Discussion in 'Community' started by Lazy Storm Trooper, Jul 2, 2013.
Steel, Catwoman, Jonah Hex, LXG, The Losers, Spirit, V.
Spirit was really a horrible one, while we had Mace Windu and Black Widow.
More time to work on special effects which is fine by me. Snyder likes a long post-production as seen by MOS and those special effects were superb. Still can't believe Zod's suit was CG.
I want them to fail in their current incarnation because it seems like TPTB have nooooooooooooooooooo idea how they want to do things, leading to bizarre decisions, bad characterizations, tonal shifts not in line with the comics, etc.
I'd absolutely, positively, love for them to get off to a MCU-esque worldbuilding exercise with Supes, Batman, GL, MM, WW, hell even Plastic Man (
I would rather them make good movies that can stand alone, to be honest.
If I wanted the comics I'd read the comics. The movies are different and can change things up...I may not like all the changes but I have an open mind to everything.
It's like ASOIAF. I enjoy GOT even though there are tons of changes. I appreciate what they're trying to do and even like some of their decisions.
You bring up a good point I didn't address, actually. Same with
@Penguinator indirectly -- which is you're absolutely correct. Some things must be changed to fit a visual medium vs. a print medium. As, with ASOIAF, I think that primarily the complaints about the TV version from those who have read the book are not the changes from book to series, but plot changes where there is no need to make such changes in the overall storyline (not to be detailed here to not spoil people).
Similarly, the plot decisions that WB are making with their films tend to go against the overall plots dictated by the comics -- even if they look gorgeous -- which is a primary concern. A good example is "Wow, The Dark Knight is awesome! Batman will be on the run and it will be interesting to see how he keep helping people and fighting crime!" to "Wait... you mean he hasn't been Batman since Harvey Dent died? What the hell kind of Batman is that?!?"
I knew I was forgetting something.
Even Marvel's had to change things.
-Peter Parker's bitten by a genetically modified spider, instead of a regular one blasted by gamma radiation.
-The Hulk was made from a gamma bomb.
-Iron Man's briefcase armor is much different in the comics.
-The Red Skull was never part of the Super Soldier program.
-Blade was never part vampire.
Yeah after watching Dark Knight I definitely wanted to see that happening but instead we got 8 years later...
As for ASOIAF you're right, some changes are not needed but we have to remember that D&D know the end, so it may be of benefit later down the road. We just don't know. But some scenes like the sexposition scenes still don't make sense to me.
And apparently filming starts tomorrow or next week as Jennifer Garner said Ben Affleck is flying to Detroit tomorrow for BVS.
Uh... right? I know? That's why I was saying changes had to be made?
I was pointing out that even Marvel, for all the praise it got, had to do it as well.
Ah, okay -- that's fair. And sometimes they overreach (see: The Mandarin), for which I am okay giving them the marginal benefit of the doubt for even if I wished they'd done it differently, due to previous track record, whereas DC... earns no such reprieve in my mind,sadly.
It depends with DC. Superman's changes in the first film series was a necessity due to cost and limited technology of the day. Not to mention a desire to make these films acceptable to a larger audience. Most people looked at comic books and comic book films and television as kiddie fare. Something that George Reeves had to struggle with during his career. But while there was good there, then you had the bad with "Steel", because they hired the same guy who made the "Incredible Hulk" television series. And his opinion hadn't changed. Ergo, you had all the crap in that film. It really becomes subjective with each success and failure.
Well, there is also the historical record they go by. The popularity of Marvel characters rises and falls across the decades (cinematically speaking - where's the Next-Gen version of Blade, for example?) but Superman and Batman are trusted intellectual properties...
True, but you can't really compare pre-Marvel studios to post Marvel studios. I'd agree that before the "cinematic universe concept," Marvel and DC were on equal footing. Again, while maybe not as much as a widespread game changer, I think my "talkies" comparison above does fit. Before The Jazz Singer everyone was making silent movies. After sound, everyone switched. Everyone would expect lag time, so I'm sure there were a couple of years worth of transition. But after 6, 7 years, a studio shouldn't be starting to talk about thinking about where to go because "more of the same is good enough...."
It's not as important for this discussion that Marvel Studios has a shared universe per se. I don't think audiences necessarily need easter eggs, minutes worth of cross over footage in each movie, or post credit scenes. Those are all just icing on the cake and a nice result of the universe concept.
The most important aspect is that Disney has Marvel Studios itself, and seems to allow it to operate, where all the characters are housed under one roof. Look at how comic books themselves are published. Writers and artists put the characters to paper, but almost as important are the editors who enforce character continuity, make sure the characters are portrayed properly, and guide story lines. Disney/Marvel now has that in movie form. Not all are going to be blockbusters, just like comic series get cancelled. But I think they'll be true moving forward.
WB spent 40-50 million dollars and some 10 +/- years on Superman scripts to try and "find" the character before Returns was even filmed. That's an entire 2nd tier movie under the cinematic universe concept. And the studio still is beholden to guys who want Superman to use arm blades and wrestle polar bears for their properties. Marvel did make some stinkers under that very same system. But at Marvel, Captain America will never again be a beach hunk with a clear plastic shield, and the Punisher won't live in the sewers and have a bad hair club for men dye job. That's the greatest strength of the universe concept. Let's review that again. Marvel Studios could have produced a decent 50 million dollar movie for a lesser known character with the amount of money WB spent hiring and firing Hollywood writers and directors just to try and "find" their most iconic character.
