Great Society

Children of the Sun => Movies & Entertainment => Topic started by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2006, 01:55:19 PM

Title: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2006, 01:55:19 PM
I know we've got threads on the big comic book adaptation movies: Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman. Still, It could be useful to have a thread where we can have general discussion on superhero movies. Why some are good. Why some suck. How they've evolved, and what we've got to look forward to.

I kick it off with two bits of superhero movie news.

First, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer:

Quote
In the sequel, the enigmatic, intergalactic herald, The Silver Surfer, comes to Earth to prepare it for destruction. As the Silver Surfer races around the globe wreaking havoc, Reed, Sue, Johnny and Ben must unravel the mystery of The Silver Surfer and confront the surprising return of their mortal enemy, Dr. Doom, before all hope is lost.

The first FF was lukewarm, but interesting. It kind of wandered about and went nowhere. Still. Th acting was cool, the "funny" bits were sort of funny, and Jessica Alba was hot. As far as a sequel goes, I'd love to see what they do with a live-action Galactus.

Next, The Incredible Hulk news, Dominic Purcell of TV's Prison Break may be inheriting the Bruce Banner role from Eric Bana. I like the first Hulk movie. It was pretty interesting, though kind of somber and boring in spots. Still, I appreciate what they were trying to do. Word now is that the sequel will be a "re-imagining" of the story, which means they're going to forget the first movie and start from scratch.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 17, 2006, 02:01:26 PM
You and I are the only people who liked the first Hulk movie. 

As far as FF:  ...save me...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 17, 2006, 02:02:15 PM
Still, I appreciate what they were trying to do. Word now is that the sequel will be a "re-imagining" of the story, which means they're going to forget the first movie and start from scratch.

In my book, that's a good idea.  I hated the first one and fell asleep several times.  But then...maybe that's why I hated it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on August 17, 2006, 02:17:09 PM
Again, I really liked The Hulk, but I thought it tried to do too much and that was its weakness. If it has focused itself a bit more, it could've been much stronger.

And honestly, RC, the first Fantastic Four movie sucked balls.

Also, I'm gonna toss in the rumor that since Legendary Pictures and Warner Brothers are in charge and control both Superman and Batman, there is a  possibility of a Batman/Superman movie. Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan would love to, but Brandon Routh doesn't want them to fight. Fuck Routh, I say, and bring on the Dark Knight pain!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2006, 02:39:34 PM
And honestly, RC, the first Fantastic Four movie sucked balls.

I liked it for what is was . . . which I'll admit was a shitty movie.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on August 17, 2006, 03:42:40 PM
There's also a rumor about Ryan Philippe as Harvey Dent. I think he needs to put on a lot of weight and muscle before he's ready for that, but he could work.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on August 17, 2006, 07:00:40 PM
yeah...he needs to get buff before I'll buy him as a distric attorney.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2006, 07:08:34 PM
Yeah, man. Every D.A. I've ever worked with has been 225, 215 at the smallest.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 29, 2006, 09:30:21 AM
Ain't It Cool News is reporting that Robert Downey Jr. WIll be playing Iron Man.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on October 03, 2006, 07:41:41 PM
how fitting
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 03, 2006, 08:05:20 PM
I kind of thought the same thing.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Nubbins on October 04, 2006, 11:20:17 AM
Am I the only person who thought Daredevil was eh, okay.... ?  I mean, I didn't flat out hate it or anything, so I guess that counts for something.

I never saw the Hulk, but I agree with you on Fantastic Four.  It wasn't a terrible movie either; perfect for a Sunday afternoon nursing a hangover in front of the TV.

Also, I don't know if it's even available on release anymore, but I got a VHS promo tape of a movie called The Specials back in the day.  It's definitely worth checking out if you can get your hands/torrents on it. 

"Not as good as regular superheroes, but slightly better than you." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181836/)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on October 05, 2006, 01:26:43 AM
The director's cut of Daredevil is slightly better - the problem with it is that it had movie studio fingerprints all over it, from casting to scripting to special effects. It had the unfortunate fate to be approved right after Spider-man when Marvel sold every single property it could to be developed - and we got shitty Punisher, shitty Hulk, shitty Daredevil. Daredevil in the vein of Frank Miller's Born Again trade paperback would be fucking amazing.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 22, 2006, 08:30:31 PM
Superhero film updates:

First, here's a picture of the Silver Surfer from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/fantasticfourriseofthesilversurfer_photo.html;_ylt=AkraHQk.SSsKnYfHp5vNBj9fVXcA)

Also, there's a teaser site for Iron Man starring Robert Downey Jr. and Terrence Howard.

http://www.ironmanmovie.com/
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 24, 2006, 10:19:06 PM
The 1994 Roger Corman version of the Fantastic Four is on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7mdpSsqNsM&mode=related&search (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7mdpSsqNsM&mode=related&search)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on December 24, 2006, 10:46:38 PM
damn...roger corman did that flick?  Should a known it would sink.

i remember seeing the trailer and gonig "What the FUCK just happened?"  good old VHS rental days.  you rent a regular drama and roger corman's final four shows up.  1/4 of the budget spent on the trailer and you get teenage guys like me going "uh...so obviously someone at marvel fucked up."
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 25, 2006, 12:07:57 PM
I watched as much as I could last night (about a half hour) before I walked away in disgust.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 26, 2006, 08:54:00 PM
Teaser Trailer for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

RC says check it out.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantasticfourriseofthesilversurfer/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantasticfourriseofthesilversurfer/)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2007, 10:18:00 PM
So, the day I finish my latest screenplay, not one but TWO major screenwriters get booted from their respective superhero movies. (Whedon got booted from Wonder Woman.)

What does this bode?

Quote from: David Goyer
Well, I've been waiting a few months to relate this news -- but I am sad to say that my version of The Flash is dead at WB. The God's honest truth is that WB and myself simply couldn't agree on what would make for a cool Flash film. I'm quite proud of the screenplay I turned it. I threw my heart into it and I genuinely think it would've been the basis of a ground-breaking film. But as of now, the studio is heading off in a completely different direction. I expect you'll hear of some new developments on that front shortly.
Quote
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: fajwat on February 03, 2007, 10:44:33 PM
It means you're on track to succeed where they failed.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2007, 06:05:01 PM
It's time to stop with the superhero movies.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Nubbins on February 07, 2007, 06:18:43 PM
Unless they make a movie about The Tick, then you're right.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: fajwat on February 07, 2007, 07:44:26 PM
SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!ONE!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2008, 02:37:28 PM
Because I brought it up in another thread, the top five super hero movies of all time!

This is off the top of my head, and really I'm just opening up the discussion of what's good and bad about super hero movies/comic book adaptations.

In no particular order, superhero movies that are awesome:

--Superman II
--Batman (1989, Tim Burton)
--Iron Man
--Darkman
--Batman Begins

Honorable Mentions:
--Spider-Man (2002, Sam Raimi)
--X2 (Bryan Singer)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2008, 03:09:58 PM
Wow... Iron Man ranks above Batman Begins?  I am going to have to see this...

Though I would reorder that list somewhat, I'll have to agree to it.  Spiderman and X-Men have become so tainted by their sequels, that I wouldn't put them in the honorable mention category. 

And...now it's time to see Superman II again.  That really is the Wrath of Khan of the superhero movie genre.

Bow before Zod!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2008, 03:15:16 PM
Batman Begins and Iron Man are apples and oranges really which is why I said "no particular order." They're two very different movies

Superman II is ridiculously good. Have you seen the Richard Donner cut?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2008, 03:24:50 PM
I have.

I've always loved it, really.  Even before I knew there was a secret version.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2008, 03:29:08 PM
And let's make it interesting by listing out RC's five WORST super hero movies . . .

--X3
--Fantastic Four (Roger Corman version though the new one's aren't much better)
--The Punisher (1989 Dolph Lundgren version, though again . . . the new one left something to be desired.)
--Spider-Man 3
--Ghost Rider
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 04, 2008, 07:01:30 PM
Spider-man 3 can't be that bad to be the on the five worst list. Was it good? No. But was it that bad? I really doubt it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 04, 2008, 07:01:56 PM
In fact, I would put 2003's The Hulk on that list instead of Spider-man 3.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 04, 2008, 07:03:00 PM
I also need to re-view Iron Man before I definitively say it is one of the top superhero movies; I easily agree on Batman Begins.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2008, 07:05:53 PM
Spider-Man 3 is unwatchable.  Even with the Rifftrax, it was a struggle.  The first Hulk movie was miles better.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 04, 2008, 07:09:03 PM
Eh. I'd have to sit down with both and make serious analysis.

Either way, I think we can all agree that The Dark Knight will take a spot on the Top 5 list next to Batman Begins.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2008, 07:54:04 PM
God, I can't wait. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2008, 12:52:57 AM
I liked Ang Lee's Hulk movie. Yes, I was the one.

Spider-Man 3 is pure shit.

EDIT: I just went back and read my original review of SM3. I realize now I was trying to be nice because I'd just seen the movie and really wanted to like it. However, with some time and distance I stand by my above statement that it's a turd.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 05, 2008, 10:55:58 AM
I liked it too but it tried to do too much in one movie and that seriously weakened it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 05, 2008, 11:51:33 AM
I didn't think Spider-man 3 was mind-numbingly bad though. I'll really have to re-watch it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 06, 2008, 08:19:31 AM
I have.

I've always loved it, really.  Even before I knew there was a secret version.

What's the difference in the secret version?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 06, 2008, 08:19:57 AM
In fact, I would put 2003's The Hulk on that list instead of Spider-man 3.

I completely agree with Matt.

*Stabs self*
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 06, 2008, 09:49:47 AM
In fact, I would put 2003's The Hulk on that list instead of Spider-man 3.

I completely agree with Matt.


You both have used too many drugs.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 08, 2008, 10:32:37 AM
In fact, I would put 2003's The Hulk on that list instead of Spider-man 3.

I completely agree with Matt.


You both have used too many drugs.

Or maybe not enough.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2009, 03:09:59 PM
Let's resurrect old threads!

Quote
Portman Is Thor's Love Interest
 
Natalie Portman has been cast as Thor's love interest in the forthcoming comic book movie.

The actress will play Jane Foster, the first love of the Norse god of thunder, to be portrayed by Aussie movie hunk Chris Hemsworth (Kirk's father in the new Star Trek) in Kenneth Branagh's upcoming epic fantasy.

Foster was depicted as a nurse in early comic books but Marvel Studios has confirmed the role will be updated for Portman to play a doctor or scientist heroine.

Thor is due for release in 2010.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on July 14, 2009, 03:26:27 PM
Geez, woman aren't good enough to be nurses?!? WTF?  Sexism is clearly alive and well.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2009, 03:28:45 PM
I always associated nurses with minorities or white trash from rural America.  Women sort of have moved on now that they can.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on July 14, 2009, 03:39:12 PM
I was making a bit of a joke.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Nubbins on July 14, 2009, 05:24:41 PM
Kenneth Branagh?!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on July 15, 2009, 02:33:23 PM
Thor, or As You Like It
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 16, 2009, 12:01:54 PM
The San Diego Comic Con is this weekend which means lots of genre fare will be working it's way onto Al Gore's Interwebs.

First up, a picture of Scarlett Johannsen at "Black Widow" from Iron Man 2. Rowr!

http://www.joblo.com/scarjo-as-black-widow
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 16, 2009, 12:03:02 PM
She's so yummy.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2010, 10:55:49 PM
I just got back from seeing Kick Ass, and all I know is that some superhero movie is getting booted out of my top five to make room for it.

See this movie. Any way you can.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 05, 2010, 07:09:39 AM
I'm gonna go watch it at a Froggie theatre later this afternoon.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on May 07, 2010, 10:39:33 AM
the comic kind of sucked.  so maybe that means the movie will be good.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2010, 10:44:24 AM
I never read the comic book, so I went in completely blind. Maybe that helped.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 09, 2010, 06:49:26 PM
I just got back from seeing Kick Ass, and all I know is that some superhero movie is getting booted out of my top five to make room for it.

See this movie. Any way you can.


The DVD has leaked!  So we'll try and watch it tonight.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 09, 2010, 09:29:50 PM
I'm watching it and enjoying the piss out of it. Even though Mark Millar was involved.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 09, 2010, 09:51:45 PM
RC, did they use the music from 28 Days Later and Sunshine in the regular movie, or is the version I'm looking at is one with temp music?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 09, 2010, 11:09:48 PM
RC, did they use the music from 28 Days Later and Sunshine in the regular movie, or is the version I'm looking at is one with temp music?

No!  It's awesome.  28 Days Later, Sunshine, the Banana SPlits theme song, and For a Few Dollars More all in one movie.  Talk about a surreal soundtrack.  I'll upload it in Homo Cowboy Axe in a few...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 09, 2010, 11:17:33 PM
Yeah, 28 Days Later and Sunshine are both represented in Kick Ass.

I take it you approve, Nacho?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 09, 2010, 11:24:20 PM
It was awesome.  You know, for the parts I could hear over Poppy squealing and dancing around pretending she was Hit Girl.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on May 09, 2010, 11:33:21 PM
Of the "new superhero" genre, of things like Wanted and Watchmen, it's probably the best.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 09, 2010, 11:43:43 PM
Nacho, please DROPBOX it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 10, 2010, 09:05:11 AM
I did.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 10, 2010, 10:13:12 AM
Watched it this afternoon - great film.

The first scene with the little girl kicking ass is awesome. How old is she?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 10, 2010, 10:23:46 AM
She's 10 in the comics and 13 in real life.

She did a great job... She's going to be our girl in the remake of Let the Right One In.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1631269/
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 20, 2010, 06:05:04 PM
Heh . . . Though really, if thwy stay true to the comic book origin, shouldn't Cap be in Germany fighting Nazis anyway?

Quote
Should We Now Call Him 'Captain England'?

Based on this news, it would only seem appropriate that Steve Rogers be demoted to at least Lieutenant America.

First, budget constraints forced producers to move "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" production from its titular tropical location to the tax-friendlier confines of Hawaii and London. Now, the same money concerns have sent "Captain America" overseas: the movie about the most patriotic of comic-book heroes will, ironically, not be filmed in America.

The loss of production business from "Captain America: The First Avenger" is another blow to the city of Los Angeles, which has seen its share of big-budget films flee to escape the heavy tax burden its state levees on films. California offers tax credits to smaller films but, considering "Captain America's" budget is $140 million, it didn't qualify for a break. London offers tax credits up to 25 percent. When faced with the current economic climate, it's hard to argue with those numbers -patriotic or not.

Sure, some of the "Captain America" adaptation is literally set in London; for those scenes, that location makes perfect sense. But it also makes perfect sense for Captain America, once he's done fighting Nazis, to also show a little patriotism and film seems in his home country. But, as any American knows - including its Captain - money talks.

Also ironic: California's taxes have been a boon to the British Columbian city of Vancouver, which in recent years has seen a boom of what would've otherwise been big Hollywood business (films such as the "Twilight Saga" have found a production home north of the border).

But there is an added sense of loss - not counting the hundreds of Hollywood jobs that will disappear - because it is, you know, Captain America. This was a character that was created a full year before Pearl Harbor was even bombed by Japan. Cover art of early Captain America books showed the hero punching Adolph Hitler in the jaw as a way of showing America's support for its European allies.

Big budget movies being filmed overseas to avoid costs isn't an entirely new phenomenon. George Lucas filmed all three "Star Wars" prequels in Australia to avoid union costs (Lucas has been a stong opponent to unions after a disagreement between him and the directors' guild over the title sequence of original "Star Wars" not listing the cast). Of the six films, only "Return of the Jedi" featured live-action scenes filmed in the United States.

Considering the recent rash of films switching from locations that actually includes the location in the film's title, it won't be too long before it's discovered that "Sleepless in Seattle" was actually filmed in Albuquerque.

"Captain America: The First Avenger," starring Chris Evans as the title character, is slated for a Summer 2011 release.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on May 21, 2010, 01:33:14 AM
Louisiana has done the same thing...not sure of the actual figures, but they're good enough that Twilight is actually thinking about moving down here.  Right now Green Lantern is going on and I had the pleasure of--literally--bumping into Tim Robbins at Whole Foods. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 21, 2010, 08:27:07 AM
Yeah, but Louisiana isn't America either.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on May 21, 2010, 11:13:07 AM
we're the Ukraine of America.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on May 21, 2010, 11:28:16 AM
You have hot 14 year-old gymnast girls?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 21, 2010, 11:31:15 AM
For sale?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 22, 2010, 11:37:28 AM
Purists will revolt, but I like what they're doing with this trailer for The Green Hornet.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 22, 2010, 11:46:21 AM
Are there any Green Hornet purists under the age of 70?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 22, 2010, 11:47:54 AM
Oh, and, just for kicks:


(Monkey will now have terrible drug-laced dreams about the slow-moving hornet floating around at the end of the titles.)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 22, 2010, 11:49:49 AM
Are there any Green Hornet purists under the age of 70?

Touche.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 15, 2010, 08:43:22 AM
The Hulk recasting debacle has been the big geek story of late. Norton got fired by the head of Marvel for being difficult. Getting replaced by Mark Ruffalo.

Quote
Mark Ruffalo In Late-Stage Talks To Be Marvel's New Hulk in 'The Avengers'

Imagine the Hollywood actor whom you'd least expect to play The Incredible Hulk in The Avengers, and maybe, just maybe, you'd come up with the name of Mark Ruffalo. He's always been an actor's actor and is getting critical raves in Focus Features' The Kids Are All Right which opened last weekend. But I've learned that he's now in late-stage discussions between Marvel and his brand-new agency United Talent to play this key member of The Avengers ensemble. Like Edward Norton, whom he'd be replacing, Ruffalo would bring real chops to the role. But, unlike Edward Norton, he wouldn't an on-set asshole.

And I'm already sick of 3D.

Quote
Meanwhile, let me get out of the way that Thor (May 6, 2011) and Captain America (July 22, 2011) will be in 3D. They were filmed in 2D but the plan has been for the visual effects to be rendered in 3D for Captain America while Thor will undergo more of a traditional conversion. Kevin Feige is going to great lengths to ensure this isn't just a botched rush job. OK, enough with that.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 15, 2010, 01:25:04 PM
Here's a picture of Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern.

*geekgasm*

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45775
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 24, 2010, 05:37:00 PM
Quote
Bleeding Cool now understands that Karl Urban will be offered the role of Judge Dredd in the new movie. Or at least Judge Dredds chin. Because one of the main provisos of the deal is that, just as in the comic, Judge Dredd will not remove his helmet. But of course that chin will now be seen in glorious three dimensions. And, contract willing, Karl Urban is of a mind to accept it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 02, 2010, 06:07:55 PM
Thor footage from Comic Con. There have been reports of script trouble, but I think this looks good.

http://www.fangirltastic.com/content/extended-thor-trailer-gives-glimpse-asgard (http://www.fangirltastic.com/content/extended-thor-trailer-gives-glimpse-asgard)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 02, 2010, 09:29:45 PM
Sucker Punch, Zack Snyder's latest.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 02, 2010, 09:42:16 PM
Nice!  (PS: I secretly loved Watchmen.)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on August 03, 2010, 12:49:40 AM
watchmen was boring
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2010, 08:10:15 AM
Which is actually why I loved it!

Watchmen's a boring story.  Half of it is a tedious re-kindled love affair obsessed with a troubled past, and the other half is a moody misanthrope creeping around.  All with the occasional shocker to keep us moving on to the next issue.

Somehow, it comes through as genius in book form... But, yes, it's hard to do that in a movie. The fact that they tried warmed my heart.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2010, 10:11:35 AM
[secret]
I think the movie version of Watchmen is better than the book.
[/secret]
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2010, 11:02:07 AM
Oh-ho!  And, you know what?  Yeah.  It may well be. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on August 03, 2010, 11:06:32 AM
Both were good.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on August 03, 2010, 01:28:02 PM
Lord of the Rings movies were definitely better than the book, but I lean pretty strongly towards Watchmen as being best as comic book.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2010, 01:31:44 PM
This debate needs a pitcher of beer!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2010, 01:41:06 PM
Call me a simpleton, but I thought the way the story was streamlined for the film adaptation actually made it a wee bit more engaging. I love Alan Moore. He's brilliant. However, he can get pretty tangential sometimes. The book is it's own beats I suppose, It's a commentary of the comic book superhero, so obviously it's purer as a graphic novel. I just thought the movie was a little less boring.

Let's get drunk and fight over episode 5 of "Blake's 7!"
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2010, 01:53:24 PM

Let's get drunk and fight over episode 5 of "Blake's 7!"

Episode five is fucked up!  Callie is under mind control and acting weird the whole time and, meanwhile, Blake inadvertently enables a group of aliens to commit genocide.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on August 03, 2010, 10:15:35 PM
Blake's 7 was great.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2010, 07:50:58 AM
Blake's 7 was great.

I love how everything always goes wrong and everyone, eventually, dies.  Avon and Villa are the only two who make it... Only to get machine gunned in slow motion in the finale.

Also:  Best finale on TV.  All that shit for nothing and Avon doing his Butch and Sundance thing. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Matt on August 04, 2010, 11:47:27 AM
I love how everything always goes wrong and everyone, eventually, dies.

Also:  Best finale on TV.  All that shit for nothing and Adama doing his F. Scott Fitzgerald thing. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2010, 11:53:02 AM
I love how one bad "Blake's 7" joke can derail a whole thread.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2010, 12:13:28 PM
I love how everything always goes wrong and everyone, eventually, dies.

Also:  Best finale on TV.  All that shit for nothing and Adama doing his F. Scott Fitzgerald thing. 

No, no, Matt.  The B7 finale actually had a point.  It was all for nothing...in a good way. Because the villain became the star after Blake died and didn't care about anyone.  He let all of our main stars die one by one, shrugged it off, even joked about it, and eventually got pulled into a suicide mission to find Blake (who was rumored to be alive) just so that he could gun him down... And he does.  So we get our hero back only to have our anti-hero murder him. Then the anti-hero, who we all felt really uncomfortable identifying with for three seasons, stares certain death in the face, grins malevolently, and commits suicide by cop.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 31, 2010, 02:36:46 PM
Quote
On the X-Men: Wolverine 2 front, 20th Century Fox is between David Slade and Darren Aronofsky, I'm told. Slade, who just directed the summer hit The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, met over the weekend with Hugh Jackman on location where he is shooting Real Steel for DreamWorks. Aronofsky has also been talking with Jackman, and they have a good relationship that dates back to The Fountain, when Jackman stepped in after Brad Pitt dropped out. Jackman holds a lot of clout in the decision and while Aronofsky has some momentum of his own because of Black Swan, I'd say Slade has the edge. He is coming off a big summer movie with large-scale effects, which makes the studio comfortable. Fox went with Gavin Hood on the first Wolverine, and while he came from the Oscar-winning South African film Tsotsi,  it was quite an adjustment moving into a tent pole sized undertaking, and Aronofsky has a similar prestige film background. Robert Schwentke, who created Comic-Con buzz for his film Red, had been in the mix -- he was going to meet Jackman in Detroit along with Slade last weekend -- but he opted out of the competition. Instead, Schwentke is eyeing projects that include Robert Ludlum's The Osterman Weekend and Universal's Ryan Reynolds-starrer RIPD as possible next pictures.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on September 01, 2010, 02:00:31 AM
does Aronofsky have a blog? cause I'd love to just know what his mind-state is at any given time.  ten years ago we were ready to call him Kubrick II and now he's doing sequels for franchise spin-offs.

also:  JUST FUCKING DO WEAPON X.  how does hollywood not grasp this?

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 01, 2010, 09:25:14 AM
But they covered the Weapon X stuff in the Wolverine movie.

They need to do the Chris Claremont/Frank Miller Japan story. To me, that's the ultimate Wolverine story. Though they'll likely fuck it up.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on September 01, 2010, 09:40:42 AM
Well, I didn't see the Wolverine movie.  it probably wasn't advertised correctly!

To switch gears, ever since Marvel started churning out the movies I've been waiting and waiting for Deadpool.  But now that I think about it I don't think they could possibly make one that would make me happy and still attract a wide audience.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 01, 2010, 10:11:12 AM
Deadpool is in the Wolverine movie too. You should check it out. The first half hour is quite good. Then it dive bombs downhill in way that's tragic.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 01, 2010, 10:29:06 AM
You'll love the opening credits!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on September 01, 2010, 10:49:19 PM
dammit.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 04, 2010, 08:29:42 PM
I think we have a Superman thread somewhere, but I'm lazy.

"KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!"

Quote
Zack Snyder at helm of new Superman movie

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Zack Snyder has been chosen to direct the new Superman movie, which Christopher Nolan is producing for Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures.

Snyder had been on the list of filmmakers ensconced in meetings with Nolan and Warners executives, who in recent weeks have talked to Darren Aronofsky, Ben Affleck, Matt Reeves and Tony Scott.

The job was so coveted that even Robert Zemeckis, retired to the world of performance-capture animation, considered returning to live-action filmmaking in order to nab the gig.

The Superman movie is one of the studio's top priorities, not only because it serves as the linchpin for its line of films based on DC Comics superheros, but because Warners needs to be in production on a new Superman movie by 2011 or risk losing certain copyrights to the heirs of creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Seigel. (That litigation is still pending.)

Nolan, who revived Batman for the big screen with 2005's "Batman Begins" and the 2008 hit "The Dark Knight," teamed up with David Goyer for a new a way to revive the last son of Krypton. Despite grossing $200 million domestically, the last movie about the Man of Steel, 2006's "Superman Returns," was considered a disappointment, and a hoped-for franchise launch never flew off.

Part of the problem stems from Superman's origins: The character for decades was a beacon of positive qualities, and his stories usually were painted in black-and-white. So from the point of view of a certain audience segment, Superman isn't hip enough for a time that prefers its heroes more morally ambiguous.

Goyer is writing the script, which is rumored to have, like "Superman Returns," a connection to Richard Donner's Superman films of 30-odd years ago. In this movie's case, it's a villain connection: General Zod, who was played by Terence Stamp in "Superman" (1978) and "Superman II" (1980).

Snyder has become one of Warner Bros.' favorite filmmakers since he directed the surprise smash "300," the adaptation of the Frank Miller comic book. He followed that with "Watchmen," the adaptation of the seminal Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons miniseries, and is now putting the final touches on his original work "Suckerpunch," which is slated to open March 25.

Snyder just made his animated feature debut with "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole." The movie opened softly but is generating strong word-of-mouth, with box-office receipts having fallen only 32 percent in its second week.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 04, 2010, 09:22:42 PM
Zod's awesome!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 04, 2010, 10:10:05 PM
Yes!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 06, 2010, 02:42:18 PM
This is from Ain't It Cool, which just about everybody here dislikes for all the right reasons. However, it seems to sum up everything going on with the Wolverine and Superman sequels.

Quote
Paul over at JoBlo caught a fascinating little tidbit in THIS Vulture piece about political machinations leading to Zack Snyder's selection as director of the new SUPERMAN film.

Vulture says that Darren Aronofsky, who now looks to be closing in on WOLVERINE 2, was initially far more interested in SUPERMAN than Fox's upcoming X-MEN ORIGINS movie. In their evaluation of the matter, there's a brief descriptor offering what may be our first hint at the nature of the new SUPES picture...

"Until last weekend, though, Aronofsky was far more interested in directing WB's original take on Superman in which Clark Kent is a journalist traveling the world trying to decide if he should, in fact, even become Superman "

The same Vulture assessment goes on to indicate that (as we knew before from THESE REPORTS) Warners is under the gun to get a SUPERMAN movie made before they (potentially) get blasted by the estates of Superman's creators. One significant reason Snyder was hired is because The Powers That Be felt he could move faster than Aronofsky when getting David Goyer's SUPERMAN's script ready to shoot (Goyer's script was evidently rushed to completion and remains a bit unrefined at the moment).

Snyder. I don't hate the choice - I'm sure the new SUPERMAN movie will look fantastic. My big issue with Snyder is a pervasive dullness that runs through his work. Lots of visual flare and tremendous sense of beauty and design, but it all feels energetically flat and uninvolving to me. Which makes me concerned that this new SUPES film might end up feeling a little closer in vibe to Bryan Singer's version than some of us would like.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 16, 2010, 05:04:07 PM
Quote
In France to promote Legend of the Guardians: the Owls of GaHoole, the newly-tapped Superman director said his Superman  will be its own story: "The film will focus on the early days of Superman, so there will be no links with other films. This is not a remake. Similarly, although I still cannot talk about the script - I can assure you that this new Superman will not be based on a comic book in particular. Rather than recycle a classic yet again, an original Superman script is probably a good idea. Plus, this could mean another stab at a wild origin story.

So...what's the new 21st Century origin homage/reboot origin story for Superman?  Does something besides farmboy done good exist in the comic franchise?  Or will they just take a page from Nolan and go off the reservation?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 16, 2010, 05:11:40 PM
I don't know . . . Did you ever read the J.J. Abrams treatment? Totally insane.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 16, 2010, 05:28:39 PM
No.  Where can I do so?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 16, 2010, 05:43:32 PM
I don't know if this is the real deal or not, but I think it is.

http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Superman(JJAbrams).pdf
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 16, 2010, 08:12:41 PM
Oh, good!  Things to read at the wedding tomorrow.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on October 17, 2010, 11:19:03 AM
why can't they just do a superman movie where he just lives in metropolis and saves the world?  is it so hard to come up wit ha genuine, affable adventure story featuring the most generic superhero ever?  Apparently so since it hasn't been done yet.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 16, 2010, 05:01:30 PM
Did I post before about the new live-action Hulk series? I thought I did.

Quote
Guillermo Del Toro And David Eick To Create New 'Hulk' TV Series For ABC And Marvel

Talk about a dream pairing for film and TV sci-fi/comic book fans: Guillermo del Toro, the mastermind behind Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy movie franchise, and Battlestar Galactica executive producer David Eick are finalizing a deal to create the new TV series version of The Hulk for ABC, which is being produced by Marvel TV and ABC Studios. It will mark Marvels first series project for ABC and ABC Studios since Disney's acquisition of Marvel last year and the launch of Marvel's TV division in June. It also marks del Toro's first TV project. Details of the premise are sketchy but I hear that the series will follow an origin story. In it, physicist Bruce Banner, whose alter ego is the green and raging Hulk, will be in his mid-twenties, less reactive and more energized as the world is still his oyster. Unlike the two Hulk  movies, in which the monster was a pure CGI creation, the series will employ a mixture of prosthetics, puppetry and CGI. Del Toro and Eick will break the story for the pilot script together, sharing story and created by credit. Eick will write the script, with del Toro attached to direct subject to his availability. Del Toro will also oversee the designing of the Hulk character, which is expected to draw on previous comic book incarnations, as well as the original 1978-82 Incredible Hulk TV series, with a few wild tweaks on the old look. Because the project is still in its nascent stage and will require a lot of prep work, it won't be ready for next fall consideration. I hear that Marvel is looking to launch the series following the July 2012 release of The Avengers, which features the Hulk character, so the series will probably be targeted for fall 2012. Del Toro and Eick are executive producing the project with Del Toro's manager/producing partner Gary Ungar of Exile, Marvel TV topper Jeph Loeb and Marvel Entertainment's chief creative officer Joe Quesada. "I have always been attracted at the combination of comic book heroics and monsters, Jack Kirby's Demon or Kamandi or DC's Deadman or Marvel's Dr. Strange, Morbius, Metamorpho, Mike Mignola's Hellboy, etc," Del Toro said. He said that The Hulk has been at the top of his list and he first pursued it as a feature film around the time of the 2002 release of Blade II, which he directed. Del Toro added that, with partner Eick "we coalesced a respectful but powerful way of retelling the Banner/Hulk story in a fresh way."

Marvel TV identified The Hulk as a property they wanted to pursue for a TV series in the summer and, along with ABC Studios, launched a search for a writer to pen the adaptation. Eick, who is under a blind script deal at ABC Studios, floated the idea of a Hulk series to Del Toro, whom he has known for awhile. Separately, ABC Studios had been chasing del Toro ever since Patrick Moran landed at the studio as head of drama in July. As a drama development executive at 20th TV, Moran signed del Toro to his only previous TV deal, a first-look pact at the studio. Shortly after their original conversation, WME-repped Eick and del Toro met and began discussing a Hulk series. Then, they pitched their idea simultaneously to ABC, ABC Studios and Marvel TV, and the pitch was very well received across-the-board.

Eick, creator/executive producer of Battlestar Galactica's Blood & Chrome spinoff that was recently picked up to pilot at Syfy, has been involved in several series that re-imagened popular properties/characters, including Battlestar Galactica, Bionic Woman and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys. "I've enjoyed the challenging, rewarding process of revisiting beloved characters," he said. Eick called The Hulk "one of the crown jewels of the Marvel world for generations" ans said it was a "dream opportunity to join one of my all-time filmmaking heroes, Guillermo del Toro, in a faithful but unique retelling of the primal, emotionally-rich tale of one of my all-time comic book."
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 16, 2010, 05:42:39 PM
Oh... I don't know about a TV series...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 16, 2010, 06:06:38 PM
It worked before, right?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on November 16, 2010, 06:10:39 PM
So, Walking Dead gets favorable reviews on its pilot and now everybody wants to be on TV?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 16, 2010, 06:17:18 PM
It worked before, right?

So did Bionic Woman. And V.

