|
Alhazred posted:I think it's telling that Hollywood is still trying to make a decent Fantastic Four, but if one movie with a female super hero bombs (the cast in Fantastic Four is mainly male) it can take over a decade before they try it again. It's the same with women directors where one bomb will kill their career for a decade whereas male directors who have the right connections can keep getting gigs. There's been a bunch of articles about it lately. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/complex-gender-politics-wonder-woman-movie-1008259 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/14/agniesza-holland-cinema-a-boys-club-which-ignores-women
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The biggest complaint from reviewers is... that there is no backstory or origin for Spider-Man in the movie at all. My wife's response upon hearing this: "Every goddamned Spider-Man movie was an origin story!!! What? Did they suddenly forget who Spider-Man was? People are dumb."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:My wife's response upon hearing this: "Every goddamned Spider-Man movie was an origin story!!! What? Did they suddenly forget who Spider-Man was? People are dumb." The other movie goers said that they have seen why Peter became Spider-Man. But then he said to them, "Unless I see the thug push his uncle, put my finder in the bullet hole, and hear those dying words I will not believe that with great power comes great responsibility."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
I'd love a good Fantastic Four movie and can't figure out why that can't be accomlished. What's so difficult to get right about it? It was Marvel's first breakout hit comic book and you can do practically anything with the characters, from setting them in another dimension, sending then into space, tunnel them underground to grounding them as "celebrity superheroes" in Manhattan and making a family sitcom drama out of it. Weird that the best FF movie we've gotten was the 2005 version which wasn't all that bad but comes nowhere close to what the comics achieved. I don't get what's so hard about it. The Incredibles managed it rather well and even made it funny. John Byrne did great stuff with them 20 years after they were first introduced. I think they need to go full Kirby and juxtapose the "normal family with no secret identities living in NY" along side the insane weird poo poo. Go full "Marvels" with it and do Galactus, Namor and Silver Surfer just like Alex Ross painted it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
I can tell you why they keep loving it up They don't commit to Doctor Doom. Doctor Doom is one of the best characters in the entire MCU, and they keep loving him up. They keep being too coy, too half hearted, too insincere. They need to go balls out with Doom. You get Doom, the rest falls into place. Roger Coreman understood that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The other movie goers said that they have seen why Peter became Spider-Man. But then he said to them, "Unless I see the thug push his uncle, put my finder in the bullet hole, and hear those dying words I will not believe that with great power comes great responsibility." Was that guy trying to live through Spider-Man vicariously?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I can tell you why they keep loving it up I'm still surprised they haven't released the 1994 one because it basically owns. I appreciate what they were going for when the 2015 one was being made but now that the MCU has blown it open and you can have Rocket Raccoon and Asgard and all that stuff in a movie and people love it they have no excuse to not get Doom right. poo poo if they wanted to they could make an entire FF origin movie where Doom and Richards are still friends at the end of it and have a rift/him become the big bad of a second movie or whatever. Just have as much Doom as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I can tell you why they keep loving it up True that as well. If you did the Corman version with a budget, a tighter script and some good actors I really think it could work. For some reason they won't go full on balls out Galactus either so, yeah. Let's just make a movie that ignores everything everyone ever loved about Fantastic Four, neuter it and then wonder why it doesn't work an nobody likes it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Mole Man needs love, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Burkion posted:I can tell you why they keep loving it up There's plenty of problems with the Fantastic Four movies that a better Dr. Doom wouldn't fix.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Venture Bros and Incredibles are making me lean towards thinking any Fantastic Four really needs to embrace its silliness and not try to be serious. Set it in the 50's! That would solve a lot of its tone problems
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Venture Bros and Incredibles are making me lean towards thinking any Fantastic Four really needs to embrace its silliness and not try to be serious.  Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
You would think being married to Jessica Alba would teach you a thing or two about style in public
