|
it's going to be poo poo. and not just because it stars jared leto e: 
ShoogaSlim fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jan 4, 2022 |
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
I like the people convinced they're last second shooting scenes with Andrew Garfield for the movie
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:it's going to be poo poo. and not just because it stars jared leto No but that will definitely contribute to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 02:26
|
|
|
I watched the Alan Moore-written film ‘The Show’ last night, and it’s such an encapsulation of his comic works, in both the good and bad ways. It’s definitely stuck with me, as I’m still thinking about it now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
DC is like textbook tryhard. What are you all on about? It's a term about insecure dorks being so ashamed of who they want to be they run the opposite direction, often tripping over their own feet and smashing their nuts while bullying people who remind them of themselves. HHH is a tryhard dork. DC are tryhard dorks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:DC is like textbook tryhard. What are you all on about? I wouldn't call most of the DC movies tryhard at all. Whether you like them or not they are largely made by people who seem very sincere and excited about what they're making. You don't put the Martha line or anti-life equation stuff in your movie because you want to be less like a comic book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
"DC" is too broad a category.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 20:53
|
|
|
It isn't, though. The fish stinks from the head. Geoff Johns and DC management are actively embarrassed about being in comic books, so they try to make everything "mature" by — unfathomably ironically — appealing to the sensibilities of a 12-year-old boy. And not even a 12-year-old boy now. A 12-year-old boy from thirty loving years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Couldn't you easily say that The Dark Knight and Joker are the real tryhard comic book movies since they're trying to add real world commentary to their punchman stories?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:It isn't, though. The fish stinks from the head. Or maybe your interpretation of their ineptitude is bullshit and they're purposefully making movies to appeal to their inner comic book need (a 12 year old from 30 years ago) instead of accidentally doing so. Insane to consider dc the one ashamed of making comic movies when every single marvel film includes snide jokes about how everyone's superhero name is stupid
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
BiggestBatman posted:Or maybe your interpretation of their ineptitude is bullshit and they're purposefully making movies to appeal to their inner comic book need (a 12 year old from 30 years ago) instead of accidentally doing so. I was going to say, Liquid's previous post about what makes a tryhard fits Joss Whedon 100%, the guy who helped establishing the quippy tone of the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
BiggestBatman posted:Insane to consider dc the one ashamed of making comic movies when every single marvel film includes snide jokes about how everyone's superhero name is stupid Seriously. People constantly rail on DC for being too earnest, for taking poo poo too seriously. They're the ones who don't have characters lampshade every "comic booky" choice. "Do you bleed?" vs "He's from space, and he wants to steal a necklace from a wizard." I'm not that invested in defending DC or slamming the MCU, but the last thing I'd accuse the Snyder-verse movies of being is ashamed of being comic books.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:I was going to say, Liquid's previous post about what makes a tryhard fits Joss Whedon 100%, the guy who helped establishing the quippy tone of the MCU. Also the MCU's shift away from being about superheroes towards being about genetically-enhanced wetwork operators
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:50
|
|
|
Geoff Johns is on record (although it was quite a few years ago) as saying that he wants to make movies that everybody will watch and not everybody reads comic books, so they aren't going to fall into the same traps as comic books and make movies that appeal to audiences who think they are for kids or have never read a comic book. That is pretty close to what LividLiquid was saying, although I don't think Johns went as far as being "actively embarrassed" of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 21:51
|
|
|
I thought darkgrim was the pinnacle of discourse, but we have truly reached a new level.The_Doctor posted:I watched the Alan Moore-written film ‘The Show’ last night, and it’s such an encapsulation of his comic works, in both the good and bad ways. It’s definitely stuck with me, as I’m still thinking about it now. Neat, I didn't realize this was available.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:It's a term about insecure dorks being so ashamed of who they want to be they run the opposite direction, often tripping over their own feet and smashing their nuts while bullying people who remind them of themselves. This is not true tho, earlier in the thread people cited "somebody playing super-hard to win in a casual game" as tryhard and got no pushback. I've never heard your definition before in my life. But anyway even if it were true "DC" had done a whole bunch of different things in the last 10 years simply because "DC" is a legal fiction that is, in fact, an ever-rotating cast of decision-makers and glad-handers and creatives. The folks there for the Dark Knight were not there for WW84, for instance. So it's not useful to call a multinational multi-market media corporation "tryhard", in fact I would say it's incoherent poo poo that only lets us know you don't like 'em. Which is fine. Frankly I don't like 'em either, but it's not because they are a corporation that "smashed their nuts while bullying people who remind them of themselves" (what?!?!?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2022 22:16