A superhero TV series just seems a little crazy. Talk about a well-dated niche genre. You're limited to either taking the comic route or only seeing the super hero once per episode for five minutes and spending the rest of the time in emoville.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 16, 2010, 09:56:45 PM
Trailer for Green Lantern . . . Sci-Fi Superhero coolness if you ask me.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/greenlantern/ (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/greenlantern/)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 07, 2011, 09:52:57 AM
Captain America trailer from the Super Bowl. The whole reason I watched the game!!!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 07, 2011, 12:15:44 PM
Have you done the frame-by-frame analysis?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 07, 2011, 12:21:40 PM
I did! I live such a sad life!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on February 10, 2011, 10:41:32 PM
ughhh.  I know I'm going to sound like such a party pooper, and I never cared that much for Captain America anyway, but if this movie doesn't fully take its chance to be the Indiana Jones of the next generation, then I don't know what to say.  Is this set in the 40s?  I can't really tell if they're fully committed to that or not based on the stealth bomber and clearly futuristic looking "science" equipment.  But if this was a rough-and-tumble, beat the Nazis, PG-13 Marvel version of Inglorious Basterds, WHO WOULDNT SEE THAT MOVIE!??!?!

Instead I'm afraid they're just going to do some banal 85 minute origin story and Red Scare is going to die and never be heard from again and then we're going to flash forward 80 years for the Avengers movie where it won't make sense that this Capt America is hanging out with Robert Downey Jr.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2011, 11:45:28 PM
My understanding is that we get a lengthy 1940's prologue, and then he wakes up in the modern day and has to cope with that, All as a prelude to the "Avengers" movie. As you say.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2011, 12:15:00 AM
Yeah, he'll eventually get to the present day. I'm with Cass though. Make a WWII trilogy.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2011, 12:22:23 AM
Am I the only one who saw the post-credits sequence of the latest Hulk remake where Captain America was trapped in ice and they were reviving him? Because I've read that that's canon for the current Avengers cycle.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2011, 12:24:24 AM
That is canon, but I didn't see that.

I saw at the end of Iron Man 2 where they found the hammer of Thor. I think I'll like Thor. I might be the only one. That kind of mythology shit gets me all hot and bothered. If Sam Neill was in it, it would be perfect.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2011, 12:31:17 AM
Oh, I'm all about Thor. It won't just be you.  And, yeah, where is Sam Neill for these?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on February 11, 2011, 12:47:52 PM
Sam Neill and Kenneth Brannaugh working together?  I think those two are like Blur and Oasis.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2011, 03:00:33 PM
Man, FX artist STeve Johnson has released a treasure trove of rejected FX work from movies such as Superman Lives, The Abyss, and below his animatronic Hulk for Ang Lee's movie.  Think of what could have been.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 03, 2011, 06:46:34 PM
Red Skull from Captain America. I have such a huge boner for this movie.

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Few%2Fdynamic%2Fimgs%2F110302%2FCaptain-America-Red-Skull_510.jpg&hash=026704d7636d385350c23ceea1e34e8958160ce4)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 18, 2011, 11:58:10 AM
This should probably be the X-Men movie thread, but I'm on the crackberry. (Which is also why there's link.)

Aronofsky quit 'The Wolverine' because he doesn't want to spend a year out of the U.S. I'm pretty disapointed as I was really looking forward to seeing what he was going to bring to the superhero genre.


No word on a replacement, but I'm willing to bet Fox has Brett Ratner on speed dial for situations like this.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 24, 2011, 03:04:59 PM
Man, I am so tuned up for this.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 02, 2011, 03:57:43 PM
I was lukewarm to Green Lantern after that first trailer, but this looks pretty awesome.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 24, 2011, 09:05:55 AM
*SPLOOGE*

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 24, 2011, 10:19:36 AM
Yeah. That's gonna work.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 02, 2011, 10:55:23 PM
ughhh.  I know I'm going to sound like such a party pooper, and I never cared that much for Captain America anyway, but if this movie doesn't fully take its chance to be the Indiana Jones of the next generation, then I don't know what to say.  Is this set in the 40s?  I can't really tell if they're fully committed to that or not based on the stealth bomber and clearly futuristic looking "science" equipment.  But if this was a rough-and-tumble, beat the Nazis, PG-13 Marvel version of Inglorious Basterds, WHO WOULDNT SEE THAT MOVIE!??!?!

Instead I'm afraid they're just going to do some banal 85 minute origin story and Red Scare is going to die and never be heard from again and then we're going to flash forward 80 years for the Avengers movie where it won't make sense that this Capt America is hanging out with Robert Downey Jr.

Saw it. He's only in "present day" for the last five minutes of the movie.

I liked it quite a bit. It's an old fashioned adventure movie in the model of the good Indiana Jones movies. They spend a lot of time with the origin, but it's all tied in to the Red Skull and his motivations, so it works out well. There's a lot of Avengers set-up and having seen Thor will help you catch some of the more obscure references, but you don't need to have sen the other Marvel movies to stick with this one.

In a nutshell, The Red Skull and his Nazi science squad Hydra finds this cube (related to Thor's world, I think) that creates a near unlimited energy. the Skull uses this source to power all this new technology and breaks away from Hitler and the Nazis. Meanwhile, the German scientist who created the Skull during a test of his "super soldier" serum has now joined the Allies and is set to test the serum again. Enter Steve Rogers, a 90 pound asthmatic who's rejected by the army five times as 4F because he's weak and skinny. I think you can see where this goes.

One of my favorite scenes in the movie is a montage of Captain America being used as  a propaganda tool to sell war bonds replete with 40s war song and dancing girls.

The action scenes are well done and hearken back to less stylized movies though there's still plenty of CGI. The characters are well written though everybody is either black or white. In some ways that's refreshing.

The writing is solid. The acting is great. The ending is depressing as hell, which means that I believed the attraction/love story between Captain America and Peggy Carter. I won't give it away, but if you know anything about Captain America, you know what happens. It's really sad. In fact, even the AVnegers trailer after the credits didn't snap me out of the funk.

Rule #4 of screenwriting. If you can make Nazis your script's villains, do it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2011, 08:47:40 AM
So... This is a positive review, right? Because I walk away from it thinking "wait till download."

A qualified positive review, I guess, yes?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 03, 2011, 10:03:38 PM
Mrs. McGraw and I saw it on Saturday as part of our anniversary entertainment glut. We both thought it was fine, but not great.

Nice head's up on the cube-thing being Thor related, RC! We missed that one and the reference.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 21, 2011, 09:50:34 PM
Ghost Rider is one of my favorite superheroes, which made how badly the first movie blew chunks something of a personal tragedy for me.

I'm hoping this one will be better.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 22, 2011, 07:46:46 AM
It won't.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 23, 2011, 07:25:55 AM
Did I just watch Green Lantern or a Fifth Element rip off?

Or did Fifth Element rip off the comics?

Either way -- Green Lantern sucks.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 23, 2011, 07:48:58 PM
I skipped it after a guy I know who is a huge Green Lantern fan told me it blew.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 11, 2011, 02:09:04 PM
Do we not have an Avengers topic all by itself?  Anyway...here is the new trailer.

http://thefilmstage.com/trailer/first-trailer-for-the-avengers/
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 11, 2011, 02:12:44 PM
You know how I know I'm getting old? Instead of getting me super stoked, trailers like this annoy me because I don't know what the story is about. And I suppose with something like this, there's no point. "Superhero Team-Up" is all the filmmakers are banking on.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 11, 2011, 02:28:10 PM
Same as Transformers, same as Iron Man, same as.....but in the end I'll still see it and probably enjoy it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 11, 2011, 02:51:50 PM
Oh, I'll see it. I'm just tired of trailers that assume I recognize the source material and don't tell me what the friggin' movie is about. The recent teasers for The Dark Knight Rises and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo are other recent offenders.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 19, 2011, 05:02:48 PM
Oh, I'll see it. I'm just tired of trailers that assume I recognize the source material and don't tell me what the friggin' movie is about. The recent teasers for The Dark Knight Rises[/] and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo[/] are other recent offenders.

I don't agree RC -- the Avengers trailer is perfect.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 05, 2012, 11:29:57 PM
Avengers promo from the Super Bowl.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on February 06, 2012, 12:58:45 AM
So I didn't know this until I saw the trailer on TV tonight.  I don't really consider myself a purist or a racist, but Samuel L. as Nick Fury is just plain bullshit. 

Lou Ferrigno as HULK voice?  Good call.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 08:50:07 AM
They need to take a five year break after this one.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 10:56:20 AM
With Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2 already in the pipeline? Perish the thought.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 10:57:12 AM
I was at superhero movie saturation point in 1999.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 11:20:48 AM
It's a wee bit much these days. Especially now that they're really into the second tier heroes as far "known properties" are concerned. What are the big ones left? Wonder Woman, which nobody seems to want to touch. And Swamp Thing which is tied up in legal maneuvering because of all the exploitation of the 80s and 90s.

So with the third Nolan/Batman movie being released alongside the Spider-Man reboot, we see the future ahead of us. They'll do movies with certain creative teams until that becomes cost prohibitive and then they'll simply reboot it with a new creative team. As long as people go, they'll keep making them.

That's also why everybody is latching into the YA book series adaptations as well. Built in audiences that come see these movies no matter how terrible they are.

I will say that superhero movies are, for the most part, at a high level of quality if a little too safe. But with that much  money involved, can you blame them? I just miss the good old days when superhero movies were truly an event. They've become pedestrian.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 12:42:02 PM
God, yes. Remember the buildup to the 1990 Batman? Talk about an event...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2012, 01:55:03 PM
The 1990 (1989?) Batman build up is what everybody has been trying to replicate ever since. Then CGI came along and made making people "believe a man can fly" easy.

My biggest problem with the way super-heroes are handled is that everything in movies has to be a huge world threatening disaster. The irony is that the best superhero stories are usually intimate and personal. That's what made Iron Man Nolan's first Batman movie kind of refreshing. The stories felt insular, at least for the first two-thirds. I think that's also why the new Spider-Man movie kind of appeals to me. from the trailer it seems to be a smaller scale thing.

It's why Green Lantern was bad and Thor wasn't as good as could have been, and inevitably why they'll completely fuck up Swamp Thing. Yet the costs involved with making these movies almost necessitate hitting the widest audience possible.

And here's where I beat the dead horse about how TV is where superhero stories are most successful.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2012, 02:19:32 PM
Except superhero shows fail... Flash, Heroes, etc. Always mishandled...and trying to ape the world-threatening movies.

Or, like No Ordinary Family, weirdly too insular.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Cassander on February 07, 2012, 12:08:45 AM
[quote author=RottingCorpse link=topic=1818.msg146923#msg146923 date=1328550903

And here's where I beat the dead horse about how TV is where superhero stories are most successful.
[/quote]

Or, you know, actual comic books that only cost you $2 a month.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 07, 2012, 09:38:37 AM
Going all Alan Moore on me, eh?

Well, that comic books are the best place for the superhero story is a given I think. However, I also think there's value (however self-serving) in the "live action adaptation." (Could Nolan's batman stories be told in a comic book?) I just believe that TV serves the episodic nature of the superhero story better than cinema.

I was an avid comic book reader collector in my teens. I sold my collection in  college on a whim for easy cash because they didn't matter to me. i have few regrets in life, but selling those books is one of them. I had nearly the entire Uncanny X-Men run, including some of the early stuff from the 60s.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 25, 2012, 10:20:08 PM
Really this says it all, right?

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 26, 2012, 10:33:50 AM
Really this says it all, right?


That I'd prefer to watch that than the 2012 movie? Yes.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 26, 2012, 10:48:48 AM
Early reviews say it's an Whedon-esque orgasm of an action movie; nothing original, but wildly entertaining nonetheless.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 30, 2012, 08:39:13 AM
Well... An Avengers CAM has leaked. It's pretty good quality, too. Initial reaction from the community is that it's laughable and silly, but enjoyable. I'm avoiding it... Will wait for the good quality version.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2012, 01:24:02 AM
So The Avengers is pretty good. No Emma Peel, but Scarlet Johansson wears black leather so it evens out.

Actually, Johansson's Black Widow kind of steals the show in some ways. Though since it's Whedon, nobody should really be surprised. She's great. And there's a scene between she and Tom Hiddleston's Loki halfway through the movie that will blow your socks off it's so good. He's great too, by the way. In fact I'd go as far to say that without him as the unifying element the movie would probably be pretty uneven. It teeters dangerously close to being uneven anyway, but that's just fallout from having to stick all the established tones of four different film franchises together into one two-and-a-half hour movie.  Whedon does as good a job as anybody could have putting it all together, and the actors are so good that it's hard to nitpick.

The way Bruce Banner/the Hulk is handled is the best part of the movie. They got it perfect in a way the other two movie's didn't. Mark Ruffalo is pretty engaging as Banner and brings a certain sadness to the character that makes you really love him. I won't give it away, but the Hulk's first appearance (and the scenes with Johansson that follow) is probably the best sequence in the movie.

We did 2D by the way, and I don't feel like I missed out on a thing by not wearing those stupid glasses. Fuck 3D. Fuck it in the ass.

If you liked Iron Man (the first one), Thor, and Captain America, then there's no reason you won't like this.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 07, 2012, 07:16:16 AM
What if you liked the first Iron Man, but thought Thor was a sad self-aware comedy and Captain America was plain awful?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2012, 11:15:33 AM
Um... I don't know. Things go boom.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 07, 2012, 11:24:22 AM
Awesome!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 23, 2012, 11:39:42 PM
Went with Mrs. McGraw to Avengers last week. We liked (we like most superhero movies).

That led us to watch Thor and catch up on that back-story. We were both surprised about how much we liked it!

And how much of a sad self-aware comedy it is.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 24, 2012, 08:40:33 AM

And how much of a sad self-aware comedy it is.

Bang! That was my problem. The whole super-hero mood these days feels like that... It plays well if it's Robert Downey hamming it up but, otherwise, self-aware comedies of that ilk sort of get me down.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 05, 2012, 07:12:22 PM
http://latino-review.com/2012/06/05/exclusive-standalone-marvel-movie-cap-takes-place-wakanda/ (http://latino-review.com/2012/06/05/exclusive-standalone-marvel-movie-cap-takes-place-wakanda/)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: The Next Standalone Marvel Movie After Cap Takes Place In Wakanda!

Earlier today I blew up my own twitter feed in the quest for new followers and boy did twitter nation respond!

Anyway, there has been much speculation as to the upcoming two Marvel films which have yet to be announced. Its painfully obvious one of them is going to be the sequel to the Avengers.

But what about the other one?

Without further adieu, lets get right to it

Hell yes folks

THE BLACK PANTHER is going to headline his own film!

How do I know? Lets say I got it from FOUR different trusted sources.

Marvel is going BIG TIME after the urban film audience and I applaud them for that.  Last year, it was reported that Marvel hired Mark Bailey to pen the script and I hear the script is fantastic.

The clues were always there. They showed Wakanda on the map in Iron Man 2 and Captain Americas shield is made from Vibranium which also hails from Wakanda. The Black Panther has a long development history which at one point had Wesley Snipes attached to star. Marvel got the rights back to the character in 2005.

The Black Panther has a HUGE urban following. Growing up in NYC, even though Im more a Luke Cage fan, every Boricua I knew had crazy love for Tchalla.

Who do I think got not only the physicality but the acting chops to play the character?

My money says Nate Parker from Red Tails.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 21, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
We mention Dredd in like five different threads so, you know, whatever.

Though I should note this was written by Alex Garland which amps up my *swoon* factor.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 21, 2012, 12:37:42 PM
Yeah. I'm there for Garland.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on June 27, 2012, 09:20:53 AM
Watched Avengers last night and was very pleasantly surprised by its quality.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 27, 2012, 11:19:49 AM
Oh, wow. I've heard nothing but bad! I'll get it in me before long...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 27, 2012, 01:26:42 PM
Really? I liked The Avengers.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 27, 2012, 05:52:10 PM
The pirates are all very critical. That's the only place I get my reviews from anymore. That and satirical Prometheus-themed memes.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on June 27, 2012, 06:58:42 PM
Fuck the pirates, The Avengers was fun and very enjoyable, although Thor was a bit stupid.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 28, 2012, 12:08:36 AM
Avengers is great.

What do the pirates like? I feel like if you don't like Avengers...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 28, 2012, 08:04:43 AM
This shit sort of reflects the attitude:

http://veryaware.com/2012/05/missed-perfection-my-problems-with-the-avengers/

So I'm overplaying the "hate it" factor... It's more just acknowledging it for the candy-coated gloss it surely is.  I mean, really, I still need to see it, but is it all that, guys? I thought Iron Man 2 was lame, all the Hulks have been bad, Captain America was simply unwatchable, and Thor was a sadly self-aware comedy. So will my mind be changed when I watch Avengers?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on June 28, 2012, 10:08:55 AM
Just bloody watch the Avengers, jeez - you watch enough shit movies, you might as well watch a good one.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 28, 2012, 10:20:30 AM
You can't tell me what to do!


Oh, wait...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on June 28, 2012, 10:16:36 PM
Until you're in a wheelchair, Nacho, I shall dictate every second of your life!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 29, 2012, 12:05:44 AM
This shit sort of reflects the attitude:

http://veryaware.com/2012/05/missed-perfection-my-problems-with-the-avengers/

Well, okay.  I think commenter "deadpool" has this guy's number.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 29, 2012, 07:17:03 AM
I know.... I know. There's no escape...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2012, 03:23:57 PM
You still haven't watched The Avengers, Nacho?!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 15, 2012, 09:11:52 AM
I'm trying to see how much I can hurt you, RC.

Okay, okay... Downloaded and watching....NOW! Live thread Baileys and whopped cream breakfast coffee freakout to follow.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 15, 2012, 11:37:29 AM
I'm sitting here on a high chair with a noose around my neck. If you don't love it, I'm kicking out the chair. (Actually, even I didn't love it that much.)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 15, 2012, 12:04:35 PM
I love the dead-pan delivery of the script. Maybe I downloaded the first read-through done by emotionless robots.

And what quality writing! I noticed that they used words with more than two syllables once or twice!

Captain America is much better in this than his actual movie. Which only serves to make me sad about how bad Captain America was.

All in all, things get better as soon as they're on the Daedalus with SG1 the aircraft carrier.

But then Thor arrives and things become a hot mess again. Suddenly we're in Movie B -- Thor 2. Thanks for watching that advance footage. Can we hurry up and get back to the 7 minutes of screen-time you gave Scarlett Johansson?

I don't get the writing. Thor defends Loki as a brother and, as soon as Johansson mentions his crimes, Thor gives up and says that he's adopted. Shoehorn, meet joke.

But, really, why am I complaining? I could be playing Galaga!

And they get points for having Loki call Black Widow a quim. I hope that catches on with American children everywhere now.

I also appreciate that we actually lose stuff. Like Thor's SHIELD agent buddy. Who is also the only likable SHIELD employee. He gets a good death, though. That's actually quite perfect, because Colson doesn't really matter. The perfect redshirt.

RC gave me this wonderful script outline thing that spells out the whole three act structure. The great thing about the Avengers is that I could follow that outline and I knew exactly the right time to go do the dishes and cook some chicken for lunch.

After 100 minutes of build up, though, we finally move into the apocalyptic invasion. So... that warms me up a bit. It sort of feels like a modern Doctor Who Dalek invasion (that is, all is fine and there's only an implied loss of life), but, well... Actually, that drives me crazy. After losing Colson, I was hoping for something a bit more real.  But here we are with an alien invasion with shit exploding everywhere and not one person is killed. All the pedestrians escape GI Joe cartoon style. Seriously...not a single casualty. This movie has one death! Colson. And a zillion of Loki's redshirts, I guess, but all of them are masked (or aliens).  There's only one clear human death. I don't know why that bothers me. It's just that the final battle is so huge and in the middle of the city with a million people at ground zero and they all just calmly sidestep a falling plane or building?

And, of course, I need it explained why Black Widow can't talk Hulk down or reason with him, but Captain America can give him orders...and even gets a smile. Is it a controlled thing? If Banner intentionally turns into the Hulk then the Hulk is reasonable and nice and useful? He even talks. This is the problem with the Hulk, isn't it? They lean towards comedy and it just doesn't ever work. This whole big climactic battle and we're laughing out loud at how ridiculous it is when the Hulk beats down Loki? We went into fan-made comedy there for a second. Leslie Neilsen as The Hulk!

See, where comedy is acceptable is after Stark saves the day... And then Loki is confronted by all the avengers and makes his quip. No problem there.

And I guess I need a comic book person to explain the after credits sequence to me.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 15, 2012, 12:19:18 PM
So then I pick up the latest issue of Esquire and read the brief commentary on how The Avengers was great precisely because it was comic (and that rag doll scene with Loki is mentioned) and Dark Knight Rises is not that good because it isn't a comedy.

But that seems to be missing the point, in my opinion... Is that what we want out of superhero movies? Feel good laughs and throwaway endings?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 16, 2012, 06:29:10 PM
Thomas Jane made his own The Punisher fan film (with Ron Perlman) and premiered it this past weekend at Comic Con.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 21, 2012, 11:01:15 AM
Avengers gag reel. Hilarious.

http://io9.com/5936468/the-avengers-gag-reel-assembles-a-lot-of-laughs (http://io9.com/5936468/the-avengers-gag-reel-assembles-a-lot-of-laughs)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 23, 2012, 08:48:03 AM
Avengers gag reel. Hilarious.

http://io9.com/5936468/the-avengers-gag-reel-assembles-a-lot-of-laughs (http://io9.com/5936468/the-avengers-gag-reel-assembles-a-lot-of-laughs)

Disney forced them to take it down!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 21, 2012, 11:30:29 AM
We mention Dredd in like five different threads so, you know, whatever.

Though I should note this was written by Alex Garland which amps up my *swoon* factor.


Nice...


Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 08, 2013, 03:18:09 PM
Quote
In a recent interview with IGN, Guillermo del Toro discusses his involvement with an adaptation of DC's 'Dark Universe' - a project which might involve Constatantine, The Spectre, Swamp Thing, and more. Which, he says, is currently called DARK UNIVERSE. 

    "Yeah, I'm doing it.  I'm working on it.  I'm writing the outline...and we already are in talks with a writer.  A very, very good writer. I think people are going to be happy with who we have chosen, and he accepted."

In unicorn land, Swamp Thing would be my superhero dream project. While Constantine and the Spectre show up in Alan Moore's Swamp Thing story, it'd be great to start off with a stand alone Swamp Thing that takes the Len Wein/Bernie Wrightson stories and adapts them properly before getting into the crazy (but awesome Moore stuff. I think the Moore reinvention worked because of the foundation laid down in the early stories. I'd start off with Abby and Anton Arcane, Matt Cable, and all the sci-fi horror insanity while hinting at the metaphysical to come.

But I'll take whatever Swamp Thing movie they give me, and settle for making my Dazzler trilogy. Somebody get me Fox on the phone!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 08, 2013, 03:29:22 PM
I'm holding out for a Wonder Twins movie.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 24, 2013, 11:09:52 AM
We mention Dredd in like five different threads so, you know, whatever.

Though I should note this was written by Alex Garland which amps up my *swoon* factor.


Nice...



We really do mention Dredd in many different threads... But this is the most recent.

Watched it. Hated it. It's basically a remake of The Raid! Battle in a high rise.

Though one thing seriously stood out -- Karl Urban. Man, he owned the role. It actually makes the horrible, horrible, silly movie worth watching.

And Lena Headey playing a ridiculous villain also works.

And there's, like, this subplot about...something. But I couldn't follow it because it plays out only while entire floors of the building are being blown to smithereens (with no obvious resulting structural damage). And there's there's the cute blonde who doesn't wear a helmet because she's the only girl in the movie besides Lena (who has been de-sexed with scars and mannish clothes).
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 24, 2013, 11:40:14 AM
It utterly bombed at the box office. I barely remember it getting released.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 24, 2013, 11:43:09 AM
It's really, really stupid. And clearly royally fucked over. Like, Tank Girl levels of "Huh?"
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 18, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
We all loved Kick Ass, right?

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 19, 2013, 07:48:23 AM
I found that Kick Ass didn't hold up...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2013, 09:00:44 PM
None of this exactly surprises me. Saddens yes, but surprise? Not really.

http://m.deadline.com/2013/05/robert-downey-jr-avengers-marvel-negotiations-fight/ (http://m.deadline.com/2013/05/robert-downey-jr-avengers-marvel-negotiations-fight/)

Quote
Robert Downey Jr And Avengers Cast Ready To Rumble With Stingy Marvel Over Sequel Money And Strong-Arming

XCLUSIVE: Robert Downey Jr is set for another huge payday from a mega-hit Marvel movie, this time Iron Man 3. Ive learned hes already made $35 million from the actioner which grossed $680 million worldwide in its first 12 days. He should exceed his biggest payday to date that $50M from The Avengers which Ive learned was more like $70M-$80M now that the film is all in. But its really Avengers 2 where hell clean up big-time if he wants to reprise the role. Hes hinting to some media it may be time to retire Tony Stark. And saying to other outlets that Marvel better show him more money for Avengers 2. I dont know, he said on The Daily Show. I had a long contract with them and now were gonna renegotiate. (You are Iron Man! You are! cheered Jon Stewart.) Ive learned that Marvel and therefore owner Disney are going to run into big trouble on that sequel because the upfront pay, backend compensation, break even points and box office bonuses arent pinned down yet for several big stars and castmates. This is major hurdle which Walt Disney Co Chaiman/CEO Bob Iger hasnt even mentioned to Wall Street or shareholders although hes already been hyping Avengers 2 for more than a year now.

First and foremost Marvel does not have Downey in place yet. They need him, and they dont have him. Hes got a lot of leverage, one insider tells me. Much less so Scarlett Johannsen (paid to pop up in Marvel movie after movie), Chris Evans (whom some sources say made his deal for Avengers 2 when he signed for Captain America 2), Chris Hemsworth (a much bigger star now than before and unsigned for Avengers 2), Mark Ruffalo (whose Hulk role already was cast 3 times and could be the most vulnerable), Jeremy Renner (probably grateful for more exposure), Samuel L. Jackson (Scarletts doppelganger) among others who were paid pittances for their first movies, not much better for the sequels, and are counting on at least $5 million upfront and better back ends for Avengers 2. That means much better than what Marvel claimed was Avengers break-even point: a whopping $1.1 billion in global grosses. (If Avengers wasnt profitable until then, why would you make it? one rep pointedly asked Marvel top execs Kevin Feige and Louis Esposito.) In a business where studio accounting is known as fatal subtraction and even worldwide blockbusters are still supposedly in the red, Marvel and its famously frugal CEO Ike Perlmutter still give new meaning to the term stingy. Ive learned that one reason why The Avengers was nominated for only one Oscar Best Visual Effects in the 85th Academy Awards contest was because Marvel refused to pay for an awards season campaign for the picture. And even when Disney offered to foot the bill, Marvel still wouldnt budge. (Yet the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences assembled the cast onstage to create buzz.) Heres how one exec describes any negotiation with Marvel: I wouldnt say its brutal. Its uncompromising, not mean or draconian. The fact is this is the reality of the world were living in right now.

But The Avengers cast are ready to rumble with Marvel for the Avengers sequel slated for a May 2015 release. Some received only $200,000 for Avengers and Downey got paid $50M. On what planet is that OK? an insider tells me. CAA represents an overwhelming majority of the Marvel stars and is trying hard to keep the negotiations out of the public limelight and media headlines. But that may not be possible with some reps blaming the studio for scorched earth tactics past and present. Marvel has created so much animosity by strong-arming and bullying on sequels already. Its counterproductive, one source tells me. Says another, Im sick of Kevin Feige telling me again and again how Marvel is reinventing the movie business. It doesnt work like this. Theyre reinventing business, period. Ive learned Marvel already has threatened to sue or recast when contracts and/or options are challenged. That prompted a few cast members to respond, Go ahead. I hear Hemsworth especially wasnt anxious to go back into that arduous diet and training regimen and subsist primarily on egg whites for Thor: Dark World which hits theaters November 8th. I also understand that Scarlett Johanssen told castmates shes not going to cut her quote for Marvels Avengers 2. The actress as butt-kicking operative Black Widow in The Avengers and Iron Man 2 is wrapping Captain America: The Winter Soldier and has a whopping 8 options total.

Already a lot of brinkmanship played out for Captain America 2 and Thor 2. Calling it the weirdest experience, one rep still can;t believe Marvel offered only a $500,000 raise and then would pay another $500,000 when the movie hits $500M. Are they out of their minds? When it was pointed out to Marvel that Hemsworth already had received $5M for his starring role in Snow White And The Huntsman, the studio shot back, I dont know why youre complaining when Marvel only has hit movies. To which the response was, Hes happier working at a place like Universal. After hard-fought bargaining, Chris Evans for Captain America 2 and Chris Hemsworth for Thor 2 wound up with deals still weighted on the back end but at least with attainable break-even numbers and small upfront guarantees and box office bonuses.

The issue going forward is how many of the Avengers stars and starlets are still bound by early agreements and longterm options which Marvel can continue to exploit individually. To counter, Ive learned the Avengers cast are becoming united behind Robert Downey Jr who is seen as the leader like a big brother in the words of one rep - for all the younger actors in the ensemble. Hes the only guy with real power in this situation. and balls of steel, too. Hes already sent a message that hes not going to work for a place where they treat his colleagues like shit, one source explains. Another rep tells me, I have four words for Marvel Fuck you, call Robert. As Downey himself has said publicly about his $50M-plus payday, Im whats known as a strategic cost, adding that Marvel is so pissed he earned that much. At this point also, no one is talking Iron Man 4 yet but its hard not to anticipate. Don Cheadle (who took over the role of James Rhodes in Iron Man 2 after Marvel pushed aside Terrence Howard) predicted theres potential for a 4th installment. No one has been specific about what that might look like or what the story could even be, he said. First we have to see how this one plays and if people have an appetite for it, and then well figure out if theres a way to convince Robert to come back and do another one.

Some reps tried to go straight to Iger in hopes of discussing renegotiations since Disney purchased the multimedia empire in 2009 for $4.3B - but were rebuffed. Wait, thats Marvel. You need to talk to them. I cant have this conversation, Iger replied, thus totally distancing himself. Other reps hoped Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn would be helpful. But Horn made clear that Marvel greenlights their own movies and only coordinates with him. Besides, he tells reps, Marvel is doing such a great job running itself. (In fact Horn himself only met Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter last fall and told a pal about their get-together. It could not have gone better. We had a meal. I was very impressed with his directness. Were the same age: how could we not have a good time together?)

The sad truth is that both Iger and Horn are scared stiff of Perlmutter and want to steer clear of the inevitable nightmare negotiations. Reps predict Ike is going to create a lot of drama and going to want to prove a point and not look like hes going to get run over. Says one out of frustration: Im so bent out of shape by this asshole. He now works for a public company so I dont understand how he can keep hiding behind the curtain. Easy, because the Israeli-born and reclusive Perlmutter, worth $2.4B, is Disneys third largest individual shareholder. (He had been the second biggest shareholder but that changed when Disney added Star Wars to its empire and handed George Lucas a ginormous compensation package. Disneys top shareholder remains the Steve Jobs Trust.) Disney never dared hope that The Avengers would reap $1.5 billion in worldwide box office revenue, the third highest global gross ever. Yet no castmember has ever heard from Ike. True, Kevin Feige phoned the cast that weekend opening, but it was a first. And Iger did pick up the phone to congratulate filmmaker Joss Whedon who recalled to Deadline recently: He couldnt have been sweeter. He said This wasnt about the other movies you did this.

Acknowledging Im doing okay compensation wise, Whedon reportedly has a really rich deal worth and astronomical $100M for several pics, consulting work, a put pilot at ABC, and many other elements, one source tells me. But even Whedon admits that Marvel can be very cheap and believes the reason the cast arent getting giant quotes is because of the element of the opportunity here for something that is both popular and very human, and usually you have to choose as an actor. But he does see the potential contract hardball as an issue.

Here are the pertinent parts of that interview:

DEADLINE: Marvel is notoriously cheap and some of the Avengers cast will want more money for the sequel. How could that affect Avengers 2?

WHEDON: Im not going to comment specifically because Im not privy to that sort of stuff and I dont think its my place to talk about. In general terms, yes Marvel can be very cheap, God knows. They can also be sensible and frugal. They have a very small infrastructure and theyre not heaping this money on themselves. I dont know a producer whos done more and is paid less than Kevin Feige. I think that its an issue but its part of a bigger issue, which is there was a time when there was a crisis in the acting community where stars were getting $20 million and character actors were disappearing as a concept. There were no middle class actors. It was suddenly bit players and Jim Carrey, and that was it. Now the studios have gotten to a point where theyre like, Do we need that star? With what theyre able to to digitally and the way they create franchises theres a little bit of a feeling of, maybe we can eliminate the actor not totally and not totally cynically, but Ive literally heard people at the agency say, not about Marvel, This studio is eliminating the middle movie. Theyre not making dramas or prestige pics or anything that isnt either a franchise or a Paranormal-style found footage. I think that changes the landscape for actors because really good actors are interested in doing a franchise because they need something.

DEADLINE: So are you worried about losing talent over these kinds of disputes?