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:True that as well. If you did the Corman version with a budget, a tighter script and some good actors I really think it could work. For some reason they won't go full on balls out Galactus either so, yeah. Let's just make a movie that ignores everything everyone ever loved about Fantastic Four, neuter it and then wonder why it doesn't work an nobody likes it. Barudak posted:Mole Man needs love, too. Didn't Trank say straight up that the script he signed on to directly literally had not only Doom but Mole Man, Galactus, and even the Fantasticar in it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I'd love a good Fantastic Four movie and can't figure out why that can't be accomlished. What's so difficult to get right about it? It was Marvel's first breakout hit comic book and you can do practically anything with the characters, from setting them in another dimension, sending then into space, tunnel them underground to grounding them as "celebrity superheroes" in Manhattan and making a family sitcom drama out of it. Weird that the best FF movie we've gotten was the 2005 version which wasn't all that bad but comes nowhere close to what the comics achieved. Sadly Hollywood seems allergic to going full Kirby. The closest is Guardians and the upcoming Thor, and neither are anywhere near full, glorious, Kirby. Just look at that trailer for Inhumans, a Kirby as gently caress property, and be amazed at how un-Kirby it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I know Fantastic Four 2015 bombed but even fewer people saw it than I thought if this hasn't happened already. If that clause is true how did the deal survive the Corman movie? Cult status or not, that thing got poo poo out and buried.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:If that clause is true how did the deal survive the Corman movie? Cult status or not, that thing got poo poo out and buried. They never intended to release it to theatres, the only reason it got made was so they could keep the licence reverting to Marvel. They scraped together a $1 million budget and got the cheapest director/producer in town to cobble together a piece of poo poo movie and then went "Well, there's your active production" all the while planning on making an actual big budget movie at a later date. Apparently they didn't tell the cast that it wasn't going to get released and the poor saps even went out and did media interviews. There's an entire documentary about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNLcjWIzQHM Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Sadly Hollywood seems allergic to going full Kirby. The closest is Guardians and the upcoming Thor, and neither are anywhere near full, glorious, Kirby. Just look at that trailer for Inhumans, a Kirby as gently caress property, and be amazed at how un-Kirby it is. If Warner Bros. were smart, they'd make all the New Gods as Kirby as possible and have the Justice League act all 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
all-Rush mixtape posted:If Warner Bros. were smart, they'd make all the New Gods as Kirby as possible and have the Justice League act all If DC works in Darkseid's evil amusement park, they'll have won the comic book movie wars as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Sadly Hollywood seems allergic to going full Kirby. The closest is Guardians Haha no. That film even goes out it's way to show Kirby mythology as dead and being mined. Neo Rasa posted:Didn't Trank say straight up that the script he signed on to directly literally had not only Doom but Mole Man, Galactus, and even the Fantasticar in it? Googling does bring this up: http://collider.com/fantastic-four-original-script-had-galactus-mole-man-more-action/ I mean, I know there are tons of obvious reshoots, but most of this sounds unlikely. Especially since Doom being from Latveria was only mentioned in one awkwardly shoehorned scene that I refuse to believe wasn't a lazy reshoot. Galactus being the source of their powers I could believe, and a shame to have changed that. Powers Cosmic 4 life. What Trank shot was just a sci-fi adventure with body horror, all the CGI battles and secret base nonsense were obvious reshoots. I think Trank's film would've been good, but not not very Kirby. Other than the Thing wanting to beat the tar out of Reed I suppose. I'm hoping Justice League gets Kirby, but not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Here's a better quality picture from DC's new intro Lots of interesting characters around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Here's a better quality picture from DC's new intro Lobo just chillin' with Black Manta and .... Solomon Grundy, I think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Also, full reviews are up for Spider-Man: Homecoming. Very positive overall. 93% on Rotten tomatoes. hot take: this is actually a valid complaint because now mcu spider-man's 'origin story' as it were is about impressing tony stark, the polar opposite of uncle ben
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:hot take: this is actually a valid complaint because now mcu spider-man's 'origin story' as it were is about impressing tony stark, the polar opposite of uncle ben That's the thing, though: Is the criticism that the film portrays Peter Parker as a cynical, materialistic millennial, but that it still looks and is played like an uber-conventional Spider-Man movie? Or is the criticism just 'not my Spider-Man'?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
the criticism seems to be 'robert downey jr has awoken from his ancient tomb and is devouring the entirety of marvel, one movie at a time', mostly
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
