|
teagone posted:You will likely never see a film like a Deadpool or a Logan ever again is basically what I'm saying, in addition to the other points I made, but this one is more relevant to you I guess. Enjoy your generic white rice vanilla slop! Why do you think that?
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Yes, that is the positive outcome of this. Exactly what the gently caress else am I supposed to do about this situation? Express outrage on an internet forum? Is there maybe a petition you'd like me to sign? Both of those would be better than wondering why it's a bad thing, which you did, and is what I'm currently responding to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why do you think that? Look at the MCU. Look at Star Wars. Disney really only does "safe" and are adept at risk aversion when it comes to producing content for mass media consumption, and they saturate the market to hell and back with that stuff. [edit] vvv exactly teagone fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why do you think that? Assuming that they mean that X-men films like that would not be made under Disney, I think the fact that after approximately 20 MCU films compared to the 13 X-Men films under Fox, there are no MCU movies comparable to Deadpool in terms of the creative risk taken on an R-rated blockbuster would be some evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:Look at the MCU. Look at Star Wars. Disney really only does "safe" and are adept at risk aversion when it comes to producing content for mass media consumption. Okay. What do you mean by 'safe' and how does it not apply to Logan and Deadpool? For Deadpool I guess you can say the R-Rating but Logan was an extremely safe film, which is not the same as saying it's a bad one. I Before E posted:Assuming that they mean that X-men films like that would not be made under Disney, I think the fact that after approximately 20 MCU films compared to the 13 X-Men films under Fox, there are no MCU movies comparable to Deadpool in terms of the creative risk taken on an R-rated blockbuster would be some evidence. I don't think I would agree with this. They haven't taken a risk on an R-Rated film but they've tried poo poo which people openly mocked them for until it worked. Guardians of the Galaxy is a primary example there of a film everyone was saying would fail until it didn't. Is it ever going to be SUPER GENUINELY risky? No, but I don't think any superhero film based off an established character will. At best they will be well-directed or unique visually. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. What do you mean by 'safe' and how does it not apply to Logan and Deadpool? For Deadpool I guess you can say the R-Rating but Logan was an extremely safe film, which is not the same as saying it's a bad one. Look at Logan with regards to other X-Men films that came before it. It didn't get a gently caress about continuity, and likely had no corporate mandates to hold it back from telling its story. Mangold went hog wild with the violence and made the Wolverine movie deserving of the character, not a franchise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
guardians was just your standard space action movie with more swears, the only people convinced it would fail were rubes who thought the average person gives the slightest poo poo about a comic book character being obscure or not
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Okay. What do you mean by 'safe' and how does it not apply to Logan and Deadpool? For Deadpool I guess you can say the R-Rating but Logan was an extremely safe film, which is not the same as saying it's a bad one. ImpAtom posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
teagone posted:Look at Logan with regards to other X-Men films that came before it. It didn't get a gently caress about continuity, and likely had no corporate mandates to hold it back from telling its story. Mangold went hog wild with the violence and made the Wolverine movie deserving of the character, not a franchise. Logan absolutely cared about continuity, or at least as much as any modern X-Men film does. Which is to say it cared about it when it was useful and discarded it when it wasn't. The use of Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman and a lot of specific callbacks to the Wolverine/X-Men movies which are relevant to the main story for example. A lot of Logan's emotional beats are specifically born from it being a part of the X-Men franchise and while it is a fine film on its own, it was designed intentionally to have payoff to the old films. ("I see you dying, holding your heart in your hand" for example.) Snowman_McK posted:They made Star Wars without the logo, and added a talking animal. There was nothing risky about that movie. And of course you can comfortably say this because it was a large success and therefore you can say you knew all along. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