WHEDON: I feel good about Avengers because I feel everyone who took it got something to sink their teeth into. They werent hung out to dry. Its not a soulless piece of work. It may be inept in some places but I meant every word. Marvel distinguished themselves by going after good actors, writers, and directors who were unexpected choices. One side to that is they dont have to pay them as much. Me, [Jon] Favreau, [Kenneth] Branagh, James Gunn we dont have giant action quotes, but were all filmmakers who want to do something with a giant action movie instead of just accomplish it. And the actors, from Downey straight on through, they only went after the people who could get it done. So how come theyre not getting giant quotes on this movie? Theres the element of the opportunity here for something that is both popular and very human, and usually you have to choose as an actor.

DEADLINE: A movie makes a billion dollars and an actor is looking at their contract for the next sequel

WHEDON: And theyre probably going to mention that.

DEADLINE: You dont think this could conceivably create any problems for Avengers 2?

WHEDON: I dont, because that would make me sad and I tend to be a bit Pollyanna. I tend to think these roles can alter the course of a career. Not that Mark Ruffalo needs this or is in pursuit of this. That man will always work. But it doesnt suck. We had an amazing time making the movie and that kind of recognition doesnt hurt, if its not with Marvel or the next guy. Its useful.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 31, 2013, 10:14:30 PM
Who really has gone mainstream...

Quote
Today, via Hollywood Reporter, we get news that Doctor Who's recent companion, Karen Gillan, has signed on to James Gunn and Marvel's increasingly more promising GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY. This comes on the heels of yesterday's scoop that Glenn Close will be playing the Guardians' superior.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 01, 2013, 12:46:13 PM
Yeah. Being the Doctor (or a companion) is basically like becoming the President. You'll never have to worry about work or money again after... Gillian will ride the Amy Pond wave for decades...

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 07, 2013, 11:36:47 AM
Heavy 'Game of Thrones' influence here, eh?

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 07, 2013, 11:40:41 AM
Destruction of a major US city: Check

Giant robot and/or similarly evocative contraption: Check

Find-Replace: "Superhero X" with "Thor"
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 07, 2013, 01:04:21 PM
I can't disagree.

Slate has narrowed down the problem though. This book, BTW, is the one used in my MFA screenwriting classes

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2013/07/hollywood_and_blake_snyder_s_screenwriting_book_save_the_cat.html
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 27, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
This still may be a bootleg, but The Avengers: Age of Ultron teaser is online. Nothing really but lines from the first movie and a slight reveal of Ultron which doesn't excite anybody but hardcore comic book geeks at this point.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 25, 2013, 04:11:13 AM
New trailer for the Captain America sequel has a Robert Redford, a smouldering Scar-Jo, and semi-Bourne vibe.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 25, 2013, 10:03:03 AM
New trailer for the Captain America sequel has a Robert Redford, a smouldering Scar-Jo, and semi-Bourne vibe.


Looks good and I'll watch it, but I already sense another mass destruction of a city....looks like DC this time.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 25, 2013, 11:08:59 AM
Also -- thanks, trailer, for showing us what happens to the SHIELD/Torchwood/UNIT flying base!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 30, 2013, 05:42:47 PM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 30, 2013, 09:37:50 PM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.

Good! Have superhero movies finally hit their stride?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 01, 2013, 05:19:27 AM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.

Good! Have superhero movies finally hit their stride?

Not at all. In fact, I think Thor: The Dark World might be an statistical outlier predicting the ultimate fall of the superhero movie.

After a night's sleep, I realized I liked it because it's insular in it's own way. Despite being about a magical force the can "forever put the nine realms of the universe into darkness," it's really about the family politics of Asgard. Because Asgard is such a zany outer space meets Norse mythology concept, the writers are forced to lay down all the rules of the fictional reality which strangely grounds the piece in it's own logic. I had no trouble following the arcane rules of the plot where say in The Dark Knight Rises, I had no idea who was doing what to who for what reason.

On the flip side, I'm pretty sure they ripped off a Next Gen episode.

Anyway, check it out with tempered expectations, but certainly check it out.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on December 01, 2013, 11:11:16 AM
I'm surprised by this... I think 4 months in Prague has broken RC's mind.

I must check out Thor 2.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 02, 2013, 08:12:48 PM
I want to see if I can ID the Next Gen episode it rips off within the first 15 minutes!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 03, 2013, 02:15:20 PM
And now I'm reading about how they got a stand-in for Portman during the kissing scene. Because Portman will always be 12 years old in our minds, I guess.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 13, 2013, 12:33:10 PM
Man, I'm not sure I can do a better piece than this...

http://www.cracked.com/article_20406_5-reasons-superhero-movies-are-bubble-that-will-soon-burst.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_20406_5-reasons-superhero-movies-are-bubble-that-will-soon-burst.html)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 13, 2013, 12:43:51 PM
Man, I'm not sure I can do a better piece than this...

http://www.cracked.com/article_20406_5-reasons-superhero-movies-are-bubble-that-will-soon-burst.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_20406_5-reasons-superhero-movies-are-bubble-that-will-soon-burst.html)

I have a blog idea for you! You can post a detailed analysis every day of why you can't post a detailed analysis every day! Totally meta!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 13, 2013, 01:38:05 PM
That'll break the internet.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 13, 2013, 02:46:45 PM
Actually, it's kind of growing on me. Blog Eats Itself.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 14, 2014, 12:20:01 PM
I think this is actually rather perfect casting, but what do I know?

Also, internet journalism ROFL.

http://latino-review.com/2014/01/exclusive-marvel-eyeing-johnny-depp-dr-strange/ (http://latino-review.com/2014/01/exclusive-marvel-eyeing-johnny-depp-dr-strange/)

Quote
EXCLUSIVE: Marvel Eyeing JOHNNY DEPP For Dr. Strange

Hey all,

Those of you that follow me on Twitter (@LatinoReviewMFR) know that Ive been teasing all night about a scoop regarding Marvel. Well, its now time to open up the bag and show you all my first big kill:

A well-connected source informed me tonight that Johnny Depp has taken a meeting with Marvel to discuss taking on the role of Dr. Strange.

The 50-year-old actor is a comic book fan, and is said to be very interested in jumping onto the Marvel machine. Johnny Depp also happens to have a very fruitful relationship with Marvels owner, Disney. It was the mouse house, after all, that took a gamble when it gave the eccentric actor his first leading role in a summer tentpole, Pirates of The Caribbean, and that franchise went on to earn billions (yes, with a b) for the studio. He also made them a mint with their live-action Alice in Wonderland film.

While they have Depp on the hook for another Pirates film, it is believed they would shift that production around if he does agree to sign on the dotted line for Marvel.
As you can tell, Marvel is in the megastar business and, despite Lone Ranger, Depp is still one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. Hes a household name thats known by kids, teens, and their parents. On Monday, it was announced that Hollywood royalty Michael Douglas was cast as Hank Pym in Ant-Man, and- assuming they can work out the details- an announcement about Depp could be forthcoming.

Of note, if Johnny Depp does decide to don the cape, it would involve a bit of a script overhaul. I spoke to El Mayimbe, and he was quick to note that the original script had a 30-year-old Dr. Strange. He has an intimate knowledge of the script (you can check out his in-depth analysis HERE and HERE), but he agrees with me that Marvel wouldnt hesitate to alter things if it meant signing a star on the level of Johnny Depp.

To be clear, this would have no bearing on Marvels Phase 2 plans, or The Avengers: Age of Ultron. This is strictly Phase 3 stuff, with Marvel initially eyeing 2016 as the year to unleash Dr. Strange on mainstream audiences. So if it happens, the soonest wed likely see Depp is in a post-credits sequence in Ultron.

Also thought Id mention that my source, when it was mentioned how Depp has been a fanboy casting favorite for Strange for quite some time, implied that that may be one of the elements that brought the two sides together.

As always, though, let me remind you that this is Hollywood. Plans change. Offers expire. Negotiations stall. So while Depp has met with Marvel, and both sides want this to work, it doesnt mean it will.

Keep an eye on this space as I get my hands on more details, and lets see if these two giants of the industry actually come to terms and make a deal, or if it falls apart in a back room somewhere.

Thanks for your time,

MFR
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 23, 2014, 04:40:52 PM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.

Good! Have superhero movies finally hit their stride?

Not at all. In fact, I think Thor: The Dark World might be an statistical outlier predicting the ultimate fall of the superhero movie.



So I was going to post in the M. Night thread about my recent rewatch of Unbreakable... But then it hit me, as I searched for that thread, that Unbreakable is really the perfect superhero movie. It's what all the superhero movies should be... An interesting footnote, maybe, for the blog post you'll never write!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 24, 2014, 04:51:46 PM
Unbreakable is constantly getting trashed by everyone on the internet, but I remember liking it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on January 24, 2014, 04:58:00 PM
Unbreakable is constantly getting trashed by everyone on the internet, but I remember liking it.

I kinda liked it too.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 24, 2014, 05:56:36 PM
Unbreakable is constantly getting trashed by everyone on the internet, but I remember liking it.

It's awesome and it holds up. Maybe it gets trashed because Bruce Willis doesn't fly away at the end?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on January 24, 2014, 05:57:56 PM
Unbreakable is constantly getting trashed by everyone on the internet, but I remember liking it.

It's awesome and it holds up. Maybe it gets trashed because Bruce Willis doesn't fly away at the end?

It's because the black guy doesn't have moths flying out from his mouth.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 24, 2014, 06:00:38 PM
Unbreakable is constantly getting trashed by everyone on the internet, but I remember liking it.

It's awesome and it holds up. Maybe it gets trashed because Bruce Willis doesn't fly away at the end?

It's because the black guy doesn't have moths flying out from his mouth.

Oh, and the kid is believable and does a good job as opposed to being some sort of J-horror archetype/ivory boy sweetheart.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2014, 05:26:53 PM
Sight unseen, my impulse is that this will be the best "blockbuster" of the year.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 03, 2014, 09:39:20 PM
They can only improve after the awfulness of the first one...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 03, 2014, 09:45:13 PM
I loved the first one. That doesn't mean I thought it was any great shakes, but it was so goofily earnest, I couldn't help but enjoy it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 09, 2014, 06:06:43 PM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.

Good! Have superhero movies finally hit their stride?

Not at all. In fact, I think Thor: The Dark World might be an statistical outlier predicting the ultimate fall of the superhero movie.

After a night's sleep, I realized I liked it because it's insular in it's own way. Despite being about a magical force the can "forever put the nine realms of the universe into darkness," it's really about the family politics of Asgard. Because Asgard is such a zany outer space meets Norse mythology concept, the writers are forced to lay down all the rules of the fictional reality which strangely grounds the piece in it's own logic. I had no trouble following the arcane rules of the plot where say in The Dark Knight Rises, I had no idea who was doing what to who for what reason.

On the flip side, I'm pretty sure they ripped off a Next Gen episode.

Anyway, check it out with tempered expectations, but certainly check it out.

I loved it as well! Because, yes, it's more Asgard than Earth. Really solid fun right through.

The Next Gen episode your thinking of is actually a movie -- it's 67.8% Star Trek Nemesis.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on February 10, 2014, 05:43:22 AM
Does the Lego: Movie count as a superhero movie?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2014, 08:28:53 AM
Does the Lego: Movie count as a superhero movie?

It's a self-proclaimed parody of superhero movies. So...I guess.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 10, 2014, 02:52:32 PM
Whoa! So Thor 2 is friggin' good! I'm too shocked to even go into why.

Good! Have superhero movies finally hit their stride?

Not at all. In fact, I think Thor: The Dark World might be an statistical outlier predicting the ultimate fall of the superhero movie.

After a night's sleep, I realized I liked it because it's insular in it's own way. Despite being about a magical force the can "forever put the nine realms of the universe into darkness," it's really about the family politics of Asgard. Because Asgard is such a zany outer space meets Norse mythology concept, the writers are forced to lay down all the rules of the fictional reality which strangely grounds the piece in it's own logic. I had no trouble following the arcane rules of the plot where say in The Dark Knight Rises, I had no idea who was doing what to who for what reason.

On the flip side, I'm pretty sure they ripped off a Next Gen episode.

Anyway, check it out with tempered expectations, but certainly check it out.

I loved it as well! Because, yes, it's more Asgard than Earth. Really solid fun right through.

The Next Gen episode your thinking of is actually a movie -- it's 67.8% Star Trek Nemesis.

I've blocked out Nemesis. You and I saw it together before getting insanely drunk.

RE: Thor 2... Asgard really is far more fun. That said, I thought they handled the relationship between "Midgard" and Asgard for more elegantly in the second one than they did the first. While I like Branagh as a director, he's heavy handed and that sort of made the first Thor into this weird parody of itself. The GoT director of the second one seemed to understand how to play all this nonsense in a more subtle way that at made it easier to get swept up in it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 10, 2014, 03:09:45 PM
Is Adventures in Babysitting a superhero movie?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 10, 2014, 03:15:41 PM
Is Adventures in Babysitting a superhero movie?

YES!

She got the...babysittin' blues!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 11, 2014, 08:03:19 AM
Because Reggie owns controlling shares of Xfinity, Adventures in Babysitting was just starting on one of the pay channels when I got up! Yay!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 11, 2014, 08:28:31 PM
You're welcome!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 19, 2014, 01:09:12 AM
Naysayers are predicting that Guardians of the Galaxy will be Marvel's first bomb. This first trailer looks a-ok to me though.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 19, 2014, 08:46:57 AM
So I've been operating under the theory that this was somehow tied into The Avengers or Justice League or whatever because I have very little comic world knowledge... Because of that, I've been ignoring it and kind of not interested.

What I find out today is that it's Galaxy Quest for the modern kids! And that's good!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 19, 2014, 02:35:27 PM
It looks like throwback to Buckaroo Banzai or Ice Pirates. Also a good thing.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 19, 2014, 02:54:37 PM
It looks like throwback to Buckaroo Banzai or Ice Pirates. Also a good thing.

Yes!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 19, 2014, 03:06:39 PM
Also, Somebody said that's Peter Serafinowicz giving the "What a bunch of A-Holes," line. He looks different from the Kitchen Gun commercial.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 19, 2014, 03:30:51 PM
He's in Pete mode from Shaun of the Dead there. Which is pretty obviously what they're tipping the hat towards, actually.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 07, 2014, 11:12:39 AM
Did Sin City talk exist on a previous iteration of the forums?

Any nine years ago this was fresh and cutting edge. Now it seems like a cheap retread. The Matrix sequels were like that too.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 04, 2014, 02:09:54 PM
Man...Geekdom is losing its collective virtual mind over Winter Soldier -- saying it's the best superhero film ever made in the whole universe.

I was seriously let down by the first one... But this has me interested.

RC -- you really need to do your essay on why superhero movies are in decline! Now that they're all the rage -- and getting raves -- we need that dissenting opinion on the record and on the front page for when the bubble bursts.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on April 04, 2014, 02:20:07 PM
It's because superhero movies have been overdone, and just start recycling ideas.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 04, 2014, 02:20:24 PM
I'm going to see it tomorrow.  Of course I liked the first one.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on April 04, 2014, 02:21:18 PM
I didn't mind the first one too bad.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 06, 2014, 05:11:24 PM
Okay Captain America.  It was good.  I enjoyed it and despite the four people in the crowd who dressed like Nick Fury, Captain, and Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., I thought it was a very good movie.  It's no oscar nominee, but you don't expect it to be.  The action was back to old school...car chases, shoot outs, and explosions.  None of which destroyed half or all of a major city.  That was my biggest surprise.  Despite the trailer making you think Washington D.C. was leveled, it wasn't.  I was very pleased by that.  I'm tired of all the over the top destruction.  And unlike Avengers you got involved in the characters.  It was nice seeing Black Widow and Captain just talking.  Not RDJ and...here's some other super heroes for you.

A little on the nose as to the message and they stole their major plot line from POI, but I would see it again.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 06, 2014, 05:14:59 PM
I'm in family crisis mode right now, but hope to see it in the next few weeks. I liked the first Captain America well enough though it was sort of kitschy in a way this sequel doesn't seem to be.

I do need to write the front page piece, because we're in the whole Governor Tarkin "Surrender? In our moment of triumph?" phase right now.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 07, 2014, 08:14:44 AM
None of which destroyed half or all of a major city.  That was my biggest surprise. 

This is because it's really hard to establish a TV universe where you have to deal with the emotional, financial, and political fall-out of massive apocalyptic battles. Thor 2 also decided to do more damage to Asgard than Earth. You just can't have a linear TV show set after all the crazy shit... Torchwood proved that, and Agents of SHIELD has struggled with it.


I do need to write the front page piece, because we're in the whole Governor Tarkin "Surrender? In our moment of triumph?" phase right now.

Yes!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 07, 2014, 12:38:49 PM
I haven't been following the tv show because after 3 episodes I needed to jab pencils into my legs to keep awake.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 07, 2014, 12:48:15 PM
It does suck, yes.

I'm just saying, from a story-telling viewpoint, TV limits the over the top apocalyptic movie scenarios. And Agents is the first of several proposed TV shows set in a shared universe with the movies. So now every shared Marvel-universe story has to acknowledge that millions of people died in a few seconds and New York was destroyed in a superhero-battle and yet try to set themselves in an otherwise familiar America.

This is something I hope RC discusses if and when he gets around to the front pager. Is an attempt to establish a small-screen audience reaching too far? Will it cripple the movies, in the long run? Or will it help the movies by forcing them to be more "realistic"?

Marvel's grand plan to saturate every medium with superheros through 2028 feels like hubris... How can all these parts fit together when they all have different needs from the budget and storytelling standpoint?

 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 07, 2014, 12:50:58 PM
Mrs. McGraw has been watching it...so I watch by proxy.

It's gotten better...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 07, 2014, 01:03:26 PM
I've been talking about a front page piece for so long, I'm not sure it can meet expectations.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 07, 2014, 01:04:51 PM
You've actually just been talking about excuses as to why there is no front page piece! You've barely talked about the piece itself at all!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 07, 2014, 01:08:29 PM
I need to write it before the collapse actually happens.

Part of the problem is that the comic book movie landscape is always changing. The story at the end of summer will be slightly different than the one now.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 07, 2014, 01:16:50 PM
Is it always changing, though? I'd argue that they are close to -- if they haven't already -- painted themselves into a corner.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 07, 2014, 03:14:36 PM
I've read several articles online about how even though Agents is bad, or at least not good, Marvel and ABC will still keep it on the air to help make the transitions from movies easier.

I never read comic books when I was a kid, just never got into them.  So to me the whole keeping in line with what the comic book story arcs were doesn't resonate.  I wonder if Marvel/Disney/ABC/THE EMPIRE depends on comic book readers vs. non for their story lines.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 12, 2014, 12:44:03 PM
Desperately seeking a mindless distraction, Missus RC and I waltzed into Captain America: The Winter Soldier yesterday evening.

Marvel Studios is being very smart about placing their superheroes in proper sub-genres. The Thor movies are your classic LotR style fantasy. Iron Man is your old school cheeky action film in the mold of Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, and 48 Hours. Guardians of the Galaxy looks to be firmly in the realm of comedy. The Captain America movies looks like they're going to be Marvel's Bourne style spy thriller and this second entry in the series for the most part works surprisingly well in that mold.

Without saying too much, the basic premise is that SHIELD has been compromised and Secretary of SHIELD Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford) wants to find out by who before launching their NSA info equipped helicarriers that can kill anyone from orbit. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) gets ambushed and taken out of circulation. Soon Captain America (Chris Evans) and the Black Widow (Scar-Jo) are on the run with no allies except for Iraq vet superhero The Falcon (Anthony Mackie). I won't give any of the hairy details away because while who our real bad guy is becomes pretty obvious early on, how they are the bad guy is very cool to watch unfold. The movie kept me guessing and thinking, and there are a couple levels of deceit that are well done. I feel like the writers said, "Look, it's obvious who the bad guy is. Let's throw in some curves to make the mystery deeper."

If there's a problem, it's that some of the more superhero sci-fi elements seem almost out of place, particularly in the wham-bam third act. (No giant robots though, so that's a plus.) I also found myself wondering why Iron Man wasn't showing up at the end to help, especially since they mention him half-a-dozen times in the movie. (I'll dig into this and other problems of the "shared universe" concept whenever I write my gonzo superhero movie piece.)

The only other big distraction for me is that they used Cleveland to double as Washington for the action scenes because the Washington Film Office thinks anyone with a briefcase is a bomb-carrying-terrorist and won't give out permits for anybody who's file isn't tagged "Bay, Michael." Any audience member who's not a native Washingtonian will probably be fooled. (Hell, I was almost fooled a couple times.) However, there are tells. At one point, Captain America radios that a car is racing toward "17th Ave" and while the street signs and cop cars look right, the DC brownstone landscape doesn't quite play as genuine. SHIELD's nonexistent headquarters is also CGI-ed into North Arlington which I found both not-convincing yet strangely eerie all at the same time. I'm really being nitpicky though. Their fake DC works pretty well, and when the helicarriers launch from the Potomac in the third act it's pretty cool.

Scar-Jo's Black Widow is a lot of fun, as is Mackie's Falcon, though his transition from retired vet/VA volunteer to former black-op who tested high end experimental technology was one of the toughest story pills to swallow. It works (or maybe I accepted it) simply because the relationship developed between Captain America and the Falcon is such that you get how much this guy wants to help. That's the movie's strong point actually. It spends a great deal of time on the inner lives of these characters in a way that doesn't feel cheap and actually feeds the story. It also ties into the first movie in ways that are really canny and unexpected.

Without giving too much away, my favorite scene was the secret hidden in the New Jersey bunker. It's retro cool, sci-fi scary, politically topical, and just plain awesome. Also, Jenny Agutter who had "blink and you'll miss it" cameo in The Avengers shows up here, and has a moment that reminds you how amazingly awesome she is.

It's certainly worth a matinee, and you probably won't feel bad dipping some coin in for a full price ticket. RC says check it out.

Hail HYDRA.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 12, 2014, 06:10:56 PM
Sold!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on April 13, 2014, 09:48:08 PM
I've heard no bad reviews.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 12, 2014, 12:52:06 PM
http://www.blastr.com/2014-5-9/things-dont-have-crash-other-things-solutions-6-superhero-movie-problems (http://www.blastr.com/2014-5-9/things-dont-have-crash-other-things-solutions-6-superhero-movie-problems)

Quote
Things Don't Have To Crash Into Other Things: Solutions to 6 superhero movie problems
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 19, 2014, 03:33:45 PM
This is going to be a lot of fun.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 23, 2014, 06:25:11 PM
This can't mean anything good.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/edgar-wright-exits-marvels-ant-man-as-director-1201190458/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/edgar-wright-exits-marvels-ant-man-as-director-1201190458/)

Quote
Edgar Wright Exits Marvels Ant-Man as Director

In a surprise announcement, Edgar Wright has left Marvel Studios Ant-Man as its director, the company said Friday.

Marvel is zeroing in on a new filmmaker, but is not yet in negotiations with one yet, Variety can confirm. Marvel said a new director will be announced shortly, when announcing Wrights departure.

Hollywood and Marvels fan community will be scratching its head for awhile over this one, considering Wright has been attached to Ant-Man since 2006 before the first Iron Man film as a screenwriter. He has regularly gone to San Diego Comic-Con to give updates on the projects development, and even showed test footage in 2012 of his approach to bringing the size-shifting character to the big screen.

Marvel and Wright parted ways due to differences  in their vision of the film, the company and director said in a statement.

The decision to move on is amicable, they added, and does not impact the release date on July 17, 2015. The film had originally been dated for Nov. 6, 2015.

Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly star in the film, with Corey Stoll, Michael Pena and Patrick Wilson.

SEE ALSO: Godzillas Gareth Edwards to Direct Star Wars Spinoff

In addition to helming, Wright also co-wrote the script with Joe Cornish (Attack the Block). Wright most recently directed the comedy The Worlds End, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead before that.

Cornish could conceivably take over the project, given his close involvement with it over the years.

He had been considered for Star Trek 3, but opted for Universals spy thriller Section 6, set to star Jack OConnell, instead. Film revolves around the formation of British intelligence agency MI6.

Marvel is developing Ant-Man as a potential new franchise as part of its third phase of films, the way it hopes to introduce the characters in Guardians of the Galaxy in August to hopefully appear in multiple movies.

In the comicbooks, Ant-Man is the alter-ego of biochemist Hank Pym, who uses subatomic particles to create a size-altering formula and when tests go awry, realizes he can also communicate with and control insects. The character eventually pairs up with the Avengers.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 30, 2014, 06:33:20 PM
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/josh-brolin-to-play-thanos-in-marvels-guardians-of-the-galaxy-1201198891/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/josh-brolin-to-play-thanos-in-marvels-guardians-of-the-galaxy-1201198891/)

Quote
Josh Brolin to Play Thanos in Marvels Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers Sequel
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2014, 11:01:36 PM
Write. Article. Now.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 13, 2014, 11:32:18 AM
Yes, yes. Write the piece.

Quote
WB and DC had planned to announce their long-term vision at next month's San Diego Comic Con, but someone leaked the info to Nikki Finke, and now we have the tentative DC slate through 2018. This is it:

May 2016 - BATMAN V. SUPERMAN
July 2016 - SHAZAM
Xmas 2016 - SANDMAN
May 2017 - JUSTICE LEAGUE
July 2017 - WONDER WOMAN
XMAS 2017 - UNTITLED GREEN LANTERN/THE FLASH TEAM-UP
MAY 2018 - MAN OF STEEL 2
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 18, 2014, 10:39:51 AM
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 18, 2014, 10:51:29 AM
Sex.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 22, 2014, 10:45:09 AM
This is about Batman v Superman, but it ties in to our larger superhero discussion at large.

Quote
3 Reasons Why 'Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice' Will Fail

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/21/3-reasons-why-batman-vs-superman-dawn-of-justice-w.aspx (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/21/3-reasons-why-batman-vs-superman-dawn-of-justice-w.aspx)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 23, 2014, 10:49:21 AM
If you wait long enough, other people will write your article for you!

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/batman-25/

Quote
Tim Burtons Batman turns 25 today, believe it or not. And in the quarter-century since the movie was released, superhero movies have turned into a genre all their own. Some of have been more coherent than Batman, some have been slicker, some even more enjoyable. But none have been as off-kilter, confused, and passionate as the 1989 filmand that doesnt bode well for the future of the genre.

Lets get this out of the way first: Batman is not necessarily a good movie. Yes, theres a lot thats good about itMichael Keaton made a surprisingly great Bruce Wayne, despite the fan outcry at his announcement, and the movie looks amazing thanks to Burtons direction and Anton Fursts production designbut overall the movie is as uneven as a mountain range. A lot of that can be put down to the performances, which range widely in intensity; at times, two people sharing a scene seem like theyre acting in entirely different movies (e.g., Michael Goughs Alfred with Kim Basingers Vicki Vale, or Jack Nicholson with well, anyone, really).

But the movie also reflects a struggle between Burton and Warner Bros. over just what a Batman movie should be. Burton came into Batman with a particular mission: to show the public a cinematic Caped Crusader as fraught as the one who first surfaced in Frank Millers The Dark Knight Returns, then continued in projects like Batman: Year One and The Killing Joke. Burtons Batman, in his mind, would drop the camp caricature the vigilante had been saddled with since the 1960s television show and replace it with something more befitting of a character nicknamed the dark knight.

Its that philosophical tug-of-war that makes the movie so compelling 25 years later. Burton got his way when it came to casting Batman, but Nicholson as Joker was the studios decision, as was Basinger as Vicki Vale (Keaton reportedly wanted Brad Dourif, and Sean Young had the female lead until an accident just before shooting began). Likewise, Burton got his way with Danny Elfmans melodramatic score, but the studio opted instead to promote WB Records signee Princes soundtrack for synergys sake. Theres more; the original climax of the moviethe Joker kills Vicki Vale, sending Batman over the edgewas dumped by the studio during filming, leading to a shoot where no one actually knew how the story would end until theyd already filmed it. And so on, and so on. By all regular standards, Batman is a mess.

The superhero movies of today were born of Burtons desire to make superheroes gritty and realistic, and Warners desire to make Batman as mainstream and profitable as possible. Compare the self-conscious camp of Christopher Reeves Superman movies to the self-conscious sincerity of Man of Steel, and ask yourself whether we couldve gotten there without Burtons adherence to the idea that Batman be taken seriously. Just one look at the aesthetic of Burtons movie, and you can see the roots of the re-imagined X-Men and Avengers uniforms.

But rather than being resolved before the movie was released, the argument played out on screen. The result was something much more contentious than todays superhero movieswhich, having no need to validate superheroes as a worthy genre, by now seem almost smug. For all its flaws, Batman was clearly a movie made by someone who wanted to say something about the charactersomething more than how much money can we make? Itd be nice if more superhero movies today felt the same.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 23, 2014, 03:54:21 PM
I'll get behind that.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 23, 2014, 03:58:26 PM
This is also pretty good.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/tim-burton-batman-the-best (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/tim-burton-batman-the-best)

Quote
WHY TIM BURTON'S BATMAN IS STILL THE BEST
The man behind the bat, and Gotham, were weirder and more interesting

Tim Burton's Batman was released June 23, 1989, 25 years ago today, and it is the best mainstream comic-book movie ever made.

Not just the best Batman movie, but the best movie based on characters from the two major comic book publishers: Marvel, and "magazines published by DC Comics," as it says in the opening credits of Burton's film.

This is a near-heretical point of view among fanboys of funny-underwear films. Hell, it's probably a near-heretical point of view among guys named Michael Keaton, to judge from the premise of his upcoming Birdman, so please feel free to skip to the comments and batarang me with your contempt. As a friend said when I first volunteered my pro-Burton, pro-Keaton, pro-Nicholson-in-wackadoodle-whiteface opinion: "You're trolling, right?"

No, not trolling. Batman '89 is superior for several reasons, but two stand out: The Burtonverse is more richly nuanced than any other onscreen comic universe, and Michael Keaton is a better Bruce Wayne than his peers. He's the more compelling man behind the bat.

Back in '89, there was no joy in Mudville when Keaton was revealed as the Dark Knight. Here was a guy who was best known as Beetlejuice (grubby undead, lives in a train set) and Mr. Mom (feckless dad, lives in a diaper). As an actor chosen to play The Bat, Keaton didn't have what comic fanboys call a good origin story. I mean, we're talking about Bill Blazejowski here. His career was as weird as his eyebrows.

But the origin story that essential background that provides the "why?" behind the "WTF?" is exactly what Keaton and Burton (and scriptwriter Sam Hamm) got right.

The movie has an elegant and simple psychology: boy's parents killed, man seeks vengeance. It's a timeless storyline (see: Montoya, Inigo). And the brilliant part is that, in Burton's Batman, the audience is left to imagine exactly how Bruce Wayne grew into a weird, darkly obsessive, and deeply flawed man.

(That, by the way, is what we want from our heroes: They need to be flawed like us, but powerful beyond reckoning. Hence why we care about the infidelities of CEOs, and read Us Weekly to find out that "Stars They're Just Like Us." The rich and famous are the closest we have to real-life superbeings, sadly.)

Keaton's Wayne is just like us. He's awkward at parties. He drives a 1978 Plymouth Volare. He invites Vicki Vale to dinner, then sits at the other end of the table. When Vale wakes up, he's doing Pilates.

But this! This is a guy who plausibly dresses up like a bat. Or, as Slaughterhouse Magazine wrote back in '89: "This Batman, you could believe, was insane."

By contrast, Christopher Nolan's Wayne is a narcissistic Boy Scout and a paragon of virtue, just like his do-no-wrong dad. There's no catharsis there. In '89 Batman, the stakes are that Bruce Wayne might be cuckoo. In 2005 Batman, the stakes are that Bruce Wayne might make Katie Holmes sniffle. Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale stripped Bruce Wayne of his dark side and turned him into a spoiled billionaire, like Tony Stark. Their movies suffer for it.

Speaking of Tony Stark: Iron Man (2008) is the only other mainstream comic film that holds a candle to '89 Batman. Jon Favreau got the origin story right, and Robert Downey Jr. was aces at being a frustratingly competent douchebag. But Iron Man has never been the most compelling hero. At the end of the day, he's a billionaire in an armored suit fighting other billionaires in armored suits. It's all very Robot Jox.

As for Spider-Man, X-Men, and The Dark Knight Rises: They're all competent movies, but each suffers from the Law of Too Many Villains. You could make a case that 2008's The Dark Knight is a great flick, but the only great part of that film was Heath Ledger. The series still falters on Bale's version of Wayne and Nolan's boring, glammed-out Gotham.

Which brings me back to my first point about '89 Batman: Burton created the most nuanced Gotham.

Look again at the details. The year on the newspapers is 1947, but the wanted poster for Jack Napier says 1989. Wayne Manor is gothic tudor, but Wayne's personal car is a Plymouth. Vicki Vale wears an '80s Parisian frock, but the other women dress like they're from the '40s. Villains use Tommy Guns. Newspapermen use flashbulbs. Gangsters dress like Al Capone's mob. This is a fully realized universe it's almost as if a seedy 1947 existed inside a steampunk 1989.

Most superhero movies skip these details. They spend their ducats on SFX lasers and CGI villains. But it's the man behind the mask, and where that man lives, that make all the difference. 1989 Batman for the win.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 02, 2014, 10:37:04 AM
A fun infographic...


http://io9.com/the-history-of-the-superhero-movie-1978-2009-1598949132
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 16, 2014, 01:57:52 PM
ComiCon starts this weekend, so expect this thread to rev up over the next couple of weeks.

