• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Erza won

  • Yes

    Votes: 16 26.2%
  • Oh hell yes

    Votes: 45 73.8%

  • Total voters
    61
Status
Not open for further replies.

Neophant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
445
Yo Ninjimbo I missed your last post but if you're worried about the campiness in Aquaman I can assure you that the movie takes its subject material seriously and really lets it go wild from there from an action and adventure sensibility. Think Indiana Jones or the Jurassic Park films for tone.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,621
The trailer gave me so much hope it's going to be good. It looks like the creative team really cares and everything I've been hearing says it's blowing people away.

I'm just so scared breh.
From everything the trailer showed it definitely seemed the creative team put care into the movie and added lots of cool details.

Ryan Reynolds voicing Pikachu guarantees it'll be a box office hit imho.

Other than that it just needs to be a straightforward story with a few cool surprises and likeable characters.

I'm hoping we get a crazy live action Pokemon battle in the movie. I need it.
 

Ninjimbo

Banned
Dec 6, 2017
1,731
Yo Ninjimbo I missed your last post but if you're worried about the campiness in Aquaman I can assure you that the movie takes its subject material seriously and really lets it go wild from there from an action and adventure sensibility. Think Indiana Jones or the Jurassic Park films for tone.
That sounds better. Batman and Robin comparisons threw me way off haha
 

MajorGripex

Member
Oct 25, 2017
187
Yup, definitely enjoyed Aquaman the second time around. Still have the same minor gripes but overall it's just a stupid fun movie that I low key love, despite being a bottom tier DCEU film for me. Mother-in-law also liked it and was excited for a sequel.

IW type opening and avatar legs bruh. Believe in the Pikachu

I'm there day one and I'm praying it does so good that we get a Pokémon Cinematic Universe. Ideally, we get a post credit scene with David Tennant as Looker inviting Tim to join the International Police. Believe!
 

rokkerkory

Banned
Jun 14, 2018
14,128
Just saw movie with wife. She really liked it. It is kinda like Thor to me in some ways esp the humor?

Overall did not expect much enjoyed it. It is better than JL and snyder batman movies. 7.5/10. Would watch again!
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,723
Scrolling through IG, see a friend post that Aquaman was absolute garbage.

Brb. Cancelling my ticket purchase
 

Deleted member 2229

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,740
Do we have a discord?

Also saw Aquaman today.

One of the craziest action adventure films out there and the true successor to Tron: Legacy, visually.
 

Neophant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
445
Do we have a discord?

Also saw Aquaman today.

One of the craziest action adventure films out there and the true successor to Tron: Legacy, visually.

Our Discord's been slow as of late but we're always looking for new peeps. If you're interested (and don't mind some of the wild off-tangent discussions we have there, I'll send you a DM!
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,738
Here's the thing with WB and DC. Everything has pretty much been laid out for them.

Take a look at BVS. it made 872 million at the box office. A movie that was critically panned and audiences didn't care for. If that movie was critically and commercially loved you're easily looking at more than a billion. But it still made a lot of money for a bad movie. It had a good interesting hook. Batman and Superman on the big screen together fighting. The marketing sold itself and audiences were at least interested.

Now take SS. The marketing department really should get paid top dollar because they sold the fuck out of that movie. But not only that it had a good interesting hook as well. First ever live action on the big screen and an interesting premise. Made near 750 million at the box office which I think is a good result for that film. But again. If it was critically and commercially loved you're talking much more.

Wonder Woman. Nothing needs to be said. Marketing, critical and commercial success did their thing. Made 821 million. Amazing for her origin.

Then we have Justice League. It's biggest issue was no one cared about it. It didn't have that "hook". Well many would assume that Batman, Flash, WW, Aquaman and Superman would be enough. Nah. Not when no one knows why they are together. Marketing really didn't help hide how disappointing a movie it was.