The thing that I really appreciate about the X-Men movies is that the continuity makes no goddamn sense and they don’t even really try to pretend otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:And of course you can comfortably say this because it was a large success and therefore you can say you knew all along. It was also true before the film came out. What's weird is that people struggle to say why it was a risk.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Endgame is likely to have one of those big cosmic retcons at the end. Maybe a hasty tie-in with Dark Phoenix or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It was also true before the film came out. No they don't? Like you can literally google for arguments people were making at the time. It was a risk because it features a largely unknown cast of characters without even the casual name recognition of Iron Man, Captain American and the Hulk. It was a space movie but space movies are not always successes and it's pretty easy to point to the plenty of corpses that tried and failed to be Star Wars. People were, even at the time, wondering if Marvel was heading towards burnout or oversaturation. We know now that they had years ahead of them but nobody was quite sure at the time. Chris Pratt was, at the time, liked but considered a risky choice for an action movie lead. (2014-15 gave us Jurassic World, GotG and Lego Movie which pumped his star way higher.) Marvel was also *significantly* less silly at the time. They've always been quippy but GotG ratcheted it up enough that it ended up coloring films that came after. (Things like Thor Ragnarok were born from the unexpected success of GotG.) Obviously all these assumptions were wrong but at the time it was very much one of the first "and THIS will be the first Marvel movie to bomb" attitude (that, as always, ignores Hulk existing.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Logan absolutely cared about continuity, or at least as much as any modern X-Men film does. Which is to say it cared about it when it was useful and discarded it when it wasn't. The use of Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman and a lot of specific callbacks to the Wolverine/X-Men movies which are relevant to the main story for example. A lot of Logan's emotional beats are specifically born from it being a part of the X-Men franchise and while it is a fine film on its own, it was designed intentionally to have payoff to the old films. ("I see you dying, holding your heart in your hand" for example.) Logan was designed as a send off for the character of Wolverine on film. It didn't give a flying gently caress about the other movies. Sure it had callbacks and whatnot, but it is completely standalone and designed more as a contrasting response to the modern-era of comic book movie universes. As an exercise, remove Logan from the X-Men franchise and forget that other X-Men movies exist. Stripped bare of any connective tissue, Logan is imo, a materclass character study made with a single, focused vision from a director who wanted to do the character — and the actor — right in their final appearance by structuring a story that wasn't beholden to anything before it. Do the same exercise for say, Captain Marvel. And then you realize you can't; it's just some weird sci-fi movie with various plot components that don't make any sense (but they DO make sense when you put it back inside the machine that is the MCU). I mean look, Disney will probably never produce a cinematic bomb like Trank's Fantastic Four. Their film committee is just too good at gaining all the right metrics and data in order to create the most cost efficient and effective piece of media to make them the most money it can to fund other future committee projects to make them even more money. They're like, loving experts at that. But I'm personally willing to suffer through some major bombs (that I probably won't even see myself) if it means the studio is able to put something out like Deadpool or Logan every now and then. I'd rather have that instead of a bunch of cookie-cutter movies that are just pretty good. Vox is mostly poo poo, but this article does a good job explaining how Logan separates itself from most modern superhero films: https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/3/6/14807476/logan-wolverine-superhero-comic-book-movies teagone fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No they don't? Like you can literally google for arguments people were making at the time. None of those actually represent real risks, though. I mean, movies are successful quite often with no characters with any name recognition. That this counts as a risk, again, is something that tells you how risk averse Disney is "a film with characters that aren't already household names?" *faints* "A film with jokes?" *faints even harder* "A film starring a relatively unknown but tall handsome buff actor called Chris?" *double faints* "An extremely successful franchise releasing more than one movie a year? Even though they'd successfully done that the year before?" *faints, but so hard he now wakes up*
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:None of those actually represent real risks, though. I mean, movies are successful quite often with no characters with any name recognition. That this counts as a risk, again, is something that tells you how risk averse Disney is So basically your argument is "Well, they don't COUNT because I say so." I'm curious, what superhero movie do you feel was risky and succeeded? (I can say the recent FF was Risky but I'm not going to say it succeeded.) Like genuinely risky, not "It has cursing and violence but also stars one of the most popular comic book heroes ever played by one of the most popular actors on the planet in an adaptation of one of the most popular comic storylines ever" Like Deadpool I guess is 'risky' in that it went for an R-Rating but the film itself is incredibly safe outside of that and the violence wasn't actually that critical to the film's major success points. (I mean it didn't HURT but they tried a PG-13 version of DP2 for a reason.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