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.aintitcool.com%2Fmedia%2Fuploads%2F2014%2Fquint%2FAvengersUltronEWcover_large.jpg&hash=a6b1979fe00f10a344693626254cd1b40bf76aa5)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 22, 2014, 10:36:47 AM
There a five minute excerpt from Guardians of the Galaxy making the rounds this AM. I'm waiting for the movie proper, but it's out there if you want it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 22, 2014, 03:46:23 PM
There a five minute excerpt from Guardians of the Galaxy making the rounds this AM. I'm waiting for the movie proper, but it's out there if you want it.

I watched it. I'd say about 12% of it has not yet been in the 579 trailers and teasers, and that's just because they played music over those parts for the trailers.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 22, 2014, 03:54:44 PM
We live in the age of over-advertising.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 27, 2014, 11:39:53 PM
Blah, blah Avengers 2 banner...

(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.aintitcool.com%2Fmedia%2Fuploads%2F2014%2Fpapa_vinyard%2Ffafept-poster-600x461_large.jpg&hash=4c1504cda71c4e6d21da140f3c7ad81bd3bd2622)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 28, 2014, 05:37:40 PM
Did Sin City talk exist on a previous iteration of the forums?

Anyway, nine years ago this was fresh and cutting edge. Now it seems like a cheap retread. The Matrix sequels were like that too.


I stand by my earlier assessment.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 28, 2014, 07:23:18 PM

I stand by my earlier assessment.

That you want to fuck Eva Green every night?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 28, 2014, 07:31:49 PM
She is amazingly beautiful.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 29, 2014, 08:18:04 AM
Sometimes, late at night, I load up her topless sword fight sex scene in the 300 sequel...

Did you know that she's a twin? Late at night, I think about that as well...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 29, 2014, 10:35:57 AM
I have not seen this topless fight scene you speak of.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 29, 2014, 11:30:48 AM
Then your life is incomplete.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 29, 2014, 02:22:29 PM
Tor's review:

Quote
But if youre anything like me, and somehow havent gotten sick of the ironic juxtaposition of 70s pop music set against the backdrop of a technicolor Mos Eisley, Im here to tell you that Guardians of the Galaxy is the greatest remake of Footloose that you will likely ever see.

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2014/07/guardians-of-the-galaxy-movie-review
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 01, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
So what does the critical smash of Guardians of the Galaxy (and the rise of superhero TV) do for the theory in the superhero movie article that you'll never write, RC?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 01, 2014, 11:11:59 AM
The end is still coming. I think I said somewhere in this thread that GotG wouldn't be Marvel's big bomb.

It'll be Ant Man.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 01, 2014, 11:35:29 AM
Gah! Having no time to be even be thinking about this, here's the short and skinny (the pitch if you will) of the article I'll never write:

My thesis is that the superhero movie "bubble" has reached it's bursting point, and that the business model supporting the creation and distribution of these films is unsustainable for three reasons.

1. The Shared Universe model makes no room for failure and stifles creativity. (When Ant-Man tanks, what does that do to the larger "Phase 2" storyline that Ant-Man is supposed to fit into? Also Edgar Wright got kicked off Ant-Man because his individual vision didn't fit within the greater shared Universe. Remember that he started working on it before The Avengers hit.)
     
2. The law of diminishing returns. (Each Spider-Man movie has made less than the one before.)

3. Oversaturation of the marketplace. (There's at least six superhero movies coming out every year for the next few years. That's not to mention all the other genre stuff it's competing with.)

3 1/2.  Reboot fatigue and aging demographics. (Hugh Jackman and Robert Downey Jr. aren't getting any younger. They still haven't found a Superman as good as Christopher Reeve. Also, the 40 year old execs who grew up on comic books will eventually be replaced by younger execs who grew up on Pokemon, Nick Jr. and Xbox.)

So, Mr. Editor. Does it pass muster?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 01, 2014, 02:42:49 PM
For point 1, it seems like they're fairly conservative at start. Ant-Man just vanishes if it tanks. The failure is paid for by the gazillion dollars made by GotG 2.

For point 2, they seem to have mastered sub-franchises within the genre. Some can rest for a bit if need be...or join only as part of an ensemble (which is how they've handled Hulk, yes?)

For point 3, SDCC sort of proved the demand. Superhero flicks were the big winners. But, yes, this is the core of the discussion...at what point does it become oversaturation?

For point 3.5, they have no qualms replacing stars, and the Xbox producers of the future will be catering to the Xbox audience, which is certainly how Msrvel's already been handling this... Superman today is unrecognizable to Superman of 1980.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 01, 2014, 03:40:13 PM
For point 1, it seems like they're fairly conservative at start. Ant-Man just vanishes if it tanks. The failure is paid for by the gazillion dollars made by GotG 2.

Marvel has actually shown an incredible amount of restraint, and I hope they're rewarded for taking a huge chance on Guardians of the Galaxy which everybody was spelling doom and gloom for this time last year. (It's the same way they, and I, are spelling doom for next year's Ant-Man now. I'm sticking to my guns on this one though.) They've been very good at branding their individual franchises and can probably financially and creatively absorb the hit they'll take when Ant-Man tanks. Though being in development for almost eight years(?) now, I'd be interested in how much money they already have invested in Ant-Man even if though it hasn't begun shooting. I have a feeling that's why they're less inclined to take a GotG style chance on it with somebody as gonzo as Edgar Wright at this point. It's the Alien 3/Vincent Ward syndrome. They hired Wright/Ward for their vision and fired them for the same reason.

(I'll add that Disney, Marvel's parent company, can financially absorb just about any movie loss. See John Carter. You'll apparently be the only one who did.)

Marvels's Shared Universe/Avengers concept is akin to the first Matrix movie. They broke the ground and did something creatively (and financially) fantastic. It was an enormous risk, but it succeeded beyond anybody's expectations. Now we're getting all the rip-offs. This Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice movie is a direct response to the success of The Avengers only DC/Warner Bros. is trying to quasi-reverse engineer that success. The Avengers worked because we spent entire movies with the characters of Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Thor, and Loki. Coulson, Nick Fury, and Black Widow had also had supporting roles in previous Marvel movies. Hawkeye was the only new character we had to deal with. (Though even had a cameo in Thor) Whedon didn't have to waste any time introducing us to anybody. The Avengers was unapologetic about not catching up the audience with what came before and it was awesome because of that.

David Fincher, I believe (Or maybe it was James Cameron), said some great things once about comic book movies needing to eschew origin stories altogether. Both Tim Burton's Batman and Bryan Singer's X-Men work largely because the superheroes are already established when the movies start. Now maybe this is why Wonder Woman being introduced to us in BvS will work because on a certain level who cares how she got to where she's at? Tell me a story about the character now. However, if we're also getting Aquaman, Luthor, Doomsday, Cyborg and who knows what else in it, are we really going to have time to develop her? My gut is that BvS will make loads, but will the story work? I don't know, man. It seems like a lot to swallow at once. Man of Steel barely worked and it divided fanboys and casual moviegoers immensely. Batman could also suffer Spider-Man syndrome where the Nolan/Bale version is so recent that BatFleck may be too much change to handle at once.

For point 2, they seem to have mastered sub-franchises within the genre. Some can rest for a bit if need be...or join only as part of an ensemble (which is how they've handled Hulk, yes?)

They're not resting them long enough. The Hulk in the exception that proves the rule because the Bana and Norton versions never quite got it right in the first place. Whedon and Ruffalo nailed it, mostly by having the character distilled down to it's essence because it needed to function in the ensemble.

Spider-Man is the cautionary tale here. Sony has to make a Spidey movie every three years or Marvel gets the rights back. Raimi and MacGuire walked (or were pushed out) so a reboot was inevitable. They had to do it or let Marvel get it's baby back. After The Avengers, Sony started their own Shared Universe plan with movie about Venom, The Sinister Six, etc; movies about villains, put into motion. Only the Spider-Man movies keep losing money. ASM2 made less than all the others so now Sony is having second thoughts about building their company's tentpole around what seems to be a failing franchise. (This only helps Marvel in trying to leverage the rights back.)

What Spider-Man needs is a creative shot in the arm. They could spend half the money to make an intimate Spider-Man movie that would please fans while still raking in money. But they can't take those kinds of risks. There's too much money at stake.

Batman sort of has the same problem. The Nolan movies are now the gold standard, yet less than five years later we're getting served up a new version. (One that's not too far off from the old one I might add). It's too soon. Batman Begins worked because the franchise had already been driven into the ground. Remember what a risk *that* was when they were making it?

Marvel is doing it right, but I have a feeling hubris is setting in.

For point 3, SDCC sort of proved the demand. Superhero flicks were the big winners. But, yes, this is the core of the discussion...at what point does it become oversaturation?

Even the glowing reviews of Guardians of the Galaxy say something among the lines of "GotG follows the Marvel formula. Down on his luck guy, MacGuffin, bonding battle, world threat, blah, blah, blah." Almost all the reviews mention it. Call it "Superhero Save the Cat." At some point, people will go, "These are all the same movie." They might go see Justice League and The Avengers 2 & 3 because they're the gonzo, team-up, VFX freak outs, but they may start staying home for the likes of Thor 3, Doctor Strange, Wonder Woman 2, etc because going to the movies is fucking expensive. Also, just because I like a Big Mac every once in a while doesn't mean I like everything McDonald's serves.

The Ant-Man/Wright deal bothers me because it seems like keeping it fresh is the way to sustain it. And the Wright firing reeks of "this movie needs to fall in line with the others." It was the success of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America that made The Avengers possible. People responded to Nolan's vision of Batman more than how Batman fit into a larger picture.

For point 3.5, they have no qualms replacing stars, and the Xbox producers of the future will be catering to the Xbox audience, which is certainly how Marvel's already been handling this... Superman today is unrecognizable to Superman of 1980.

Just because they have no problem replacing stars doesn't mean we accept them. My wife refuses to watch the non-Raimi Spider-Man movies and doesn't really want to see BatFleck. She's not loyal to the brand. She's loyal to the vision. (Though Marvel can do no wrong in her eyes. I keep telling her to wait until they replace Jackman and Downey Jr.) Marvel has crossed over into the mainstream, but mainstream tastes change. To use a hockey metaphor I stole from someone else; If Marvel wants to keep up, they have to keep predicting where the puck is going, unlike DC/WB who keeps trying to keep up with where the puck is at.

There's a great article making the rounds right now about the immense cost to market movies and how that model is unsustainable. The Spielberg/Lucas "death of the blockbuster" rhetoric from a year ago is still in the ether. Both the amount of content available on the internet and the democratization of high production value filmamking has changed the game dramatically. A paradigm shift of some sort is coming. What it will be is anyone's guess.


EDIT:
And all this mess I spewed out while procrastinating other work is just scratching the surface of all the reasons why Superhero fans should batten down the hatches. That's why I haven't written the piece; because it would probably be long enough that you could publish it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2014, 08:53:12 AM
So GotG had the biggest August opening ever, and came in just slightly below Transformers (which lied about their numbers) and Captain America. And:

Quote
Overseas, GotG debuted to $66.4-million. For those of you keeping score at home, $6570M is what the film was originally projected to gross here in the U.S. that it met that projection overseas, and outstripped it domestically by fifty percent, is huge. Just huge.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on August 04, 2014, 10:01:10 AM
A friend saw Guardians and claimed it the best movie of the summer.  The same friend watched the Lego movie twice though because he thought it was that great....so take everything with a grain of salt.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2014, 10:05:17 AM
The Lego movie is a strangely subtle little pop culture social experiment beneath the screaming and glitz.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2014, 10:54:13 AM
Oh! Here's where he got the Lego link -- io9's spoiler-free review:

Quote
So yeah, Guardians of the Galaxy is terrific. My weekend plans are basically "see Guardians of the Galaxy again." Its playfulness and cleverness reminds me of LEGO Movie, another retro-pop adventure film where Chris Pratt finds your inner child and makes him/her jump up and down with giddiness. Plus there's a bit of Firefly in the mix.

http://io9.com/watching-guardians-of-the-galaxy-is-like-getting-back-p-1614421231
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2014, 10:55:15 AM
I loved GotG. No review except to say go see it. It's the best movie of it's kind since Return of the Jedi.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2014, 11:19:26 AM
Okay fine. Quick review while I wait on my coffee to brew. In no particular order but when they pop into my head, here's five reasons why Guardians of the Galaxy is awesome.

1.) The 70s music makes it feel lie a live action version of Heavy Metal. Also, the music is essential to the Peter Quill character instead of using AC/DC to make Iron Man seem badass.

2.) It's an outcast movie about real outcasts. Now that geek is chic, we long time genre folks feel like the cool kids found our secret clubhouse where we go to get away from them. Every Marvel movie has the "cool" outcast now, but they're not really an outcast. There's the genuine feeling in this movie that our five Guardians are truly outliers of their society. Most of them don't seem to care, but all of them seem a little lonely. It's this unspoken need for each other that makes the film work more than anything. It's not your typical Save the Cat character number even though the basic plot is paint by numbers.

3.) It's genuinely funny and never takes itself too seriously. Every time you think it's going to fall into a trope, it throws you just a little curveball.

4.) Zoe Saldana seems to be getting left out in the cold in the glowing reviews, but in some ways, she's the glue that holds the team together. Somebody's got to be the straight man in this zany crew, and she sort of functions that way. Yet even she has these great moments, mostly with Chris Pratt's Peter Quill, that are zingingly funny.

5.) The Raccoon and the Tree. They're just a wonder to behold.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2014, 11:22:26 AM
And 5 1/2... It's emotional without being manipulative. I think that more than anything is why people are responding to it. When's the last time a movie like this genuinely moved you?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 04, 2014, 11:23:50 AM
Quote
Every Marvel movie has the "cool" outcast now, but they're not really an outcast.

This is a great point! And the sort of nagging thing that rattles around in the back of my head when the outcasts are, say, uber-hot and totally functional Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings, who are the sort of girls that used to spit on outcasts!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 04, 2014, 11:31:59 AM
I mean, it's Chis Pratt and Zoe Saldana in this movie, neither of whom will ever be mistaken for nerds. Yet they embody the emotional space of an outcast in a way that Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man or even Chris Evans Captain America never quite does.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 07, 2014, 05:26:38 PM
GotG is the first movie in a long time that I feel compelled to see... So I plan to catch the first showing tomorrow morning (as I...uh...work from home).

My default is always to see the normal movie and not fucking 3D... But it looks like one of those movies that's sort of made for 3D. What's the verdict?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 08, 2014, 12:40:29 AM
No 3D. We did 2D and are better for it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 08, 2014, 03:30:21 PM
Reason #4.5.1: The enviable backlash is beginning.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/07/fear-of-a-minority-superhero-marvel-s-obsession-with-white-guys-saving-the-world.html
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 08, 2014, 05:15:25 PM
So...GotG. It is a live action version of the Lego Movie! It's full of tropes and I have some serious complaints.

That said...it's also sublimely beautiful and the most human and simple and tender superhero movie I've seen. So I forgive the dozens of problems.

I also appreciate the endless in-jokes during the end credits.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 09, 2014, 02:40:12 AM
I want to hear your complaints. I have them on a base structural level, but like you I forgave them all due to the emotional "wow" factor.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 09, 2014, 03:44:57 AM
I want to hear your complaints. I have them on a base structural level, but like you I forgave them all due to the emotional "wow" factor.

The structural level... It's way overcrowded. So much so that I couldn't focus on the bad guy at all. I feel like the takeaway was that Thanos is the real bad guy and we'll get to him in the sequels, so Ronin hardly matters except for some immediate threat that they have to deal with. This disassociation with the characterization was especially noticeable when Drax makes the (joke?) that it's really Thanos he wants to kill anyway. Really? After all of that? (His general response to Ronin's demise is blase anyway...which is weird. Rocket has more anger and emotion during the showdown than the man who's dedicated his life to that showdown.)

We have such big supporting personalities -- from Peter S's Kitchen Gun to the underused and totally two-dimensional Nova Prime, that I found myself not caring if the Nova planet was destroyed or not...and wasn't 100% clear why any of our people cared, except that Ronin was an asshole. The cheesy attempts to make us care -- wide eyed babies in mother's arms caught in the middle of yet another planetary-level catastrophe -- was eye-rolling.

Oh, and, yes -- ultimate catastrophe! Now the formula for every single Marvel movie. Just once, I want to see the Great Apocalypse get nuked in orbit, Fifth Element-style. It was made worse here not only because I didn't care, but because these were all unexplored characters. New York? Okay. Thor's planet? Okay, because Hopkins and Elba give us uber-gravitas. The Nova planet? Our brief glimpses of Glenn Close being, for the large part, ineffectual, and the stuffy colonialists working for her, almost make you wonder if Ronin is right.

Then we get the complicated relationships that may have been a thrill for people who read the comics... Their backstories almost felt like catching-you-up-with-the-comics, and seemed clunky. Zoe Saldana and her evil robot sister were the worst part there. All too convenient. I guess the core is that they both hate Thanos and want revenge for we're not sure what... We get Saldana's background, and the robot says "look what he did to me," but it all seems a bit wonky since, no matter what Ronin does, they know that Thanos has at least one other infinity stone himself, right? And The Collector knows. And everyone who saw Thor 2 knows. So what we get, repeated a few times over at a few different levels, is a "curse your sudden yet inevitable betrayal!" Oh, and Ronin's betrayal of Thanos is...met with stony silence and then a cut connection? No retaliation or reaction? Why was Thanos in this? Just to give the bad guy who already had clear motivation some motivation?

I also think we trust Saldana too quickly... She goes from impossible threat to maybe fuckworthy to worth the absolute sacrifice in, what, 48 hours? Sacrificing yourself for her was this weird too-early-in-the-script redemption moment for two characters who either didn't really need it or didn't make sense having it at that time. The big problem there is that we *do* get that moment, during the showdown, which means the power of that scene (Saldana/memory of mom) is just slightly empty. 

In fact, due to the overcrowding, the only successful character arc was Groot --simply because he stayed true to who he was throughout.

Michael Rooker's team suffered terribly from the overcrowding and became nothing more than mere convenience. They're all over the map, aren't they? It almost feels like I could mentally hear the director screaming, "CUE ROOKER!" every time.

Then we get the Collector, who also feels shoe-horned in there. He's like Mr. Universe in Serenity, isn't he? This all powerful yet weirdly vulnerable guy, who has some backstory that we don't know, and whose assistant chooses this moment to fuck everything up because he's a bad boss. Also a moment of convenient-ultimate-superweapon-fickleness, eh? Grabbing it in the Collector's lab results in "we're gonna need a shitload of new screen doors" but grabbing it from Ronin results in "apocalypse #79" but using it to embed in your sledgehammer results in "makes robot girl horny." I guess it all depends on who grabs it, eh? From little slave to big bad guy to Someone More Than Human and his buddies.

But, then, this is the thing that simply has to touch the ground to destroy the entire planet, and they literally spend the whole movie tossing it around like a baseball.  The only person who ever seems worried about the larger threat of the stone is Glenn Close, briefly, and the only one who has the reaction normal people would have when confronted with the stone is Rocket when they retrieve it from the blast at the Collector's lab. Everyone else's motivation really is "Ronin's an asshole."

I think they could have done with the knock-off Chronicles of Riddick theme and kept it small. Rooker in the not-quite-so-terrible bounty hunter role getting in more trouble than not, the bad guy who's actually a small fry in the final reveal... Get us engaged with the survival of our team, and not the survival of  ten billion people. The plan was for a sequel -- the whole movie is setting it up from very early on -- so why not give us a slow reveal of all this other stuff? It's the same as the too-many-villains syndrome.

I miss Star Wars, I guess. Yes, okay, we have the planet destroying threat. Everyone's gotten that part down perfectly in modern sci-fi... But they're forgetting the two hours spent on the deeply personal journey of a small handful of characters (speaking of perfectly executed final showdown redemption moments!) that was required before they could save  the universe. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 09, 2014, 12:17:45 PM
I can argue with very little of that.

Yet I loved it. Explain that. Did Chris Pratt, the tree, and the raccoon simply charm the pants off of us.

And you know that evil robot sister was Karen Gillian, yes?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 09, 2014, 12:44:57 PM


Quote
Yet I loved it. Explain that. Did Chris Pratt, the tree, and the raccoon simply charm the pants off of us.

Same problem here!

Quote
And you know that evil robot sister was Karen Gillian, yes?

Ha! Oh my god! And I spent the whole movie looking for her! Wow. The only way to hide her is to shave her and paint her.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 09, 2014, 01:11:20 PM
Oh, and, yes -- ultimate catastrophe! Now the formula for every single Marvel movie. Just once, I want to see the Great Apocalypse get nuked in orbit, Fifth Element-style. It was made worse here not only because I didn't care, but because these were all unexplored characters. New York? Okay. Thor's planet? Okay, because Hopkins and Elba give us uber-gravitas. The Nova planet? Our brief glimpses of Glenn Close being, for the large part, ineffectual, and the stuffy colonialists working for her, almost make you wonder if Ronin is right.

I think they could have done with the knock-off Chronicles of Riddick theme and kept it small. Rooker in the not-quite-so-terrible bounty hunter role getting in more trouble than not, the bad guy who's actually a small fry in the final reveal... Get us engaged with the survival of our team, and not the survival of  ten billion people. The plan was for a sequel -- the whole movie is setting it up from very early on -- so why not give us a slow reveal of all this other stuff? It's the same as the too-many-villains syndrome.

I miss Star Wars, I guess. Yes, okay, we have the planet destroying threat. Everyone's gotten that part down perfectly in modern sci-fi... But they're forgetting the two hours spent on the deeply personal journey of a small handful of characters (speaking of perfectly executed final showdown redemption moments!) that was required before they could save  the universe. 

This is one of my major beefs about superhero movies in general and the Marvel movies in particular. Some of these characters scream for an intimate story. I always use the example of Spider-Man and the villain Kraven the Hunter. (Kraven is Russian big game hunter obsessed with "hunting" Spider-Man. Very "The Most Dangerous Game." In the comics, after he finally defeats Spider-man, buries him for two weeks, and replaces him, he blows his head off. "Kraven's Last Hunt" is arguably the best Spider-Man story ever told.) A Kraven movie wouldn't need to be "OMG Spidey must save NYC!" It would be a small intimate story that only involved the battle for the soul (and life) of our main hero. The Batman oeuvre is also filled with these small scale stories. They'd cost half as much to make and still make a ha-zillion dollars. Yet each subsequent superhero film tries to  top the next.

It's one reason why Captain America 2 (and to a lesser extent, Thor 2) works so well. They're insular stories dealing with the development of pour main characters.

Also, it takes out the teeth of the GREATEST THREAT EVER in their big team up movie when the destruction of the world is at stake in every single movie.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 14, 2014, 12:10:32 PM
Robert Downey Jr. Joined Captan America 3, but also recently expressed many of my concerns about the future of the superhero film.

http://www.blastr.com/2014-10-13/robert-downey-jr-feeling-superhero-fatigue-are-you (http://www.blastr.com/2014-10-13/robert-downey-jr-feeling-superhero-fatigue-are-you)

Quote
Robert Downey Jr. is feeling superhero fatigue -- are you?

Even though Iron Man made him a superstar, Robert Downey Jr. is hinting that the whole superhero genre might be running its course.

In a new interview with England's Telegraph to promote his just-opened film The Judge, Downey was asked about Iron Man 4, to which he gave the same kind of cryptic, contradictory answer he's given in other recent interviews, replying, "Not that I'm aware of" when asked about both the possibility of his doing a fourth Iron Man film and the franchise coming to an end.

Asked if this meant that Tony Stark would only appear in Avengers movies from now on, Downey said, "Avengers was another opportunity, but theyre not talking about Iron Man 4. I was kind of bombed out to tell the truth, but maybe theyve got bigger fish to fry and I trust their overall vision. The funny thing about these genre movies is youd think they were national secrets.

But then Downey took it further, suggesting that audiences may, in fact, be getting tired of the entire genre: "Honestly, the whole thing is just showing the beginning signs of fraying around the edges. Its a little bit old ... last summer there were five or seven different [superhero films] out. I feel that they are critiqued by a different metric to any other movie. Right, [that metric is box office], but also they are more forgiven because they operate on a different frequency. Its like a bunch of really good dancers and youre looking for the one who keeps changing her leg warmers. They make a lot of money.

OK ... I'm not quite sure about the "leg warmers" comment, but if you've ever heard Downey speak in person, that's sort of typical of the moving-target way he answers questions. His first point, however, was clear -- he believes that superhero fatigue may be setting in.

Could that really be the case, though? The biggest domestic box-office success of 2014 was Guardians of the Galaxy, based on an obscure Marvel comic book, while Captain America: The Winter Soldier did superb business and the X-Men franchise had its highest-grossing entry yet. Even the relatively disappointing The Amazing Spider-Man 2 still took in more than $700 million worldwide. And next May's The Avengers: Age of Ultron is as sure a bet as a movie studio could have.

Is Downey really talking about himself? He's played Tony Stark five times now (including Age of Ultron), and while he's quite aware of what the role has meant to his career and life, he remains a brilliant actor who no doubt wants to do other things with his craft.

Sadly (or not, because frankly it's not a very good film), The Judge opened this past weekend to a very lukewarm response (just $13 million at the domestic box office), making it the second straight non-franchise movie starring Downey, after The Soloist, to fail to draw a large audience. It would be ironic if Downey's only major success comes from his superhero movies just as he is perhaps edging away from them.

There are 30-plus superhero or comics-based movies coming out in the next five or six years. Do you think fatigue is setting in? Are you getting tired of the genre? Or is Downey just looking for his escape hatch?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2014, 11:35:26 AM
Robert Downey Jr. Joined Captan America 3, but also recently expressed many of my concerns about the future of the superhero film.


Well.... Too bad!

http://toybox.io9.com/a-timeline-for-your-next-6-years-of-comic-book-movies-1648360011/+riamisra
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 20, 2014, 11:43:39 AM
That graphic alone is a symptom of the plague that will kill the superhero film, or at least vastly change it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2014, 11:47:12 AM
It made my heart cry.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 22, 2014, 10:35:11 PM
Yes, the end of the superhero movie is coming... but not yet.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 23, 2014, 07:31:22 AM
I wonder if, years from now, as superhero movies and TV dominate every corner of the universe, we'll still say "the end is coming!" before every post.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 23, 2014, 09:44:16 AM
I'm excited for this movie and can't wait to see it.  Admittedly the biggest reason I want to see this is James Spader.  RDJ, ScarJo, etc...yeah, I'd be happy with them, but I'm giddy as a school girl to watch Spader.  And you don't even "watch" him!  Just voice work...  If I've said it once, I've said it a million times, I'd pay to hear him read the phone book.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 23, 2014, 10:50:56 AM
I think Avengers: Age of Ultron looks awesome as well.

I wonder if, years from now, as superhero movies and TV dominate every corner of the universe, we'll still say "the end is coming!" before every post.

Of course. I'm like the crazy guy on the corner screaming "the end is near" who then goes home and wanks off to The Weather Channel's coverage of the latest big killer storm.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 23, 2014, 11:08:51 AM
Of course. I'm like the crazy guy on the corner screaming "the end is near" who then goes home and wanks off to The Weather Channel's coverage of the latest big killer storm.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 23, 2014, 11:19:43 AM
The end is coming though... make no mistake.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on October 23, 2014, 11:41:18 AM
The end is coming though... make no mistake.

The end isn't coming...it's all sunshine and roses...nothing bad will ever happen ag..BLAM!!!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 23, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
The end is coming though... make no mistake.


Why you need to write that article is because we've been saying this since it was announced that Burton got hold of Batman in the late 80s. Everyone has predicted failure for superhero movies... And yet they persist. Even when they do fail! The audience demand has been consistently in place since the 1960s. We've had superhero TV and movies hitting the airwaves and the silver screens again and again and again, with very few dry years, for 50 years now.

When there wasn't a successful entry in the genre, it didn't stop the attempts to reboot the genre. When the genre couldn't find a foothold, it found refuge in the children's market. When the genre couldn't handle the classic superheroes, it retrofitted itself to modern advancements -- GI Joe and Transformers are ultimately "superhero" shows.

Not a single year, since 1977, has passed without a superhero movie.

This is also true for TV, with only a small drought in the 80s that was peppered with TV movies and backdoor pilots.

Furthermore, the genre has so heavily imprinted itself on our psyche that it's bled into all the other genres. Is not Ripley a superhero? Or John McClaine? Or Indiana Jones? Or Ron Burgundy? 

Even if the genre scales back -- which, in 50 years, it has never done -- couldn't our modern superheroes stalking through the other genres still count?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 23, 2014, 01:48:25 PM
I reread a good bit of this thread this AM and the bare-bones outline for the piece is sort of there. It would just be so long. Writing is hard these days.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 24, 2014, 10:11:51 AM
Since it's based on a comic book, I figured I'd post here about how cool and enjoyable the Rock's Hercules movie was. Very surprised... They decided to go with the graphic novel and have fun with it and not get too lost in the mythos.

A great cast, and none of them acting like they're uncomfortable to be there (like ScarJo in the Avengers!) and, of course, I can't say no to The Rock... Never could.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 24, 2014, 10:37:23 AM
I can't say no to The Rock... Never could.

Who are you?!?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 24, 2014, 10:42:03 AM
The Rock and Vin Diesel, man! America's greatest and most talented actors! You heard it here!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 24, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
I love Vin Diesel. The Rock is okay too.

Does it follow the myth pretty well or do they just go out on their own thread?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 24, 2014, 11:48:22 AM
I love Vin Diesel. The Rock is okay too.

Does it follow the myth pretty well or do they just go out on their own thread?

Not at all. He's a regular mortal (maybe) faking at being Hercules with his awesome group of heroes and they rent themselves out as mercenaries. There's a dark past where his family was slaughtered and, ultimately, he's really just out for forgiveness/understanding/revenge.

So, basically, it's not Hercules. It's "The Rock -- and every other famous actor ever -- starring in Shirtless Beatings in Ancient Thrace."
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 24, 2014, 03:11:16 PM
I also love Vin Diesel. I don't think I've ever watched anything with The Rock.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 28, 2014, 12:50:54 PM
The Cumberbatch Era continues... (Though it should be noted the isn't final yet.)

Apparently Joaquin Phoenix was the first choice, but he wouldn't sign a multi-picture deal.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/benedict-cumberbatch-in-talks-to-star-in-marvels-doctor-strange-1201340240/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/benedict-cumberbatch-in-talks-to-star-in-marvels-doctor-strange-1201340240/)

Quote
Benedict Cumberbatch to Star in Marvels Doctor Strange

Marvel Studios has found its Doctor Strange.

Benedict Cumberbatch is in talks to play the doctor-turned-sorcerer-supreme in the newest superhero film from Marvel that Scott Derrickson will direct, sources tell Variety.

The film has not yet been officially dated, but Marvel is said to be eyeing a 2016 release. Cumberbatchs role could be made official at a Marvel Studios presentation to media and fans at Disneys El Capitan Theater.

Cumberbatch would play Stephen Vincent Strange, a former neurosurgeon who becomes the next Sorcerer Supreme and primary protector of Earth against magical and mystical threats. Marvel Comics vets Stan Lee and Steve Ditko co-created the character in 1963.

Marvel already has teased Strange in several films, including Thor and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The character fits in with the cinematic universe Marvel is building, with Strange having paired up with Thor and the Avengers, along with Spider-Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four to battle enemies in its comicbooks.

Marvel has long wanted to launch a film franchise around the character and eventually integrate him in one of its Avengers sequels.

Still Marvel Studios president Kevin Feige has long wanted the Doctor Strange character to star in his own solo film as a way to make a movie about magic the way Guardians of the Galaxy pushes it into the sci-fi and space genre and Captain America: The Winter Soldier into political thrillers.Marvel had been in negotiations with Joaquin Phoenix to take the role, but couldnt reach a deal because of the number of films the thesp would have to agree to make.

Cumberbatchs deal is contingent upon his schedule, which includes the Sherlock Holmes series for BBC and commitments to star in theater productions.

He will next be seen in The Imitation Game and voices characters in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, The Penguins of Madagascar and WBs The Jungle Book.

Marvel has not commented on the deal.

Cumberbatch is repped by UTA.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 28, 2014, 06:15:41 PM
Marvel announced it's plan for world domination today. Too much to cut and paste so just click through to see what they're planning.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/black-panther-inhumans-captain-marvel-marvel-announces-new-wave-of-superhero-movies-1201341076/ (http://variety.com/2014/film/news/black-panther-inhumans-captain-marvel-marvel-announces-new-wave-of-superhero-movies-1201341076/)

Quote
Marvel Announces New Wave of Superhero Movies

NOW is the time for me to write the piece, because I can explain all day long how this could (but not necessarily will) blow up in their face.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 29, 2014, 08:32:58 AM
This is what they aired during Agents of SHIELD the other night after the Avengers 2 trailer leaked. Most of this is reduxed from that trailer, but the first minute is pretty fun.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 29, 2014, 08:57:53 AM
They updated the overall timeline with this info:

http://comicsalliance.com/your-supermovie-timeline-updated-with-marvel-studios-phase-three-releases-infographic/

The problem I see, from my layman's perspective, is that they're going to have to introduce unfamiliar superheros. For me, I am totally in the dark about Ant-Man, Black Panther, Suicide Squad, Dr. Strange, Sinister Six, Cyborg, and Gambit. Stuff like Aqua Man I only know from the Superfriends cartoon.

