|
Mordiceius posted:Yeah. Honestly a lot of the DC stuff felt like Universal's "Dark Universe" project. It felt like an over-commitment from the start and then an immediate panic once a single thing didn't do as good/better than the MCU. The trouble both DC and Universal had is that they were trying to create something fully formed where Marvel had allowed the MCU to evolve. Avengers was planned in the same way it was in the comics - Marvel didn't start with the team, they introduced individual members in their own books and then put them in the same book for crossover appeal. Marvel were hoping to sell that shared universe franchise, but their initial goal was to sell movies starring individual heroes, each working in their own right. DC and certainly Universal never did that. They started from the position of "people want multi-movie franchises, let's sell them a multi-movie franchise", and thus were essentially committing up front to a series of movies each of whose viability was dependent on the movies that came before because they'd already glued them together.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Here comes Slipknot, the man who can climb anything...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
Also, I want to see that sword swallow a soul
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
Every once in a while I remember that some studio was planning a Robin Hood Cinematic Universe with solo movies for all 12 Merry Men and I just laugh and laugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Gonna lay out plans for the Baker Street Cinematic Universe where every single one of Sherlock Holmes' neighbours gets their own movie and sell the concept for a billion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 10:09
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Gonna lay out plans for the Baker Street Cinematic Universe where every single one of Sherlock Holmes' neighbours gets their own movie and sell the concept for a billion dollars. I can’t wait to see Tigger and Eeyore and Piglet before the big 100 Acre Wood crossover movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:The trouble both DC and Universal had is that they were trying to create something fully formed where Marvel had allowed the MCU to evolve. Avengers was planned in the same way it was in the comics - Marvel didn't start with the team, they introduced individual members in their own books and then put them in the same book for crossover appeal. Marvel were hoping to sell that shared universe franchise, but their initial goal was to sell movies starring individual heroes, each working in their own right. DC and certainly Universal never did that. They started from the position of "people want multi-movie franchises, let's sell them a multi-movie franchise", and thus were essentially committing up front to a series of movies each of whose viability was dependent on the movies that came before because they'd already glued them together. Marvel Studios put an Avengers concept teaser ad in their first film. The actual problem is that there’s no such thing as a ‘shared universe’. There are only sequels and spin-offs. Disney’s victory has been to spin the basic concept of a sequel into something unique to them, when their only real ‘innovation’ is the sheer volume of content produced. We’re talking 40+ Iron Man sequels in the span of 15 years. There are now more Iron Man movies than James Bond movies - and that’s before even factoring in the dozen Iron Man TV series. “The Dark Universe” failed because, although executives clearly bought into the ‘universe’ lie, audiences automatically understood what the actual product would be: a eight Dracula Untold sequels, or ten Tom Cruise Mummy sequels. With WB, you have a unique case where they very obviously shifted gears partway into the project. The ‘DCEU’ began as just a series of Man Of Steel sequels. These featured loose thematic ties to both Christopher Nolan’s Batman films and Snyder’s own Watchmen, but were ultimately ‘just’ a series of movies about the death and resurrection of Henry Cavill’s Superman. (Joker would later feature loose thematic ties back to Dark Knight and Watchmen, making it a nice companion piece to what’s now known as ‘the Snyderverse’. Outside a few details, it might as well be canonical. It was, of course, a massive success.) The studio’s failure here was in the hard pivot to an entirely different narrative while still marketing the films as Man Of Steel sequels. Aquaman might have made a billion, but that’s in spite of the studio doubling the saturation and throwing in pop songs. It was still recognizably Snyder-ish, but everything since has been some type of failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
I don’t know if Bay has a draw any more. He was for sure insanely popular but it feels like all that is kind of gone. His last movies was straight to Netflix so it’s hard to really tell if people sincerely cared bc even if you hate Bay, throwing on his movie on Netflix and dipping out is a lot easier to do than going to a theater. Also didn’t the last bayformers movie not do as well? Plus the world as a whole changing with social politics really made Bay’s entire filmography pretty gross, and even the kids today aren’t down with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I don’t know if Bay has a draw any more. He was for sure insanely popular but it feels like all that is kind of gone. His last movies was straight to Netflix so it’s hard to really tell if people sincerely cared bc even if you hate Bay, throwing on his movie on Netflix and dipping out is a lot easier to do than going to a theater. Ambulance only had a budget of $40M, which is a quarter of what Six Underground cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:12