Now look at Aquaman. We have resident experts saying 900mil to a billion is possible depending on how this next weekend goes. A character that people said " no one gives a fuck about" could potentially be the highest grossing current era DC movie.

So as I said. WB and DC have everything they need. People like their characters, are interested in them and WILL spend money to see them. It's clear. Just make movies that are good and crowd pleasing. These are comic book movies. People just want to be entertained, see some nice action and have a coherent plot to follow.
 

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
Here's the thing with WB and DC. Everything has pretty much been laid out for them.

Take a look at BVS. it made 872 million at the box office. A movie that was critically panned and audiences didn't care for. If that movie was critically and commercially loved you're easily looking at more than a billion. But it still made a lot of money for a bad movie. It had a good interesting hook. Batman and Superman on the big screen together fighting. The marketing sold itself and audiences were at least interested.

Now take SS. The marketing department really should get paid top dollar because they sold the fuck out of that movie. But not only that it had a good interesting hook as well. First ever live action on the big screen and an interesting premise. Made near 750 million at the box office which I think is a good result for that film. But again. If it was critically and commercially loved you're talking much more.

Wonder Woman. Nothing needs to be said. Marketing, critical and commercial success did their thing. Made 821 million. Amazing for her origin.

Then we have Justice League. It's biggest issue was no one cared about it. It didn't have that "hook". Well many would assume that Batman, Flash, WW, Aquaman and Superman would be enough. Nah. Not when no one knows why they are together. Marketing really didn't help hide how disappointing a movie it was.

Now look at Aquaman. We have resident experts saying 900mil to a billion is possible depending on how this next weekend goes. A character that people said " no one gives a fuck about" could potentially be the highest grossing current era DC movie.

So as I said. WB and DC have everything they need. People like their characters, are interested in them and WILL spend money to see them. It's clear. Just make movies that are good and crowd pleasing. These are comic book movies. People just want to be entertained, see some nice action and have a coherent plot to follow.

This is all pretty much what I was saying. That BvS and SS did so much money while not being all that great means that all they needed to do was make good movies.

The strength of DC Comics begin owned by WB since the 60s is that DC's brands have gotten a strong, consistent push in the mainstream. Everyone knows who Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and Aquaman are. That's a worldwide thing. In contrast, Marvel's ringers from the 80-90s—Spider-Man and the X-Men—they haven't had the rights to. They've made the Marvel name big business and it's not like Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man were nobodies, but they've been working without some of their best cards in their hands. (Hell, I think they may have hurt the X-Men brand by keeping it lowkey since they didn't have the movie rights.) Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman have been icons for a very, very long time.

Fuck, even Aquaman is known enough to have had a planned TV show, and several jokes on places like SNL and Entourage, prior to a movie being a thing.

It's hard to build that visibility. DC's top characters have it. All they had to do was make entertaining movies. Which is still hard at times, but man...
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,723
I think the thing with saying "just make good movies" is...well duh. Generally, it's a good practice for any business to make good products. It gets said all the time, but it truly bares repeating: no one sets out to make a bad movie. There's no "good movie" spell WB can cast. We can look at them now and say "Oh they should have done this and this" but that's the gift of hindsight. We see the finished products; not the process of making them. Sure there were more glaring red flags, but some decisions I could totally understand. Like, Jesse Eisenberg is a great actor. Hiring him would seem like a no brainer in the moment. Yet, his take on Luthor landed with a thud. Live and learn.

People compare it to the MCU but that is something literally unprecedented in the film industry. No one knows how Marvel does what they do. Hell, I still say if they had to do it all over again, there's no guarantee it would work out like it did this time. That's in no way to diminish their accomplishment; I respect what they've done even if I find myself less and less interested in the films as time goes on. It's just to say it's not the kind of thing we should start expecting all the time. It's an anamoly.