So whereas some things unfamiliar to the lay perspective -- such as Guardians of the Galaxy -- have another hook (sci-fi actioneer), the more solipsistic personal journey superhero story (like Ant-Man) is going to fall flat outside of the target audience, yes? And how big can that target audience be?

But no matter what, we round back to my rebuttal of your presumed piece: We've never not had a superhero movie in cinemas or on TV for four decades now. This current glut may blow up in their face on one level... But the gamble now is the same gamble it's always been -- it only takes one hit to make the return investment. Guardians of the Galaxy, and anticipation of the sequel regardless of the fate of the genre, will keep them afloat well into the 2020s. It's the same gamble the publishing industry relies on -- Harry Potter's success makes it possible to publish 100 other books that either flop or run the middle ground. 

Coupled with income from TV -- a far more reliable and far greater return on investment than movies -- and you're home free. Even at the "cult favorite" level, a TV show will rake in the cash. Season one box set sales of Agents of SHIELD alone will pay for any potential losses in, say, Ant Man.   

When you study the timeline, you see the tent poles strategically placed. 2016 will be supported by the X-Men/Captain America summer blockbuster double-shot. The others can flop and die all they want. 2017 will be supported by GotG/Thor doubleshot. The season opens with a little cash bump from the Hugh Jackman Fan Club to make up for losses at the end of 2016, 2017's bets have been hedged by the always reliable Lego family income. 2018 -- summer doubleshot again with Avengers/X-Men. Inhumans (Groot) at the end of the year again cashes in on the kiddie cash.

The pattern each year is the same -- sacrificial lambs that may or may not become hugely popular are supported by the movies that are and always will be popular.

And will the audience burn out? No. Because it was known in the 1970s that the audience craves superheroes. Feast or famine, the craving is always there (which rounds back to the other thing I talked about a few posts back -- the genre has spread into all the genres. You could call Unforgiven a superhero movie).
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 29, 2014, 10:44:39 AM

NOW is the time for me to write the piece, because I can explain all day long how this could (but not necessarily will) blow up in their face.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 29, 2014, 10:50:24 AM
I was responding to that post!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 29, 2014, 10:59:16 AM
I didn't mean to repost the whole thing. Apple is trying to sabotage my life.

Your layman's perspective is a big part of the problem. Up to this point, these minor characters have had supporting roles in more well known character's films.

On the flip side, you also note that basically only one r two our of four movies need to hit big to recoup. This is actually how most indie film financing works. You make five movies with $1.5 million and hope one of them does well enough to recoup your money.

They're also planning for the inevitable loss of Chris Eeans and Downey Jr. (And on the Fox/X-Men side, Jackman.) Avengers 2 will be the peak. Then while it will survive, the golden age will be over.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 29, 2014, 11:50:21 PM
This guy beat me to it.

http://www.blastr.com/2014-10-29/my-break-letter-super-hero-movies (http://www.blastr.com/2014-10-29/my-break-letter-super-hero-movies)

Quote
My break-up letter to super hero movies

Super hero movies, we need to talk.  Frankly, I just dont know that Im as ready for all this as I once thought. Things just feel like they are moving way too fast.

Look, like everyone else on Twitter yesterday, I was watching as Marvel rolled out release date after release date through 2019.  Black Panther! Captain Marvel! Inhumans! Doctor Strange (with maybe Benedict Cumberbatch)! More Cap, Thor, Guardians and Avengers (in two installments)! The announcements were flashy and exciting. There seemed to be interesting decisions to push further into the ranks of lesser known characters (serious kudos on Inhumans, Marvel) and deliver more on diversity.

So, why am I feeling so hollow about the whole Phase Three? Or about all of this? The excitement seems short-lived.

Though an obvious choice, I was somewhat intrigued by the likelihood Benedict Cumberbatch would be Doctor Strange. But even as Tumblr remained orgiastic over the not-yet-news of SherlocKhan as Sorcerer Supreme, I became numb, worried the spell your genre has cast on me is breaking.

Which is why I wanted to talk to you, super hero movies.

I wonder if youre taking me for granted. As a lifelong nerd who has managed to carve a career out of said nerdery, Im experiencing this creeping dread that I may be worn out on you.

This is an especially scary thought -- though appropriate for Halloween week because shared cinematic universes based on comics has been this fanboys dream for years. You know that, super hero genre.

Now, youre offering me, minimum, six more years of it and I am not thrilled. Maybe we should take it down a notch?

Before you suggest it, we dont need to see someone about this. It isnt the super movie fatigue that Robert Downey Jr. touched on earlier this month (before it was then revealed hed be back anyhow for a Civil War story in Captain America 3). Super Hero Movie Fatigue (SHMF) is an entirely separate condition which everyone should consult their doctor about assuming that doctor is not Doom, Mindbender, Claw, Evil or No.

This also isnt just commitment phobia. Or maybe it is. Maybe its not you, but me. But I think its you. Seriously, youre starting to seem needy and just too much in my space and I worry that I might begin to resent you.

Wait, I take that back. That was cruel; I apologize. Im simply reluctant to continue this based on some warning signals in our relationship.

My commitment to you started out slow. Remember, back in 2008 with Iron Man? It was a really great movie date and our fun continued with The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk. A little time passed; we saw a few more (Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger) and things were proceeding at a nice clip.

This relationship hit a high note in 2012 with The Avengers. We were drunk and in love then. It was one of those experiences where everything felt right. Sure, there were eventually missteps, both big (Green Lantern) and small (Iron Man 2, Thor 2, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel).

As relationships go, a few years in, there was experimentation between us (Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy), but those yielded some of the best highlights of this journey even if the risk, the raw danger of seeing The Joker make a pencil disappear, was missing.

Then, a couple weeks ago, you dropped that bombshell:

I was supposed to make plans with you through 2020 for at least 10 Warner Brothers/DC Comics projects. We only knew about six Marvel Studio films at the time when DC announced -- in far less rockstar fashion -- a lineup including Batman V Superman, Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, Justice League parts one and two...I'll stop listing things because it seems petty, but this is in addition to 20th Century Foxs expanding X-Men universe and Fantastic Four reboot, and Sonys Spider-verse franchise. Not to mention, there is the ever-growing league of TV heroes fighting crime on smaller (streaming) screens.

I will be spending so much time with you, I may as well clear out space in my closet for capes and spandex (well, more space).

Granted, the Marvel Cinematic Universe side of you has been courting me for six years, but DC is asking to move in with me before weve even spent a sequel together. And thats after I wasnt all that wooed by Man of Steel. Youre right, first dates can be really awkward and Im willing to give it another shot.

No, no, I dont hate Ben Affleck; Ill wait and see what he can do.

Still, you dont just throw a Cyborg movie out there with a 2020 release date and no warning.

Aquaman I can handle, but a six-year advance on a standalone movie for a character that has, at best, been an enjoyable supporting Justice League member? At least thats six years with which to make Vic Stone a far more interesting figure.

You know who is interesting? Martian Manhunter. Just saying.

Plus, enough time has not passed to make me forget the last Green Lantern. And two Flashes, one for movies and another for television? You have to build a verse before you can build a multiverse.

As for Marvel, The Avengers 2: Age of Ultron trailer definitely caught my attention. But instead of letting me soak that up for a bit, I already know who is sticking around long enough for Cap 3. And if Andy Serkis is indeed Ulysses Klaw and well see Wakanda play a part in the movie why let that panther out of the bag so early?

Where is the romance? The flirtation?

Part of the giddy joy with you during Iron Man (and Incredible Hulk, to some degree) was that the tissue connecting movies were surprises, not just teaser trailers for the next one.

Now, its like you dont even want to bother earning a place on my calendar. Our time together feels less based on quality and more like a series of release dates.

For that matter, where is the soul? You dress up better than you did in the 90s, and the colorful characters are certainly colorful but increasingly the character is on the thin side.

And some of the things Ive been telling you that are important to me, like stories that aren't from the Big Two, like a third Hellboy or even a Goon? Did you forget those late night talks about self-contained stories not connected to an existing franchise -- and about smaller, intimate films that feel more personal? Well, it is as if you dont even listen.

Oh, I am not totally over you. I dont know that I ever will be. But my tastes are changing, maybe even becoming more sophisticated.

I saw that Birdman everyone is buzzing about, and it taught me what you could be: Smart, self-aware, relevant, dark...even artistic. And I know Big Hero 6 is younger, but Ive got my eye on it. It isnt demanding a lot of me other than to show up and be open for something new.

We used to have that, before you became obsessed with crossovers. I know, I know I did used to love the crossovers, but there can be too much of a good thing. Routine is not necessarily bad, and I think you're trying in your own way, but things feel...stale.

Maybe I'm just tired. Aren't you? Isn't the pressure to be a nonstop big event getting to you?

If we continue on this path, of announcing one movie tied to another and another, and there is no break, no room to breathe, might I begin to resent you and pull away? I think youre still sincerely excited to deliver citywide explosions every time we meet (which is a lot, to be fair). But thats the thing about explosions; things of substance do not normally fare well within them. Look at what you did to X-Men a few years back, and Fantastic Four, and Green Lantern.

And Spider-Man after caring so long about him, I cannot imagine wanting to return for another installment with him no matter how perfect the casting is again. I loved him, and I think you did too at first, but now he feels used up. Now the talk is about how long it will be before Sony leaves him and he's passed off like damaged goods. You hear what they say, right? I even wonder if the "Serpent Society" subtitle was an inside joke about "Sinister Six" -- like, "yeah, that's a great idea."

I know I probably sound nuts. 

I guess Im saying it takes a long time to re-build what is left in the wake of careless and wanton destruction.

This is not me telling you I hate you. Please dont take that away from this. But sometimes Id trade an explosion for some genuine sparks; a single flower goes a lot further than a whole bouquet.

I think I just need time to think, or maybe see movies that arent your genre. Could I have some space where I dont have to constantly hear about casting rumors or release dates?

Aw hell, who am I kidding? I cant let you go. Lets just go for it; Ill watch everything you have and keep this relationship going until theres a serious commercial flop and we have a really ugly break-up.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 30, 2014, 08:31:08 AM
You've posted a "this guy beat me to it" post multiple times in this thread! When you write it, I suggest you avoid trying to string random sentence-long thoughts together.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 04, 2014, 08:04:26 AM
Here's what I want to see as a sub-theme of the article: If all these superheroes share a universe (or two opposing corporate universes, I guess), then I'm not able to suspend my disbelief enough when they get solo movies. If they all band together to fight the apocalypse on cue, then were are these fuckers when there's an apocalypse in a stand-alone movie? Even in the comics, right? Does Superman just stand around and let the most outlandish evil play out unchecked in Gotham? Does nobody react when Hydra nearly successfully takes over the planet? Where's SHIELD when Tony Stark has an apocalyptic finale battle?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 04, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Preach it, brother!!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 04, 2014, 01:03:41 PM
I really don't have any idea exactly what Suicide Squad is. However, the film adaptation is banking on star power to get people to care.

http://www.blastr.com/2014-12-2/official-will-smith-tom-hardy-and-margot-robbie-suicide-squad-and-jared-letos-joker (http://www.blastr.com/2014-12-2/official-will-smith-tom-hardy-and-margot-robbie-suicide-squad-and-jared-letos-joker)

Quote
So, we already knew that there was a Suicide Squad movie coming out in 2016. That was exciting. This latest, however? WAY MORE EXCITING.

Suicide Squad has been cast. Here's the lineup, and it is a doozy!

Will Smith as Deadshot
Tom Hardy as Rick Flag
Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn
Jai Courtney as Boomerang
Cara Delevingne as Enchantress
Jared Leto as the Joker
Holy mind-blowing casting, Batman! There as some serious heavy hitters in there. And some lesser-known names, too.

So, to sum up. Aug. 6, 2016, David Ayer directs Suicide Squad, aka the movie about the bad guys doing good-guy stuff, but still evil. Because all those dudes are pretty evil.

And, to reiterate, Jared Leto is the Joker. That actually turned out to be true! And Harley Quinn will actually be in a live-action movie. FINALLY. Played by Margot Robbie, which ... shazam. Yes. Sounds good.

Also, Will Smith. But whatevs. Just one of the biggest Hollywood stars of all time. No big.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on December 04, 2014, 01:44:32 PM
Next weekend I'm starting a long term project where a model is dressing up as all the Batman villains and then I'll composite them as one long line up.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 04, 2014, 06:53:43 PM
Next weekend I'm starting a long term project where a model is dressing up as all the Batman villains and then I'll composite them as one long line up.

Nice!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 05, 2014, 10:10:38 AM
I'm very much looking forward to seeing the result of that.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 10, 2014, 05:45:49 AM
In other non-news...

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/al-pacino-confirms-marvel-meeting-050038313.html (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/s/al-pacino-confirms-marvel-meeting-050038313.html)

Quote
Al Pacino Confirms Marvel Meeting

Its beginning to sound a lot like Al Pacinos complimenting Marvel Studios for Guardians of the Galaxy this summer was the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Appearing on Josh Horowitzs Happy Sad Confused podcast, the actor said that he had had meetings with Marvel Studios Kevin Feige for a potential future collaboration. Ive met with the Marvel guy, he said. Its a marvel how things happen.

Asked if the Marvel guy was, indeed, Feige, Pacino said, Yeah, I would imagine that either theres something he feels is right for me, and if I feel " before being interrupted by a ringing phone, which he jokes is Feige calling to prevent him from continuing.

Earlier this year, Pacino had raised eyebrows when he singled out James Gunns Marvel movie for praise during an interview with Deadline Hollywood, saying, I recognized the ingenious stuff they were doing; the invention, the attractiveness of the way they were performing it. It has Shakespearean feeling to it at times.

Responding at the time to a question about the possibility of his appearing in a Marvel production, he said, Anythings possible, adding I did Dick Tracy and I got an Oscar nomination, so come on. I mean, what can I say?

If Pacino does sign up for Marvel duty, hell join Robert Redford, Ben Kingsley and Glenn Close as actors making surprising appearances among the superhero set.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2014, 07:01:08 AM
Actors sign on to movies that pay them untold millions and Yahoo News is surprised! Film at 11!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2014, 10:49:30 AM
Expanding on our endless conversation, RC (in this thread and the Spider-Man thread), about the downfall of the superhero genre, here's an interesting article on Doctor Who's current problems:

http://www.airlockalpha.com/node/10030/doctor-who-has-not-run-out-of-gas-but-the-engine-is-stalling.html

The conclusions, I think, are spot on -- and something I've complained about throughout NuWho's era... It's the same problem as superhero movies. The world always has to end (or be in that sort of danger) and saved magically in the final reel, occasionally after hard to swallow mega-destruction has occurred.

Hell, we could lump our Star Trek discussion in here (and tie it all together with my thoughts that the superhero genre is more than caped crusaders and has actually infected every other genre and, therefore, will always survive).

Classic Who used to be about a wanderer, a fugitive, a powerful alien who stumbled into stories and was really just trying to get out of them. He was motivated, probably 60% of the time, by escape. He'd lost the TARDIS, or become separated from it, and all he wanted to do was get out of dodge.

The rest of the time, his curiosity would get the better of him...and he'd often regret it.

But the "lonely god" era that NuWho brought in changes all of that. The Doctor now becomes detective. Driven beyond reason to involve himself in problems and solve them/save everyone. When his regular enemies are encountered, he must fight them to save the very fabric of the universe itself...

In classic Who, let's take the Daleks... In all the Doctor's encounters, he only fought them on a large scale three times. The rest of the time the Daleks in question were basically a lost patrol, or some outpost, or some random encounter. Still scary, but the scary element was the monster, not the threat that the monster posed.

Anyway... Putting this in the superhero thread since it sort of dovetails with that whole conversation. Sorry.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 11, 2014, 11:31:46 AM
That's okay because I think your point about superhero movies at large infecting the rest of fantasy storytelling is a valid one.

What you're saying about Doctor Who fits perfectly with that thesis. Not everybody needs to be a reluctant hero, but its seems the crux of classic Who's character is, "Hey, I've got this time travel ship that I'm probably not supposed to have, but man, could I explore the shit out of time and space with it. However, I better lay low and try not to get noticed by the time travel cops while exploring." When he saves shit it seems to be mostly born out of self-preservation.

But maybe that's not even the point. The problem as I see it is that everything needs to be bigger, badder, and faster which is why in these modern stories the world, universe, and/or future of human existence is always at stake. Movie producers think (or more correctly, fear) an audience won't show up for a story on a smaller canvas. It makes me sad to think that might be true, but they haven't tried anything else so who knows?

I've always looked on TV as the medium that could save fantasy because of both it's technical limitations due to resources (it's hard to stage a big end of the world scenario), and perhaps more importantly the opportunity it's ability to spread story out. (It's easier to justify a slower paced character story because look what we'll save on sets and effects!)

In the old days of the X-Men comic books, they'd have the big crossover events once very two years or so. Along the way though, you'd have the development of the characters in their smaller adventures that moved the story forward and the big villain/device/world ending ka-blooie came out of a natural progression of events and character choices. Later on, the crossover events started happening with more frequency, and the arcs felt more forced. But there's a solid five to ten year run in the mid-80s that's just one long story. (Written by he way, by one author, Chris Claremont.)

TV has the ability for those long form arcs where movies (even trilogies) have to deliver the bang for the buck. It's why when the third act cranks up in superhero films and all of a sudden there's world-ending chaos we're like, "Huh?"

I also agree that NuTrek suffers from the same problems as NuWho and the superhero movies, problems that could be fixed in a longer form, less expensive medium where the ability to make another movie isn't dependent on half the world's population showing up opening weekend.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 11, 2014, 11:50:06 AM
So...bring Trek back to TV!

For NuWho, I agree that with the article -- the show is in enamored with itself. That's the real problem. It's one of the things Chris Ecclestone hinted at when he abruptly quit...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 11, 2014, 12:12:02 PM
Here's a really great piece about the money side of big budget moviemaking and the "sure thing" mentality.

http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia (http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on December 22, 2014, 12:58:26 PM
Okay...this is kind of cool

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 23, 2014, 03:50:56 PM
From an editing standpoint, that's really, really impressive.

And I'm sure we'll see this in about 20 years.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 06, 2015, 11:52:04 PM
Marvel's first flop. Remember I said it.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 07, 2015, 07:46:43 AM
As discussed earlier in this thread -- the brilliance of the Marvel scheme is that they've allowed for flops. It doesn't matter if Ant-Man flops. They're openly gambling with it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 07, 2015, 07:48:31 PM
You said that , and at this point I think I agree. It doesn't change the fact that Ant-Man looks terrible.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 13, 2015, 11:49:22 PM
New trailer for Avengers: Age of Ultron. I feel like this gives me nothing new. Sure there's footage we haven't seen before but from a story perspective, but essentially I've been given no new information. Why does this trailer exist?

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 14, 2015, 10:51:24 AM
It exists so every single geek blog can cream all over my Feedly with thousands of words analyzing the dozens of easter eggs in the trailer that, apparently, are only noticed by people who read the comic books.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 14, 2015, 01:20:54 PM
Or to get people to tune into Peggy Carter.

Also, it's not as good as the first trailer.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 24, 2015, 06:30:40 PM
Birdman is the future of this genre. What a wonderful movie... And so fucking meta, I love it. Michael Keaton is basically playing himself, haunted by his role as "Birdman" in a blockbuster early 1990's superhero film (LOL). Birdman's voice, forever tormenting him in his head, is Keaton doing his Batman voice. Terrific...

All I could think of was Lunar Park -- the fictional Brett Easton Ellis autobiography where he's haunted by by the fame of American Psycho decades later (and the spirit of Patrick Bateman/his father).

Loved this movie... 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 25, 2015, 09:55:02 PM
Is the "all in one shot" aesthetic annoying or awesome?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2015, 03:34:11 AM
Is the "all in one shot" aesthetic annoying or awesome?

I didn't even notice it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 26, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
Excellent. I wanted to see it really bad until somebody slipped about all the all-in-one shot gimmick, and that somehow soured me on it. I'm jazzed about it again though after all the awards buzz... not because it's nominated, but because none often awards have anything to with the gimmick.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 26, 2015, 11:33:14 AM
Excellent. I wanted to see it really bad until somebody slipped about all the all-in-one shot gimmick, and that somehow soured me on it. I'm jazzed about it again though after all the awards buzz... not because it's nominated, but because none often awards have anything to with the gimmick.

For the record, a third of the movie is Keaton in his dressing room reacting to a voiceover. So, you know, give me Michael Keaton and a camera and I can do a "all in one shot gimmick" as well!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 27, 2015, 02:26:55 PM
Fantastic Four reboot/reimagining/re-whatever trailer.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 28, 2015, 09:34:20 PM
 snorebot!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 04, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
New Avengers: Age of Ultron trailer. They're doing some fucked up thing with the framing where the actual "letter boxing" reacts with what's going on on screen. If this is the future of action movies, I'm going to start watching more period dramas.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 04, 2015, 04:46:01 PM
They're doing some fucked up thing with the framing where the actual "letter boxing" reacts with what's going on on screen. If this is the future of action movies, I'm going to start watching more period dramas.


They're testing it out to see if we'd object to them running ads along the top and bottom of every movie.

Also -- is that Melisandre I saw?!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 04, 2015, 04:48:51 PM

Also -- is that Melisandre I saw?!



No, it's Elizabeth Olsen. I'm easily confused because I've never seen the actress who plays Melisandre wearing clothes. Ha, ha. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 05, 2015, 11:16:58 AM
I think I've reached Avengers 2 saturation. Make no mistake, I think it's going to be good, but there's a news item about it every single day and has been for a month now.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 05, 2015, 11:29:30 AM
I think I've reached Avengers 2 saturation. Make no mistake, I think it's going to be good, but there's a news item about it every single day and has been for a month now.

I reached Avengers 2 saturation shortly before Avengers 1.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 13, 2015, 11:48:57 AM
I'm still standing by my "Marvel's first flop" assessment of Ant-Man, but there's a bit at the end of this trailer that made me howl with laughter.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 13, 2015, 11:51:44 AM
I'm still standing by my "Marvel's first flop" assessment of Ant-Man, but there's a bit at the end of this trailer that made me howl with laughter.


What determines a flop for you?  Box office revenue?  If that's the case I think Marvel is becoming like Apple.  People will buy the product no matter what.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 13, 2015, 12:00:57 PM
Sirharles demands a grading rubric. Fine.

I predict it will be both a critical and financial failure

Critical means a less than 59% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, their own "certified rotten" rating.

Financial is a little tougher. I can't dig up the budget and I'm pretty sure with Edgar Wright's eight year's of development that's intentional on the part of Marvel and Disney. The below article in Forbes (from last August) says "less that $400 million worldwide would be a disappointment."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/)

I'll get a number before the movie is released. (July 15.) It'll be an overall number not an opening weekend deal.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 13, 2015, 12:08:03 PM
Does that "less than $400 million" also factor in the billion dollars they'll make from merchandising?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 13, 2015, 12:11:01 PM
Does that "less than $400 million" also factor in the billion dollars they'll make from merchandising?

That's Forbes number not mine, but I think I'm only looking at box office. I'd like to discern a budget before I agree on the $400 million number, but if it ends up I can't find one, I'll stick with that.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 19, 2015, 04:24:26 PM
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 24, 2015, 01:20:25 PM
Okay, this is kind of cute.  I didn't know how to embed just the video, so here's the full link.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Watch-Tiny-Thor-Interview-Robert-Downey-Jr-Cutest-Avengers-2-Clip-Ever-71049.html
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 25, 2015, 11:28:12 AM
The internet lost it's collective mind over the new Joker last night. Somewhere it seem Batman fans are throwing themselves off bridges at how terrible this is. If the Star Wars trailer is why the internet is invented this is why it should be shut down.

I think I'm the only person who kind of likes it.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDZbuEiUUAAtGQb.jpg)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 25, 2015, 11:20:10 PM
It's terrible.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2015, 01:25:14 PM
Wonder Woman is a Caps fan!!

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2015, 01:30:01 PM
Boom! You should have put this in the WW thread.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2015, 01:42:11 PM
Did you actually meet her, Reggie?

She also frequents our favorite Chinese restaurant in Bethesda at least twice a week, but we've been afraid to approach.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 05, 2015, 04:54:02 PM
I thought this was the WW thread...also where we talked about DC sports!

I did not meet her, it's a selfie that she posted. She was at Game 3 last night!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 11, 2015, 01:39:44 PM
This made me LOL.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 13, 2015, 08:49:22 AM
This isn't the superhero piece I would write, but god help me, it's the piece I would ultimately want to write.

I still haven't seen Age of Ultron, BTW. mostly due to time constraints. My brain tells me to (literally) put my money where my mouth is and refuse to pay for this, but Missus RC loves the Marvel movies... and like an addict I feel compelled to go see it.

https://www.wired.com/2015/05/marvel-killing-the-popcorn-movie/ (https://www.wired.com/2015/05/marvel-killing-the-popcorn-movie/)

Quote
AGE OF ULTRON IS PROOF MARVEL IS KILLING THE POPCORN MOVIE

Some time in the middle of Avengers: Age of Ultron, I came to terms with the fact that there will never be any more decent Marvel movies. In fact, there cant be.

Some of what I have to say is going to read as genre snobbery. So let me get this out of the way: I fucking love stupid popcorn movies. They can be about superheroes, dinosaurs, aliens, a bus that cant slow down; Im not picky. Movies are unparalleled in their ability to portray scale. If you have a giant screen, huge speakers capable of blasting everyone with earth-shattering noise, and hundreds of people gathered together in the dark, you can  and should  occasionally use those tools to provide pure, overwhelming spectacle.

So I dont object to Marvel, or to Avengers: Age of Ultron, just because its not an artful, subtle little movie. Thats part of it: A pop-culture intake comprised of nothing but big spectacle is just as bad for you as an all-cheeseburger diet. But if I wanted to see something artful, I could have gone to watch Ex Machina or whatever that new David Cronenberg movie is supposed to be. I didnt. I went to see Avengers on opening weekend. What I really dislike about Marvel is what theyre doing to stupid popcorn movies. This is a genre I care about, and theyre fucking it up.

A stupid popcorn movie by Joss Whedon has every reason to be a great experience. Im no super-fan, and hes done things that are pretty dreadful (if youve never seen In Your Eyes look, do yourself a favor, dont see In Your Eyes) but silly fun is his wheelhouse. Cabin in the Woods is hardly an intellectual little art-house film, yet when I saw it in theaters, my friend Kelly and I left the theater gasping and whooping with exhilaration, as if wed just gotten off a roller coaster. For at least ten minutes after that movie ended, the only thing we could say to each other was OH MY GOD. It was pure, stupid adrenaline, and it was wonderful.

Moreover, Whedon has a remarkable gift for taking extremely silly subject matter just seriously enough to make you feel something. Hes not Christopher Nolan or Zach Snyder, thank God  no movie posters that look like Trent Reznor threw up in a clown car, no excruciating pseudo-realist interludes in which we have to sit there and contemplate the dark enormity of Batmans feeeeeeelings  but he can balance an adult awareness of how silly comics are with real, emotionally resonant character work.

Age of Ultron is quite possibly the worst movie of Whedons career, and I cant get over it. Ive been obsessed with this movie for a week now, poking through it in my mind, trying to figure out what went wrong. I mean, its just plain hacky, in ways I frankly have trouble comprehending: Its riddled with cliches, shortcuts, set-ups without pay-offs, elements that seem, not like bad choices, but like actual mistakes.

The worst thing about it, I think, is that its not even honestly bad. Bad can be entertaining: Thor, for instance, is a very bad movie, yet Thors badness gave me the gift of laughter, thanks to a little wonder known as Odinsleeping. (Wait. The guys Dad just keeled over and went into a coma. Now theyre saying he does thisoften? He goes into a coma so often that comas are named after him.) Age of Ultron is just pervasively mediocre, not even interesting enough to be awful.

The reason for this, I would submit, is that Marvel has a palpable  and growing  contempt for its audience. Lots of people have been parsing Marvels politics in recent weeks, but Id submit this is beside the point in some ways: Marvel has been racist and Marvel has been sexist, but Marvels most profound failing is that it just plain doesnt care about people. Age of Ultron is the clearest demonstration yet of the problem. And you should care about this problem. Because its getting worse, and because you cant get away.

I know Joss Whedon can make a good popcorn movie. In fact, I know he can make a good popcorn movie about the Avengers: That first movie is a stone-cold classic. Therefore, Im disinclined to blame the badness of Age of Ultron on Joss Whedon. If youve watched someone throw a ball fifty times, and then, the fifty-first time, he just drops the ball at his feet and stands there motionless, you dont assume that he cant throw. You assume something is wrong.

When you look at the formal requirements imposed on Whedons script by Marvel, its clear that AoU actually couldnt have been goodthat Marvel, not knowing or caring how good movies work, mandated that Whedon make a bad one. To name just a few of those requirements:

Too many characters. This is standard Marvel strategy  they go by the premise that all it takes to gratify their base is dropping a name thats familiar from the comics, and so far, its paid off  but the never-ending quest to improve each movie by adding a sidekick, and another sidekick, and three villains this time, plus that other superhero you might know about if you read every Avengers comic from 1971 through 1973, has resulted in a movie with, by my count, fourteen central characters. The movie is only 141 minutes long; that might seem lengthy, but if you were to somehow divide it up so as to give each character an equal amount of uninterrupted focus, youd only have around 10 minutes for each character. In practice, you get less than 10, because

No matter what, Marvels structure mandates at least one fight scene every 20 minutes, and most of the time, those characters arent having in-depth discussions while they fight. This has to happen even though we almost always know how those fights will end, because

The movie also has a pre-determined narrative, which we know because its the same narrative every Marvel movie adheres to, which is, roughly: Theres a thing and a bad guy and the bad guy steals the thing, so they fight. They lose one fight and then they lose another fight and then they win the last fight. The end.

We also need to end the movie in such a way that all of the characters with ongoing franchises can go back to those franchises, alive and more or less unchanged.

So, once Marvels formula has deprived the movie of (a) time for the characters, (b) the potential for the story to unfold in a surprising way, and (c) meaningful consequences, we then get each characters maximum 10 minutes of focus (which is now more like five or six) cut down even further, with ads for other Marvel products. In Age of Ultron, we lose several minutes of valuable time that could be spent developing our characters to visit Wakanda and establish Andy Serkis as a villain, not because hes important to the plothell totally disappear after this one scenebut because theres going to be a Black Panther movie. Thor has to be taken out of the action for a while so that his scientist friend can help him hallucinate the premise of Infinity War. Captain America gets a flashback that doesnt relate to the plot, but does remind you that he used to date Peggy Carter, who you can catch every week on ABCs own Agent Carter! Etcetera.

With all these requirements eating up the screen time, theres practically no room left to make a movie. Theres definitely no room to make a Joss Whedon movie, because Joss Whedon movies are about two things: Character development and dialogue. I dont have a particular stake in whether Joss Whedon is a great feminist or not. (Again: please dont watch In Your Eyes.) What I know he can do is people talking.

The reason the first Avengers was so much fun, despite its generic, weirdly evil climax in which the heroes prove their valor by slaughtering waves of faceless Stormtroopers with no names or histories or families or feelings, was that it turned a mega-budget cross-over action movie into a hang-out comedy. The most important scenes in that movie are the ones in which the characters just sit around together, bickering, trading opinions, asking each other questions and scoring one-liners at each others expense. The Stormtroopers were obligatory action junk. The conversationswill these people like each other, and if so, why?were the story.

That cant happen here. Because there is no time to develop characters organically, because the characters all have to be rammed through the same thing-bad guy-lose-lose-win beats in tandem, because this has to be done in a way that allows for the maximum number of fight scenes (look for and then the good guy and the other good guy disagree so they fight to be deployed, too; its what Marvel does every time a plot gets too talky), and because even this has to be interrupted with ads, theres simply no time for the movie to accomplish its goals with something as old-fashioned as a story.

Character arcs are crowded out, or so compressed that theyre barely legible. For example: One arc thats pitched, and then never executed, is that Tony Stark is coming face to face with his own narcissism. Ultron is his karma, his shadow self, his punishment for believing hes smart enough to save the world single-handedly. Thats interesting. Thats a solid character-based story. It does what good stories do: Zones in on a characters biggest flaw, and dramatizes it, so that he can come to a profound realization about himself and his place in the world, and triumph by using what hes learned.

Yet if thats what the movie is doing, why is the problem I fucked up by building an overly powerful, self-aware robot resolved with I built an overly powerful, self-aware robot? Symmetry is one thing: This is a story where the character does not meaningfully change. He doesnt learn. He doesnt grow. He just remembers to push the NOT a genocidal monster button on his robot-designing machine.

I mean, tell me: What was Captain Americas arc in Age of Ultron? Why does he need to be there, whats his personal investment in the problem, and what does he learn about himself by solving that problem? Tell me how Thor grew or changed over the course of this movie. Tell me why Nick Fury or Maria Hill were essential to the story. When Maria Hill tells the story of Ultron to her grandchildren, how will she say these events changed her life? How will she say shefelt about her friend Tonys choice to build a genocide-bot? Did she feel anything? Or was she just, you know, there?