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Plus the world as a whole changing with social politics really made Bay’s entire filmography pretty gross, and even the kids today aren’t down with it. It's always been gross, it's just that used to be part of the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Marvel Studios put an Avengers concept teaser ad in their first film. The actual problem is that there’s no such thing as a ‘shared universe’. There are only sequels and spin-offs. It's possible that you're failing to understand what sequels are. In what way does Thor require that Iron Man come before it? Here's a picture of part of the table of contents of Edith Hamilton's Mythology book  Take a look at that for a second. Is the story of Cupid and Psyche the second sequel to the story of the Cyclops Polyphemus? Spoiler alert... No. While they may share some characters, the stories is in mythology are sequels/prequels. They're just stories using the same general setting. That what the MCU is. It's not a bunch of sequels. It's essentially a cinematic mythology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Marvel Studios put an Avengers concept teaser ad in their first film. The actual problem is that there’s no such thing as a ‘shared universe’. There are only sequels and spin-offs. Yes, I edited my post before hitting Submit. I did at one point refer to how Marvel's marketing for the shared universe was done entirely through cameos and post-credit scenes that hinted at the possibilities. But Phases 1-2 were primarily built around the four tentpole Avengers: Iron Man, Cap, Thor and Hulk. Hulk failed as a standalone character and was dropped to a supporting role alongside Black Widow and Hawkeye, who were never meant to be main players. Had Thor failed as well, I suspect that Marvel would not have tried to force the issue and instead made two series of loosely interlinked movies with Cap and Tony that would culminate with them facing off in Civil War. Contrast with the Dark Universe, where Tom Cruise discovered a living mummy and was taken to the guy who was obviously going to bring all the monsters together over the next three movies. There was no get-out plan, there was no groundwork laid; it was, in fact, the attempt to make the series of high volume sequels that you think the MCU is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Everyone posted:It's possible that you're failing to understand what sequels are. In what way does Thor require that Iron Man come before it? In what way does Mad Max: Fury Road require that Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome come before it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Everyone posted:It's possible that you're failing to understand what sequels are. In what way does Thor require that Iron Man come before it? Is Day of the Dead a sequel to Dawn of the Dead? Is Jurassic World a sequel to Jurassic Park?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
For starters, Fury Road is a few miles away from the Thunderdome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
Are the final destination movies sequels or films in a shared cinematic universe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:In what way does Mad Max: Fury Road require that Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome come before it? None, actually, which is his point. The Max movies don't make any sense, chronologically. Furiosa was born after the Collapse, Max Rockatansky was a cop before it, but they're roughly the same age in Fury Road. The only way it hangs together is if they are post-Collapse campfire tales into which Max is inserted as a wandering myth hero. This gels with Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome both ending with their stories being told by the Feral Kid and Savannah Nix respectively.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:None, actually, which is his point. The Max movies don't make any sense, chronologically. Furiosa was born after the Collapse, Max Rockatansky was a cop before it, but they're roughly the same age in Fury Road. The only way it hangs together is if they are post-Collapse campfire tales into which Max is inserted as a wandering myth hero. This gels with Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome both ending with their stories being told by the Feral Kid and Savannah Nix respectively. He is saying that Thor is not a sequel to Iron Man because it did not require Iron Man to come before it, which is how he is apparently defining a sequel. Fury Road did not require Beyond Thunderdome to come before it, yet it is certainly sequel to that movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Like Stan Lee said, every comic is someone's first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
Mad Max is a James Bond-like character. You could watch them in whatever order and they work and I wouldn't expect most people to watch them in the release order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Everyone posted:It's possible that you're failing to understand what sequels are. In what way does Thor require that Iron Man come before it? You’re failing your own example. The story of The Cyclops is grouped by the writer(s) under the title “PART ONE: The Gods, the Creation, and the Earliest Heroes”. There is obviously a progression there. Likewise, the first Thor movie (aka Iron Man 4) was released in the context of an advertised “Avengers Initiative” and included multiple references back to Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 3: Iron Man 2. Most importantly, the film included the revelation that Iron Man’s powers were derived from Thor’s magical technology. Multiple Thor characters then appeared in Iron Man 6: The Avengers, and the plot culminated in the Thor aliens getting their technology back. Without the introduction of aliens in Iron Man 4, the sudden appearance of aliens in Iron Man 6 makes very little sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 01:34
