|
|
Post by cordless2016 on Sept 12, 2018 13:00:16 GMT -5
There’s no phrase or words to use to describe how dumb WB is.
They took two actors in Cavill and Affleck, who were both super passionate about these characters and set to do this for the next decade + and pushed them both to the point of wanting out as fast as possible.
Like already stated here, they should have stuck to MOS2 and let Affleck have his own intro movie. Instead, WB wanted to play catch-up with Marvel and shot their load as fast as possible.
There’s literally no point to Aquaman and Shazam. And it’ll be super awkward watching Shazam with all the Superman and Batman Easter eggs. And unfortunately Zach Snyder was used a the scrap goat in all of this.
I tried defending the DCEU but with Cavill gone I think I’m out too.
|
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Sept 12, 2018 14:16:53 GMT -5
Shouldn't everyone be happy that this means they could start from scratch now so the armchair QBs can get a type of movie that falls more in line with the easily digestible Marvel movie-of-the-week format?
|
|
|
|
Post by kennyw86v2 on Sept 12, 2018 14:41:24 GMT -5
There’s no phrase or words to use to describe how dumb WB is. They took two actors in Cavill and Affleck, who were both super passionate about these characters and set to do this for the next decade + and pushed them both to the point of wanting out as fast as possible. Like already stated here, they should have stuck to MOS2 and let Affleck have his own intro movie. Instead, WB wanted to play catch-up with Marvel and shot their load as fast as possible. There’s literally no point to Aquaman and Shazam. And it’ll be super awkward watching Shazam with all the Superman and Batman Easter eggs. And unfortunately Zach Snyder was used a the scrap goat in all of this. I tried defending the DCEU but with Cavill gone I think I’m out too. I agree so much with all of this. They really needed to slow down and make people give a crapand they didn't at all. I like WW and JL was okish. But marvel shamed them every step of the way with a much better approach. |
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Sept 12, 2018 23:32:16 GMT -5
Shouldn't everyone be happy that this means they could start from scratch now so the armchair QBs can get a type of movie that falls more in line with the easily digestible Marvel movie-of-the-week format? Oh dear.... armchair QBs....LMFAO here. Are you seriously trying to defend the absolute mess DC/WB has media division has made of this project? LOL....😂😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Sept 13, 2018 1:07:40 GMT -5
Just scrap it all. Let everyone out of their contracts...event Gal & Margot who are the only 2 that got praise from non DC Fanboys and take 5 years off and let someone like Geoff Johns just redo everything with no WB involvement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darkhawk on Sept 13, 2018 1:44:03 GMT -5
With Cavill leaving, I'm done with DC films completely. To me Cavill is Superman. He should jump to Marvel where he'll be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Sept 13, 2018 9:32:52 GMT -5
Shouldn't everyone be happy that this means they could start from scratch now so the armchair QBs can get a type of movie that falls more in line with the easily digestible Marvel movie-of-the-week format? Oh dear.... armchair QBs....LMFAO here. Are you seriously trying to defend the absolute mess DC/WB has media division has made of this project? LOL....😂😂😂😂 Hahah well...not exactly. I do think people are a lot harsher on some of these movies than others. For sure not all (I couldn't believe how bad Suicide Squad was). But I also think people aren't harsh enough on the Marvel formula which has been exactly the same for almost two decades now. I just think people tend to like those regardless of being good or bad and anytime someone experiments with these (with the exception of Logan and even that has gotten more heat than I ever expected in some corners I've visited) it gets way more grief than it should. 2003 Hulk is a good example of something that people have responded better to over time. I think BvS will probably get that treatment too. Admittedly I haven't watched most of the others. Alright man I'm a hypocrite, fine!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Sept 13, 2018 11:04:32 GMT -5
Just scrap it all. Let everyone out of their contracts...event Gal & Margot who are the only 2 that got praise from non DC Fanboys and take 5 years off and let someone like Geoff Johns just redo everything with no WB involvement. Johns is supposedly working on the Green Lantern Corps movie for 2020. I'm tentatively optimistic since he's one of the best GL writers of all time. Although, I still think his work on Flash is the best run of his career. I really think he and Affleck would have put something special together for the Batman script they were writing. I guess we'll never know. I also largely agree with blowing it up. Make the Justice League world disappear and comeback with a film that works as a stand alone film and go one at a time. WB got into all this trouble because they were trying to keep up with Marvel instead of just organically making good movies. They need to find their own formula and make it stick, but it's going to take time and now they have to do damage control with even some of the more committed fans of those characters. And while we're being critical, I think doing Earth 2, or alternate Earth versions of characters is a massive mistake. If they can't even get the iconic characters over like Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman, why in the blue hell do people want to see alternate universe versions of those characters? I think we called that approach the Catwoman movie... |
