|
achillesforever6 posted:Wasn't that more because of RDJ not wanting to do that since it was too personal for him A recent article: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/05/31/civil-war-did-not-cause-the-civil-war-at-marvel-the-rot-set-in-with-iron-man-2/ quote:I’ve talked to a number of sources who disagree with the Russos’ specific take on the cause of the big split at Marvel. Rather than occurring during Civil War, its origins are with Iron Man 2. And what happened when Marvel executives freaked out after seeing an early cut of the movie. A lot of money had been spent, Marvel wasn’t willing to go back to the drawing board. But changes had to be made.
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Electromax posted:A recent article: This is an interesting article and seems to paint Perlmutter in a better light than I have seen anyone talk about him before. I also didn't realize that Doctor Strange will be the first movie without Marvel's input (only Marvel Studios). Should we be worried about that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Did you like it less than Pride and Prejudice and Zombies? Never saw it. It sounds pretty awful though, so I'd consider that a win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:I also didn't realize that Doctor Strange will be the first movie without Marvel's input (only Marvel Studios). Should we be worried about that? Yes. Clearly it will be the one to sink Marvel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Electromax posted:A recent article: Huh. That makes a lot of sense, since when I first watched IM2 I thought it was odd that he wasn't drinking alcohol, but every other scene had him swilling down green muck because "his power source was killing him?" And then at his house party he basically acts like a belligerent drunk anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
In another universe there exists a version of Iron Man 2 where the central premise is that Tony is struggling with his alcohol addiction while simultaneously dealing with the discovery that his father was actually kind of a shithead who stole another person's discovery and it is a much much better film than the one we got.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I'd think that would be an Aquaman/Hal Jordan movie. Or an Aquaman/Flash movie, which I could totally get into if they went with a fun version of Aquaman instead of Khal Drogo, King of the Sea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah but for a reboot you want to do something different than the James Cameron version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
ihatepants posted:This is an interesting article and seems to paint Perlmutter in a better light than I have seen anyone talk about him before. It was the same way when Bleeding Cool originally reported on the split, if I remember right. Rich Johnston really wants Perlmutter to be the good guy, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:Or an Aquaman/Flash movie, which I could totally get into if they went with a fun version of Aquaman instead of Khal Drogo, King of the Sea. I wonder if he'll ever be referred to as Arthur Curry, because when I hear that name, I do not imagine Conan. I feel like they're over compensating with Aquaman in the DCCU, making him really bad rear end and tough by Momoa's casting. It feels like they wanted to head off "Aquaman is dumb, he swims and talks to fish" comments by going "yea, he looks dumb, dumb like your rear end he just kicked!". While the opposite is true with the Flash, I cannot see this version from Ezra Miller being the heart and moral compass of the JL, or even the jokey one, he looks more like he'd go to Batman 'eh, whatever' when told to run fast and get the Motherbox. Yes i'm basing this on literally 5 seconds of the movie, but that's the point of that, to give us your first glimpse of these characters and what to expect. Weren't most of Pearlmutter's ideas less about making the movies, good, but making them more suitable for selling action figures? Wasn't he behind the whole "no girl toys" thing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I wonder if he'll ever be referred to as Arthur Curry, because when I hear that name, I do not imagine Conan. I feel like they're over compensating with Aquaman in the DCCU, making him really bad rear end and tough by Momoa's casting. It feels like they wanted to head off "Aquaman is dumb, he swims and talks to fish" comments by going "yea, he looks dumb, dumb like your rear end he just kicked!". While the opposite is true with the Flash, I cannot see this version from Ezra Miller being the heart and moral compass of the JL, or even the jokey one, he looks more like he'd go to Batman 'eh, whatever' when told to run fast and get the Motherbox. Yes i'm basing this on literally 5 seconds of the movie, but that's the point of that, to give us your first glimpse of these characters and what to expect. Going way too hard in the opposite direction has been DC's MO with Aquaman for a while now. It didn't start with the DCCU. ImpAtom posted:In another universe there exists a version of Iron Man 2 where the central premise is that Tony is struggling with his alcohol addiction while simultaneously dealing with the discovery that his father was actually kind of a shithead who stole another person's discovery and it is a much much better film than the one we got. Does it still have Whiplash?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
Surprised this hasn't been posted yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AO19XY2rqc It's the trailer for the BvS Ultimate edition release. It seems to add a few more scenes focusing on Superman and Clark, in particular the Africa scene, and him investigating the Batman as a reporter. I, for one, am hyped!