The biggest lesson from all of this for WB (and us, for that matter) is that creatives matter. People need to get out of this mindset of "DC made this!" and "Marvel made that!" and look at the people who are actually making the movies. Synder is a nice guy and, despite what some folks want to say, a talented one. Dude has an eye for film and cinematography and at his best, he knows how to make a scene stick with you. That said, he was just a poor choice to take on Superman and Batman. Again, I'm sure it made sense in the beginning - his films were successful financially, he loves the source material, and Nolan himself recommended him. But it just didn't work out. Again, live and learn.

The next batch of DC films that we know of has some promising folks on them. James Wan made yet another crowdpleaser of a film and it's cleaning up. Wonder Woman 1984 needs nothing said; Patty and Gal about to come through and crush the buildings again. I'm excited for New Gods because A Wrinkle in Time showed that at least from a visual standpoint, Ava's got what it takes to bring the Fourth World. The little bit we've seen of Shazam suggests Sandberg at least understands comedy and how to get at what it feels like to be a kid with superpowers. Having seen Game Night, I'm done for whatever the directors do with The Flash (whenever that comes out). Reeves' Batman is probably gonna rule the world whenever it hits. Everything we hear about Birds of Prey and who is working on it sounds amazing.

Will all of it work out? Idk. Good decisions in the moment and all that. But thus far, I have no reason to feel nervous about the upcoming movies.
 

MHWilliams

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,473
The biggest lesson from all of this for WB (and us, for that matter) is that creatives matter. People need to get out of this mindset of "DC made this!" and "Marvel made that!" and look at the people who are actually making the movies. Synder is a nice guy and, despite what some folks want to say, a talented one. Dude has an eye for film and cinematography and at his best, he knows how to make a scene stick with you. That said, he was just a poor choice to take on Superman and Batman. Again, I'm sure it made sense in the beginning - his films were successful financially, he loves the source material, and Nolan himself recommended him. But it just didn't work out. Again, live and learn.

I don't necessarily think he was a poor choice. Man of Steel had some issues, but I thought it could be improved on. And I think he was well-suited for Batman. The problem was Man of Steel should've had a proper sequel, not one that was half Batman and legwork for Justice League. If Snyder wanted to do Batman, let him go do Batman. I probably would've really enjoyed that. If you were sticking him with Superman, do a real Man of Steel 2.

Like, I'm not really looking for Steven Spielberg's Batman or Michael Bay's Teen Titans. I think directors are well-suited to certain properties. (This is why I bit questioning of Shazam, as Sandberg is a horror director first and foremost, but maybe he can break out here.)

I just think the aim on WB's part was flawed.

The next batch of DC films that we know of has some promising folks on them. James Wan made yet another crowdpleaser of a film and it's cleaning up. Wonder Woman 1984 needs nothing said; Patty and Gal about to come through and crush the buildings again. I'm excited for New Gods because A Wrinkle in Time showed that at least from a visual standpoint, Ava's got what it takes to bring the Fourth World. The little bit we've seen of Shazam suggests Sandberg at least understands comedy and how to get at what it feels like to be a kid with superpowers. Having seen Game Night, I'm done for whatever the directors do with The Flash (whenever that comes out). Reeves' Batman is probably gonna rule the world whenever it hits. Everything we hear about Birds of Prey and who is working on it sounds amazing.

Will all of it work out? Idk. Good decisions in the moment and all that. But thus far, I have no reason to feel nervous about the upcoming movies.

Yeah, the current slate is looking good.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,018
We do know how Marvel Studios does what they do, though. It's a studio designed to just make those kinds of movies and it's built and maintained by people who revere the source material. They have dedicated departments for casting, writing, art, and visual effects with only superheroes in mind. They started out with a lot of executive influence, and it shows in the first wave of films, but most people agree that the movies have gotten better as they've given more leeway to the creatives.