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Sept 13, 2018 11:23:26 GMT -5
And while we're being critical, I think doing Earth 2, or alternate Earth versions of characters is a massive mistake. If they can't even get the iconic characters over like Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman, why in the blue hell do people want to see alternate universe versions of those characters? I think we called that approach the Catwoman movie... True, but think of the endless possibilities of a 'one shot' approach instead of over complicating it with Earth 2 and alternate Earth thought processes? This is kind of my issue with comics in general. More power to everyone that loves to be heavily involved in the ongoing sagas but for me that's just too much to consume and sometimes one-shot approaches or 'start to finish' series have turned out great and even sometimes heavily influenced how we look at the character moving forward. There's no reason we couldn't have multiple movies that either loosely follow some pre-established canon with different interpretations or just serve as standalone pieces. Comics have a HUGE advantage over say Star Wars for example with this as there really are technically no actors that are married to the original concepts of the characters. Not to be a broken record but I feel like Logan proves this. But the world we live in everything has to be franchise based because it otherwise can't be marketed and this is exactly why to JokerFC's point WB has been terrible at maintaining and also made terrible decisions to try and play catch up. I think people just need to be more accepting and open minded that 1-3 movies don't HAVE to equal 20 follow-ups and spin offs and crossovers? At least sometimes? Look at Spider-Man. I'm pulling for him to appear in Venom even though I have zero interest in that movie because I think it would blur the line of how we look at these. Why can't Tom Holland, who is great as Spider-Man and Peter Parker, also play him in someone else's interpretation? The counterpoint might be that it's confusing to people but Sony is about to release an animated Spider-Man movie that also features Peter so they're banking on people being able to tell the difference and so far it seems like reactions have been good. My point is even though they blew it on this I think they should have just focused on telling a filmmaker's story about Batman instead of worrying so heavily how it would tie into their franchise building. This is why I hate the term 'cinematic universe' and I hope the marketing obsessed VP or whatever who came up with that term is happy that they've set a standard like this. It just really doesn't have to be that way and it would be so much more interesting if it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Sept 13, 2018 11:54:27 GMT -5
And while we're being critical, I think doing Earth 2, or alternate Earth versions of characters is a massive mistake. If they can't even get the iconic characters over like Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman, why in the blue hell do people want to see alternate universe versions of those characters? I think we called that approach the Catwoman movie... True, but think of the endless possibilities of a 'one shot' approach instead of over complicating it with Earth 2 and alternate Earth thought processes? This is kind of my issue with comics in general. More power to everyone that loves to be heavily involved in the ongoing sagas but for me that's just too much to consume and sometimes one-shot approaches or 'start to finish' series have turned out great and even sometimes heavily influenced how we look at the character moving forward. There's no reason we couldn't have multiple movies that either loosely follow some pre-established canon with different interpretations or just serve as standalone pieces. Comics have a HUGE advantage over say Star Wars for example with this as there really are technically no actors that are married to the original concepts of the characters. Not to be a broken record but I feel like Logan proves this. But the world we live in everything has to be franchise based because it otherwise can't be marketed and this is exactly why to JokerFC's point WB has been terrible at maintaining and also made terrible decisions to try and play catch up. I think people just need to be more accepting and open minded that 1-3 movies don't HAVE to equal 20 follow-ups and spin offs and crossovers? At least sometimes? Look at Spider-Man. I'm pulling for him to appear in Venom even though I have zero interest in that movie because I think it would blur the line of how we look at these. Why can't Tom Holland, who is great as Spider-Man and Peter Parker, also play him in someone else's interpretation? The counterpoint might be that it's confusing to people but Sony is about to release an animated Spider-Man movie that also features Peter so they're banking on people being able to tell the difference and so far it seems like reactions have been good. My point is even though they blew it on this I think they should have just focused on telling a filmmaker's story about Batman instead of worrying so heavily how it would tie into their franchise building. This is why I hate the term 'cinematic universe' and I hope the marketing obsessed VP or whatever who came up with that term is happy that they've set a standard like this. It just really doesn't have to be that way and it would be so much more interesting if it wasn't. Great post......fair play to ya man. |
