-
-
Another reading of Sucker Punch, from slash film:
This person clearly had a deeper understanding of the movie than I did, a lot of good comments too.
Some (limited) praise for the extended edition:
Apparently the studio made Snyder cut 17 minutes in order to have a friendlier rating.
It's a failure of a movie (in my opinion) but an interesting one.Last edited by DA_Champion; 02-23-2014, 04:29 AM.Comment
-
its a meme by definition it propagates (thus repeating itself; showing up in forums, by 2 or more people on your facebook timeline, etc.), it would be like faulting a tiger for being a tiger.
just because its repetitive, or even unfunny (although I thought it was) doesnt make it any less true. I dont know exactly what argument you think that picture was trying to make but from what I read from it, its true, basically its saying (and BG summed it up quite nicely) DC is gun shy... and they are, they really are, they dont want to risk things, hell, I think GL bombed because it didnt take enough risks, GL has the potential to be a Star Wars, yet they chose to make an earth centric origin story, a live action Green Lantern First Flight would have been a box office hit I tell ya, its got the Master/apprentice dynamic with Hal and Sinestro, ala Obi Wan/Anakin, its got intergalactic criminals, the master gone rogue for twisted reasons, etc.
The racoon in GOG is certainly not the main character so in a way, the comparison is unfair to say the least, but the message (and I tend to look for the message regardless of its inadequate ways of conveying it) is that Marvel is taking risks and DC is not and I think its not only a fair point and a true one but one that should be addressed. I say go big or go home.Last edited by Kal-ed; 02-24-2014, 03:32 AM.Comment
-
As I see it,
DC took a risk making green lantern, but they hired the wrong people and it was an absolutely horrible POS. There's a lot of potential there... even though they made a total POS of a movie it still grossed 220 million... so here on out they should be careful.
The DCCU is stunted and delayed. I don't think the issue goes much deeper than that. They will keep trying and eventually they will find a more competent team.
I don't think GoTG is a risk. Black Panther would be a risk and marvel has the same excuse for BP as DC has for WW.Comment
-
GoTG is a risk that Marvel can afford to take. I don't think Green Lantern was much of a risk -It was just a half assed attempt by a writer and director who really didn't have a big enough vision despite having the resources.. They spent all those millions rendering a stupid CG blob monster. Green Lantern cost the same to make as Iron Man 2 and 3....imagine that..i don't think i got my money's worth.
Word of mouth became sour even though it had so much potential, but flopped and came short of breaking even at the box office. WW is a completely different beast than Black Panther. If anything ironically DC has paved the way for darker super heroes for Marvel. WW is such a big hero and DC and WB are still so scared to bet on a female lead super hero movie which is why they rather stick her into MoS 2 as a side character. It doesn't help that Snyder is like a kid in a candy store. He wants to do all these things but he ultimately has a completely different notion of what the fans really want. He got really lucky that all the pieces were already placed well with MoS. The world was thirsty for a action packed Superman movie and the studio made around $215 million of profit from it, but he might not get a pass this second time if MoS 2 doesn't get all its ducks in a row, literally!
It's not like Marvel movies haven't bombed in the past, but they always go up and tried again and now Marvel can afford to take risks with the amount of money their main properties are pulling in. Even if they get a 1-2 flops it's still something they can absorb. They made enough $$$ and the fans will give them a pass. DC doesn't really have that much leeway. They've been struggling with their stuff for all this time and haven't had a break through with anything yet so they are afraid to take risks like Marvel can (even though they really should go all in or go home). Marvel got Phase 3 planned so long ago while DC still can't get this next Superman movie together. The 1 year push back just means something has really gone wrong and require a major rework. I'm willing to bet that Affleck and Terrio came in and read Goyer and Snyder's script and was like "WTF" we can't let this product go out.Last edited by Sharingan; 02-24-2014, 08:48 AM.Comment
-
Marvel took a risk with phase 1.
Since then, they have figured out a formula to guarantee their movies are palatable to the general audience. As long as they keep applying that formula they are risking nothing. The effect of the GoTG movie will be to turn some c list characters into pop culture icons.
Once marvel tries something new in terms of tone or narrative structure or writing style, and maybe I am wrong and this is in fact different, then they will be taking a risk.Comment
-
Gal Gadot with latest workout pic.. she doesn't look too skinny here.