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Mad Max is a James Bond-like character. You could watch them in whatever order and they work and I wouldn't expect most people to watch them in the release order. I agree except for the original, society is clearly falling apart in Mad Max, but not actually collapsed, it doesnt work super well coming after the other films. Thunderdome/Road Warrior/Fury Road/the videogame all work fine in basically any order though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I agree except for the original, society is clearly falling apart in Mad Max, but not actually collapsed, it doesnt work super well coming after the other films. Thunderdome/Road Warrior/Fury Road/the videogame all work fine in basically any order though. But even here, this assumes that the collapse happens all at once, the same in every place. The more I've read about real life collapses is that it happens extremely differently depending on where you are. Xealot posted:This is my feeling about it. The first Blade really nails this blaxploitation vibe, the style and themes involved are so brazen. Blade is this larger-than-life figure of Black masculine power, fighting a bunch of literally parasitic white oligarchs holed up in luxury penthouses. The police serve the parasites, and Blade clowns on them in every interaction; "Motherfucker, are you outta your goddamn mind?!" The villains all fear him but also kind of want to gently caress him. Meanwhile, the female lead is herself a no-nonsense Black woman, whose evil parallel is a white, blonde fashion model. She's introduced by rejecting a weak, thirsty white dude, who later tries to (symbolically) rape her and gets his rear end beaten for it; meanwhile, Blade's mom's betrayal is interwoven with her choice *to* gently caress the white villain. The racial politics of the movie are wild. Alongside this, it's a film that embraces that the status quo is hosed up. That shot of the vampire draining a woman on the street in full view and no one helping communicates, beyond any doubt, that the world is hosed. Vampires just wander round, murdering people like Whistler's family. It's a determinedly broken world. There's also the idea that this is not a war that can ever be really won. Blade is fighting it and winning his battles. He killed one bunch of vampires but there's still plenty out there. It's not just a sequel hook, it's a piece of world building that reminds us that the villains are in charge of this world and that is unlikely to fundamentally change. In the MCU, the status quo is fine. Sacred even and it must be protected at all costs. Trying to fit in banally evil vampires into the world of the MCU would be completely futile unless they go the Punisher root and ignore literally everything midly fantastical. Jedit posted:The trouble both DC and Universal had is that they were trying to create something fully formed where Marvel had allowed the MCU to evolve. Avengers was planned in the same way it was in the comics - Marvel didn't start with the team, they introduced individual members in their own books and then put them in the same book for crossover appeal. Marvel were hoping to sell that shared universe franchise, but their initial goal was to sell movies starring individual heroes, each working in their own right. DC and certainly Universal never did that. They started from the position of "people want multi-movie franchises, let's sell them a multi-movie franchise", and thus were essentially committing up front to a series of movies each of whose viability was dependent on the movies that came before because they'd already glued them together. The MCU didn't evolve, though. There is no shared continuity that ever actually matters. Every film bar maybe a couple of the crossovers is self contained. That last sentence, by the way, absolutely applies to the first several MCU films. Thor, Hulk and Captain America all had middling box office returns. In Hulks case, amusingly, it made almost exactly the same amount as the Ang Lee version it was correting for. But none of those films matter individually, because they're all trailers for the film in which these people, who you don't really care about, all team up. There's a much more organic and integral flow from Man of Steel to Batman Vs Superman to Justice League than there is between any two MCU films. Even Endgame, set immediately after Infinity War, resets itself and sarts from idle about 30 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:07
|
|
|
The one takeaway from any of this nonsense is that Blade loving owns and the one that kicked off the modern age of cinema and superheroes still stands tall
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:20
|
|
|
Gatts posted:The one takeaway from any of this nonsense is that Blade loving owns and the one that kicked off the modern age of cinema and superheroes still stands tall
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
The DC universe failed because some of the movies were bad and the characters weren't instantly likeable, its not super complicated. Suicide Squad was bad, Justice League (theatrical version) was bad, Superman and Batman are not fun or funny characters at all. Wonder Woman is the only stand out brighter character and it's not surprising that her first movie was the only one that basically everyone liked. Like you can accurately complain the MCU movies all have the same formula and the characters are simpler but they're cool and bright and make jokes and they punch the bad guys and everyone cheers and the formula works, so the MCU works Piell fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Apr 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:39
|
|
|
Piell posted:The DC universe failed because some of the movies were bad and the characters weren't instantly likeable, its not super complicated. Suicide Squad was bad, Justice League (theatrical version) was bad, Superman and Batman are not fun or funny characters at all. Wonder Woman is the only stand out brighter character and it's not surprising that her movie was the only one that basically everyone liked. This reads like a YouTube video essay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