|
|
|
I think that DC's best move going forward is just to ignore and abandon the whole concept of a shared universe and not try to beat Marvel at their own game. The best films in their arsenal largely ignore all that and do their own thing. They could tie some movies together if the heroes' power set and backgrounds line up but, beyond that, I think they should just wing it and let film makers just make a good Green Lantern, Hawkman, Flash, Spectre or Plastic Man movie without worrying about how they tie into whatever Batman, Superman or Green Arrow is up to. And vice versa. Just make good movies. They have great characters with decades of rich history and classic comics to draw from. Their rushed attempt to assemble a shared universe, follow Marvel and do The Death of Superman, TDKR and Justice League all in like 3 movies kind of hosed everything up IMO. The best films they've made (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, TDK trilogy, Man of Steel and arguably Joker if that counts) mostly ignore all that poo poo and just tell self contained stories with interesting characters we want to watch with little to no regard for continuity or cross over potential. Hell, just think outside the box and use a c-lister like Booster Gold or Martian Manhunter. Nightwing. Mr. Miracle. I don't know. Get 90's with it and try Lobo or something. The whole MCU started with Iron Man, who was a lower tier Marvel character that nobody gave a poo poo about, but they made a good film with a good actor and a creative director. The only cross over hint was a stinger in the post credits, just in case. DC doesn't have to do a shared universe to be successful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I think that DC's best move going forward is just to ignore and abandon the whole concept of a shared universe and not try to beat Marvel at their own game. The best films in their arsenal largely ignore all that and do their own thing. The irony is that of DC's four billion dollar movies, only Aquaman ties into the DCEU and not very directly. They've had success handing their characters over to directors to do with as they please (which is something I don't think Marvel could really do at this point) and yet here they are. Like, Joker made a billion dollars in profit. BvS, on the other hand, made $500-600 million but that's the model they've settled on. live with fruit fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jan 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
Or we could, you know, discuss these films like we're not corporate executives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, I don't have company stock so I don't need them to figure out the crappy film profit assembly line, I just need them to make movies I like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:The irony is that of DC's four billion dollar movies, only Aquaman ties into the DCEU and not very directly. They've had success handing their characters over to directors to do with as they please (which is something I don't think Marvel could really do at this point) and yet here they are. Like, Joker made a billion dollars in profit. BvS, on the other hand, made $500-600 million but that's the model they've settled on. Just to nitpick, Joker made a billion in gross and BvS made 870ish
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Just to nitpick, Joker made a billion in gross and BvS made 870ish But BvS cost $250 million and Joker only $55 million. Unless I'm missing something, which is admittedly very possible, Joker pulled in a profit of over $1 billion, which I assume is rarefied air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:But BvS cost $250 million and Joker only $55 million. Unless I'm missing something, which is admittedly very possible, Joker pulled in a profit of over $1 billion, which I assume is rarefied air. Ah I'm tracking now, didn't know Jokers cost which threw me off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:But BvS cost $250 million and Joker only $55 million. Unless I'm missing something, which is admittedly very possible, Joker pulled in a profit of over $1 billion, which I assume is rarefied air. Movies like BvS and MoS also got big chunks of its budgets paid for by Sears and iHop and Jeep and poo poo, so it's really hard to compare what the "profit" is instead of just using what the movies made at the box office, if that's what the conversation is about. And, if I'm not mistaken, WB didn't even get the majority of Joker's profits anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Movies like BvS and MoS also got big chunks of its budgets paid for by Sears and iHop and Jeep and poo poo, so it's really hard to compare what the "profit" is instead of just using what the movies made at the box office, if that's what the conversation is about. My point is that DC has shown that they don't always need blue lights shooting into the sky to be successful, the IP is enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:But BvS cost $250 million and Joker only $55 million. Unless I'm missing something, which is admittedly very possible, Joker pulled in a profit of over $1 billion, which I assume is rarefied air. Didn’t WB sign away the international cume to another distributor lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:Movies like BvS and MoS also got big chunks of its budgets paid for by Sears and iHop and Jeep and poo poo, so it's really hard to compare what the "profit" is instead of just using what the movies made at the box office, if that's what the conversation is about. Wasn't the story that MoS was making money day because so much of the cost was paid for by sponsors? Also WB selling a majority of the profits of the Joker pre release is one of the funniest film stories in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:14