I saw Shazam and all I knew going in was there was a kid named Billy who turns into not-superman and is a dumbass. Got what I paid for and I mostly enjoyed it. It wanted to be funny at literally all times and some of the jokes just sucked but I'd take it over the last couple DC films I saw. I did want to ask about a big finale thing was Shazam's entire family getting super powers a movie thing? I don't know anything about the character but I've actually never heard of that before and it felt very... movie-only with how it was implemented. Like they kinda sucked any possible tension out of the movie because as soon as they powered up there was no more danger- just kinda boring gags nonstop until the monsters died.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
ThisIsACoolGuy posted:I saw Shazam and all I knew going in was there was a kid named Billy who turns into not-superman and is a dumbass. The original Captain Marvel had a sister named Mary who became Mary Marvel, and Freddy became Captain Marvel Jr but they had the same powers more or less. The "Super Squad" thing is from a recent comic reboot. They don't even have names, not even in the credits of the film.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So basically your argument is "Well, they don't COUNT because I say so." Well, yeah. I mean, if any that constitutes a risk...what the gently caress isn't risky at that point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Well, yeah. I mean, if any that constitutes a risk...what the gently caress isn't risky at that point? Well, that is why I was asking you. What do you consider a risky superhero film that succeeds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:49
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, that is why I was asking you. What do you consider a risky superhero film that succeeds? Logan. And Deadpool.They're R-Rated, unconventional takes on comic book movies and just lol if you think Disney would ever produce content like that within the genre. [edit] Look, I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but I mean, come on. It's Disney. I'm not holding my breath. teagone fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Apr 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Well, that is why I was asking you. What do you consider a risky superhero film that succeeds? Well, what you described was risky purely from a marketing stand point. It's not a brand that they'd sold yet and it wasn't consistent with their brand (i mean, it was, but let's pretend it wasn't) So, any film that made any decision that divided its audience based on the actual artistic decisions made would be more risky.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
Know what I love? McDonalds cheeseburgers. I also love big macs and sometimes I'll get some chicken nuggets. It's great when they are together too - rare occasions - but it works for the most part. I heard they are buying out Burger King, not a huge loss - I wonder how McDonalds will handle the whopper! Exciting to see what comes out. Its a bad food analogy. Also cheering on monopolies is disgusting but you prob can't do anything yourself except vote for someone who you think would break garbage like this up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
teagone posted:Logan. And Deadpool.They're R-Rated, unconventional takes on comic book movies and just lol if you think Disney would ever produce content like that within the genre. I guess my thing is that I don't think R-rating is as important as you do. I think it's possible to do unconventional without needing extreme violence. Even if you want to do something about the consequences of superheroic violence or whatever, the R-rating isn't necessary. (And we have more than one example of that.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
As someone on twitter posted, Disney will own about 40% of the total box office with the Fox merger yet a shitload of people are losing their jobs due to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:03
|
|
|
Jimbot posted:As someone on twitter posted, Disney will own about 40% of the total box office with the Fox merger yet a shitload of people are losing their jobs due to it. It's very possible that the top five grossing movies this year will all be Disney making over a billion dollars and that is terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
I love the Guardians films maybe more than anyone here, and I’ll even say I never thought it would fail. It was Star Wars when people craved Star Wars, from a brand people trusted. It was weird, but not inaccessible. Fox gave us Prometheus and Alien Covenant. Two divisive films in a franchise that continue to divide it down the middle. If Disney let’s Ridley Scott go hog wild one more time, and continue to tell certain fans to gently caress off, this thing might be okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I guess my thing is that I don't think R-rating is as important as you do. I think it's possible to do unconventional without needing extreme violence. Even if you want to do something about the consequences of superheroic violence or whatever, the R-rating isn't necessary. (And we have more than one example of that.) The R rating made it stand out. That’s the hook. You might not find it important, but that doesn’t take away the fact that it is important and one of the things that could’ve easily made it fail (with Deadpool, who’s Star had done nothing but horrible flops until Deadpool.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:06