Warner Bros. Pictures is not set up that way for this one specific thing. They make a wider variety of movies and they were probably known for being more creatively driven than Marvel Studios was initially. But they made the mistake of giving the reigns to a director who held the source material in such low regard that he thought he could leverage the iconography of it's heroes with no regard for the spirit of the stories and messages they were supposed to convey. You don't need the benefit of hindsight to say that maybe they shouldn't let a guy who doesn't think much of heroic optimism lay the foundation for this universe.
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,571
I thought there was no message in Death of Superman. It was just written to sell comic books.

Maybe should have picked a better story to adapt but that's in hindsight.

Also it was a miracle the first Iron Man came out the way it did. It was a mess creatively.
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,723
We do know how Marvel Studios does what they do, though. It's a studio designed to just make those kinds of movies and it's built and maintained by people who revere the source material. They have dedicated departments for casting, writing, art, and visual effects with only superheroes in mind. They started out with a lot of executive influence, and it shows in the first wave of films, but most people agree that the movies have gotten better as they've given more leeway to the creatives.

Warner Bros. Pictures is not set up that way for this one specific thing. They make a wider variety of movies and they were probably known for being more creatively driven than Marvel Studios was initially. But they made the mistake of giving the reigns to a director who held the source material in such low regard that he thought he could leverage the iconography of it's heroes with no regard for the spirit of the stories and messages they were supposed to convey. You don't need the benefit of hindsight to say that maybe they shouldn't let a guy who doesn't think much of heroic optimism lay the foundation for this universe.
We know the structure, but not the day-to-day workings. We don't know how decisions are made, who does what, what's in development, how they go about choosing projects and creatives and whatnot. If we did, if we fully understood what they do, it would meant the rest of Hollywood did too and they'd already have their own shit working that way. But they don't. We mistake knowing more than nothing for knowing a lot, but that's all it is.

I wouldn't say Synder holds no regard for the subject matter. You don't make three (2.5?) movies whose single guiding message is "Superman is great and you're dicks for not liking him" if don't have some affection for the character. He believed so firmly in that he flipped "The Dark Knight Returns" on its head and made Batman the bad guy (I'll concede he maybe doesn't like Batman). Wonder Woman literally only exists as a film because Synder pushed for it (and to his credit, he had the good sense to step back and let someone else take the reigns there). I believe Synder genuinely wanted to make a great modern superhero epic and that he believes in the optimism and heroism these characters are meant to represent.

The problem is his skills and tendencies as a storyteller are an almost total mismatch for something like Superman. I say almost because there are moments where he truly does get it. I will defend the "Pretend my voice is an island" scene in Man of Steel till my dying breath because it's the one scene where Synder gets Clark's relationship to at least his mother. However, usually the worlds he creates are too mired in cynicism, his characters too beaten by the world that the moments of optimism feel compromised or don't truly shine through enough to mean anything. Synder believes heroism comes through great personal sacrifice, brute strength, and/or the hero must drag people kicking and screaming to salvation. None of which is entirely untrue and there are characters that could work for, but doesn't work for Superman. He knows what Superman is supposed to represent, and likes it, but damned if he knows how to put that to film.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
We know the structure, but not the day-to-day workings. We don't know how decisions are made, who does what, what's in development, how they go about choosing projects and creatives and whatnot. If we did, if we fully understood what they do, it would meant the rest of Hollywood did too and they'd already have their own shit working that way. But they don't. We mistake knowing more than nothing for knowing a lot, but that's all it is.

I wouldn't say Synder holds no regard for the subject matter. You don't make three (2.5?) movies whose single guiding message is "Superman is great and you're dicks for not liking him" if don't have some affection for the character. He believed so firmly in that he flipped "The Dark Knight Returns" on its head and made Batman the bad guy (I'll concede he maybe doesn't like Batman). Wonder Woman literally only exists as a film because Synder pushed for it (and to his credit, he had the good sense to step back and let someone else take the reigns there). I believe Synder genuinely wanted to make a great modern superhero epic and that he believes in the optimism and heroism these characters are meant to represent.