Comment
-
Comparing development of the MCU and DCCU is difficult because of the different studio setups. Marvel Studios - having previously handled the sale of movie rights to other studios - established an in-house production capability to make its own slate of movies based on the properties that it still owned. From that point, there was a commitment to produce 1-2 movies a year, with a little "hook" in each to provide the possibility of an eventual Avengers movie. That meant that, outside of the supervision of Kevin Feige, each movie would need its own creative team. The interesting thing is that Marvel noticed that WB managed to make a good Batman movie - Batman Begins - with a far-from-obvious choice of director: Christopher Nolan. Look at the list of directors of Marvel Studios' movies - Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, Kenneth Branagh, Joe Johnston, Joss Whedon, Shane Black, Alan Taylor, the Russo brothers, James Gunn, Edgar Wright - there are several names there known for "fantasy" movies, but one or two that seemed odd choices to helm comic book movies. The really interesting part is the casting of what became the two big breakout characters. If a more obviously "comic book" director than Favreau had handled Iron Man, would they have cast Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark? Tom Hiddleston became involved in Thor because he had previously appeared alongside Branagh both on stage and in the BBC series Wallender. Imagine if Hiddleston had not been cast as Loki - and Branagh had not been around to suggest that the character by thought of in Shakespearean terms. It is easy to credit Joss Whedon for Marvel's success in the cinema, but Favreau and Branagh put some of the most important foundations in place - and Whedon would have found The Avengers a much harder job without them.
Marvel might have settled into something of a house style (fun, irreverent) for its movies, but it got there thanks to a disparate group of creative talents rather than relying on a single creative unit. Over at DC - or more accurately, over at Warner Brothers - things were different. Nolan's initial success with Batman Begins became a massive hit with The Dark Knight. However, Nolan's movies were being made as part of the Warner Brothers' slate - and Nolan had relative creative freedom to make a self-contained "Dark Knight" trilogy because WB had the Harry Potter movies as their "blockbuster" series. Warners were more than grateful for the success of the Dark Knight movies, but they did not have to shoulder the responsibility of being the reliable "cash cow" that would keep the studio in the black. By the time, Man of Steel was in development, the Potter films were coming to an end, and WB were looking for a series of movies that could replace them. With the success of the Marvel Studios' slate, using the DC properties became appealing. However, despite the creation of DC Entertainment, this was an established movie studio, not a studio created by a comic book publisher, looking to make comic book movies. With the failure of Green Lantern firmly in their minds, they have gone firmly down the "risk averse" route. First, a Superman movie from the proven team of Nolan and Goyer, directed by Zack Snyder (a safe choice, in that he had directed effects-heavy comic book movies before), made to a familiar sci-fi/action blockbuster formula. With that making a profit (unlike Superman Returns, which made more than its production budget, but probably lost money after marketing and distribution costs), they have simply stuck with the same team for the next movie (minus Nolan), and opted to push for a DC team-up/crossover of some description, rather than entrust the introduction of a new Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. to other directors and writers in separate standalone movies. Marvel Studios made eight movies between 2008 and 2013, and all but one (The Incredible Hulk) were profitable (using the assumption that a movie must make twice its production budget before it actually makes money for the studio). In the same period, WB produced six movies based on DC properties, and the three that were profitable had one thing in common - Christopher Nolan. Now, Warners are trying to move forward with the guys who worked with Nolan the last time he was involved with making a DC-based comic book movie, and praying that they can be as successful. They have all their comic book eggs in one (not very) creative basket because they don't have a clue who else might do the job. For all of the Marvel movies' failings (and I'm not as big a fan of them as many others seem to be), at least they have got several different movies from different writer/director teams into the cinemas, and they are prepared to keep trying writers and directors that they have not used before. By comparison, DCE/Warner Brothers do not look as if they want to take risks for greater success, but simply want to avoid failure.Comment
-
Best way to put is WB/DC have just started their shared universe with MOS and Marvel with Disney backing now are in phase 2 and planning phase 3. How frikin hard is that to understand?.
Oh and DA that meme was a joke man clearly most of the general audience are thinking along those lines.Comment
-
GotG is definitely a risk. Now how big of risk it is, that's debatable. I think with the success of Thor and Thor 2, it's opened up a bit of the Marvel Universe and expanded it off of Earth. The Avengers also helped with that by having the alien invasion. So GotG does have that going for itself as far as the GA is concerned. But you are still introducing some pretty random characters in their own superhero team, two of which are a talking raccoon and a tree. It's a risk regardless for Marvel because phase 3 could very well depend somewhat on how GotG does with the GA.
But back to the thread we are actually in, it sounds like we are getting closer to our first look at not only the Bat suit but Superman and Wonder Woman's too.Comment
- FORUM UPDATE: The KryptonSite/KSiteTV forums are still working things out for this new forum upgrade; as such, the site might be down intermittently over the next few days.
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Tweet
Comment