|
Posted this in the BvS thread but Dawn of Justice will be getting a few 70mm IMAX prints, I think only 11 theaters in the world will be screening it in this format. Heres a link with the list, this format is on its way out thanks to digital IMAX cameras and the new IMAX Laser projection systems so this is probably one of the last chances a movie like this will be projected on 70mm film. http://collider.com/batman-vs-superman-imax-theaters/
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
At the very least, DC seems to be pretty confident in their CU and Im very much on board with this approach. DC posted:
http://movieweb.com/aquaman-flash-justice-league-movie-story/ Also loved this Chris Terrio posted:Writing the epic superhero ensemble actually had Chris Terrio studying a number of topics he never would have explored otherwise. He says this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:That said, I feel like I don't buy Batman being in SS that much, unless "more prominent" means that his specter looms large over the movie. We know he's in the movie in some aspect related to the Joker, it would totally make sense if a bunch of the other guys have had run-ins with The Bat. The Suicide Squad animated movie "Assault on Arkham"(prequel to the Arkahm games), has a lot of Batman in it. This movie at least seems partially inspired by it so I wouldnt be suprised if they incorporate Batman in a similar way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Hollywood accounting is so loving bananas anyways that its really hard for anyone to say whether its a flop or not, unless its something akin to Fantastic Four. Budgets are never accurately reported at this size and no one really knows how much they made from advertising. Ive said this a couple times before in this thread and unless a movie really really bombs, its hard to say how happy studios are with gross. Im sure WB is underwhelmed at this point but I dont think they are panicking. Probably being cautious moving forward sure, but as evidence by their doubling down on their comic movie slate clearly this is more profitable than their usual productions. For instance, nobody even knows how much ASM2 cost, I work in the industry in NYC and am close with one of the gaffers and some other crew and the rumor was upwards of $400m on production alone. There is a reason even with a $700m gross they killed the franchise. Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman will be the real tells of the financial viability of the DCEU and if those dont do well....DCs probably gunna start pulling back.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Is it confirmed yet when Suicide Squad takes place? I cant tell if its immediately after BvS or between MoS and BvS. Id assume its after unless they went with a non sequential release timeline. Edit: actually given Wonder Woman and a few others like Aquaman will at least be partially a prequel Im assuming DC isnt necessarily doing their timeline based on when each movie is released. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:My wife pointed out that Superman is referred to in the past tense in the trailer. I think it spoiled the fact that Superman dies for her. This is a pretty interesting way to first explore the post Superman world. TFRazorsaw posted:That trailer sure does look like it's trying its best to make you think it's like GoTG. Wacky ensemble of misfits go on an adventure is a pretty well established story frame in both films and comics and GoTG being the first to do it for comic films doesnt give them complete monopoly over the style. The dynamics and setting are completely different here. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
I honestly dont know why but I loved Age of Ultron. The only other Marvel movies I like are WS, GoTG and Ant-Man. I think I went in expecting total trash but felt satisfied with it because it is very comoc booky. Something about the villains plot was so rediculous and over the top it actually felt fun to watch the team try to thwart it. Uncle Boogeyman posted:yeah neither movie is great but AoU shows significant improvements in character writing, acting & cinematography. it's still, like, a B- movie, tops, but it was at least a step up. This is part of it too. I actually felt for once we had a team up movie where they felt like people and had mildly interesting conflicts whereas Avengers 1 everyone felt like a generic cardboard cut out. I really enjoyed the Hawkeye family plot in AoU. At this point I expect such shallow garbage from most comic book movies Im pleasantly suprised when we get ANY meaningful characterization. And its cinematography was such a massive step up from everything but GoTG. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Just chiming in to say if youre one of those people still hoping 3D is a fad thats going to go away please just give up that hope and move on, itll never happen, its here to stay and itll literally be here till you die. Kids dont give two fucks about 3D being "rear end" like some adults and we have an entire generation that will have been raised on 3D movies in theaters and that will be the norm for them for animated and event films. Conversion tech is crazy good now and soon you wont even need 3D cameras as depth sensors and light field cameras become better and better. 3D is only getting cheaper and easier to produce and it makes plenty of extra profit for studios. Its okay though youll have VR movies to bitch at as the next supposed passing fad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Can I blame IMAX in any way for the various aspect ratios Nolan used for Interstellar? I find that to be jarring when I watch it on Blu ray. Blame the fimmmakers for this obnoxious choice of inconsistent IMAX use. I think BvS and MI: Ghost Protocol have had the best use of IMAX simply because they film entire sequences in IMAX and not shots. TDKR had some long sequences in IMAX but Nolan films always use it so sporadically it becomes visually annoying, especially when 35mm looks like complete rear end when blown up with the IMAX DRM technology. Civil War has a 15min IMAX sequence shot on the new Arri digital IMAX cameras so Im really looking forward to seeing that in action. And I believe the entirety of IW 1 and 2 will be IMAX, which is crazy awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Im kind of glad we still dont know the plot because Im getting tired of trailers being mini movies that essentially give away every story beat. I hope they stay vague or I might let this be the last trailer I watch.