The problem is his skills and tendencies as a storyteller are an almost total mismatch for something like Superman. I say almost because there are moments where he truly does get it. I will defend the "Pretend my voice is an island" scene in Man of Steel till my dying breath because it's the one scene where Synder gets Clark's relationship to at least his mother. However, usually the worlds he creates are too mired in cynicism, his characters too beaten by the world that the moments of optimism feel compromised or don't truly shine through enough to mean anything. Synder believes heroism comes through great personal sacrifice, brute strength, and/or the hero must drag people kicking and screaming to salvation. None of which is entirely untrue and there are characters that could work for, but doesn't work for Superman. He knows what Superman is supposed to represent, and likes it, but damned if he knows how to put that to film.

They shouldn't have to, WB has been making movies for decades - including blockbusters about Superman and Batman. The industry is small, so they'd travel in the same social circles and hear industry gossip. That's more than enough to fill in the gaps as they should have institutional memory to draw upon, which is far more than Marvel did when they began. It's not about the who, it's the how. There is no mystery here, and they were observant enough to copy some elements while rejecting others already once they began the DCEU.

If you're right about him hating Batman, I don't know why. He's much more of a character suited to his tastes and tone than Superman was. Of course he had to completely misread the message in TDK, like with Watchmen, because he had to get his Punisher Batman on screen.

Snyder may be better suited to be a cinematographer than a director.
 

Ichthyosaurus

Banned
Dec 26, 2018
9,375
He didn't misread Watchmen. I don't know how he gave you that idea.

He made it into a blockbuster spectacle where the super-heroes where sleek gods, when in the books they were very flawed humans with shitty, realistic costumes who were in the shadow of the only true "super-hero," Dr. Manhatten. The film redesigned Nite Owl II (a Ted Korn Blue Beetle inspiration) into pseudo-Batman.

Comic:

night-owl-dc.jpg



Movie:

51691.png
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,571
I mean, Nite Owl was pretty much a Batman parody. It's even in the name.

In the film, they killed Dollar Bill and numerous other superheroes through a real life lens.

As for the gratuitous action scenes, he had to make it look visually impressive. Otherwise nobody but fans would have bothered to see Watchmen. It's not just messages, people go to the cinema for the spectacle. Aquaman has some light environmental messages, but that's downplayed compared to the presentation of a blockbuster. There's nothing wrong with that. WB gotta eat too.
 

broncobuster

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,139
He made it into a blockbuster spectacle where the super-heroes where sleek gods, when in the books they were very flawed humans with shitty, realistic costumes who were in the shadow of the only true "super-hero," Dr. Manhatten. The film redesigned Nite Owl II (a Ted Korn Blue Beetle inspiration) into pseudo-Batman.

Comic:

night-owl-dc.jpg



Movie:

51691.png

The point was to use the language of superhero movies in the film adaptation. It's not an accident that he looked like Batman from Begins, or Ozy's suit was styled around the Schumacher Batman and Robin suits, or why the older suits we see are closer to Adam West Batman or Reeves Superman.

The action scenes similarly were meant to evoke action movies of its time. It released too early without enough superhero movies to draw from.

We know the structure, but not the day-to-day workings. We don't know how decisions are made, who does what, what's in development, how they go about choosing projects and creatives and whatnot. If we did, if we fully understood what they do, it would meant the rest of Hollywood did too and they'd already have their own shit working that way. But they don't. We mistake knowing more than nothing for knowing a lot, but that's all it is.

I wouldn't say Synder holds no regard for the subject matter. You don't make three (2.5?) movies whose single guiding message is "Superman is great and you're dicks for not liking him" if don't have some affection for the character. He believed so firmly in that he flipped "The Dark Knight Returns" on its head and made Batman the bad guy (I'll concede he maybe doesn't like Batman). Wonder Woman literally only exists as a film because Synder pushed for it (and to his credit, he had the good sense to step back and let someone else take the reigns there). I believe Synder genuinely wanted to make a great modern superhero epic and that he believes in the optimism and heroism these characters are meant to represent.