One More Fat Nerd posted:I agree except for the original, society is clearly falling apart in Mad Max, but not actually collapsed, it doesnt work super well coming after the other films. Thunderdome/Road Warrior/Fury Road/the videogame all work fine in basically any order though. Yeah, I kinda forgot about the whole nuclear apocalypse aspect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
The Oscar winning film Suicide Squad was a box office smash and immensely popular worldwide despite the numerous claims of it being bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:The Oscar winning film Suicide Squad was a box office smash and immensely popular worldwide despite the numerous claims of it being bad. It's really weird that both the audiences and WB itself has decided that incredibly popular and profitable movies are in fact irredeemable failures thanks to a handful of weirdos on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
DCEU confirmed a bust after JL 2017 theatrical cut is released. Nail in the coffin. Snyder has tainted the brand with unlikeable characters and bad storystelling. Aquaman comes out a year after JL 2017 and makes over a billion dollars at the boxffice. Money is everything to execs, but it is still an absolute failure of a franchise because.........? Lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
IIRC the Aquaman folks worked with Snyder in secret while writing the character lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 05:09
|
|
|
teagone posted:This reads like a YouTube video essay. Store-brand moviebob youtube essay, to boot. Neo Rasa posted:IIRC the Aquaman folks worked with Snyder in secret while writing the character lol Yes, Wan regularly talked with Zack and in fact his film picks up where Zacks Justice League ends
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
teagone posted:DCEU confirmed a bust after JL 2017 theatrical cut is released. Nail in the coffin. Snyder has tainted the brand with unlikeable characters and bad storystelling. A secret about studios: they do not like to go backwards. At all. Ever. For example, Darkman got recut by Universal several times after the initial test screening came back with roughly 60% of the audience liking it. Each time they tested a new cut, the score would come back lower than the one previous. But despite protestations from Raimi, they never threw up their hands and said “gently caress it let’s go back to Raimi’s cut, that at least scored above water”, because that would be admitting they weren’t really the tastemakers (never mind that Darkman’s entire green light was because of Batman ‘89’s monumental, cultural touchstone success, so they weren’t even tastemakers in the first place). So they decided on “well, we’ll stop playing with it and just release this latest cut we did.” The movie ended up being saved when the editor, who waited until he did it to even tell Raimi, took the negative and with like three days until prints had to be struck, re-edited the whole movie using the notes he kept during the original process, all on a flatbed, and sent that cut off to have prints struck without telling Universal. When the studio screened the movie a few days later, they were, well, not very happy. To which, Raimi and the editor that did it - I think it was David Stiven - could only say “well, too late now. Technicolor is already starting to ship prints out.” And yet, the Raimi-approved original cut of the movie ended up being successful. Because it turns out, test audiences aren’t the end-all be-all of quality or how people will respond!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 07:58
|
|
|
Zack Snyder and his cult chasing WB execs throwing massive wads of money at them while the execs run away going "No... no!!!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
"im not owned! im not owned!!", i continue to insist as i slowly sink into a big pile of
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’re failing your own example. The story of The Cyclops is grouped by the writer(s) under the title “PART ONE: The Gods, the Creation, and the Earliest Heroes”. There is obviously a progression there. Superman as a comic debuted in June 1938. Batman came out in March 1939. Does that mean that to this day all Batman stories are sequels to Superman stories? Hell, were you born after 1968? If so does that mean that your life is somehow a sequel to my life? Or are we both two characters/people living within the same world?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 13:22
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Superman as a comic debuted in June 1938. Batman came out in March 1939. Does that mean that to this day all Batman stories are sequels to Superman stories? Hell, were you born after 1968? If so does that mean that your life is somehow a sequel to my life? Or are we both two characters/people living within the same world? Since you are hell-bent on squeezing real life into this, the Cold War absolutely is a sequel to WW2 even though it is called The Cold War and not WW3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 13:33
|
|
|
The Cameo posted:A secret about studios: they do not like to go backwards. At all. Ever. For example, Darkman got recut by Universal several times after the initial test screening came back with roughly 60% of the audience liking it. Each time they tested a new cut, the score would come back lower than the one previous. But despite protestations from Raimi, they never threw up their hands and said “gently caress it let’s go back to Raimi’s cut, that at least scored above water”, because that would be admitting they weren’t really the tastemakers (never mind that Darkman’s entire green light was because of Batman ‘89’s monumental, cultural touchstone success, so they weren’t even tastemakers in the first place). So they decided on “well, we’ll stop playing with it and just release this latest cut we did.” I just learned this story from the Blank Check Podcast episode on Darkman, and it loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
This whole "what is an 'extended universe?' what is a 'sequel?'" poo poo is just coming back to media curation again, isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2022 14:07
|
|