The criticism is that there is no origin story. One of the reviews says, quote:Despite the pitch-perfect performance from the cast and a fresh start for the Spider-Man story, it still feels jarring that we are shown our hero in media res. There is no explanation of how our hero became a hero and why a billionaire inventor would be taking an interest in him. The audience is expected to do their research before stepping foot in the theater and come fully versed in the Spider-Man canon involving a wrestling match, a robbery gone wrong, and the death of Peter's uncle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:They never intended to release it to theatres, the only reason it got made was so they could keep the licence reverting to Marvel. They scraped together a $1 million budget and got the cheapest director/producer in town to cobble together a piece of poo poo movie and then went "Well, there's your active production" all the while planning on making an actual big budget movie at a later date. Apparently they didn't tell the cast that it wasn't going to get released and the poor saps even went out and did media interviews. Yeah I know all that, my post was in response to this: quote:3) There is a severance clause in Marvel's IP deals where if they can prove that the other studio is purposefully making decisions/movies that are bad in order to damage the Marvel brand or IP they can get it back for breach of contract. Not the active production thing. Like if that clause really existed the Corman movie would have been in clear violation right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
In the 90s, with other Marvel-licensed counterexamples being forgettable garbage like Captain America, Generation X and the Nick Fury TV movie? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Here's a better quality picture from DC's new intro No Plastic Man. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Antimonitor on that. Crisis on Infinite Earths movie confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:Yeah I know all that, my post was in response to this: If they never release the film then it can't do any damage to the Marvel brand!  Plus Marvel may not have been in a position to fight Constantin Film in court over whether that actually violated the contract, as studios usually tend to drag court battles out for years and years. Not producing a film would have been a clear cut violation so Constantin couldn't get out of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
bring back old gbs posted:Yeah I know all that, my post was in response to this: That clause is only if Marvel can prove that the studio is doing something to deliberately sabotage their brand or IP. It's to stop someone from buying a Marvel IP and then producing a movie where Wolverine looks into the camera and goes, "Race-mixing ain't right bub. Hitler did nothing wrong." If Marvel were crazy enough to try and invoke that clause for the 2015 FF movie, then all Fox would have to do is go into court and say, "We had no idea what we were doing and our director smeared poop on the walls and then quit. We didn't make it bad on purpose, we were just idiots." and it would be an iron-clad legal defense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If Marvel were crazy enough to try and invoke that clause for the 2015 FF movie, then all Fox would have to do is go into court and say, "We had no idea what we were doing and our director smeared poop on the walls and then quit. We didn't make it bad on purpose, we were just idiots." and it would be an iron-clad legal defense. Imagine how badly Fox would have poo poo themselves if Marvel's star witness was Josh Trank 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That clause is only if Marvel can prove that the studio is doing something to deliberately sabotage their brand or IP. Funny enough, Marvel just made a story where Captain America said Hitler did nothing wrong. Except for not being as cool as Hydra, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
I think they were smart to have no origin story in this because first it's Spider-Man people know and second Uncle Ben/etc. can be brought up in conversation when he explains it to Thanos seconds before all of existence is wiped clean making him realize that With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility and saving the earth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Imagine how badly Fox would have poo poo themselves if Marvel's star witness was Josh Trank "So yeah they told me to put all of my dogs in this summer home and then he wanted to renovate it out of my (i.e. the film's budget's) salary because somehow some dogs caused $40,000 worth of damage to a house in two days. Also they were cool with me literally sitting in a tent on set for days at a time and not talking to anyone."
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
watching bvs again, it's still cool, and good after watching wonder woman, diana's reaction to the lightning at the crash site makes more sense, seeing as she'd associate that power with divinity rather than just 'general bad things happening'
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Here's a better quality picture from DC's new intro When I saw this before Wonder Woman I was struck with an immense sense of dread that they would try to make a movie about the loving hawk people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The criticism is that there is no origin story. Worst Spider-Man movie ever! I want Uncle Ben's death filmed with IMAX cameras! And super slow-mo! And artsy black and white! And sad piano background music! Sonyyyy!!!  Then Spider-Man posts on Facebook about how sad he is his uncle is dead.  Edit: Desperado Bones posted:AND I'm completely ok with it. You're dead to me. And I don't mean Bucky-dead, where after a couple of decades on ice you can come back. I mean Uncle Ben-dead, buddy! Kal-L fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
Kal-L posted:Worst Spider-Man movie ever! I want Uncle Ben's death filmed with IMAX cameras! And super slow-mo! And artsy black and white! And sad piano background music! Sonyyyy!!! The real goonsay is demanding Zack Snyder make a Marvel movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 10:21
|
|