The problem is his skills and tendencies as a storyteller are an almost total mismatch for something like Superman. I say almost because there are moments where he truly does get it. I will defend the "Pretend my voice is an island" scene in Man of Steel till my dying breath because it's the one scene where Synder gets Clark's relationship to at least his mother. However, usually the worlds he creates are too mired in cynicism, his characters too beaten by the world that the moments of optimism feel compromised or don't truly shine through enough to mean anything. Synder believes heroism comes through great personal sacrifice, brute strength, and/or the hero must drag people kicking and screaming to salvation. None of which is entirely untrue and there are characters that could work for, but doesn't work for Superman. He knows what Superman is supposed to represent, and likes it, but damned if he knows how to put that to film.

I agree with a lot of this. And I'm all for the intent they were going for. It was always to strive for a mythological take on these characters who are our modern myths.Putting characters through a crucible to become who they are. A crucible informed by our world, warts and all. It's not unlike the wavelength of Morrison worked on.

The TDKReturns thing, people pick on borrowing imagery but in the text, as you say, Batman's arc in BvS is the inverse of his arc in that story. Batman is the villain for nearly all on BvS. And through Superman's actions, it ultimately leads into a JL that's setup as Batman asking others for help.
 

Ocarina_117

Member
Oct 26, 2017
9,621
broncobuster makes a point I always think on.

Watchmen just released too early. Ahead of its time in a literal sense. It would be received differently today imho.

Hell, I was way too young to really appreciate it when it first came out. It was only on a rewatch of the directors cut a few years ago I really got it.
 

Kenzodielocke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,870
broncobuster makes a point I always think on.

Watchmen just released too early. Ahead of its time in a literal sense. It would be received differently today imho.

Hell, I was way too young to really appreciate it when it first came out. It was only on a rewatch of the directors cut a few years ago I really got it.
I disagree heavily. I think it might have been reviewed worse these days.
 

Penguin

The Mushroom Kingdom Knight
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,229
New York
Watchmen released too early, but right now isn't the time.

It really does need to come when comic movies are in a backslide.
 

Neophant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
445
Superman has never been a cynical character, nor has been portrayed as such in the Snyder films. If anything, it's the world having first encountered the Superman and manipulated through the media and manipulation that is portrayed as cynical and jaded, which is what Superman needs to overcome through sacrifice and sheer will.
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,723
I remember being back on Gaf and having bitter debates about the viability of Aquaman and Wonder Woman as cinematic characters.

Being right feels so damn good.
 

Vordan

Member
Aug 12, 2018
2,489
The point was to use the language of superhero movies in the film adaptation. It's not an accident that he looked like Batman from Begins, or Ozy's suit was styled around the Schumacher Batman and Robin suits, or why the older suits we see are closer to Adam West Batman or Reeves Superman.

The action scenes similarly were meant to evoke action movies of its time. It released too early without enough superhero movies to draw from.



I agree with a lot of this. And I'm all for the intent they were going for. It was always to strive for a mythological take on these characters who are our modern myths.Putting characters through a crucible to become who they are. A crucible informed by our world, warts and all. It's not unlike the wavelength of Morrison worked on.