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Know what I love? McDonalds cheeseburgers. I also love big macs and sometimes I'll get some chicken nuggets. It's great when they are together too - rare occasions - but it works for the most part. I heard they are buying out Burger King, not a huge loss - I wonder how McDonalds will handle the whopper! Exciting to see what comes out. It's a great analogy because McDonalds buying up BK doesn't wipe out other burger places. Go to In and Out. Go to to the Mom and Pop Diner on the corner. Disney doesn't hold a monopoly on comic book movies, much less all movies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like Deadpool I guess is 'risky' in that it went for an R-Rating but the film itself is incredibly safe outside of that and the violence wasn't actually that critical to the film's major success points. (I mean it didn't HURT but they tried a PG-13 version of DP2 for a reason.) Once Upon A Deadpool brought in $300 mil against Deadpool 2's $700. You can attribute some of the discrepancy to it being a re-release to a certain extent, but to imply that the rating wasn't a critical factor seems odd when there's a clear correlation to be made. There are audiences for Rated-R comic book films. More importantly, in the case of Logan, the subject matter just wouldn't fly in a Disney brand PG-13 superhero film, where the consequences of superheroics takes the form of an entire innocent family the audience spends time knowing getting massacred as opposed to a faceless tally on a computer monitor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Logan is too creatively risky for disney because it had an ending that was intentionally antithetical to being made into a sequel
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:17
|
|
|
That too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Fart City posted:Once Upon A Deadpool brought in $300 mil against Deadpool 2's $700. You can attribute some of the discrepancy to it being a re-release to a certain extent, but to imply that the rating wasn't a critical factor seems odd when there's a clear correlation to be made. There are audiences for Rated-R comic book films. More importantly, in the case of Logan, the subject matter just wouldn't fly in a Disney brand PG-13 superhero film, where the consequences of superheroics takes the form of an entire innocent family the audience spends time knowing getting massacred as opposed to a faceless tally on a computer monitor. I feel like saying "Disney would never do that" feels weird. I mean outside of Superhero movies, people love to point to Star Wars and they put out Rogue One (where the entire cast is butchered) and The Last Jedi (where the heroic protagonist of the last series becomes a broken old man who sacrifices his life to stop the power-hungry son of Han Solo and Leia who had already murdered his fan-favorite father.) Logan I feel is better executed in a lot of ways but that doesn't mean that Disney is entirely unwilling to kill characters or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I feel like saying "Disney would never do that" feels weird. I mean outside of Superhero movies, people love to point to Star Wars and they put out Rogue One (where the entire cast is butchered) and The Last Jedi (where the heroic protagonist of the last series becomes a broken old man who sacrifices his life to stop the power-hungry son of Han Solo and Leia who had already murdered his fan-favorite father.) The cast of Rogue One dying in no way affected their ability to put out another Star Wars movie a year later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The cast of Rogue One dying in no way affected their ability to put out another Star Wars movie a year later. Nor did the ending of Logan prevent them from putting out another X-Men movie. Edit: It didn't even prevent them from bringing back Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart if either wanted to come back.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
People die in Disney movies all the time. Even mothers and fathers. But like, they’re not graphic and violent. Like Logan was. Oh and the tone too. The tone is way too hard for a Disney movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:Logan is too creatively risky for disney because it had an ending that was intentionally antithetical to being made into a sequel eh, they could've done a sequel with an aged-up laura
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:29
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:People die in Disney movies all the time. Even mothers and fathers. But like, they’re not graphic and violent. Like Logan was. Then we're coming back to overt violence, which I don't think is the same thing. It's absolutely possible for graphic deaths to occur in even the kiddiest of Disney films. They are rarely to never bloody but that isn't the same thing. To use a Disney animated feature for example, Clayton's death in Tarzan is pretty violent without showing anything. The implication and brief shots make it stand out even among Disney deaths and a visual of his neck breaking would probably be less effective than 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Nor did the ending of Logan prevent them from putting out another X-Men movie. It would, though. Since the character, as played by him, is dead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It would, though. Since the character, as played by him, is dead. In the future and possibly an alternate timeline future. If they wanted Logan to show up in Dark Phoenix they wouldn't even have to explain it. Hugh Jackman is done with the role but that is literally the only reason they couldn't bring him back. They could even do it without 'changing' Logan because it's intentionally set in the future. Edit: Hell, Patrick Stewart as Professor X died in The Last Stand and that didn't stop him from being in an identical Patrick Stewarty body for Logan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2019 05:31
|
|