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Wasn't the story that MoS was making money day because so much of the cost was paid for by sponsors? Yeah, that's what I remembered hearing about MoS but I wasn't sure. And yeah, the Joker profit thing is hilarious and just the perfect proof that WB execs have no idea what to do with their superhero films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:My point is that DC has shown that they don't always need blue lights shooting into the sky to be successful, the IP is enough. Yeah, I just don't think it's a point that matters to DC specifically. They have some movies like that and some that aren't and neither is a guarantee of quality or profit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:But BvS cost $250 million and Joker only $55 million. Unless I'm missing something, which is admittedly very possible, Joker pulled in a profit of over $1 billion, which I assume is rarefied air. Joker was waaaay more profitable than BvS, but IIRC both Man of Steel and BvS were already making their money back several months before each even released just from merchandise and like those "false god" Superman t-shirts and stuff. So I'm sure they did fine. This reminds me I still haven't even seen Joker yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 01:55
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Or we could, you know, discuss these films like we're not corporate executives. I wasn't trying to take that approach or imply that. I just honestly think it would lead to better films if DC did their own thing. And, to me, the point with Joker is that it was a far better movie than BvS. *ducks behind wall*
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Joker was waaaay more profitable than BvS, but IIRC both Man of Steel and BvS were already making their money back several months before each even released just from merchandise and like those "false god" Superman t-shirts and stuff. So I'm sure they did fine. I can see Murray Franklin dolls not flying off the shelves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Joker was waaaay more profitable than BvS, but IIRC both Man of Steel and BvS were already making their money back several months before each even released just from merchandise and like those "false god" Superman t-shirts and stuff. So I'm sure they did fine. Joker is good for a comic book movie It’s good for just a movie. It’s nothing like the marvel garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I wasn't trying to take that approach or imply that. I just honestly think it would lead to better films if DC did their own thing. And, to me, the point with Joker is that it was a far better movie than BvS. I do think it's important to discuss the economic/political situation behind movie productions, but to pontificate on the ideal profit/pleasure ratio is obscene. The narrative you've drawn up (Which happens to align with your personal tastes) is incoherent: W.B. execs hated how both BvS and Joker came out; the latter so much that, as others have pointed out, they fought hard against and ended up selling most of their financial stake in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
It's not about maximizing WB's profit but pointing out that WB has shown that smaller more thoughtful comic book movies can work and that they don't need to just give us a worse version of the MCU.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:25
|
|
|
So, as corporate executives, we're basing future projections on a single sleeper hit? The entire point of these billion dollar franchises is to eliminate (perceived) risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
They've done better versions of marvel movies (Wonder Woman and Aquaman) which did great, and smaller movies like Birds of Prey which kinda bombed so again its a pretty mixed bag. I agree they shouldn't just copy the MCU (because I want good movies hyuk hyuk), but for variety's sake. Whedon's Justice League was probably their biggest and most naked attempt to copy MCU and it was a huge failure, so that's good. But I mean, even though they're doing stuff I'm not a fan of that seems very MCU like the Flash movie, they're also doing The Batman. So they continue to be more willing to take chances at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:And, to me, the point with Joker is that it was a far better movie than BvS. Sure, but they had pretty different goals, right? Is Taxi Driver a better movie than Lord of the Rings, or is that question kind of unnecessary? From the standpoint of a studio, making decisions for what to do with comic book IP, I don't know that Joker and BvS look as different as you think outside of their budgets. They're both comic IP entrusted to directors with very specific (and potentially divisive) visions, executed with a fair degree of auteur control. Todd Phillips wanted to remake a Scorsese movie and Zack Snyder wanted to remake Watchmen, so the results were totally different, but they definitely both "did their own thing." It's Justice League that they tried to hammer into the shape of an MCU movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
Do the Nolan Batman movies count ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
So I hear the Flash movie is rebooting or retconning the DCU or whatever? Its gonna take more than that... if I were WB I'd nuke the Snyderverse from orbit, its the only way to be sure. Why can't DC just make good standalone movies like JOKER and THE BATMAN from now on? Why does everything have to be part of some big universe like Marvel? Can movies just be movies again? Its not a coincidence THE BATMAN looks far, FAR better than anything to come out of DC since the Nolan days(TDKR excluded).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 04:12
|
|