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:I cant really disclose how I know this but theyve been doing some big stuff in NYC. Aerial shots with ARRI65 cameras(Digital IMAX) scanning and mapping the whole city for supposedly a scene in which the city is being broken and shifted into pieces by some kind of magic. I posted this in the last Comic Book Movie Megathread in regards to Dr. Strange Im so happy they featured some of this in the trailers. Ive been dying to see it and its looking as awesome as I expected. I am so excited for this movie. Marvel is at their best when they go full blown crazy. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A lot of that imagery feels like it's from the same scene. Like Cumberbatch leaves his body, has a fever dream, and then says "train me". You can see a large cape on the figure falling in between the bending NYC skyline so that scene is probably not part of whatever sequence that is. Also, I have some knowledge of the production of that sequence and I can somewhat confirm thats not the same scene as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Fucbois come at me with your pedantic defenses of The Major being played by a white chick Its ok Max Landis is here to do that for them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747cvo8Lkjw AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
berserker posted:Is my hatred for Max Landis irrational or rational? I'm having trouble deciding It is 100% rational and I can say this because Ive actually had a lengthy conversation with the guy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Well, he's not wrong. No actually its incredibly obvious what he saying is true, but its a stupid loving position to talk down to people about because people are completely aware of what hes saying and thats why they are mad. So to fix this problem are we just supposed to cross our fingers that hopefully maybe possibly someday white American audiences will completely make a cultural shift or maybe like...filmmakers and Hollywood could try and help ease this cultural shift by maybe even pretending to attempt to creatively solve these issues. Its just incredibly stupid to just sit back and expect these issues to solve themselves when the issue ITSELF was created by Hollywoods need to pander to its white audiences to maximize profit. Thats ok. Its their business and thats how it works. Its still loving stupid and sad and we dont need a lovely screenwriter lecturing us on it because he GETS the industry. We all get the industry, thats the loving problem. The smug condescension from rich a white screenwriter born into Hollywood is really unnecessary and does nothing to enlighten anything or anyone on the problem. Max Landis just needs his monthly "HEY GUYS IM A HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITER LOOK AT ME!" viral video. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:But how is lashing out at the directors/actors going to help the situation when they're not the ones ultimately making these decisions? Because they choose to participate in the problem? And yeah directors definitely do care what race their characters are but people like Rupert Sanders probably dont and will do whatever the execs tell him to do because who the gently caress gives a poo poo about Rupert Sanders. Bob Quixote posted:Yeah I'd figure that if you decided to not take a role on principle then there will always be tons of actors looking for more screen credits or cash who will do it. So basically anyone who chose to participate in the production is greedy and clearly did not care about the whitewashing therefore they are just as culpable as the execs are. Exactly my point. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But, going further, what is an executive going to do when they are ultimately beholden to the shareholders, market forces, etc.? The ultimate problem is capitalism, and you're not going to fix that by spamming anybody's twitter. This I 100% agree with. I dont think internet outrage will realistically solve anything but I whole heartedly would hope it would some day get to a point where literally everyone worth a dime in Hollywood turned this movie down until it ended up being some low budget DTV shitshow. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The trick is that you have sort-of identified the problem, but have not changed your approach in any way that can deal with it effectively. You must improve your interpretation, rather than expect Hollywood to change films into apolitical 'safe spaces'. I dont even expect Hollywood to 100% do that, I just think theres a healthy middle ground that can be achieved by pairing a solid writer and director with somewhat of a draw with at least an Asian actress that, while not a box office draw, could prove to be a potential star enough to get audiences interested. I would hope the final product would look good enough to audiences that it wouldn't matter two shits if the lead was an unfamiliar Asian actress. The problem is Hollywood is very rarely ever willing to take that risk and make that leap and so you rarely even get to see how audiences would receive such a product. So Hollywood will remains culturally stagnant like it always has and internet nerds will continue to tweet their rear end off about it until someday a movie gets made like that that eases Hollywoods fears. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Zzulu posted:hollywood isnt racist, they just care about money I would argue that neither audiences or execs have tested this idea enough to where you could even make this call. In fact with the data available you could probably argue that there are many more issues that contribute to a movies failure than what race the lead actor is since we probably dont even have enough realistic data. Its all skewed because thats all Hollywood has ever done.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:As an executive, I look at this idea and say "Yeah, but if we cast ScarJo as the lead, we'll make an extra 100 million. So gently caress you. We're casting her. If you don't like it, there's plenty of other directors that will take your seat gladly." Literally no one is arguing this isnt exactly how execs think, what Im arguing is that you cant even say my idea is 100% destined to fail because unless you can find me a specific example, Id argue you cannot even prove that its a guaranteed financial risk to make a big budget scifi movie without a super well known white actress in the lead, ESPECIALLY when its an adaptation of a beloved property. Plus, this whole idea of Scar Jo being the sole thing that nets a movie 100million more in BO is actually kind of bullshit and is an illusion fueled by fear, not facts. http://www.vulture.com/2012/07/why-stars-dont-matter-gavin-polone.html "Vulture" posted:
The execs for this movie are just trying to replicate the success of something like Lucy, which is stupid because that movie cost only $40mil, and theres no way GitS will make that same margin of profit with a similar $460mil BO. Theyll obviously get the guarnteed fanboy money, but unless this movie looks really really good I dont think Scar Jo is going to be the one that nets its box office. Batham posted:You can't just put all the blame on Hollywood on this though. Look at Indian, Chinese, Japanese, South Korean movie studios; they all culturally wash their movies and actors. Hell, even the few poor African movie studios do this. I know exactly where to look, I have NO ILLUSIONS as to where the problems lie, Im just saying that how the gently caress can we ever expect to change this if the people making the content audiences consume dont even try to present audiences with a chance to adjust their tendencies. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Apr 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:"Okay, you go ahead and take your own 50 million dollars and go test your idea, while me here with my money, I'll go with the method that has worked for me so far." Do you have a point to make or are you just going to continue the stupid Hollywood executive fan fiction?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I was waiting for you to offer a realistic, real world solution for this problem, which you have yet to do. Bank a movie on a concept, good script and good director and not a star because as demonstrated by the article I linked above it doesnt work as well as you seem to think it does. My point is ScarJo is irrelevant to the success of this movie and she will neither make or brake its box office so the reasons for casting her based on star power are moot and there is literally no factual evidence to support the executive decisions in her casting beyond racist fear. Execs are plenty willing to risk investment for a million other reasons and to not risk it because the lead actress isnt a white megastar is stupid. Dragonaball Evolution didnt fail because it had no star power, it failed because it looked like poo poo. So if you have faith in the script and creative team, why not go for proper casting? ScarJo is not going to make your movie a success, shes just going to make it easier to deflect blame if it fails. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Probably something to be said for the executives aversion to risk, that if the movie doesn't have the star power, they don't provide the support & funding a movie needs to be strong in execution and concept, thus killing it in the crib and proving the "rule" that star power is what sells. This is my entire point, thank you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Really. Wow that makes no sense. Hollywood accounting makes no sense so this doesnt suprise me. The publics understanding of what a "failure" is is so drastically off base for what execs consider a "failure". Its only apparent in really big obvious box office bombs. Thats part of why people thinking DC is panicking after BvS is silly. Its just not how poo poo works, which is why its funny that someone like Max Landis thinks his opinion on how it works is 100% applicable to this movie and casting decision. While yes, its certainly true, its just not as rigid or black and white as he thinks it is, which is also hilarious because he accuses audiences of thinking things are simple and black and white which is not the case at all . Maluco Marinero posted:The point made is it doesn't hurt as long as your film isn't handcuffed to expectations (which the studios can set). Force Awakens was always gonna print money cause it's freaking Star Wars. Fast & Furious however is clearly strong in international markets, and it's diversity of cast and setting by Hollywood standards certainly doesn't hurt that. The people pissed about these things are mostly nerd consumers, who are a huge market now, telling executives "we will spend more money on you if you do this". I dont think the thing they are asking for is something that will drive away the consumers they are so afraid of losing. Its so rarely done that its unknown if it is actually that huge of a risk now. Youre 100% right in pointing out the success of F&F as an example of it being less of a risk. But the majority stubborn rich white executives pretty much never try. This movie would have been a pefect chance to do that in and it loving sucks they didnt. Capitalism is partly to blame but I also think its the solution if anyone would put any effort into making it work. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Apr 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:Man gently caress all that Tony Stark, I'm more hyped to see Chadwick Boseman killing it. Seconding this because god drat
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Lawrence is a mediocre actor coasting off the success of the Hunger Games franchise, if anything she should lock in long-term contracts before her value plummets. Point and laugh at this man, for he is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:An idiot director wasting his time and ours: Did this thread just spend 2 pages mistaking a shot from Thor with Blade Runner because  "Congratulations, you played yourself." AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Aug 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
I kind of love how vague the trailer is. They still havent shown anything about Steppenwolf, Superman or really what the story is while the BvS trailers practically gave the entire film away.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:01 |
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Mulholland Drive is an astoundingly simple film if you go into it with the slightest willingness to engage with it. The Mullholland Drive DVD I own literally comes with an insert that lists "clues" and things to look out for visually that are supposed to help you interpret the movie. All the talk of this movie in context of analyzing themes in cinema has been insanely amusing in this light.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2017 00:10
|
|