The TDKReturns thing, people pick on borrowing imagery but in the text, as you say, Batman's arc in BvS is the inverse of his arc in that story. Batman is the villain for nearly all on BvS. And through Superman's actions, it ultimately leads into a JL that's setup as Batman asking others for help.
Hot take but portraying the DC heroes as "modern days gods" is a terrible take and always has been. Even Morrison made it clear that the heroes are different from the "Old Gods" that preceded them. Supes has never benefitted from being compared to Jesus or Zeus, and I'd argue that comparison has only hurt him in the long run, by downplaying the human relationships and concerns Clark struggles with for shitty Jesus imagery.
Superman has never been a cynical character, nor has been portrayed as such in the Snyder films. If anything, it's the world having first encountered the Superman and manipulated through the media and manipulation that is portrayed as cynical and jaded, which is what Superman needs to overcome through sacrifice and sheer will.
Nah, everyone in the Snyderverse is unbearably cynical, to the point of being unlikeable. Batman is a psychotic killer, and he has no moral high ground anymore. If he can kill and then stop killing that easily there's no real reason to not kill the Joker and then just turn over Joker's goons to the GCPD. WW gave up because her boyfriend died and was going to let Zod and friends kill everyone. Thankfully Patty and Gal are tossing that interpretation out with the sequel. Aquaman was so damn colorless and dreary in Zack's vision until Wan gave him some fucking color. Flash is whatever. Cyborg's "am I a man or a machine" is as lame in the movies as it is in the comics. And then there's Superman who in Zack's interpretation is totally unable to connect with humanity and makes Lois the reason he does anything and everything which is a terrible take. The Kents are roadblocks to Clark's innate heroism and teach him to look out for number 1 first and foremost.

It's not any surprise to me that the DCEU has only started to find success by moving away from Snyder's interpretations. They were far too unlikeable and unstable.
 

a916

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,930
Here's the thing with WB and DC. Everything has pretty much been laid out for them.

Take a look at BVS. it made 872 million at the box office. A movie that was critically panned and audiences didn't care for. If that movie was critically and commercially loved you're easily looking at more than a billion. But it still made a lot of money for a bad movie. It had a good interesting hook. Batman and Superman on the big screen together fighting. The marketing sold itself and audiences were at least interested.

Now take SS. The marketing department really should get paid top dollar because they sold the fuck out of that movie. But not only that it had a good interesting hook as well. First ever live action on the big screen and an interesting premise. Made near 750 million at the box office which I think is a good result for that film. But again. If it was critically and commercially loved you're talking much more.

Wonder Woman. Nothing needs to be said. Marketing, critical and commercial success did their thing. Made 821 million. Amazing for her origin.

Then we have Justice League. It's biggest issue was no one cared about it. It didn't have that "hook". Well many would assume that Batman, Flash, WW, Aquaman and Superman would be enough. Nah. Not when no one knows why they are together. Marketing really didn't help hide how disappointing a movie it was.

Now look at Aquaman. We have resident experts saying 900mil to a billion is possible depending on how this next weekend goes. A character that people said " no one gives a fuck about" could potentially be the highest grossing current era DC movie.

So as I said. WB and DC have everything they need. People like their characters, are interested in them and WILL spend money to see them. It's clear. Just make movies that are good and crowd pleasing. These are comic book movies. People just want to be entertained, see some nice action and have a coherent plot to follow.

The only thing that WB has been consistent with, is changing their mind. They've done a complete 180 in regards to setting up a connective tissue. Now they've closed there eyes and are going 'NO ONE WANTS A JL' when the lesson they should take is "No one wants a BAD JL"

The decision now to not leave the door open for a another JL down the future is more shortsightedness.

Make good movies and have your audience care about your characters. It's not easy... Fiege and Co are making it look super easy.
 

Firemind

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,571
I never understood the desire to portray Batman as a hopeful role model. He's a paranoid sociopath who grooms child soldiers to fight his version of justice because his parents were murdered in front of him.
 

a916

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,930
I never understood the desire to portray Batman as a hopeful role model. He's a paranoid sociopath who grooms child soldiers to fight his version of justice because his parents were murdered in front of him.

This is what happens when people champion Batman over Superman... Batman's not even a full time JL member
 

ReiGun

Member
Nov 15, 2017
1,723
Does anyone seriously believe we're not going to get another Justice League movie somewhere down the line?

A second JL movie is going to happen. It just wont be part of some big IT'S ALL CONNECTED-style narrative cause they don't want that anymore. WB gets 2 or 3 more hits under their with the current slate, figures out what's happening with Superman and Batman, and we'll start hearing about JL again.