Character arcs arent negotiable. Theyre not highbrow or pretentious or complicated. Character arcs are essential to the success of any story in any genre. To understand why all this matters, look at the Hulks arc in the first Avengers, which many people consider to be the most successful part of that movie. I would argue that its actually the most successful element of any Marvel movie to date. In the first Avengers, the Hulk (1) hates being the Hulk, (2) encounters a situation that can only be resolved by becoming the Hulk, and (3) embraces being the Hulk. Simple, right? Stupid simple. Yet it landed like a ton of bricks in the theater, because thats what stories are. Stories use cause and effect to dramatize a process whereby a person is forced to change.

Hulks arc, simple as it might be, was a cause-and-effect process that dramatized a universal human problem:You might not always like yourself, so you can identify with someone who doesnt like himself, and therefore, you will experience catharsis when a story gives the both of you permission to love yourselves. When he goes on that final rampage and slams Loki into the floor, thats not just a cartoon causing some corporate-mandated violence: Thats you, loving your body despite being the wrong size, or making feminist points in a conversation without worrying that someone will call you a buzzkill, or being proud of your art despite the fact that its been rejected, or deciding that you can leave your abusive relationship because you are worthy of respect. Hulk smash inner self-loathing, and thereby becomes the most powerful force in the universe.

So finally, our hero, a suicidal man who has spent the whole movie telling himself hes worthless and intrinsically inferior to other people, encounters Loki, an arrogant, sneering, hyper-critical, hyper-verbal charactera character who mysteriously chooses that very moment to begin a monologue about how worthless the Avengers are, and how inferior they are to himand suddenly, Loki hits the floor. Hard. And every time Loki hits that floor, all over the world, the theater erupts with screams of joy. There is a release that goes beyond the rational or the personal, here: The noise of hundreds of strangers united for just one second in the realization that deep down, despite all the pain, despite all the shit they put themselves through, despite the endless cruelty that inner critical voice subjects them to, they dont have to let it keep talking. Deep down, they are not ugly or stupid or unlovable or bad or worthless. Deep down, they are strong. They are heroes.

Speaking of heroes, heres Joseph Campbell: Atonement consists in no more than the abandonment of that self-generated double monsterthe dragon thought to be God (superego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id). When the superegos judgment is no longer powerful enough to annihilate us (puny God) and the id is accepted by the ego without fear (Im always angry), our wholeness is restored, our place in the cosmos is found, and we are free. It hits us so hard, all we can do is scream.

Dont let anyone tell you that silly popcorn movies dont matter, or that they cant be smart or beautiful or profound. A silly popcorn movie can change your life. All it has to do is create characters with identifiable, human problems, and let them work out those problems over the course of the story. Stories are about change, and about people, because ultimately, they are about you, the person sitting in a dark theater, working out your baggage by projecting it onto CGI cartoons of overly handsome actors.

Heres another way to put it: The extent to which a movie invests in character-based, character-driven storytelling is the extent to which it recognizes, appreciates, and honors the humanity of its audience.

So when Age of Ultron doesnt investwhen it goes by the assumption that the formula, and the formula alone, is enough to appease the popcorn-eatersit says something pretty bad.

And now we can talk about the sexism.

My ultimate take on Joss Whedons feminist screenwriting is that its a byproduct of good writing, period. The writer he most reminds me of is Charlie Kaufman: Theyre both deeply personal writers, who clearly have a wide variety of sexual hang-ups, and to the extent that these hang-ups center on women, they probably do affect their perceptions of real-life women in many ways. Plenty of women have noted that Whedons fixation on emotionally vulnerable, eighty-pound teenage girls is disturbing and off-putting, and I would tend to agree. Charlie Kaufmans apparent belief that a sexually awakened, self-realized woman wouldnt need him, and would therefore abandon him to a hostile universe, is also kind of weird and upsetting, or (at least) a good reason not to ask Charlie Kaufman out on a date. However, because Kaufman and Whedon are good writers, who understand why stories work, when they sit down to write a story, they feel the obligation to make all of the characters identifiably human, including the women. This is, sadly, so rare that their female characters are often more well-rounded and interesting than almost any other characters out there, including a lot of characters written by people with better sexual politics.

But when the character-based screenwriting breaks down, so does the feminism. Black Widow is just as ill-served as every other character in that story, but because shes a woman, its politically offensive as well as aesthetically offensive.

Lets take a moment to recognize that, given the paucity of time for character work in Age of Ultron, nearly all of the character development is done with shortcuts. Im talking real hack stuff, like each character has a hallucination establishing his inner conflicts and backstory, or we know this character is old-fashioned because he doesnt like swearing (brought up so many times that I get the sense it was meant to pay off, in the same way the constant questions about Banners secret paid off last timewas there a climactic F-bomb from Steve that got cut for the rating?) or even the circle of life is established by naming a baby after the dead guy. (This, aside from giving me flashbacks to the infamously terrible ending of Harry Potter, is especially egregious because the babys mother never met the dead guyand, if she ever knew that the dead guy existed, which is highly debatable, she knew him as that guy whos trying to murder my husband. She names her baby after someone she never met, on the premise that her husband once slightly got along with him for about two hours. Stirring!) Jokes get underlined by characters explaining them and noting that they were humorous. Some characters just walk into a room, announce their backstory, and leave. (How are you, Sam? I AM HAPPY PURSUING OUR MISSING PERSONS CASE IN DC.) Nothing ever really gets written, or earned, just vaguely outlined. Its a whole script made of placeholders.

But when youre doing all your character work with shortcuts, and you have to write a shortcut for your female character, what do you come up with?Shes that one dudes girlfriend, obviously, is a time-honored shortcut, used or teased by every Marvel writer whos put Black Widow in a movieas a woman, shes an Other, and a sexual object, and therefore must be deployed as a potential or actual sexual reward for a male viewpoint character, rather than being a viewpoint herself. But thats the same problem you find with every woman in every Marvel movie (Gamora, Agent Carter, Pepper, whatever Natalie Portmans name is supposed to be) except for Maria Hill, who is clearly saving herself for her one true love, Exposition. If you want to deepen your female character past being a sexual object, in a movie that has no time or patience for anything resembling depth, what conflicts do you give her? Well, women have babies, right? Women want babies. Okay. She cant have babies. Shes sad because she cant have babies. There you go! Depth established!

I mean, its disgusting. Defining your female characters motivation solely around the Betty Crocker axis of wants boyfriend and wants babies is 100% disgusting. But if you look around,all of this is disgusting, because all of the characters are exactly this vapid, because Whedon cant get more than five or ten minutes to establish or complicate their motivations, because Marvel is mandating that he not waste screen time on things like the characters motivations when he could be shooting ads for their other movies, because Marvel doesnt care about men, women, or anything except getting you to show up in a few years for the next installment of Avengers.

I never thought Id be the kind of person who believed that a crime against feminism was less important than a crime against storytelling, but in this case, theyre so interconnected that its hard to tell the difference. When you cant write, you cant write women.

Theres an alternate interpretation for that Hulk-slams-Loki scene in the first Avengers. I try, very hard, to believe its not the correct one. Because its an evil message, which cynics will tell you is at the heart of every comic book movie. It is: Punching is better than talking.

It happens in a lot of big, commercial movies, right? Theres a guy who talks a lot, thinks, plans, tries to get somewhere by thinking. In the end, that guy is evil, because thinking is bad. He has to be subdued by the heroic brute: The guy whos just normal, whos more like you, more pure, because instead of thinking and analyzing, he just feels and does. Loki thinks he can get somewhere with a monologue, but surprise! Giant biceps trump clever monologue, every time.

So theres your other interpretation, the thing I think is at the core of Marvels contempt for people: Punching is better than talking. Doing is better than thinking. Instinct is better than intellect; big is better than smart. We dont need to understand the Stormtroopers; we dont need to talk to them. Thats thinking, which is boring. We just need to kill: They dont have names or histories or families or feelings, and by slaughtering them, thousands of them, we prove that we can do.

The audience doesnt need dialogue or character or psychological growth. The audience needs explosions, because theyre animals, and all they want is blood on the floor. The audience doesnt need to be surprised or challenged with a new story. The audience wants the old story, because theyve bought it ten times already, and at the end of the day, we just convinced these fucking yahoos to wait three years and pay us twenty dollars so we could tell them to come back in four years and pay us $40. Now you think they want personal growth? Give me a break. Theyre barely even people.

I mean: You pump this message out into the atmosphere, and then youre surprised when the biggest fans are ready to send death threats to a director to save the Almighty Brand? Punching is better than talking, rage is better than understanding, conflicts are resolved by annihilating the other person without feeling bad about it: You just told them that. Over and over, and made them pay for the privilege of hearing it. You cant possibly be surprised that they believe its true.

It kills me that I am so bothered by this. I understand that these movies are power fantasies for nine-year-olds: At the end of the day, accepting that theyre stupid is probably smarter than wishing for them to be smart. But this is the epicenter of pop culture. Everyone is expected to share power fantasies with nine-year-olds now, and worse than that, to take them seriously; to make them into a lifestyle. The Marvel virus has already overtaken movies; now, its infiltrated a new host, TV, and is hollowing it out from within.

The aim is not one or two bad movies a year, its a total lifestyle regimen of bad pop culture: In order to keep up with Avengers, you need to keep up with Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, and in order to keep up with those, you should probably be watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which will really help you keep up with Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel, and Guardians of the Galaxy, and in order to make sure youre on top of these nine essential movie franchises and able to make sense of their plots, youll need to keep a constant stream of Marvel product in your life, so make sure to tune in for Agent Carter, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and, of course, the forthcoming Hulu triumphs, Ant-Mans One Weird Friend Gary and Guy Running Away From Explosion In Panel 17.

The problems with Marvels storytelling will be the problems of narrative storytelling for the foreseeable future. Once this is over, well be dealing with a generation raised on this stuff, who believes its how storytelling ought to work: Harry Potter came out when I was in high school. Im in my thirties, and I still havent seen the end of the serialized YA fantasy onslaught. Something this big sticks around.

I love stupid popcorn movies. I do. I believe they can be emotionally resonant, mythic, that they can do the same thing all stories are meant to dospeak to the soul; challenge us to be more and better than we were  and can use big, fantastic elements to tell big, human truths. I also believe that Marvel has no investment in doing so; that, even if they manage to grab a director who is capable of doing those things, the prioritization of the brand and the formula over individual creators will ultimately sabotage the attempt.

Avengers: Age of Ultron wasnt just bad. It was, to me, proof that Marvel movies, even at their best, can only be bad. And that they are going to get worse. The human mission has been lost: these are faceless Stormtrooper movies, unleashed in waves upon the presumed-to-be-faceless Stormtrooper audience. Stories are an affirmation of our human value; they teach us what life means, make and keep us human. Marvel, by removing the human from its storytelling, may be bringing about the end of story altogether. Fuck Ultron: Marvel Comics has built the army of machines that might really end the world.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 13, 2015, 09:50:04 AM

I still haven't seen Age of Ultron, BTW. mostly due to time constraints. My brain tells me to (literally) put my money where my mouth is and refuse to pay for this, but Missus Rc loves the Marvel movies... and like an addict I feel compelled to go see it.


It left my radar the moment it leaked -- two weeks before the release date. Which traditionally means it's a horrible movie. I didn't even watch the download.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 08, 2015, 11:52:44 AM
Mrs. McGraw and I watched Age of Ultron yesterday. We enjoyed (as usual). It was a good action flick with some tender moments. And they wrapped up the end pretty nicely with which characters are no longer Avengers and which new characters will be. If you like comic book movies, I think you'll like this one.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 14, 2015, 12:52:44 PM
Procrastinating other writing today, so my thoughts on Age of Ultron, which I actually saw a couple weeks ago.

Everything that was great about the first movie is totally missing here. I won't go as far as to say it sucks, but it's a big hot mess with too many characters and too much going on. Two weeks later, I'm having trouble remembering specific points, much less things I liked. It's basically a two hour trailer for future Marvel movies. Any interesting character stuff doesn't pay off. It has no room to pay off. They try to create a romance between ScarJo's Black Widow and Ruffalo's Hulk/Banner and it feels forced and awkward. You get the impression that RDJ is phoning it in at this point, and why wouldn't he be?

As a Whedon fan, you can feel Whedon's instincts totally at odds with the Marvel Mandate of everything that has to happen. He's hinted as much in interviews. And also claims that the DVD version may be four hours long due to all the stuff they shot. There are glimmers of the great character work he's known for, but it's stomped on by the next Marvel character cameo or stupid scene setting up Thor 4: Pants Monster vs. Spider-Man.

I guess if people keep rewarding Marvel with their money, these movies will keep getting made, and frankly I don't see a large group of people skipping out on future Marvel movies. However, I don't think they don't respect their audience. They're just franchise building.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on June 15, 2015, 03:47:54 PM
I see a large group of people skipping out on Antman. I don't know what demographic they're targeting, but I'm struck every time I see the trailer with an almost visceral "do not want" feeling.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 15, 2015, 04:04:14 PM
I absolutely "do not want."
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 15, 2015, 04:29:20 PM
All I see in the Ant-Man trailer is hints of the great Edgar Wright movie that might have been.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 13, 2015, 05:30:35 PM
Knowing nothing about the comic book, I'm sort of interested in this.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2015, 07:17:42 AM
We're getting deep if it's off your comic book radar, eh?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2015, 10:30:19 AM
I was never much of a DC comics guy except for the big ones; Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Justice League, etc. But yes, deep cuts is the future of the comic book movie. This is how WB/DC is trying to replicate what Marvel did with Guardians of the Galaxy which is take an obscure deep cut and make it wildly popular.

The draw here of course is Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn and Leto's Joker. (I *think* I went on the record as saying the tattoos didn't bother me.)  Harley Quinn was created for the 90s Batman cartoon and became insanely popular as a "sidekick" to the Joker. It's a real Richard Burton/Liz Taylor/Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? type of relationship. 

And Robbie is ridiculously attractive.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2015, 11:04:19 AM
Fuck that! Mia Sara played Harley Quinn in Birds of Prey and if it ain't Mia Sara it's shit!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2015, 11:10:44 AM
Birds of Prey

Thread is now about Dina Meyer.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/7e/18/1f7e18235a99bf17fc35d91964c78202.jpg)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 14, 2015, 11:25:02 AM
Birds of Prey marathon tonight!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 14, 2015, 01:26:07 PM
Most comic book fans are all up in arms about the new Fantastic Four. I just think it looks dull.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on July 20, 2015, 10:40:18 AM
Sirharles demands a grading rubric. Fine.

I predict it will be both a critical and financial failure

Critical means a less than 59% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, their own "certified rotten" rating.

Financial is a little tougher. I can't dig up the budget and I'm pretty sure with Edgar Wright's eight year's of development that's intentional on the part of Marvel and Disney. The below article in Forbes (from last August) says "less that $400 million worldwide would be a disappointment."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/)

I'll get a number before the movie is released. (July 15.) It'll be an overall number not an opening weekend deal.

While the lowest Marvel opening weekend it still pulled in $58 million on a $130 million budget.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 20, 2015, 11:15:33 AM
Sirharles demands a grading rubric. Fine.

I predict it will be both a critical and financial failure

Critical means a less than 59% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, their own "certified rotten" rating.

Financial is a little tougher. I can't dig up the budget and I'm pretty sure with Edgar Wright's eight year's of development that's intentional on the part of Marvel and Disney. The below article in Forbes (from last August) says "less that $400 million worldwide would be a disappointment."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2014/08/19/guardians-ant-man-and-why-marvel-should-not-fear-a-flop/)

I'll get a number before the movie is released. (July 15.) It'll be an overall number not an opening weekend deal.

While the lowest Marvel opening weekend it still pulled in $58 million on a $130 million budget.  http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

An acceptable loss that'll be recouped in Happy Meal dividends!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on July 20, 2015, 12:26:13 PM

An acceptable loss that'll be recouped in Happy Meal dividends!

I'm not calling it a loss...yet.  What they also don't tell you is the marketing budget.  RC, I think this is right...yes?  When they say a film cost XYZ to make they don't include the marketing budget, which could lead into the $30 million or more range.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 29, 2015, 04:49:44 PM
http://www.avclub.com/article/heres-how-many-more-superhero-movies-will-be-made--223041

Quote
If you are, say, 33 years old, youve seen the Joker go from Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger to, now, Jared Leto. Youve seen Spiderman recast from Tobey Maguire to Andrew Garfield to Tom Holland. Youve seen, like, 38 Batmen. And with the success of Ant-Man and the anticipation of Batman Vs. Superman, the seemingly bottomless well of comic book adaptations is far from satiating its continually growing audience. Where does it end?

Slate has developed a tool to answer exactly that. Simply enter in your age and your gender and watch as the calculator figures out how many more superhero adventures you can expect before you expire peacefully in your sleep surrounded by loved ones. As the site points out, more than 25 movies based on the characters of both Marvel and DC are expected to be released in the next five years, and a 33-year-old man can expect to see 280 more superhero films before he reaches his average life expectancy.

Slates calculator even breaks things down by individual franchises and how many actor changes you can anticipate, though the relatively small sample size of Avengers films makes the hypothesis of 30 more in the next 50 or so years seem a little high.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2015, 02:12:59 PM
Trailers for trailers are dumb, but this at least recognizes that.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on August 03, 2015, 06:31:48 PM
Somehow I saw Antman in the theater.

And...it wasn't as terrible as I thought. Wait for pirate.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 05, 2015, 12:28:19 AM
Deadpool trailer = Trying too hard.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 09, 2015, 11:46:44 AM
RC's talk about the demise of the superhero film had the correct date but the incorrect movie, eh? Ant-Man does well...the death knell gets struck by the Fantastic Four. Even the director is tweeting that he got screwed and implies he threw the film under the bus intentionally.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 09, 2015, 07:12:58 PM
The reviews are so, so bad, I actually want to see it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 10, 2015, 02:09:49 PM
The story behind what happened to Fantastic Four is turning out to be better than the movie itself.

It should be noted that director Trank "stepped down" from directing a Star Wars spinoff earlier this summer.

http://screenrant.com/fantastic-four-reboot-josh-trank-fox/ (http://screenrant.com/fantastic-four-reboot-josh-trank-fox/)

Quote
Fantastic Four': What We Know About What Went Wrong

Twentieth Century Foxs reboot of Fantastic Four isnt the best-reviewed superhero movie of 2015 and isnt going to be the highest-grossing superhero movie of 2015, but it looks like it might win the dubious accolade of being the most talked-about superhero movie of 2015.

Fantastic Four was controversial almost from its inception, but despite the comic book fan outcry over changes like Johnny Storms race and Doctor Dooms name, it appears that far more troubling things were going on behind the scenes. In the wake of Fantastic Fours release, it has become the worst-reviewed Marvel Comics-based movie of all time, with a dismal 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Trank responded to the early bad buzz with a since-deleted tweet that said, A year ago I had a fantastic version of this. And it wouldve recieved [sic] great reviews. Youll probably never see it. Thats reality though.

So, what exactly happened to Tranks fantastic version of Fantastic Four, and why will audiences never see it? Is there any truth to the troubling rumors that were floating around during the films production? Moreover, what of the new rumors that have begun to emerge in the wake of its release?

Weve rounded up the various accounts of what went wrong with Fantastic Four old and new in an effort to try and figure out exactly what spun this movie off the tracks.

JOSH TRANKS BEHAVIOR

Long before Fantastic Four was released, there were early signs of trouble when stories arose describing Tranks conduct during the movies production. A poster on a Louisiana-based board called TigerDroppings passed on a description of the directors erratic behavior from a friend who had worked on the movie.

A buddy of mine was on the crew. Trank showed up to set late or so high he couldnt speak almost everyday. Some days he didnt show up at all. He treated crew terribly. He trashed the house the production company rented for him. From what Im told he did a couple hundred grand worth of damage Trank did so much damage to the house that [Fox CEO] Jim Gianopulos came to Baton Rouge and personally apologized to the owners.

Another user said that they had heard similar stories from a friend about Tranks behavior on set, though they couldnt confirm the rumor about the production house. That same user said that they heard [Trank] was fired after wrapping and others are working on it [in] post production. At the time all this was unconfirmed rumor from anonymous sources, but following the movies release, the emerging narrative seems to indicate that these early claims were at least partially true.

A new report by EW includes accounts from several different sources close to the production, who were spoken to independently and offered versions of the story that match in some places, and conflict in others. According to EW, some sources described the combative behavior Trank demonstrated toward the crew, producers, studio and even the stars. They also said that Tranks off-set disputes and incidents, like the alleged damage to the production house, manifested on set as hostility and frustration.

If true, this stressful on-set atmosphere may have been a key factor in preventing the best possible version of the script from making it to the screen. The Telegraphs review notes, of the main cast, that no one looks like theyre having any fun, and it sounds like this may have been exactly the case. When cast and crew members enjoy the process of making a film and believe wholeheartedly in the project, that enthusiasm has a tendency to shine through in the end result.

STUDIO INTERFERENCE

The first half of the story doesnt make much sense by itself; it seems unlikely that Trank would just suddenly go off the deep end for no reason and sabotage his first big break. Now that Fantastic Four has hit theaters, critics and audiences alike have noticed that the movie feels disjointed, with many pointing out a distinct tonal shift in the third act.

According to the other rumors that have begun to emerge about the movies troubled production, Fantastic Four was the victim of some very poor decision-making and interference on Foxs behalf. The EW article goes on to reveal that some sources painted a very unfavorable picture of the studios actions.

Some who worked on the film say Trank was driven to the breaking point by the studio, which delayed casting and script approvals, slashed the budget by tens of millions from what was originally promised, and tried to force last-minute changes to the film just as principal photography was beginning, creating confusion and stress from the get-go that often boiled over among department heads trying to put together pieces of a movie that was still in flux.

Colliders latest Movie Talk podcast outlines a similar picture, with host John Campea relaying accounts from multiple sources close to production who said that Fox essentially agreed to make a certain version of Fantastic Four with Trank one that included three major action set pieces and forcibly changed those plans at the last minute.

Days before production began, Fox came in and made him pull three main action sequences out of the film. I was also told that the ending of the film was not even Josh Tranks that at some point they hijacked the editing bay from him to the point where the edit of the film was done without him

Yesterday both Kristian [Harloff] and I spoke with another source this is a second source that confirmed everything we had heard from my first source [Fox] had essentially put out a film that was not the film that they had originally sat down to make

I made some calls to some friends of mine, filmmakers, who had done business with Fox, and I just ran some of the facts by them that I had been hearing and said, Does this sound consistent with your experience with Fox? And they said, You have no idea. And then they proceeded to tell me a lot more stuff. I feel confident enough that Ive heard this from enough places enough reputable places to tell you this: the film that we saw, in Fantastic Four, was not the film they were supposed to make. It was not the film that Josh Trank made.

While technically all of this is still rumor, it would take a pretty vast conspiracy for so many different sources to all deliver matching versions of the same story when quizzed independently. Movie Talk co-host Jon Schnepp, who had his own sources, also revealed another interesting claim: that Fox had hired an Oscar-winning special effects guy to work on the film, and subsequently fired him without telling him and also without telling Trank. That would certainly help explain the criticisms of Fantastic Fours special effects.

THE IMPLICATIONS

Just because various sources are now confirming Tranks implication that Fox took control of the movie away from him, it doesnt necessarily mean that Tranks version of Fantastic Four really was fantastic and wouldve received great reviews. The film has also been criticized for its lack of humor, its muted aesthetic, and the decision to take a gritty approach to one of Marvels kitschier superhero teams. Ultimately Trank did direct Fantastic Four, and has to shoulder the responsibility for a lot of what ended up on the screen.

Its important to note that we dont have the full picture just yet, and its very likely that more details will continue to emerge over time. For the moment, however, we can speculate about how things went down, based on the information available.

It seems that Fox created the first ripples of disruption right before the start of production by demanding sudden changes to essential pieces of the movie. Faced with that kind of stress, Trank a fairly young director who had enjoyed relative creative freedom while making his first feature appears to have dealt with the situation poorly by lashing out at the cast and crew. In response, Fox took away creative control altogether as soon as the film went into post-production. Essentially, it sounds like a domino effect of bad decisions.

Some are speculating that Fantastic Fours reviews, the projected box office results and Tranks brief outburst will make Fantastic Four the movie that ends his filmmaking career, altogether but its really too early to say that for sure. Given the stories of studio interference that are now emerging, its possible that Trank will come out the other side as a sympathetic party though that doesnt necessarily mean that anyones going to trust him with another big-budget blockbuster any time soon.

Well keep you updated on this story as more details become available.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 10, 2015, 02:30:06 PM
Yeah...been following and lazy about posting. It's amazing.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 13, 2015, 05:26:32 PM
Meanwhile, I can't get enough of this story. I was going to shell out the $10 to see this trainwreck last night, but Missus RC says that's like enabling a heroin addict.

http://news.yahoo.com/it-was-chaos-the-behind-the-scenes-story-of-080501966.html (http://news.yahoo.com/it-was-chaos-the-behind-the-scenes-story-of-080501966.html)

Quote
"It Was Chaos": The Behind-the-Scenes Story of What Went Wrong with 'Fantastic Four'

Days before Fantastic Four opened, director Josh Trank sent an email to some members of the cast and crew to say he was proud of the film, which, he wrote, was better than 99 percent of the comic-book movies ever made.

I dont think so, responded one cast member.

Maybe if Trank had left it at that, Hollywood insiders and fan websites could have played their own parlor games as to who was at fault for the films colossal failure and Fantastic Four would have faded into the history books as did John Carter and other bombs before it. (The $122 million-budgeted film opened to just $25.7 million in the U.S. and $34 million abroad, far below even the most cautious predictions.)

But Trank, 31, could not resist tweeting on Aug. 6, as the movie was hitting theaters, that he had made a fantastic version of the film that audiences would probably never see. Though Trank quickly deleted the tweet, his public disavowal of the film at such a key moment enraged 20th Century Fox executives and stirred a pot that had begun to bubble when the director was dropped by Lucasfilm from a Star Wars standalone film at the end of April, prompting THR to report that one of the causes was his erratic behavior on Fantastic Four. Now, insiders on the film say the situation was worse than previously revealed, and Trank has enlisted pit-bull lawyer Marty Singer to advocate on his behalf. And so the game of blame has gotten underway.

Fantastic Four is not the only big studio film to go flying off the rails, ostensibly because a director is in over his head. Sometimes a studio can salvage the project, as Paramount did when it shut down World War Z amid crew complaints about director Marc Forster and commissioned a rewrite of the third act. The film went on to gross $540 million worldwide.

Universal intervened to save the original The Bourne Identity when director Doug Liman seemed unable to pull that film together. It launched a franchise but producer Frank Marshall brought in to rescue the movie said later that he had taken unprecedented measures to get the movie done. Ive always had a respect for the line between a producer and a director, Marshall told me in 2005. And I had to step over that line into something that I feel is the directors responsibility.

Liman moved on to his next project, Mr. & Mrs. Smith with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, only to run into similar problems. Akiva Goldsman, who wrote and was a producer on that film, called him a madman, and Liman filed a grievance with the Directors Guild saying his prerogatives as director had been compromised. But the film grossed $478 million worldwide, and Limans reputation suffered no serious damage.

In Tranks case, multiple sources associated with the project say the director did not produce material that would have opened the way to a salvageable film. And by several accounts, he resisted help. He holed up in a tent and cut himself off from everybody, says one high-level source. And literally there was a tent on the Louisiana set. A crew member says: He built a black tent around his monitor. He was extremely withdrawn. Between set-ups, this person adds, he would go to his trailer and he wouldnt interact with anybody.

Sources say Fox believed in what one executive calls a grounded, gritty version of Fantastic Four that was almost the opposite of previous versions and initially thought Trank could deliver that. Several sources say Fox stood by Trank as he pushed a gloomy tone on young stars Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara and Jamie Bell. During takes, he would be telling [cast members] when to blink and when to breathe, one person says. He kept pushing them to make the performance as flat as possible.

There were worrying personal issues as well. As THR reported in May, Trank and his dogs allegedly caused more than $100,000 worth of damage to a rented house in Baton Rouge that he and his wife occupied while the film was shooting there. Sources say now that after landlord Martin Padial moved to evict Trank, photographs of the landlords family that were in the house were defaced. Padial made a complaint to the local sheriffs department and filed a civil suit in Louisiana that is sealed. Padials attorney, Michael Bienvenu, declined to comment on the matter. The sheriffs department says the case was closed as a civil matter between landlord and tenant.

Neither Trank nor Singer would comment.

A crew member acknowledges that Trank bears much of the fault for the films problems but also says the Fox studio should not escape blame. The movie was ill-conceived, made for the wrong reasons and there was no vision behind the property, this person says. Say what you will about Marvel but they have a vision.

As Fox hurried to put the project into production before rights to the material reverted to Marvel, the studio was scrambling with multiple rewrites and delays in starting the film. They were afraid of losing the rights so they pressed forward and didnt surround [Trank] with help or fire him. They buried their heads in the sand. Fox declined to comment.

Another source says the notion of firing Trank came up even before the cameras started to roll. But Fox put its faith in him because he had directed the studios 2012 found-footage hero movie Chronicle, which grossed $127 million worldwide on a $12 million budget. Based on that, insiders say Fox executives thought they had found an in-house director, a young talent who could become another J.J. Abrams. And the studio was trying to shake off its reputation for micro-managing filmmakers. So executives were reluctant to interfere on Fantastic Four despite warnings of trouble.

When the seriousness of the problems could no longer be ignored, says a key source on the project, it was too late to fire the director. How do you ask someone to take over half of a movie shot by someone else? he says. You either hire somebody desperate for work or you [start over], write off pretty much the whole budget and lose the cast.

As filming wound toward an unhappy close, the studio and producers Simon Kinberg and Hutch Parker engaged in a last-minute scramble to come up with an ending. With some of the cast not fully available at that point and Kinberg juggling X-Men: Apocalypse and Star Wars, a lot of material was shot with doubles and the production moved to Los Angeles to film scenes with Teller against a green screen. It was chaos, says a crew member, adding that Trank was still in attendance but was neutralized by a committee. Another source says instead the studio pulled together a dream team, including writer and World War Z veteran Drew Goddard, to rescue the movie. Whether the final version of the film is better or worse than what Trank put together is a matter of opinion, of course, but the consensus, clearly, is that neither was good.

One central player on the film says the process of making big films often is messy but in many cases, the studio can fight its way out of difficulties. A Fantastic Four crew member concurs but says that doesnt relieve the studio of its responsibility for what went wrong with this film. To me, it is a classic indictment of the entire system, he says. Give Josh Trank a $20 million movie. Groom him. But they dont make those movies any more Nobody should escape scrutiny on this one. Everyone should take a good look in the mirror, myself included. Even I probably did the movie for the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 14, 2015, 09:36:17 AM
Came here to post this. Man, it's awesome, isn't it? There's a book somewhere in here... The Cautionary Tale of the Fantastic Four.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 14, 2015, 11:21:38 AM
The director has lawyered up. It's getting ugly.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: monkey! on August 17, 2015, 05:00:23 AM
2018's Sundance Docu-film.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 17, 2015, 11:20:42 AM
2018's Sundance Docu-film.

You're probably right on the nose.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 23, 2015, 09:30:35 AM
Wow... Age of Ultron is almost unwatchable. What a mess.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 09:05:04 AM
Fantastic Four time!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 09:18:15 AM
Fantastic Four time!

Wait...is this a coming of age teen angst movie? Did I download the wrong movie? What the fuck am I watching?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 09:45:30 AM
Are they...stealing the technology (and explanation of it) from Quantum Leap?!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 09:51:24 AM
This movie is inexplicably and insanely bad. Like, not even good-bad. Bizarrely bad. I don't know how to describe it. I don't know what to say. There's only an hour left and all we've seen is lots and lots of teen angst, Fast& Furious style drag racing, and lines lifted from the Quantum Leap pilot episode. I don't know or understand who any of these people are and I can't follow their relationships or why they're even engaging with each other.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 10:01:07 AM
"It's time to involve NASA."

"What? Why not send us?"

"We're going to need help, support..."

"Oh, fine! Why not send the CIA, the army, our political prisoners so we can waterboard them in another dimension!"

Um...what? So NASA is evil? That's the movie's message here?

Also -- 40 minutes in and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!!!!!!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 10:02:08 AM
So, because NASA is evil, they decide to steal the tech and go through the "quantum gate" themselves. And a grown man's reply to this is, "My dad's going to kill me."
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 10:21:34 AM
Okay, so they do the origin thing...and then they do a "one year later" jump to a montage that explains that now they're all in control of their powers and have become the Fantastic Four.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
"We should use our powers to --"

"They're not powers!! They're aggressively abnormal physical conditions!"

Yeah.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 21, 2015, 02:35:01 PM
Fantastic Four time!

Wow. What a shit show that was.

You know what's sad? I think there's a pretty interesting movie buried underneath all that studio interference and director ego. In fact, I'd be inclined to see what the dictator's cut would look like if Trank ever got the chance to do it. Now, granted, I think it would be there and a half hours long to be effective.

This movie's also an argument for superhero (and maybe FF in particular) on TV. Imagine if all the beats of that story had the opportunity to play out over an 11 episode season?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 21, 2015, 06:51:34 PM

This movie's also an argument for superhero (and maybe FF in particular) on TV. Imagine if all the beats of that story had the opportunity to play out over an 11 episode season?

Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on September 30, 2015, 02:01:09 PM
While I liked the movie, it was exactly as he explains.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 16, 2015, 11:56:04 AM
I got busy before I could post this yesterday, but it looks like I would have been spreading bullshit anyway.

My thought was (and remains) that FOX would be smart to go all in on X-Men, by using the remaining Marvel rights it holds as bargaining fodder. Marvel is shrewd enough to realize that Fox's X-Men movies are too solidly entrenched for them to fuck it up easily. This is why they've all but banished the X-Men from their comic book stories which while a little catty, allows them to coalesce their published and film universes.

http://io9.com/rumor-has-it-marvel-is-clawing-fantastic-four-back-from-1736693837 (http://io9.com/rumor-has-it-marvel-is-clawing-fantastic-four-back-from-1736693837)

Quote
That "Marvel Taking Back Fantastic Four" Rumor Is False [UPDATED]

Youre going to need a giant salt lick for this one, but its not totally out of line with Marvels history: theres a rumor that Fox exchanged the movie rights to Fantastic Four for the two X-Men series that were announced yesterday. Update: Were hearing from multiple credible sources that this is not true.

Den of Geek does caution that they dont have independent verification of what their source told them, but its hard to discount the possibility. Marvels through-2020 slate does have three untitled movies on their schedule, and one is supposedly Fantastic Four.

The facts are that Fantastic Four did not do well for Fox, the X-Men TV deal is huge, and Marvel has already done something exactly like this for Spider-Man. Its all circumstantial evidence that makes this rumor much more plausible than it would otherwise be.

On the other hand, without any official confirmation or verification from another source, who knows? Basically, we kind of just have to shrug at this and say, Could be true. But its definitely to a nod to Marvels current power that this is believable at all.

Update: Believable or not, were being told by our sources that this isnt currently true. Whether or not that means Marvel will never get back the rights to Fantastic Four remains up in the air. But for now, it looks like everyones staying where they are.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 19, 2015, 12:07:46 PM
Knowing now that it's false, has there ever been any precedent for anything like this between studios? "I'll trade you the rights to Grapes of Wrath for To Kill a Mockingbird?"
That seems more like how fans think than studios.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 19, 2015, 01:05:25 PM
I'd have to go back and do some research. However, I know in the early days of home video, some film studios licensed home video rights to films to third party distributors rather than get in the game themselves. In some cases, some of the bigger studios realized sooner that home video was lucrative and licensed their competitors products. Later there would be a lot of wrangling in order for the studios to get those rights back.

I'm sure the story is online somewhere (and maybe linked in our Spider-Man thread), but Spider-Man went though a world of legal wrangling as to who owned what rights before a movie could be made. It's hard to believe there was a time when Marvel was nearly bankrupt and sold away all the movie and TV rights to their characters super cheap just to keep the lights on.

Swamp Thing has through similar legal wrangling with its film and TV rights , though I think Warner Bros. (who owns DC Comics) has gotten it all back at this point.

Not sure I answered your question exactly.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 19, 2015, 01:57:30 PM
You answered it as well as you could without doing research, which is great. I think my answer based on what you said is "No," no one has traded rights straight-up like that.

I remember the legal wrangling over Spiderman, and even some of the 'Company X had the movie rights, but Company Y had distribution, and Company Z had home video rights." None of that rises to the level of a swap though, in my mind.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 25, 2015, 11:22:07 AM
Too. Many. Characters.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 25, 2015, 04:15:18 PM
Too. Many. Characters.


Man... haven't we gone back and forth...and back and forth...and back and forth about this in about a dozen threads right here on the forums for the last 12 years?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 29, 2015, 01:49:03 PM
Yes. We have. And we're all pretty much in agreement that too many characters gum up the works, correct?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on December 01, 2015, 03:28:52 PM
Correct.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 09, 2016, 06:30:11 PM
Woah, woah, woah...wait a minute...wait a minute... Ant-Man is good?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 09, 2016, 11:38:43 PM
I still haven't seen it. My Edgar Wright allegiance is strong.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 10, 2016, 07:34:43 AM
I still haven't seen it. My Edgar Wright allegiance is strong.

It's basically what superhero movies would be like if we didn't have this glut of superhero movies.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on January 11, 2016, 06:02:54 PM
I stand by my initial assessment.

Somehow I saw Antman in the theater.

And...it wasn't as terrible as I thought. Wait for pirate.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 11, 2016, 07:13:25 PM
I stand by my initial assessment.

Somehow I saw Antman in the theater.

And...it wasn't as terrible as I thought. Wait for pirate.

Consider it....pirated!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 19, 2016, 11:52:58 PM
Again, this is outside my realm of comic book knowledge so there aren't any expectations. And Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn/everybody's crazy ex-girlfriend seems like a lot of fun.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 08, 2016, 10:52:53 AM
Super Bowl spots for the glut of Superhero movies coming out this year.

First up, nonsensical superhero team-up blammo #42-F... or Captain America: Civil War.


And a spot for Deadpool which while exists in the X-Men universe has lived in this thread GS. I'm seeing it with a bunch of folks on Thursday. (And it's getting rave reviews.)


Not a trailer, but the Ant-Man/Hulk coke commercial was actually kind of cool:

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 09, 2016, 07:36:22 AM
Deadpool confuses me.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 09, 2016, 09:21:26 AM
In what way?

Basically, he was a stock X-Men villain (created through the Weapon X program that altered Wolverine) who ended up becoming a fan favorite in his own raunchy R-rated adventures. His comics were known for breaking the fourth wall which they've incorporated into the movie. They fucked up the character in Wolverine: Origins and seems to try to be trying to set it right in this movie. It was a character that was introduced at the end of my serious comic nerd tenure, so I don't have the love that lots of superhero fans do.

I'm interested in the fact that this is a full on hard R-rated superhero movie, which is honestly the only way the character could be properly realized. There are a few other superheroes who would need R-rated adoptions to truly work. (Swamp Thing being the first to come to mind.) We'll see how it all goes.

Are you still confused?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 09, 2016, 10:58:40 AM
Yes, all that you said is what confuses me, as well as the promo campaign which is all crotch-shots and insulting the audience, intercut with rapid action sequences that I can't follow. It's the first superhero movie that makes me feel truly old... Mainly because I've never heard of Deadpool before, and I'm confused that a meta-comic exists in this otherwise predictable cookie-cutter universe that they've built around this mega-franchise.

 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 09, 2016, 11:50:05 AM
I'm going to see it Thursday night. I'm interested in the R-ratedness of it. Specifically how a super hero movie works in that sense. Although, Antman was probably a step down that path.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 11, 2016, 10:57:08 PM
It's the first superhero movie that makes me feel truly old... Mainly because I've never heard of Deadpool before, and I'm confused that a meta-comic exists in this otherwise predictable cookie-cutter universe that they've built around this mega-franchise.

I''m not sure how the movie will ultimately make you feel, but I laughed a lot. The film isn't high art, but it doesn't aspire to be.

Deadpool is so winning in it's first act. Then it loses it's tonal consistency for a bit before coming back strong in the second half. It funny, and meta, and self-referencial, and violent, and a love letter to comic book fans (as opposed to fans of comic book movies). The opening credits won me over immediately, but that may be because they have this weird Hollywood insider feel.

Not all the jokes land. However, those are far outnumbered by the ones that do and the whole affair so winking and self-deprecating that even the bad jokes are okay. In that way, Deadpool resembles the Austin Powers movies. The writers are throwing any joke at you they think will work, and they're not proud. The jokes are raunchy, foul, juvenile, crude, and hilarious. There are moments when the movie feel like it's trying a wee bit too hard to be edgy, but those are few and far between. Plus, the pop culture references are fast and furious, and aimed at folks our age moreso than kids.

If there's a problem, it's that the hyper-violence while slapstick, takes a bit of getting used to in a comic book sense, though it shoves it down your throat out of the gate, so it's not like you start out with one thing and it suddenly goes a different direction. Yet Deadpool's origin story gets so dark and disturbing that coupled with the jokiness, the whole affair becomes a bit... I don't know, cruel? *That* is where I felt old. I don't mind gross jokes nor do I mind ultra-violence. However, the origin gets so literally torturous that it's hard to remember you're watching a comedy, and a bit of the satirical shine wears. It's like the mom scene in Shaun of the Dead except far less artfully done.

That quibble aside, the movie has a heart of gold. Ryan Reynolds is insanely likable, and the rest of the cast does their jobs admirably. Morena Baccarin as the love interest is especially warm and arresting. It's not necessarily groundbreaking structurally, though they shake up the formula enough to make it feel fresh, even though at it's core, Deadpool is really just your typical superhero origin story dressed up in stylistic gore and masturbation jokes. Still, it's so funny and so willing to make fun of itself and comic book movies in general, you don't care.

RC says check it out.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 12, 2016, 09:06:51 AM
Quote
Plus, the pop culture references are fast and furious, and aimed at folks our age moreso than kids.

Man, oh, man. Does our money double in value after we turn 40? Netflix is all about reviving the late 70s and early 80s, and I've noticed that the pop culture refs across the sci fi/fantasy genre are usually older than the actors using them.

Plus our conversation about the "aging of sci-fi." Even when they have young hot chicks like the cop in Lucifer, they make her the mother of an 11 year old.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on February 12, 2016, 11:11:53 AM
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 12, 2016, 11:57:00 AM
Saw it last night. RC has the comprehensive points, but really a fun time. I had several outbursts of laughter in theater.

Also, and odd feel of pre-teen, "I might be laughing because this is inappropriate."

But yeah, fun!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 12, 2016, 08:40:24 PM
Deadpool confuses me.

This is a pretty good piece about the history of the character, a little comic book geeky, but gives the background in detail.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/deadpool-secret-history.html (http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/deadpool-secret-history.html)

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 13, 2016, 08:32:39 AM
I got the whole original series...reading now!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 14, 2016, 05:48:01 PM
You're gonna know more about him than me!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 15, 2016, 11:01:28 AM
Somehow I saw Antman in the theater.

And...it wasn't as terrible as I thought. Wait for pirate.

Woah, woah, woah...wait a minute...wait a minute... Ant-Man is good?

So define "good" here. Because "not a complete train wreck" only qualifies as good with something as sacred as, say, Star Wars.

Ant-Man is fine, I guess. Not nearly as offensively messy as Avengers: Age of Ultron. It's your typical superhero origin story, which even Deadpool did. What's weird are these glimmers of chaotic wackiness that I'm almost positive are leftover from Wright's involvement. Michael Pena's "he said, she said" storytelling of how he heard about the heist jobs is one. The nutty training montage that seems to take up half the movie's running time is another. There's a little of that old Guardians of the Galaxy "off the rails" to the proceedings in those moments that made me briefly smile.

Then there's the scene where Ant-Man has to go to the Avengers base to steal a MacGuffin which is there for no reason but to set up his involvement in Captain America: Civil War Team-Up #427-J5. *That* made my fucking blood boil.

The pacing in this movie is so off, I never quite allowed myself to fall into it. It's subtle, but there's a feeling like great swaths of time and story are being rushed through in a manner that Edgar Wright probably could've pulled off in a Scott Pilgrim sort of style, but which the Marvel braintrust isn't nuanced enough to do.

Whatever.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on February 16, 2016, 01:10:10 PM
Saw it last night. RC has the comprehensive points, but really a fun time. I had several outbursts of laughter in theater.

Also, and odd feel of pre-teen, "I might be laughing because this is inappropriate."

But yeah, fun!

Saw this again last night with Mrs. McGraw. She extends her thumbs in an upwardly direction as well!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 10, 2016, 04:42:36 PM
Still too many heroes/characters though the "I could do this all day" call back to the first movie was a nice little moment.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 11, 2016, 10:57:43 AM
The Captain America: Civil War trailer sent me over the edge and I started my gonzo superhero piece last night. Planning to finish it for Monday.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 11, 2016, 01:35:26 AM
This is the only superhero movie coming out this year that looks any good to me.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 10:17:04 AM
Okay...I got Deadpool in me and, you know, I didn't like it. I felt like it was trying too hard to be clever and meta. Like it was high class fan fiction/satire. The meta-ness was so distracting that I couldn't enjoy the otherwise fun story with a slutty Morena Baccarin who, for the first time, looked good with short hair.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 29, 2016, 10:30:29 AM
Whhhhaaaatttt?  But, but the zamboni scene.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 11:10:00 AM
Whhhhaaaatttt?  But, but the zamboni scene.

It was cute. I laughed. I had fun. But the meta... It was uncalled for. It was silly. It took me out of the story (especially when it was about how being meta was taking me out of the story, and also when it got meta-meta). It was the most I've seen a gimmick overused in a very long time. it made the fourth wall breaking in The Office look subtle.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2016, 01:22:34 PM
I'll argue that the Deadpool comic book was meta before meta was cool, so it's kind of like Scott Pilgrim vs The World being made ten years too late.

BTW, I'll eventually update this thread with trailers and commentary of the dozen trailers that have been released during our hiatus. It says something about the state of superhero movie glut that two weeks of no posting has left us with literally half a dozen trailers that need posting.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 29, 2016, 01:44:42 PM
Actually, yes! That's it! We needed Deadpool 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 03, 2016, 04:32:59 PM
Superhero Trailer catch-up time.

Doctor Strange is Marvel's third tier magic guy that everybody was excited about until the trailer proved once and for all that casting Tilda Swinton is indeed racist. I feel like a bit of a Marvel Backlash has begun at this point which kind of makes me happy... even though I'll probably go see Civil War on opening weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt-U_t2pUHI

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2016, 07:16:44 AM
And they've started to cancel their ambitious slate, as well! Inhumans is gone.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 04, 2016, 11:40:25 AM
This is all ultimately good for society.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2016, 01:21:09 PM
Yes! Because it's time to reboot Hell Comes to Frogtown with The Rock.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 04, 2016, 03:33:49 PM
Man, the critics are creaming over Civil War...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 05:32:54 PM
(https://greatsociety.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F49.media.tumblr.com%2F93e894b83b6d27fc2af688abf95b0acc%2Ftumblr_naxsczT0VI1qdk0zgo1_500.gif&hash=2088a7d97dc71bea6b259ae547329e6ada7c231f)
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2016, 09:46:40 PM
That made me laugh really hard.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 10:55:50 PM
I couldn't find any actual Skeletor memes.

BOOM!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 05, 2016, 10:57:05 PM
Oh, poor Gillian.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 05, 2016, 11:00:04 PM
I think she looks great. Plastic surgery and all.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 11, 2016, 12:57:26 PM
So Deadpool doing his own Honest Trailer is kind of awesome...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qIRtFE6aIc
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 12, 2016, 02:17:05 PM
Went and saw CA: Civil War on Sunday and thoroughly enjoyed it.  While it is by far not perfect it's still a very enjoyable ride.  I don't agree with the critics comparing it to Empire, but I get their point.  I don't want to get into too much until everyone has seen it, but there are a few really cool moments, and a few WTF moments.  All in all I'm glad I saw it and I'd see it again.   
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 12, 2016, 03:36:57 PM
I don't agree with the critics comparing it to Empire, but I get their point. 

By "Empire," do you mean The Empire Strikes Back?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 12, 2016, 04:25:52 PM
I don't agree with the critics comparing it to Empire, but I get their point. 

By "Empire," do you mean The Empire Strikes Back?

Yes.  Even the Russo brothers said they were going for an Empire Strikes Back feel.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 13, 2016, 08:50:00 AM
Yeah, I thought you meant the show about Empire Records! That was confusing.

Yes.  Even the Russo brothers said they were going for an Empire Strikes Back feel.

Yeah, them and every other director of every other movie like this.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 15, 2016, 08:03:04 PM
Well, it ain't no Empire Strikes Back or even a Winter Soldier, but Captain America: Civil War knocks the socks off Avengers: Age of Ultron. It's was worth the matinee, probably even worth full price. I had fun, even if I wished I had multiple Marvel Comics wikipedia pages open while watching.

At it's core, the premise of this movie is, "If Iron Man and Captain America got in a fight, who would win?" (As of this writing, I still haven't seen Batman v. Superman, but I assume it's operating under the same premise.) On that level, It's Frankenstein Meet Dracula, Aliens vs. Predator or Freddy vs. Jason. The main job the writers of something like this have is coming up with a plausible reason for the two headlining characters to fight. The reason the Russo Brothers came up actually works surprisingly well.

Briefly... the Avengers (Now consisting of Cap, Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, and Vision) go to Lagos, Nigeria to fight Crossbones, the random bad guy from Winter Soldier who, in his own words, "had a building dropped on his face." During the fight, a bunch of civilians get killed by a bomb Scarlet Witch deflects into a building while trying to save Captain America. Meanwhile, Tony Stark/Iron Man gets confronted by the mother of a kid who died in Sokovia, the fictional city Ultron laid waste to at the end of Avengers 2. Soon, Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt playing the same character he played in the Ed Norton Incredible Hulk) tells them that 119 nations have agreed to the Sokovia Accords which basically puts the Avengers under United Nations authority. Iron Man thinks they need to sign it, Cap doesn't.

Various Avengers take different sides. The most interesting dichotomy is between the Vision and Scarlet Witch who debate the philosophy of power, responsibility, and self-control vs. external control while kind of/sort of falling in love with each other. In the comics they eventually get married, and I kept finding myself thinking about the fact that he's an android and for all intents and purposes she's falling in love with a robot. She's fucking a robot. While this is probably where the culture is going, it kept distracting me.

Anyway in Vienna, the King of Wakanda is killed at the U.N. signing of the accords by a bomb seemingly set by Cap's old buddy Bucky Barnes aka the Winter Soldier. Wakanda you'll remember is the fictional African country where the rare metal Vibranium is found. Vibranium you'll remember (right?) is what Captain America's shield is made of, and what Ultron built his main body out of in Avengers 2. Cap goes off the reservation to find Bucky because he suspects something is rotten in Denmark. The Falcon joins him and Black Widow is torn. Meanwhile, T'Challa, the heir to the throne of Wakanda dons his Black Panther superhero suit with the Vibranium claws and vows vengeance on the Winter Soldier. The Black Panther is *awesome.* He steals the movie. I'm genuinely stoked for his solo movie directed by Ryan Coogler. (Fruitvale Station, Creed)

I mentioned a fictional metal three times in the previous paragraph.
 
So, the U.N wants to kill rogue Captain America and Winter Soldier who are now on the run together. Iron Man asks for 36 hours to bring him in. The middle of the movie is basically lead up to a big battle royale between two groups of Superheroes. Team Iron Man ( I can't believe I just typed that.) consists of Iron Man, War Machine (Don Cheadle's silver Iron Man), Black Widow, Vision, Black Panther, and Spider-Man. Team Captain America consists of Cap, Winter Solider, Falcon, Scarlet Witch, Hawkeye, And Ant-Man. I know it sounds like way too many characters, but it's pretty satisfying. The big fight itself is fantastic, with a very young Spider-Man providing a ton of comic relief. I don't know if this next reboot with save that particular ailing franchise, but the casting is great.

That's not the big climax of the movie though despite what the ads infer. The third act goes back to Bourne stye intimacy of the Winter Soldier. There's a lot more going on, including the machinations of Baron Zemo, a very human villain who's pulling a ton of strings in order to get to Moscow to where the Winter Soldier was created. I won't give away the twist ending, but it's satisfying. I'll also note that the climax of this movie doesn't involve some world ending calamity, which makes it 10,000 times better than any superhero movie that does.

Typed out, it reads like too much going on, but it works in every way that Age of Ultron didn't. RC says check it out.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 16, 2016, 08:45:56 AM
Will download!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 25, 2016, 12:26:08 PM
I thought this was pretty funny:  Some SPOILERS for those who haven't seen the movie.




Quote
Hello, my name is Marcus Kelley, and I really dont want to complain. I fly quite a bit for work, and I totally understand how fickle air travel can be. One time I had a three-day layover in Bangkok due to some sort of signal problem. Things happen. I get that. Its just slightly frustrating to me that my flight out of the Leipzig/Halle airport has been delayed indefinitely due to an all-out superhero melee.

Dont get me wrong; I love superheroes just as much as the next guy. I mean, really, thank you to any and all superheroes who may be reading this. Youre the real heroes, truly. Its just that I had a two-hour window to make a connecting flight back to New York from Vienna so I could attend my sons graduation from Columbia. There is absolutely no way I am making that connecting flight now, and James is only going to graduate med school once, you know?

When I heard the airport was getting evacuated, I was impressed with the speed and efficiency of the Leipzig/Halle security team. When I found out we were being evacuated not because of a terrorist threat, but because a group of super powered friends were having an ideological tiff, I must admit, I became slightly upset. I really dont want to get political here, and with all my travelling, I havent had time to develop an opinion on whatever it is the Sokova Accords are. Captain America and Iron Man both seem like stand-up guys, and I understand that friends fight. One time I didnt talk to my brother for a year because of a minor squabble over our fathers estate (long story short, there was a condo in Fort Lauderdale that he wanted to sell, but I thought we should keep it in the family because of how much dad liked it when all the grandchildren were together). We talked it out, and now we rent it out except for the first two weeks in August, which we reserve for the kids. I honestly dont think weve ever been closer. The point is we talked it out.

Now Im sure Captain America and Iron Man tried to find a peaceful alternative, and I do appreciate them fighting in an abandoned airport instead of a crowded city. But when I heard they were fighting, I assumed it was aliens again or another evil robot man. No, this time it was a personal problem. And thats where bar rules come into effect: if you need to fight, take it outside. We are in Germany. Theres lots of rolling hills perfect for fighting. They could knock each other into windmills and stuff. Itd be fun.

And thats another thing. By all accounts, the airport brawl was a little too casual and fun. If you have to fight and ruin a lot of peoples travel plans, please dont show off what a great time you are having doing it. Show some remorse, Spider-Man. Things between my son and I are already shaky, and I just know he will see this as yet another time dad prioritized work over family. From what I can tell, almost all of you superheroes have some sort of daddy issues, so you understand how important it is that I make this right.

I promised myself I wouldnt get angry about this, because its like, first world problems. Look at this guy complaining about his missed flight. But Ant-Man, a superhero famous for shrinking, somehow became a giant and ripped the wing off my airplane. I didnt even know he had that power. Hows that fair?

Also, to be perfectly honest, Im concerned that Hertz is going to charge me for the rental car that Scarlet Witch threw on Iron Man. I had already returned it to the lot, even if I hadnt formally checked out yet.

So now Im stuck in East Germany because The Vision sliced an airport hanger in half with his forehead beam. I know theres been a lot of talk in the news about the collateral damage of superhero fights, and relatively speaking, this seems like an almost purposefully safe response to that backlash. But its still annoying. Most of these guys can fly. Why do they need an airport? If I had Falcons wings, I would fly clear across the ocean to let my son know Im proud of him and I support his relationship with Denise, even if I think shes all sorts of wrong for him.

Now Im stuck staring at this departures board, with every single flight delayed as they clean up a bunch of exploded trucks and a weird amount of webbing. I hope Captain America and Iron Man and whoever Black Panther is find peace. I really do, but there are only so many magazines I can browse through in this Hudson News. Son, if you are reading this, I will miss your graduation, but should make it home in time for your birthday on Thursday, assuming The Winter Soldier stops fluctuating between good and evil.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 24, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
Doctor Strange trailer from Comic-con.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSzx-zryEgM
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 03, 2016, 11:56:58 AM
Man, Suicide Squad is crashing and burning with the critics. What a show!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 03, 2016, 12:12:32 PM
I'll probably see it this weekend with a Jason Bourne double feature.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 29, 2016, 12:03:49 PM
This is better than the last three Marvel movies combined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_mizUMlvUc
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 29, 2016, 12:43:36 PM
Man, that's gone super meme today!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 29, 2016, 01:30:00 PM
Because it's better than the last three Marvel movies combined.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 29, 2016, 02:03:04 PM
I've actually stopped bothering with superhero movies. I didn't watch the new X-Men or Civil War. What else has come out? I've given up on Gotham and avoid all the other superhero TV shows.

Been watching vintage Incredible Hulk and, you know, the story telling on even the average episodes is miles better than these superhero movies or modern superhero TV. I feel more interested and engaged in this trashy 70s approach, and Ferrigno is so much more convincing than the CGI Hulk.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 29, 2016, 04:13:01 PM
Civil War is worth seeing. Did I not write a forum review of it?

I skipped the new X-Men movie because Days of Future Past was that series' shark jumping moment. I haven't seen Suicide Squad either.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 05, 2016, 10:13:13 AM
Just got Civil War. Maybe I'll drink bottomless mimosas and liveblog it. Though, to be honest, I'm having a hard time even clicking on the file...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 06, 2016, 02:44:02 PM
I should try to swing by and watch it with you.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 06, 2016, 05:54:58 PM
I should try to swing by and watch it with you.

Well? Where are you, bitch?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 06, 2016, 06:56:12 PM
.... Home...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 07, 2016, 11:32:00 AM
Missus RC and I did Suicide Squad last night. I thought it was fine. Better than BvS certainly. This may be low expectations coming into play because it was painfully obvious the studio execs had monkeyed with it considerably in the edit.

There's way too many characters but if you don't know that going in, well, why are you going in? It makes no sense, but do any of these superhero movies anymore? Harley Quinn and the the Enchantress are fun to look at, and Robbie actually manages to pull off an intriguing performance with what's really a one note character. (People's obsession with how much this is or isn't Harley Quinn is fucking stupid. There really was very little meat to the character to begin with.) Will Smith never quite realizes he's better then the movie he's in and keeps it light and fun while still managing to be the film's emotional heart. Leto's Joker is again, fine, though somehow doesn't feel like the Joker. Ledger was better. Hell, Cesar Romero was better.

The story, motivations, and plot devices make no sense. Some magic lady/creature is discovered and the government wants to use it as a Superman contingency plan. They then proceed to lose control of said magic being. Their answer to the magical problem they created is to send in a bunch of thugs with guns and knives. It's the dumbest plan ever. Yet once you're on the "band of misfits going after bad guy" train, it's easy to switch your brain into numbness mode and enjoy it.

Also on the plus side, it's got an end of the world MacGuffin happening, but it's strangely insular. Other than the flashbacks (of which there are many), the whole movie seems to take place over the same ten hour period in the same city which grounds it in a way that made it easy to just stare, drool, and connect the dots.

It's not great. It's probably not even good. But it's far from offensive, and the sad truth about superhero movies these days is somehow that's enough.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 07, 2016, 11:53:30 AM
So...as my days grow shorter and my twilight years are upon me, I'd rather turn my brain off and go numb watching things like Star Trek reruns. It just seems like so many wasted hours trying to suffer through these fucking movies unless you're doing it for entertainment liveblog/drinking game purposes.

Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 07, 2016, 11:59:33 AM
So...as my days grow shorter and my twilight years are upon me, I'd rather turn my brain off and go numb watching things like Star Trek reruns. It just seems like so many wasted hours trying to suffer through these fucking movies unless you're doing it for entertainment liveblog/drinking game purposes.

This movie is definitely best enjoyed by going into it in exactly the state I was yesterday, so physically and mentally exhausted that you just don't care what you're watching as long as it's a distraction. Or if you're just watching to perv out over Margot Robbie and the chick playing the Enchantress, because holy wank worthy!

I have the same feeling as you except I grew up on comic books. Therefore superhero movies sort of *are* my Star Trek/cultural comfort food. But the film/blockbuster culture that's grown up around them has all but prevented anything good from being made. It's become systemic and more about P/R and franchise building than crafting good stories. It makes me sad because the stories were what I loved about comic books in the first place.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 08, 2016, 02:47:39 PM
Okay... So Civil War's premise is that people are upset about what we complain about in this thread all the time: Over the course of the modern superhero movies, we've basically scene the apocalypse descend on us with untold millions of casualties. Therefore, the UN is going to take over and regulate them.

And Captain America and Co. don't want regulation and want to remain vigilante genocidal monsters. And we're supposed to understand their position, I guess?

The moment they hang a lampshade on the utter world-ending destruction these people have caused in the movie's universe (something the universe has carefully been avoiding), I'm immediately in the camp that says we should put all the superheros on ice and get Peter Dinklidge to develop superhero murdering androids like right now. 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 08, 2016, 04:19:17 PM
So Civil War is basically three very interesting movies with completely unrelated storylines that have been blindly spliced together to fill an empty programming slot on some UHF channel at 3am.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 09, 2016, 11:54:25 AM
So Civil War is basically three very interesting movies with completely unrelated storylines that have been blindly spliced together to fill an empty programming slot on some UHF channel at 3am.

Wow. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's sort if accurate.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 19, 2016, 06:14:18 PM
Wait...do we not have a Guardians of the Galaxy thread?

Anyway, here's the new trailer for Star trek Beyond:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WhQcK-Zaok
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 20, 2016, 11:18:44 AM
Guardians of the Galaxy is the Star Wars sequel we always wanted. Discuss.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2016, 05:31:39 PM
Guardians of the Galaxy is the Star Wars sequel we always wanted. Discuss.

It's the Star Trek reboot we always wanted you mean.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 04, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
If you want to have the Nazis in there so bad why don't you just go ahead and set it in WWII? It really doesn't matter.

Anyway...blah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q8fG0TtVAY
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 08, 2016, 02:35:18 PM
It'll be fine.

IT'LL ALL BE FINE!!!

*SOB*
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 16, 2016, 03:53:35 PM
Good think piece. I've long held these views about superheroes. The Marvel movies in particular seems to be subtle fascist propaganda.

http://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2016/11/16/502161587/superheroes-and-the-f-word-grappling-with-the-ugly-truth-under-the-capes (http://www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2016/11/16/502161587/superheroes-and-the-f-word-grappling-with-the-ugly-truth-under-the-capes)

Quote
Superheroes And The F-Word: Grappling With The Ugly Truth Under The Capes
Superheroes preserve the status quo, employ symbolic visual imagery, have flawless bodies and use their powers to place themselves above the law. Are they just fascists in tights?

Superheroes are democratic ideals.

They exist to express what's noblest about us: selflessness, sacrifice, a commitment to protect those who need protection, and to empower the powerless.

Superheroes are fascist ideals.

They exist to symbolize the notion that might equals right, that a select few should dictate the fate of the world, and that the status quo is to be protected at all costs.

Both of these things are true, and inextricably bound up with one another but they weren't always.

When he debuted in 1938, Superman was, briefly, a progressive icon. He sprang, after all, from the minds of two Jewish kids in Cleveland warily watching the rise of Hitler in Europe. In his first year of life, they sent their "Champion of the Oppressed" (his very first nickname, years before "Man of Steel") after corrupt Senators, war-mongering foreign leaders, weapons merchants, and crooked stockbrokers. He purposefully razed a slum to force the city government to provide better low-income housing. (He also launched one-man crusades against slot machines, reckless drivers, and cheating college football teams, which ... yeah. Guy kept busy.)

Both Captain America and Wonder Woman were created expressly to fight the Nazi threat. Literally, to fight it to punch it right in its dumb Ratzi face.

Batman, on the other hand, spent much of his first year protecting only his city's wealthy elite from murder plots, jewel thieves and extortion. (Also werewolves and madmen with Napoleon complexes piloting death-blimps. Comics, guys!) It took him a while to turn his attention to the kind of petty crime that afflicted the common citizen the arrival of Robin the Boy Wonder helped him focus.

But with the advent of World War II, Superman, Batman and other costumed heroes found themselves conscripted alongside Captain America. Not to fight the Axis themselves, mind you, but to root out stateside saboteurs and urge readers to plant Victory gardens and buy war bonds.

In the process, the visual iconography of superheroes which, comics being comics, is 50% of the formula, remember melded with that of patriotic imagery. This continued for decades after the war, as once-progressive heroes like Superman came to symbolize bedrock Eisenhower-era American values the American Way in addition to notions of Truth and Justice.

The Wertham Era

Yet there was always something about superheroes, and Superman in particular. He'd helped inspire the country to defeat fascism, but he looked like he did the kind of idealized male musculature the Nazis fetishized and he possessed "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men." What's more, he used said powers and abilities against those comparatively weak and frail mortal men, if they stepped out of line. He also came from an advanced planet peopled by a and here's a pesky phrase that kept cropping up in Superman comics "super-race."

It wasn't intended, but it was there. People noticed.

One person in particular: Dr. Fredric Wertham, who in his 1954 anti-comics screed Seduction of the Innocent, noted that Superman's whole schtick was hurting criminals without getting hurt himself, and dubbed him an "un-American fascist" symbol. It hit a nerve.

Wertham's crusade changed the industry completely, effectively ending crime and horror comics and shuttering many comics publishers, but the changes to superhero comics and their fascist overtones proved more subtle. Suddenly Superman's powers didn't derive from his "super-race" genetics, but from science: the rays of Earth's yellow sun, to be specific. But Batman, who'd been deputized by Gotham's Police Department as early as 1941, grew even chummier with the cops; most stories now began with an urgent plea for help from a worrisomely hapless Commissioner Gordon.

The Marvel Era

Wertham's concerns about the fascistic elements in superhero comics were about themes and implications, not actual text. Because at the time, kids were the primary audience for comics, which presented stark, simple morality plays light versus darkness, good versus evil. More abstract qualities like characterization, psychology and any overtly political context simply never showed up in a given comic.