The bottom line, which everyone here has already pointed out, is that Marvel Studios has movies planned out for the next decade+. Warner is still issuing statements that they can't find anyone to get Wonder Woman right, so they are sticking with Supes and Bats. By that time, Marvel will be releasing their Third Phase, and will probably have a 24 movie Blue Ray omnibus. DC will be left with, "well, if you go back to 1989, we have 7 Batman movies that you'll like, although you can probably skip 2 out of the 7..."
I don't know. It's fairly obvious to me.
The worldbuilding that Marvel did wasn't even very difficult. It started as a wink, and the shared universe--leading up to Avengers and even most of the second phase movies--has barely even moved past that yet. They're all still pretty much stand alone films that, when taken on their own, you wouldn't even really know there's a "shared universe". I just don't see how that's very hard. MoS even has those winks, and people went crazy about them.
There was a picture on the internet going around which depicted the major live action incarnations of Superman and Batman all standing in their rows, and then there was a third row for Wonder Woman, except there was only one Wonder Woman. I think there's a little more going on than not "trying to find the character" at this point. Hell, even Marvel is guilty, a little bit. The only major--and she's pretty minor overall--character in their shared universe that is also a woman is Black Widow. It doesn't take 50 years to "find a character" that has been prominently displayed in comic books over that same period. They just don't want to put Wonder Woman in a lead role. Her mythology is too bizarre? This is the same studio behind 300 and its terrible sequel. You're telling me they don't do sword and sandals movies? Just look who they put in charge--Zack Snyder--and tell me that the WB wants to make a legitimate movie about a strong woman.
Technically, there was three Wonder Woman incarnations. Kathy Lee Crosby, Linda Carter and Adrianne Palicki. Why only one was used is beyond me when there's photos of all three out there.
Probably because in Palicki's case, her show never even made it to the screen.
"What killed the Batman franchise? DER AIIIIISSSS EDGE!!!"
Let it go...
The fact you're saying Marvel and DC is key there. DC is not a movie company. Warner Bros, which owns DC, among a number of other intellectual properties, is. Marvel Studios is a comic book movie studio. Nothing else. It's owned by Disney, but it doesn't make any films other than those based on its own characters. Given its prime job is to sell toys and comics, it makes perfect sense that it would put everything it had into a combined cinematic universe as it has; they are operating an entirely different business model to WB. Per Wikipedia, as they said ahead of Marvel Studios' creation in 96: "Arad said of the goal for control, "When you get into business with a big studio, they are developing a hundred or 500 projects; you get totally lost. That isn't working for us. We're just not going to do it anymore. Period."
I have no qualm with the proposition that the MCU is smart business - for Marvel, which has no other irons in the fire except superhero films. It's playing to their strengths (really, their only strength.) But I don't see it as a game-changer for Hollywood at large, or even for DC. If superhero films go out of vogue with the viewing public, or Marvel has a bad run with a few films, or even Marvel's style of storytelling goes out of fashion, it's toast. It has no other product to push because it makes nothing else and it's unlikely it'll branch out into anything else or heavily change its approach. By contrast, Warner Bros has all of DC's intellectual properties -- but that's not all it does, not by a long shot. If I remember right the head of DC repeatedly said to people ahead of B/S being announced that superhero characters are not all they do at DC, and that's just the comic book company, not the entertainment conglomerate that WB amounts to. Marvel's approach is making it money, certainly, but it's still dependent on public thirst for superhero films remaining more or less constant. WB doesn't have to take that approach, because it amounts to risk and a lot of extra money, so it doesn't go there.
The argument that Marvel will have an awesome 28 movie back catalogue for people to look at is not much of an argument either, for exactly the same reason you mentioned about how WB can only point to its '89 Batman films: it'll be a dated back catalogue by the time it matters. The fact Spider-man is being rebooted demonstrates that even Marvel doesn't believe otherwise in that respect.
To be fair
@Saintheart, Marvel studios itself didn't reboot Spider-Man; it's Sony, which currently holds Spidey's movie rights that's rebooting it.
Fair call - but I still don't think anyone's taking good care of their Iron Man 2 DVDs on the prospect of them being an indisposable part of a Marvel Cinematic Universe marathon to be held in the year 2025 or so as background for Avengers 4 -- Live Free or Avenge Hard.
Though, to be fair, if Marvel got the rights back, they'd probably reboot Spidey also. Sure, the ASM films fit the more grounded reality of the MCU, but I think they'd rather weave it into the existing structure from scratch rather than try to shove two universes together (one of which they had no hand in).
Actually, I think you're already wrong there. After the Avengers- and particularly over the last 6 months or following IM3 and the Avengers boost to Thor 2, Hollywood is suddenly gearing whatever they can towards shared universe megafranchises.
All the studios now believe they need a megafranchise like the MCU in order to survive (there are financial analysts, consultants and studio executives that are literally said something to this effect).
So you have Sony aggressively expanding the Spider-Man universe, Fox with the FF/X shared universe, Universal planning a shared classic monsters/Van Helsing universe, Star Wars expanding beyond episodes into character spin-offs and DC finally merging Batman/Superman (amongst others)- if ever so slowly.
Then all the studios, to quote Lionel Logue, are idiots.
They are chasing a trend, and competing on a field where Marvel is geared up for it and has taken ten years or so to build it. Sony and Fox's franchises are dependent on superhero films remaining in vogue. Universal can't make a single good monster film, much less a megafranchise, and as for Star Wars expanding beyond episodes into character spinoffs...
(Okay, that's probably unfair. The Ewok movies were spinoffs of entire species, not specific characters.)
They were also TV movies originally and never really got a high degree of recognition in terms of continuity with the films.
Idiots or not, it's still signs of a game changer.