nonsense that only accounted for a few things. V had the same problem. It was a tonal shift with no real explanation. They did it just because they could.

I never liked what they did with data’s emotion chip after generations. Could have been a great way to take the character on a new journey of growth and change but they blew it. They convieniently ignored it when they wanted to.

V actually had some ideas in it that I liked, but was derailed by a horrible script and direction.

In regards to Data and the chip: I thought it was nicely done in Generations, and at first I was disappointed with the dismissal of Data's chip.... but knowing how difficult it had to be to spread out time with ALL the characters, I got that it mainly had to be a 'Picard movie' for the TNG movie series.... and probably more problematic than even the original cast movies, which had fewer members on the bridge!
The emotion chip wasn't really thought through all that well. I thought it was nice what they did in Generations, but at the same time, it was a little oddly treated in First Contact (definitely a retcon- a deleted scene in Generations had it so that the chip couldn't be removed without destroying Data even if they tried... to all of a sudden have it so that Data could just switch it on/off was... you're right- convenient. ;p )-- and though I was somewhat ok with it for the tradeoff with the scenes with Date/Queen---- I just groaned when so much time was devoted in Insurrection to make the Date/child subplot so important--- when it really wasn't important at all- other than to the screenwriter!

[Metallo]

Decided to update with Shazam. When I thought about it I found it to be the most consistently good film in the dceu franchise. Wonder Woman might have better moments but it falls down in the third act and the villains are terrible. Zachary Levi is also a better actor than Gadot by a long shot.

[crazy_asian_man]

Looking at your list...

Shazam
Wonder Woman
Aquaman
Man of Steel
Justice League
Batman V Superman
Suicide Squad.

I agree that WW isn't consistent despite strong parts. The second half is a bit of a 'who cares' and disaster - the villain half is a mess... and I'm worried that this might not be figured out for part 2.

Shazam is good (though I think the casting or directing is a bit schizo as Zach Levi's personality seems nothing like Asher's--- and that lack of continuity throws it off if we're to believe that it's the same character.
On the other hand, it's a good enough film.... part of it is also I think bends to whether or not one prefers the Geoff Johns reboot with darker Savannah or not.

I'm also curious whether or not they can make an interesting enough "Shazam family" film, as it can't be anything other than that for the sequel now I would think-

My own listing would be this order:

Justice League
Wonder Woman
Man of Steel
Batman V Superman
Aquaman
Suicide Squad

It's interesting to think about where things would have gone if Whedon's touches would have made JL successful enough. A sequel that was written/directed by Whedon I would have been all-in for.

[Metallo]

Where’s Shazam fall on yours? It’s not the greatest superhero film by any means but it’s easily the most consistent out of the dceu. I didn’t even think that until I sat down to redo my rankings. There’s nothing in it that’s horrible like the others. At worst parts of it are cheesy and predictable but that’s what the characters always been.

[crazy_asian_man]

Dec 3, 2019 8:33:09 GMT -5 Metallo said:

Where’s Shazam fall on yours? It’s no the greatest superhero film by any means but it’s easily the most consistent out of the dceu. I didn’t even think that until I sat down to redo my rankings. There’s nothing in it that’s horrible like The others. At worst parts of it are cheesy and predictable but that’s what the characters always been.

Whoops!

Justice League
Wonder Woman / SHAZAM! (tied)
Man of Steel
Batman V Superman
Aquaman
Suicide Squad

The reason I place it as tied is that I agree- there's nothing really 'bad' about Shazam- if anything I would feel it's more closely aligned to "Ant-Man" and "Ant-Man 2"--- very pleasant but modest films.
It's a REALLY good adaptation in spirit to the original comics, but an even closer one to 'the New 52' reboot by Johns (which I have mixed feelings on as I do Marvel's use of "Ultimates" versions of their books).

Wonder Woman on the other hand is fantastic imo in its first half and epic.... what kills it is the second half and the poorly designed villains.

Zach Levi (or a young Tom Hanks) is a perfect Captain Marvel (I so wish they had kept the name, if only to challenge minds who would be confused with the Marvel Captain Marvel movie).
Gal Gadot might not be a great actress- but she certainly has the look and the presence that cements her--- with no small help from the director of WW to make her the definitive cinematic WW (so far). She wasn't a 'known' like Ben Affleck that gets in the way when she was cast.

So--- both I feel are just right. I do wonder what they're going to do (if they even have a game plan) for cast and stories for Billy Batson.

If they had thought ahead on Shazam, they would have realized like Harry Potter, that they should have planned ahead given the kid actors' ages.

Man of Steel/ BvS actually might as well be tied as well.... they're basically the same picture, with some sparkly parts that I do enjoy like a music video movie.

Aquaman bizzarely I thought might have been saved if we had a more charismatic actress playing Mera... Casting was locked in, but the first five minutes with Nicole Kidman and Boba Fett were far more interesting and powerful than anything else in that picture. I have a bad feeling that rewriting for Geoff Johns on the screenplay only went for the worse.
Not the worst film, but ...

Suicide Squad. Flashly but pointless. Really pointless and sloppy.