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Sept 13, 2018 12:01:33 GMT -5
Oh dear.... armchair QBs....LMFAO here. Are you seriously trying to defend the absolute mess DC/WB has media division has made of this project? LOL....😂😂😂😂 Hahah well...not exactly. I do think people are a lot harsher on some of these movies than others. For sure not all (I couldn't believe how bad Suicide Squad was). But I also think people aren't harsh enough on the Marvel formula which has been exactly the same for almost two decades now. I just think people tend to like those regardless of being good or bad and anytime someone experiments with these (with the exception of Logan and even that has gotten more heat than I ever expected in some corners I've visited) it gets way more grief than it should. 2003 Hulk is a good example of something that people have responded better to over time. I think BvS will probably get that treatment too. Admittedly I haven't watched most of the others. Alright man I'm a hypocrite, fine!!! I recently did a marathon & watched all the DCEU movies over one weekend when I was laid up with a bad knee. I like BvS a LOT more than I did previously when I watched it after MOS. But I felt WW & Suicide Squad have suffered for me and JL was just dreadful. MOS for me is still a good movie......irks me how badly they jumped the shark instead of just taking their time. I get that that they didn't want to be like Marvel Studios.....but that approach was $$$$$$$$$. MITB lads....If patience had ruled the roost and not instant gratification? the DCEU may have turned out a lot better. Hell they wouldn't even greenlight any more movies or the tiny bit of universe building Snyder wanted until they seen how MOS performed......Paramount & Disney had to commit to Avengers before they had ANY clue how IM2, Thor or Cap did. WB corporate mentality was incredibly destructive to this brand.....& continues to be. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to the Codyverse on Sept 13, 2018 16:50:39 GMT -5
Way off topic from these last posts here...
Who else would like to see Keaton come back and give us an old man Batman and him finish off a trilogy, of sorts
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Sept 14, 2018 9:17:06 GMT -5
And while we're being critical, I think doing Earth 2, or alternate Earth versions of characters is a massive mistake. If they can't even get the iconic characters over like Bruce/Batman and Clark/Superman, why in the blue hell do people want to see alternate universe versions of those characters? I think we called that approach the Catwoman movie... True, but think of the endless possibilities of a 'one shot' approach instead of over complicating it with Earth 2 and alternate Earth thought processes? This is kind of my issue with comics in general. More power to everyone that loves to be heavily involved in the ongoing sagas but for me that's just too much to consume and sometimes one-shot approaches or 'start to finish' series have turned out great and even sometimes heavily influenced how we look at the character moving forward. There's no reason we couldn't have multiple movies that either loosely follow some pre-established canon with different interpretations or just serve as standalone pieces. Comics have a HUGE advantage over say Star Wars for example with this as there really are technically no actors that are married to the original concepts of the characters. Not to be a broken record but I feel like Logan proves this. But the world we live in everything has to be franchise based because it otherwise can't be marketed and this is exactly why to JokerFC's point WB has been terrible at maintaining and also made terrible decisions to try and play catch up. I think people just need to be more accepting and open minded that 1-3 movies don't HAVE to equal 20 follow-ups and spin offs and crossovers? At least sometimes? Look at Spider-Man. I'm pulling for him to appear in Venom even though I have zero interest in that movie because I think it would blur the line of how we look at these. Why can't Tom Holland, who is great as Spider-Man and Peter Parker, also play him in someone else's interpretation? The counterpoint might be that it's confusing to people but Sony is about to release an animated Spider-Man movie that also features Peter so they're banking on people being able to tell the difference and so far it seems like reactions have been good. My point is even though they blew it on this I think they should have just focused on telling a filmmaker's story about Batman instead of worrying so heavily how it would tie into their franchise building. This is why I hate the term 'cinematic