That changed when Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced the Fantastic Four in 1961 and, especially, when Lee and Ditko created Spider-Man in 1962. The men recognized that a demographic shift was underway older teenagers and adults were now buying comics. So Lee, Ditko and Kirby created a roster of heroes whose troubled lives reflected those of their readership: conflicted, quarrelsome and deeply insecure.

And with the words "With great power comes great responsibility" (Amazing Fantasy #15, August 1962), Lee introduced a concept that greatly mitigated, for Spider-Man at any rate, the fascism baked-in to the superhero genre: sacrifice.

Previously, superheroes had paid lip-service to the notion of selflessness. The altruism they exhibited was reflexive and unquestioned, a part of the narrative infrastructure as essential to the genre as colored underpants. This was because that altruism hadn't needed to be questioned, as superhero stories were still simple stories to reassure children that good always triumphed over evil.

The fact that their tremendous powers and abilities shielded superheroes often literally from experiencing any lasting harm also served to undermine their status as truly heroic.

Lee and his co-creators cut against that tendency by showing Peter Parker really suffering before, during and after his decision to be Spider-Man. Soon, Marvel comics teemed with mopey, hot-headed, angst-ridden heroes whose powers and abilities only served to complicate their lives, and deepen their baseline misery.

It took DC heroes like Superman and Batman a while to catch on to this trend, but when they did, they doubled down on it. Superman entered an era in which he lost and gained his powers with metronomic regularity, and Batman became a tortured obsessive.

Super-Fascism As Plot Point

In the 1980s and afterward, as superhero comics shed their child readership and turned in on themselves to cater exclusively to teens and adults, the dawning of the "grim-and-gritty" era meant that the fascism latent in the superhero genre became one of its chief storylines. In books like Watchmen, The Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come, Empire, Civil War and many others, creators explicitly grappled with how heroes exert their will when their penchant for benign intervention becomes ... less-than-benign. In monthly comics and one-shot tales set in alternative universes, scores of superheroes became dictators (often for "the greater good") and crushed any insurrection that would upset their status quo.

Both this year's Batman v. Superman and Captain America: Civil War revolve around a non-powered billionaire attempting to rein in a rogue superhuman, and both engage in the by-now inevitable chin-stroking about freedom and government control.

Today, fascism has more potential tools in its arsenal than ever, and the cinematic superhero glut we now find ourselves in reflects that: again and again, these movies offer symbolic, dark-mirror reflections of the surveillance state.

A Changing Superhero Landscape

Although conceived in a progressive spirit, the superhero genre's central narrative has always been one of defending the status quo through overpowering might; in the vast majority of those cases, the one doing all that defending and overpowering is a straight white male. (This is just one of the reasons that the superhero genre, which has a knack for distilling American culture to its essence, can get a little on-the-nose, sometimes.)

More often than not, the straight white male in question has a square jaw and killer abs and holds vast amount of power but chooses not to use it to subjugate others, simply because he's a Good Person.

Which is to say: historically, the genre's organizing principle is that the only thing keeping fascism from happening is that straight white dudes are chill.

But slowly, incrementally, as comics (and movies, and tv shows, and games, t-shirts and coffee mugs) start to fill up with more characters like Ms. Marvel (a Pakistani-American teenage girl from Jersey City), the visual iconography of superheroes, and what those superheroes mean to the culture, will force the genre to do something it has historically resisted.

It will change.

And once superheroes look different, and once the world on the comics page more closely resembles the world off of it, you will still be able to discern the low but steady drumbeat of fascism that the genre has never been able to escape.

But it will grow lower, and less steady.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 16, 2016, 04:28:01 PM
The Marvel movies in particular seems to be subtle fascist propaganda.


Well...yes... All this shit was conceived at a time when we were both idolizing and, then, looking for an alternative to Fascism.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 29, 2017, 04:01:32 AM
I kind of liked Doctor Strange! It was basically Inception meets Superman II...for dummies.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 29, 2017, 03:51:58 PM
I still haven't seen it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on January 29, 2017, 04:16:42 PM
I still haven't seen it.

It's really worth it if you have the flu and have broken both your legs and are looking to kill a couple hours before the painkillers take over!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 06, 2017, 08:55:48 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLNiC-bKHQ
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 06, 2017, 09:55:21 AM
I think we're all sold on this movie. They don't need to advertise!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 01, 2017, 12:15:11 PM
How is it that Marvel gave us the sci-fi fantasy adventure we've all been craving since Return of the Jedi (http://Return of the Jedi)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duGqrYw4usE
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 01, 2017, 12:28:52 PM
How is it that Marvel gave us the sci-fi fantasy adventure we've all been craving since Return of the Jedi (http://Return of the Jedi)?


Chris Pratt.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 30, 2017, 03:02:15 PM
Do we have a Whedon thread? We might somewhere.

Those two Avengers movies almost broke him so I'm a bit surprised he's going back to the superhero well. I understand how impossibly hard it is t get original sci-fi & fantasy works off the ground in the current Hollywood culture, but this seems to be the wrong move. He felt hamstrung by Marvel's demands on his Avengers films (particularly the last one). I seriously doubt WB/DC is going to allow him a shorter leash.

He doesn't need the money at this point, right?

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/batgirl-movie-joss-whedon-warner-bros-1202018544/

Quote
Batgirl Movie: Joss Whedon to Direct Standalone Film (EXCLUSIVE)

Batgirl is flying solo. The superheroine is getting her own standalone movie from filmmaker Joss Whedon.

Whedon is nearing a deal to write, direct, and produce an untitled Batgirl pic for Warner Bros. as part of its DC Extended Universe.

No other producers are currently attached. Toby Emmerich, president and chief content officer of Warner Bros. Pictures Group, is overseeing with Jon Berg and Geoff Johns. The new project originated in the past month.

Batgirl is one of the most popular superheroes in the world, but has never gotten her own movie. The project will also feature other characters from the world of Gotham.

Batgirl first appeared in DC Comics in 1967 as Barbara Gordon, the daughter of Gotham City police commissioner James Gordon in The Million Dollar Debut of Batgirl! by writer Gardner Fox and artist Carmine Infantino.

The Batgirl project will be the second movie from DC Films to star a female lead after Gal Gadots Wonder Woman, which opens June 2. Extensive footage of the film was shown Wednesday at CinemaCon.

Whedon would be making a big move from the Marvel Cinematic Universe to its DC counterpart, having written and directed The Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron for Disney-Marvel. He also created the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Warner Bros. DC Extended Universe launched with 2013s Man of Steel, followed by last years Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad. Its upcoming films, which have already been dated, include Wonder Woman; Justice League, debuting Nov. 17; and Aquaman, starring Jason Momoa and hitting theaters in December of 2018.

The studio is also developing a Suicide Squad sequel and Gotham City Sirens, a spinoff to Suicide Squad with Margot Robbies Harley Quinn character; The Batman, starring Ben Affleck with Matt Reeves directing; a Shazam film and a Black Adam spinoff starring Dwayne Johnson; and projects based on the Flash and Cyborg characters.

Whedon is repped by CAA.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 31, 2017, 10:04:42 AM
I just wish he was doing a Vin Diesel and using his mega superhero bucks to fund his own projects.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 15, 2017, 11:04:43 AM
Post WV media blackout trailer catch-up freakout!!

After a bad week that really will go down and be firmly entrenched in my list of top five bad weeks, this trailer for Thor: Ragnarok was the first thing that truly made me smile.

Missus RC and I have decided that other than Guardians of the Galaxy, the Thor movies are the best thing Marvel does. This is mostly because the Asgard setting insulates the world of Thor from all the lame crossover bullshit the other movies do. This looks like a lot of fun. I still have yet to see director Taika Watiti's What We Do In The Shadows, but I'm told it's fine comedy. We need more fun in these superhero movies, and this one looks insanely fun.

Also, goth Cate Blanchett = SWOON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MGUNV8MxU
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 15, 2017, 11:11:53 AM
Yeah. Cate won me over with this one, for sure.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 28, 2017, 12:26:57 PM
I kind of liked Doctor Strange! It was basically Inception meets Superman II...for dummies.

Me too! The character arc, while completely aping Iron Man was really well done, particularly because Cumberbatch's Strange was such a giant dick in the beginning. That's break-up scene with Rachel McAdams was captivating.

I thought they didn't quite nail the "promise of the premise" with the "Doramamu, I've come to bargain" scene, the old acid-head in me really dug the time loop implications. I wish I would have gotten out and seen it in 3D, which I've never said about any movie ever.

Good solid fun.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 15, 2017, 04:03:02 AM
So...I liked Suicide Squad! Mainly because it was a clipshow of the best scenes from five different superhero movies that never got made.

Also, I wanted to just soak in every scene involving Margot Robbie. And Cara Delevingne.

Leto's Joker suffered from a weird mix of "I am NOT heath Ledger!" and "I want to copy Heath Ledger!"
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 19, 2017, 09:51:02 AM
Wait...Wonder Woman is a spectacular must-see movie? That's what all the first reactions from critics are saying.

 
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 19, 2017, 11:47:30 AM
Wait...Wonder Woman is a spectacular must-see movie? That's what all the first reactions from critics are saying.

I very much want to see this.  I'd love for DC to have a critical and financial hit.  Hopefully it would up Marvel's game.  I very much enjoyed Dr. Strange and GGofG 2, but I fear the Infinity Wars or whatever it's called now.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 19, 2017, 12:42:33 PM
Just because it's Wonder Woman and it means a lot to me on multiple levels, I want it to not suck.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2017, 03:52:02 PM
A very bad start to Logan! During the titles sequence, when his body's pushing out the bullets, we get a shot of the sink and there are shell casings dropping out of him not bullets!

Surely someone on the crew of 500 people knew the difference between a bullet and a shell casing, right?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 23, 2017, 04:00:57 PM
Wait!  I didn't notice that at all.  I'll have to look again tonight.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2017, 04:19:38 PM
Wait!  I didn't notice that at all.  I'll have to look again tonight.

One of several little yet glaring errors I've noticed just in the first half hour. Some of them are bizarre looping/dubbing errors (watch the bad guy's mouth when he gets in the limo at the start). It's like the movie was made with a 48 hour film festival deadline on everyone's backs. Things like the albino's make up missing patches or smudging off from scene to scene, reflections of camera and crew in sunglasses, dead body's breathing, etc...



Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2017, 04:42:52 PM
All complaints aside, after the first hour I have realized that I could watch Jackman, Stewart, and the little girl play these characters all fucking day.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 23, 2017, 06:15:55 PM
Interesting on the technical notes. I never notice that stuff unless I'm totally disengaged which was definitely not the case for Logan.

I'll be interested in your final take.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2017, 06:39:37 PM
Interesting on the technical notes. I never notice that stuff unless I'm totally disengaged which was definitely not the case for Logan.

I'll be interested in your final take.

Final take: It's a weird mess of a movie. Everyone fucking brings it...and they bring it hard. But it feels like it's the finale of a movie franchise from another dimension where we got all the superhero movies we actually wanted and deserved.

Geek info requests:

Is Adamantium poisoning new to the movie universe?

Why aren't there any mutants left?

Where are the other X-Men?

I'm wondering if the problem is that Logan is the first X-Men movie that demands a knowledge of the written universe, which I don't have...?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 23, 2017, 06:49:53 PM

Geek info requests:

Is Adamantium poisoning new to the movie universe?

Yes.

Why aren't there any mutants left?

The movie never really explains that except to say that they may have just been an evolutionary blip.

Where are the other X-Men?

Dead, we assume. You got the part about how Xavier freaked out and killed everybody, right?

I'm wondering if the problem is that Logan is the first X-Men movie that demands a knowledge of the written universe, which I don't have...?

I found it to be insular, bt I know the X-Men universe like eh back of my hand, so I'm the wrong guy.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 23, 2017, 06:58:10 PM

Geek info requests:

Is Adamantium poisoning new to the movie universe?

Yes.

Well...that's stupid, then. Fuck them.

Quote

Where are the other X-Men?

Dead, we assume. You got the part about how Xavier freaked out and killed everybody, right?

Yeah, I guess. But that whole sideline felt like I had missed maybe 4 or 5 movies.

In fact, all of Logan felt like that. Which may also be a side effect of the fact that the X-Men movie universe technically has 5 fully viable timelines going on at the moment. It's like we need the 12 Monkeys splinter machine to figure it all out.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 23, 2017, 08:01:52 PM
Just rewatched that one scene with the bullets.  He was ejecting bullets not shells.  When a bullet hits tissue and stuff it mushrooms to a flat surface causing more damage.  The flattened bullets are what he's pushing out of his body.  They are an accurate representation of bullets hitting metal which is pretty cool I think. 

The no more mutants is explained by the evil guy and Eric LaSalle at different times in the movie.  They basically genetically engineered the food supply to weed out the mutant genes.   

#ishouldreallybeeditingphotos
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 24, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
This error is noted everywhere, though...IMDB, etc. And it's mistake #1 here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a5ybqMV6Qk
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on May 24, 2017, 08:20:43 AM
Oh, well if the internet says it's true then it must be true 🙄🙄

I can show you bullets that look exactly like that after hitting metal.

In the end this movie ranks up there with some of my favorites.  And that's all I really care about.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on May 24, 2017, 08:24:09 AM
Well, they looked like shell casings to me!

This was a fine movie, but not my favorite. I think I'm over-X-Manned, though.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on June 05, 2017, 09:53:33 AM
Just because it's Wonder Woman and it means a lot to me on multiple levels, I want it to not suck.

I'd LOVE to know what you thought of this RC?  I saw it this weekend and have a lot of thoughts about it.  All involve spoilers though so let me know when it's okay to post about it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 05, 2017, 10:10:00 AM
I haven't seen it yet...but still post away with spoilers!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on June 05, 2017, 11:03:07 AM
Okay...you've been warned :)

Spoilers ahead!!  All of below should be read with the caveat that I was in a pissy mood when I saw this so that may have affected me.

The big thing I take away from this is the hype around the movie, and more importantly, the fact that it's a female director and lead is apparently more important than story or continuity.

The other big thing I take away is the editor should have been taken out back and shot.  Continuity issues are all over the place.  From the Steve Roger/WW escape from her home on a sail boat that apparently makes it from somewhere near Turkey to England overnight by "getting lucky and we caught a ride". Seriously, that's how they explained it.  Really?  You got a ride in WWI era from a ship that can go faster than modern day ships?  To where during the pre "big bad" fight she kills the bad guy and leaves her sword in the guy.  Then the true big bad shows up and she confronts him in another place and essentially says "hold on" in the middle of his "I'm the true big bad guy" speech to go and get the sword.

Bad CGI all over the place.  Like the horses looking like they were galloping in thin air.  And clear halos around the actors.  This may have been because it was shot for 3D and we saw the 2D version.  But still...it was like a movie using 10 year old technology.  Game of Thrones has better CGI. 

The story was unoriginal, the main character development was minimal and even less so for the supporting cast.  Like having a sniper that can't shoot people because of "the nightmares" but after one battle where he shoots no one, WW says it's okay and he's then happy and singing.  Then in the next battle is picking people off left and right.  As if PTSD was something that can be cured with a hug and a smile. 

While I didn't expect the script that would move me to tears, something above "Isn't this the same story as (insert any comic book name)".  Which I suppose is what I should expect.  But considering the hype I expected a bit more.

So that's the negative - the positive is the movie is an enjoyable popcorn movie.  It's certainly not the best comic book movie ever, which is what the critics allude to, but it's enjoyable enough that I wasn't upset I spent the money on it.  Gal Godot is stunningly beautiful and I could watch her on screen reading from a phone book.  Chris Pine is..well Chris Pine.  I did like that they didn't try to make it "I'm a man I'll protect you".  Any of that was more "I know how horrible the world is and I'll try to protect you."  The action sequences are intense and as spectacular as you'd expect from a comic book movie but nothing new.  I do feel that if they release an extended edition like they did with Batman V Superman it could flesh it out to a much better movie.

Worth seeing, but if you don't wait to see it at home you won't be missing anything.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 05, 2017, 11:23:11 AM
Download time!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 05, 2017, 01:15:16 PM
Bah, I say.

So I went in expecting a total turd burger (but hoping for the opposite). I like it because it feels like a throwback to the Burton Batman era of superhero movies. I mean, we're not looking for logic when we go to these things right?

Stranger Things has shifted my expectations in terms of shit like "They went from the Mediterranean to London in a night?!" Because tell me a goddamned story. I'm so utterly sick of "world building" and "mythology" and all this nitty-gritty, nerdy, easter egg shit that does nothing to advance the story. The one scene of them on the boat together was great. Two more for the sake of "realism" would have ground my teeth.

I emailed Nacho shortly after seeing WW, and one of my comments was to the effect that there a couple times I was like, "OMG, are they gonna fuck this up?" To me, the movie always saved itself by not staying in one mode the entire time. I'm almost *positive* it won't hold up as well under a second viewing. (Though maybe it will. FB friends who have seen it twice said it was better the second time around.) But that it was simple and just kept cruising from set piece to set piece with very little explanation. Steve Trevor wanted to Stop Dr. Poison. WW is naive to enough to think she can stop WWI by killing one dude. Enough for me. Get me to No Man's Land!

It's not sophisticated at all. And frankly, that's fine. I'm sick to death of these things feeling like they *all* need to be some great pontification on the human condition. A Logan or a Dark Knight every once in a while are fine, but do we need that all the time? Isn't BvS terrible because it's taking itself *far* too seriously? Paint in broad strokes. We'll all apply our own interpretation to it anyway. Don't we love Guardians of the Galaxy because it's ultimately about finding your tribe? Wonder Woman is about some naive country girl who comes to the city ready to save the world from evil and realizes some people are just bad and can't be helped? Fine and dandy.  As long as I'm not bored. God save me from boring superhero movies.

I like Wonder Woman because it's old fashioned adventure, a throwback, and isn't in love with it's own importance.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on June 05, 2017, 02:43:34 PM
The one scene o them on the boat togather was great. Two more for the sake of "realism" would have ground my teeth.


It was a good scene.  I liked it...what I mean by the editing/directing is all they had to do was not have her waking up as if it was the next day.  Just stand in the boat and then change the line to "This is London?, it's horrible"  When they had her waking up it pulls you out of that great scene a second before.

To me the film aped BvS in trying to be more important than itself.  I would have been happy with a campy GOTG story.  I'm fine with that as a comic movie.  But the slight lines about women not being able to vote, and the PTSD of the sniper, and, and, and...that's my issue.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 05, 2017, 03:14:25 PM
All the women's right stuff didn't bother me because WW has been as much a feminist icon as a superhero since the 70s.

It's not a perfect movie, to be sure. But I think it's pretty okay on it's own merits. Which is more than we can say for the Ghostbusters reboot... which I felt like everybody fell all over themselves apologizing for because "women's rights!" when as a film story, it was mediocre at best.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on June 10, 2017, 12:22:53 PM
The best thing about Marvel getting into their deep cut superheroes for movies is they really don't have to worry about mobs of nerds swarming their offices with torches and pitchforks screaming, "You did it wrong." They can go out and be a little wild.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxWvtMOGAhw
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on June 11, 2017, 11:17:11 AM
Plus, even the mobs of nerds are so exhausted by the white, male message of the movies that they're glad to see anything different, even if it's blue robot aliens.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 03, 2017, 09:19:48 AM
So... Wonder Woman

Cons:

Terrible CGI
As Sirharles said, distracting and terrible editing (even stuff like she loses a weapon/shield in one scene but then has it when she throws the next punch)
Terrible writing
Confusing to have non-Nazi Germans as the bad guys when you clearly wanted Nazis and wrote it that way
Stupid twist

Pros:

Gal Gadot is stupefyingly beautiful and I couldn't take my eyes off of her whether she was flying through the air or trying on glasses.

Final verdict: The pros have it! 5/5!  *rewinds. freezes screen*
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 03, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
I need to see it again without Star Wars glasses, I guess.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 03, 2017, 11:10:50 AM
I need to see it again without Star Wars glasses, I guess.

You mean...you were unable to tell whether or not Gal Gadot was beautiful because you were thinking of Star Wars the whole time?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 03, 2017, 12:04:40 PM
No!

What I mean is the way my love and excitement for Star Wars blinded me to how middle-of-the-road The Force Awakens was. I felt similarly watching WW.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 03, 2017, 12:28:29 PM
No!

What I mean is the way my love and excitement for Star Wars blinded me to how middle-of-the-road The Force Awakens was. I felt similarly watching WW.

It's a terrible movie.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 03, 2017, 01:02:12 PM
You're a terrible movie!

*SOB*
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on July 23, 2017, 09:54:26 PM
Thor: Ragnarok looks like a winner from top to bottom. Now the only question is whether it can deliver he awesomeness the trailers promise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue80QwXMRHg
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on July 25, 2017, 11:50:46 AM
It can't.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 11, 2017, 10:31:24 AM
I like how only three people use these forums and we still can't keep track of the threads. Didn't we have a Guardians thread?

Anyway... Guardians 2 was an amazing movie. Easily one of the top 5 sequels I've seen. They kept the charm and simplicity of the original, which is surprising for a Marvel movie. They also kept the right tone for the ensemble. That last part is what surprised me the most because they essentially added two people to the ensemble AND split them up for a portion of the movie. The strain did start to show through my rose-tinted glasses. Drax probably suffered the most. But the genius of the writing came through and saved everyone -- we got a glimpse at the deeper side of Drax thanks to the empath. So the new arrivals helped support any potential collapse of the storyline.

Kurt Russel was, also surprisingly, not shoehorned in and/or chewing the scenery. He made it work. We hit all the potential shark jumping moments -- dealing with family background, answering unanswered questions from the first movie, and confirming the relationship between Peter and Gomorrah -- and the movie just ran with it. It all made sense.

Baby Groot's scene-stealing ability didn't even harm the storyline. It's absolutely astounding that they pulled this movie off because there are so many possible breaks in the storyline.

I was underwhelmed by Stallone. I guess that's a nod to the uber-fans, right? But that was the weakest part. Fortunatly, it looks like he just showe dup on a lazy Saturday afternoon to film his scenes. I also felt like the Sovereign was way underused. They were a major element in the story and, yet, they were the B-story. But I forgive that thanks to the post-credits sequence which made it obvious that the Sovereign storyline is actually a long set-up for part 3. Which is cool. That gives this trilogy a sense of being...a trilogy. In that natural way that only Star Trek has ever really pulled off (with Star Trek II, III, IV).

So...very happy. Give me more!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on August 11, 2017, 06:07:54 PM
I tried to go back and find my review, but apparently I never wrote one.

I loved it too. And also felt that they had every chance in the world to blow it, and restrained themselves from doing so. Everybody's back for Vol. 3 and it'll be after the big Avengers: Infinity War ka-blooie, so hopefully Marvel will allow it to not get overstuffed.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 10, 2017, 10:47:55 AM
Thor: Ragnarok is really well done. It's certainly as funny, but what what I was shocked by was how well they balanced out the humor while still keeping the emotional stakes high. There trailers make it look like a joke a minute, but there's some real pathos in the character arcs.

Jeff Goldblum steals the show but he's dangerously close to becoming a parody of himself.

RC says check it out.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on November 10, 2017, 10:29:47 PM
Saw it last weekend and greatly enjoyed it.  I'm sure it had some plot holes and things that didn't make sense.  I don't know why, but I don't notice them the way I do with DC films.  Does that make the Marvel films better?  My buddy argues that because Marvel has more humor we are more forgiving. 

Everyone was gaga over Wonder Woman...which is still far and away better than the other two, but I still had a lot of problems with it.  Where all the Marvel movies I've enjoyed.  Even Age of Ultron, which did have a host of issues.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on November 19, 2017, 06:47:57 PM
Justice League

Okay, to say it's much better than BvS is like saying Mason is much better than Hitler, but having said that I enjoyed the movie.  Are there problems? Yes. Did they force the return of Superman in the most ham fisted way possible? Yes.  Is Gal Gadot possibly the worlds most beautiful woman and is she the perfect Wonder Woman?  Yes and yes.  Is Ezra Miller good comic relief? Surprisingly, yes.  Did Affleck phone it in?  It seems that way.  Jason Mamoa playing Aquaman is exactly what you'd expect.  He's playing every single role Jason Mamoa has ever played.  I know nothing of the kid playing Cyborg, but he convinced me he was a cyborg sooooo...

I also know nothing from the comics.  The only thing about the Justice League I remember is from Saturday morning cartoons.  I know nothing of the canon. Admittedly I go into these movies more of a newbie than you guys.  I have to say though, I enjoyed it much more than BvS and to some extent more than WW.  There were no places in the movie where I rolled my eyes (I'm looking at you WW and overnight boat trip from Greece to London).  It felt more like what DC is trying to achieve, AKA movies like Avengers.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on November 20, 2017, 07:54:26 AM
Your second point about Gal Gadot is the only reason I'm into this movie. I've decided I'll watch any movie she's in as long as she's on screen for at least 20% of the film.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 23, 2018, 12:42:37 PM
Social importance cast aside, Black Panther is still a really good movie.

The writing and performances are stellar. It skates on the edges of the Marvel format enough to feel familiar yet find it's own voice. The Wakanda setting does for Black Panther what the outer space setting does for the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, allows it to find it's own language, voice, and sense of rhythm. The production design is out of this world. Wakanda is such a wonderfully bright and fully realized world, and the tribal politics of it all is really fascinating.

All the textual "messaging" about colonialism, The Void, and African diaspora abroad is baked into the character motivations in a way that isn't preachy or distracting. There's a ton more of it in the sub-text of you want it. However, if you just want a straight up super-hero yarn with one of the best villains since Heath Ledger's Joker, you'll get it. Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger is one of the best villains ever. His motivations test the very foundations of T'Challa's faith in his country and the choices he must make as a new King.

I'm not going to go through the plot because it's best to just take the ride, but basically it's about a young man forced into a leadership role a bit before he feels he's ready. He learns hard lessons about the mistakes those who ruled before him have made. It's about legacy, tradition, and how those things must evolve, and how the choices that seem right in the present may have horrifying ramifications for the future.

It's great. It's a refreshing shot in the arm for the superhero movie. Ryan Coogler has done incredible work three times now so I'm willing to call him a great director.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on February 23, 2018, 02:36:22 PM
Can't wait to steal it! LOL.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on February 23, 2018, 02:50:48 PM
Colonizer!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2018, 08:27:03 AM
Justice League is terrible. I think the big trouble is that all these movies are shows are now deeply interconnected so you actually had to be paying very particular attention to every hour of every awful movie to get the plot.

This movie also makes me realize that I will watch anything with Gal Gadot.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 03, 2018, 07:04:43 PM
Did I even write anything about Justice League after I watched it? In the BvS thread maybe?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on March 03, 2018, 07:32:21 PM
Did I even write anything about Justice League after I watched it? In the BvS thread maybe?

Unless you posted a pic of Gal Gadot, I'm not sure I can be bothered to check.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 13, 2018, 01:07:22 PM
It's a train wreck of epic proportions.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on March 16, 2018, 10:23:48 AM
So that Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy effect is that when Marvel allows their characters to occupy their own worlds, it make their giant team-up movies look that much more stupid.

Also, snoozy villains = snoozy movie and unless Thanos has major pathos, he's a shitty villain.

https://youtu.be/QwievZ1Tx-8
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: Sirharles on April 10, 2018, 08:09:09 AM
Either of you want to go see Infinity Wars on Sunday the 29th?  I can come down to Bethesda.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 10, 2018, 10:18:18 AM
I'm going with my sister and her crew that day.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 10, 2018, 11:04:45 AM
I have a strict policy of not going to four hour crossover events.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on August 08, 2018, 12:48:22 PM
I finally sat down and watched Infinity War and, generally, was angry at all the death and destruction choices they were making that sort of cheapened the other franchises (killing the Asgard refugees, killing Zoe Saldana, etc.).

That, of course, has been at the center of all the talk about Infinity War, with friends saying "You have to watch it" instead of talking about it.

So I expected all this, and it had been built up in my mind as some sort of sea-change reboot. No one said "It's part one of two" and, so, part two, with Captain Marvel at the helm, will simply undo everything. I can see it a mile (and years) away: We'll sit through six hours of noisy, over-crowded movie just to have an "it was all a dream" resolution.

Despite all that, though, Infinity War is the best Avengers movie so far. But the bar's pretty low for me there...
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on September 18, 2018, 01:10:10 PM
Dude...this works! (It's also the female superhero vibe I was hoping Doctor Who would adopt...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BCujX3pw8
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on September 18, 2018, 03:28:00 PM
I think so too!!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2018, 12:08:33 PM
So...Ant-Man and the Wasp is fun and all, but... It demands that you pay very close attention to Ant-Man's actions in the various Avengers movies. It's so deeply embedded in the consequences of Ant-Man's actions as a cameo in other movies that Ant-Man and the Wasp even needs to spend long exposition scenes explaining the background to those of us who may not have bene paying attention. This happens not only with Michael Douglas catching us up to speed, but also Lawrence Fishbourne AND Randall Park.

Now, if you can't tell your story on its own merit...I don't know. Why are you the one telling this story, then?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 02, 2018, 12:45:29 PM
This is growing MCU problem. Because of this, I think we'll see a popularity drop off after Avengers 4.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 02, 2018, 01:30:38 PM
This is growing MCU problem. Because if this, I think we'll see a popularity drop off after Avengers 4.

It was very frustrating...and it ruined the movie for me. The movie is really all about what Ant-Man did during his few seconds of screen time during very loud, busy, and hard to follow battle scenes. Like, the whole conflict of the movie (he's under house arrest and must constantly avoid the Feds, to the point of leaving during crucial scenes) is about the consequences of those cameos. That feels like the bigger issue than Ghost, who is a weak as water villain who listens to reason, has a sympathetic cause, and is almost casually dealt with at the end.

In fact, the movie's actual ending is a cliffhanger linking us into the end of Infinity War!
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 02, 2018, 11:20:43 PM
Blah.... I haven't seen this one yet and now I don't want to.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 07, 2018, 09:44:47 PM
A five minute "extended look" trailer? The studio must think Aquaman is awful, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaWnLiffxJ4
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on October 08, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Ugh. It looks awful.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on January 13, 2019, 07:01:32 PM
So...Ant-Man and the Wasp is fun and all, but... It demands that you pay very close attention to Ant-Man's actions in the various Avengers movies. It's so deeply embedded in the consequences of Ant-Man's actions as a cameo in other movies that Ant-Man and the Wasp even needs to spend long exposition scenes explaining the background to those of us who may not have bene paying attention. This happens not only with Michael Douglas catching us up to speed, but also Lawrence Fishbourne AND Randall Park.

Now, if you can't tell your story on its own merit...I don't know. Why are you the one telling this story, then?

Since, I mentioned it in the Solo thread, I'll come back and say I watched Ant-Man and the Wasp and I agree with everything you're saying but also...

 snorebot!

Seriously. Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Lawrence Fishburne?! How do you take those actors and make such a dial tone of a movie?
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 03, 2019, 12:01:42 PM
If this wasn't our third Joker in eleven years I'd probably be a lot more excited about this. I will say that  taking this more realistic Logan style tack with superheroes is an interesting way to go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t433PEQGErc
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on April 16, 2019, 09:04:13 AM
I'm just soooo over it all at this point. And I really hate the realistic approach to the Joker! This looks more like the origin story for Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on April 29, 2019, 11:32:19 AM
Avengers: Endgame

Missus RC marathoned *ALL* the Marvel movies over the past six weeks in preparation for this thing. I joined her for a third of them probably. (Upon second viewing, Ant-Man & the Wasp was a little less annoying, but still pretty annoying.) We did Infinity War yesterday morning and went straight to Endgame.

The only way to truly comment on this thing is by spoiling it, and I don't want to spoil anything. It's a perfectly fine wrap-up of all the movies to this point. Not mind-blazingly emotional, nor a reinvention of the superhero genre. (It self-references an 80s movie as a joke, the proceeds to blatantly rip it off.) It's fun. I was satisfied with the resolution, though after making $1.2 billion worldwide in one weekend Marvel movies certainly aren't going anywhere. It does border on self-parody from time-to-time, but after 22 movies, how could it not? Marvel's willingness to go a wee bit bonkers here is admirable, except they knew this was a one-time chance to print money so really there was no reason to *not* go balls out.

RC says check it out before the internet spoils the plot and sucks any fun out of it.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 07, 2019, 12:04:27 PM
Also, internet conversation about Avengers: Endgame is everything wrong with internet conversation in 2019.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 03, 2019, 04:02:01 PM
Hey, let's just stand here and film while the next Tsunami comes rumbling towards us.

(In honesty, this looks exactly like the type of movie I' like to watch. I'm a sucker for the political intrigue-y/Bourne style of this corner of the Marvel Universe.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxAtuMu_ph4
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 03, 2019, 04:17:33 PM
I'm holding out for a Happy Hogan movie series. It'll be 77 minutes of him watching stuff happen from all the previous movies, then 47 minutes of him washing a limo while talking about obscure but vitally important events that played out on a Youtube Red exclusive streaming MCU series.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 04, 2019, 11:44:09 AM
The MCU is actually ride for a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern style satire. Sort of Deadpool, but with two Thanos henchman.
Title: Re: Superhero Movies
Post by: nacho on December 04, 2019, 12:52:34 PM
The MCU is actually ride for a Rosencrantz and Guildenstern style satire. Sort of Deadpool, but with two Thanos henchman.

Actually, now that you say it, Deadpool is the one part of the franchise I don't mind. Mainly because it makes fun of what we're complaining about here.