They shouldn't have to, WB has been making movies for decades - including blockbusters about Superman and Batman. The industry is small, so they'd travel in the same social circles and hear industry gossip. That's more than enough to fill in the gaps as they should have institutional memory to draw upon, which is far more than Marvel did when they began. It's not about the who, it's the how. There is no mystery here, and they were observant enough to copy some elements while rejecting others already once they began the DCEU.

If you're right about him hating Batman, I don't know why. He's much more of a character suited to his tastes and tone than Superman was. Of course he had to completely misread the message in TDK, like with Watchmen, because he had to get his Punisher Batman on screen.

Snyder may be better suited to be a cinematographer than a director.
Yes WB has been making movies for decades....and a lot of them, including some featuring Superman and Batman, are shit. Same with Disney, Paramount, Sony, etc. My whole point is that there is no exact science to all this. If there were, we'd get nothing but good movies because no company wants to make bad films. That's not to excuse the poor decisions WB has made. Rather, just acknowledging that's the nature of the beast.

Why does Synder dislike Batman? It is an interesting question since that character fits so much more into his aesthetic and strengths as a director. Yet, here we are with 2 (1.5?) movies that practically scream "BATMAN IS WRONG AND KIND OF USELESS! FUCK 'IM!" Funny how that works out.
 

Ninjimbo

Banned
Dec 6, 2017
1,731
We know the structure, but not the day-to-day workings. We don't know how decisions are made, who does what, what's in development, how they go about choosing projects and creatives and whatnot. If we did, if we fully understood what they do, it would meant the rest of Hollywood did too and they'd already have their own shit working that way. But they don't. We mistake knowing more than nothing for knowing a lot, but that's all it is.

I wouldn't say Synder holds no regard for the subject matter. You don't make three (2.5?) movies whose single guiding message is "Superman is great and you're dicks for not liking him" if don't have some affection for the character. He believed so firmly in that he flipped "The Dark Knight Returns" on its head and made Batman the bad guy (I'll concede he maybe doesn't like Batman). Wonder Woman literally only exists as a film because Synder pushed for it (and to his credit, he had the good sense to step back and let someone else take the reigns there). I believe Synder genuinely wanted to make a great modern superhero epic and that he believes in the optimism and heroism these characters are meant to represent.

The problem is his skills and tendencies as a storyteller are an almost total mismatch for something like Superman. I say almost because there are moments where he truly does get it. I will defend the "Pretend my voice is an island" scene in Man of Steel till my dying breath because it's the one scene where Synder gets Clark's relationship to at least his mother. However, usually the worlds he creates are too mired in cynicism, his characters too beaten by the world that the moments of optimism feel compromised or don't truly shine through enough to mean anything. Synder believes heroism comes through great personal sacrifice, brute strength, and/or the hero must drag people kicking and screaming to salvation. None of which is entirely untrue and there are characters that could work for, but doesn't work for Superman. He knows what Superman is supposed to represent, and likes it, but damned if he knows how to put that to film.
Superman has never been a cynical character, nor has been portrayed as such in the Snyder films. If anything, it's the world having first encountered the Superman and manipulated through the media and manipulation that is portrayed as cynical and jaded, which is what Superman needs to overcome through sacrifice and sheer will.
Couldn't agree more. I will say that Snyder's take on Superman did a lot more for me to understanding the character than any comic or cartoon I ever saw, so I think he succeeded. It's just that a lot of people don't want to be confronted with a reflection of the grim realities of the world when they go to the movies. Hence, why the highest grossing films of all time tend to be easy going, and agreeable.
 

Kenzodielocke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,870
Thats fucking bullshit.

Batman is fucking hopeful, let's not forget BTAS, the best animated comic book show ever made.

Fuck Batman being a dick that has somehow become a trend. Seriously, fuck Miller's potrayal of Batman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.