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
But will Superman smile when he saves people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
That movie is already too long, even if by some miracle they manage to make Superman something other than an aloof nobody in his own movie it's not like it's gonna fix the pacing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:even if by some miracle they manage to make Superman something other than an aloof nobody in his own movie I'm conflicted about this, because being about Superman from a kind of outside perspective (or through the lens of Batman's madness) was one of BvS's strengths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
I, for one, think that a movie that's trying to portray an ideological conflict between superheroes should dramatize a clash in perspectives, by which I mean Superman should actually have one. Going "it's from Batman's perspective!" is actually a huge copout because this movie needs to be about two heroes, not one. But I'm talking to you, so I've already lost. Arist fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Jun 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I, for one, think that a movie that's trying to portray an ideological conflict between superheroes should dramatize a clash in perspectives, by which I mean Superman should actually have one. Superman wants to stop a warlord from trampling on civil liberties, this was pretty clear in the theatrical cut already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Oh boy, another BvS argument. Surely this will be the time that everybody will convince everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:That movie is already too long, even if by some miracle they manage to make Superman something other than an aloof nobody in his own movie it's not like it's gonna fix the pacing. I respectfully disagree, the biggest issue isn't the length of the movie, but the editing and pacing, both of which could be improved with the additional content. Looks very promising on that front imo. But then again, if you really hated everything about this movie the directors cut probably won't change you being wrong anyway
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:I, for one, think that a movie that's trying to portray an ideological conflict between superheroes ...did you even see it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:...did you even see it? I did, I'm complaining that it didn't actually do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
"Civil liberties are being trampled on in your city; good people living in fear."
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
I'm living in fear of your posting
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Quesada says Marvel owns the movie rights to Namorquote:Appearing on the Fat Man on Batman podcast, interviewer Kevin Smith asked Quesada, "...The same people that own Iron Man, own the Sub-Mariner?" You sons of bitches better make a goddamn Namor movie..
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Clark Kent decided he is okay with warlords as long as they help rescue his mother apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
zoux posted:Quesada says Marvel owns the movie rights to Namor A Namor movie would loving suck, especially considering that the Fantastic Four don't exist in the MCU. Now, a BP movie with Namor as the villain...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Yeah, he's good when he's either the villain or a foil.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
zoux posted:Quesada says Marvel owns the movie rights to Namor Good to confirm they finally got the rights back at some point. Universal had the rights decades ago, but nothing ever came from it except very early plans to have The Rock play him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Once again, I shamelessly request that Shepard Smith be cast.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
CzarChasm posted:Huh. That makes a lot of sense, since when I first watched IM2 I thought it was odd that he wasn't drinking alcohol, but every other scene had him swilling down green muck because "his power source was killing him?" And then at his house party he basically acts like a belligerent drunk anyway. I guess making Tony addicted to the suit instead is/was their alternate angle into that whole storyline.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
IM2 is basically how bad a movie can be due to Marvel/studio interference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:IM2 is basically how bad a movie can be due to Marvel/studio interference. But Kevin Feige IS Marvel / the Studio and he was the one that was overruled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:It was the same way when Bleeding Cool originally reported on the split, if I remember right. Rich Johnston really wants Perlmutter to be the good guy, for some reason. Also for some reason the internet at large wants Perlmutter to be the bad guy. No one has heard his side of the story, but hey, I heard he's tight with money so he must be an all around ominous shitlord. twistedmentat posted:Weren't most of Pearlmutter's ideas less about making the movies, good, but making them more suitable for selling action figures? Wasn't he behind the whole "no girl toys" thing? See! What a shitlord! He doesn't want girls to have toys! Either that or toy makers have found out that boys age 6-12 have shown an equal amount of interest in playing with action figures while girls start to lose interest around 8. So toy makers have a pretty reliable six year window to make profits off "boy toys" and a two year window to make a profit off "girl toys." It can't possibly be that little girls mature faster and have a more varied interest in things like drawing, coloring or are more aware of their appearance and like to play dress up, wear jewelry and make up. No, its got to be crusty old man sexism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Heathen posted:Either that or toy makers have found out that boys age 6-12 have shown an equal amount of interest in playing with action figures while girls start to lose interest around 8. So toy makers have a pretty reliable six year window to make profits off "boy toys" and a two year window to make a profit off "girl toys." It can't possibly be that little girls mature faster and have a more varied interest in things like drawing, coloring or are more aware of their appearance and like to play dress up, wear jewelry and make up. No, its got to be crusty old man sexism. Whooosh. (Action figures aren't made for children.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Whooosh. Neither are comics, but we constantly hear about needing more and more diversity to serve as role models. Role models for who? The thirty year olds that read comics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
The movies they eventually make about them are totally aimed at children.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
I never thought I would see someone defend the weird no girls toys thing. Though is it really defending it if your argument sucks? Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Heathen posted:Neither are comics, but we constantly hear about needing more and more diversity to serve as role models. Role models for who? The thirty year olds that read comics? For the misogynist frequently racist kind of nerds who whine about sjws and diversity, yes, they need it more than literal children do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Heathen posted:Either that or toy makers have found out that boys age 6-12 have shown an equal amount of interest in playing with action figures while girls start to lose interest around 8. So toy makers have a pretty reliable six year window to make profits off "boy toys" and a two year window to make a profit off "girl toys." It can't possibly be that little girls mature faster and have a more varied interest in things like drawing, coloring or are more aware of their appearance and like to play dress up, wear jewelry and make up. No, its got to be crusty old man sexism. So, uh, you know "girl toys" is referring to 'toys of girls" not "toys aimed at girls," right? I mean even if we take the rest of your argument as a given (and shouldn't) you're still aiming at the wrong target.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 00:24 |
|
|
Also the whole thing is that 'girl toys' and 'boy toys' is the crusty old man sexism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:47
|
|