universe' and I hope the marketing obsessed VP or whatever who came up with that term is happy that they've set a standard like this. It just really doesn't have to be that way and it would be so much more interesting if it wasn't. I have zero issues with one-shots, self contained inside the same universe. Even in your example of Venom, which I wholeheartedly agree with, you want Holland to be the one in the Spider-man costume. I want that exact same scenario with Batman. I think having Leto in the SS universe and Phoenix, who is close enough to the same age, floating around in his universe is a bad way to go. Which one shows up if Batman faces Joker in a Batman film? So I don't like muddy water with this stuff because I want a chance to grow with a character. From what we know about WW84, we're getting exactly what you want. A one-shot about WW that doesn't tie to anything else. I think that will work and I'm totally onboard with that idea, but I think the reason it works is because it's the same characters/actors established in the first film we already enjoyed. So as long as that is the formula, and not just casting a new Batman every time they want to tell a story within that universe, then I'm totally good with it. For the record, I've stated over-and-over I hate Batman mixing with heroes outside of his own universe. The only movie I wanted from the start was a solo Bats story that had absolutely nothing to do with Justice League. I'm pretty anti-crossover, particularly with vigilantes. Way off topic from these last posts here... Who else would like to see Keaton come back and give us an old man Batman and him finish off a trilogy, of sorts Which brings me to this point, yes. I think it's general consensus that most fans want Keaton to return as old Bruce in Batman Beyond. This is where I make an exception for multiple Batman's, because Keaton already has two established films in the lore and he's old enough that it wouldn't mixup anything with Affleck's timeline. I think the other obvious pick is the Dark Knight Returns, which is an amazing story, but it doesn't feel nearly as right for Keaton as Beyond imo. |
|
|
|
Post by JokerFC on Sept 14, 2018 11:48:46 GMT -5
I think I'm gonna watch the Batman Beyond pilot movie & Return Of The Joker later......
|
|
|
|
Post by Back to the Codyverse on Sept 15, 2018 16:32:58 GMT -5
Just had a conversation with my wife about how I feel like Cena would be a great Superman. She shot that thought down lol
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Sept 15, 2018 16:47:25 GMT -5
I think both Routh and Cavill were excellent Supermen. Unfortunately, Routh was saddled with a crapmovie, and Cavill came in at the time when EVERYTHING HAS TO BE GRITTY AND DARK!
I would like to rewind the clock and see either of those guys in a lighter and more positive, uplifting Superman film. Sort of what they seem to be trying to finally do with Shazam. Making the movies through the eyes of a kid, and making it fun again.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLastDude on Sept 16, 2018 16:26:51 GMT -5
So...Todd Phillips shared this image to his IG account that's supposed to be an early look at Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker: Yeah, about that. Joaquin has aged hard as shit. Aren't the characters supposed to be younger in origin stories? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Dec 1, 2024 22:35:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 11:08:20 GMT -5
So...Todd Phillips shared this image to his IG account that's supposed to be an early look at Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker: Yeah, about that. Joaquin has aged hard as crap. Aren't the characters supposed to be younger in origin stories? I think the reason he looks older is because of the amount of weight he's lost over the past couple of years. He looks gaunt. He looked almost sickly in that movie he made with Phillip Seymour Hoffman about the religious cult or whatever. I've never seen it. So that description is probably ten different shades of wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to the Codyverse on Sept 17, 2018 21:32:36 GMT -5
So...Todd Phillips shared this image to his IG account that's supposed to be an early look at Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker: Yeah, about that. Joaquin has aged hard as crap. Aren't the characters supposed to be younger in origin stories? I think the reason he looks older is because of the amount of weight he's lost over the past couple of years. He looks gaunt. He looked almost sickly in that movie he made with Phillip Seymour Hoffman about the religious cult or whatever. I've never seen it. So that description is probably ten different shades of wrong. Stick to Steve Rogers dammit |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Dec 1, 2024 22:35:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2018 23:57:43 GMT -5
I think the reason he looks older is because of the amount of weight he's lost over the past couple of years. He looks gaunt. He looked almost sickly in that movie he made with Phillip Seymour Hoffman about the religious cult or whatever. I've never seen it. So that description is probably ten different shades of wrong. Stick to Steve Rogers dammit Steve is my boy. Your weird rage towards him won't change that. |
|
