|
What I really find interesting about this is the difference in approach between Marvel and DC movies. Marvel has had movies that didn't go down well: Ang Lee's Hulk, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Fant4stic. In each case the studio involved has taken criticism on board and changed things. WB gets negative feedback on a movie and says "gently caress you" then doubles down. It's weird given they had no problem ditching Green Lantern, but seem determined to make Zach Snyder's version of the Justice League popular.
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I did a huge effortpost in CD earlier arguing that trying to course correct to appeal to audiences has always been a bad idea and doubling down turns out to be the right thing to do: I see what you're saying, but I think the difference is that your examples all had a good first film. Sure, maybe not the box office blockbuster that their franchises went on to be, but good films that did well at the cinema and attracted even more attention on DVD from word of mouth. If you watch a bad Marvel movie now, you know it's an aberration (not saying they're all masterpieces, but you can at least expect a competent, fun movie). It doesn't put you off the next one because you know that the next one will probably be done by different people who've listened to previous criticism. There's no reason to think that's going to happen with DC because they've now churned out two movies with basically the same problems from the same people, and announced their intention to let the same people keep making more. Basically, I'm saying you can get away with a bad movie in a franchise if you've got a good foundation, a good first film to build on. DC haven't done that yet, and I think they'd be better off hitting the reboot button than trying to make people like something that just isn't working.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:found snyder's inspiration  brb, off to Google... something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:The book's name is "Jack Fish" by J. Milligan, if you're wondering. Already found it. Think that's on the pile next time I order some books. Might be poo poo, but I'm willing to pay a couple of quid to add context to that page.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
It's a shame Christopher Reeve isn't alive to see so many people coming to the realisation that Superman III and IV could have been a LOT worse.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
gently caress the ROW posted:Everything has to be really complicated about the batman, like how its his fault of everything, instead of just being a cool detective. Frankly maybe its not the batman thats mentally ill, but everyone blaming him for the city problems... If Heath Ledger hadn't died, I think we could have had a great sequel to The Dark Knight looking at this. You've got Joker regularly escaping and killing people, a few other psychos like Scarecrow and Zsasz doing the same. People start saying "Why doesn't Batman just kill these lunatics instead of leaving them for the cops to throw in Arkham until they escape again?" Bruce is left wondering if he even wants to protect a city that is happy with the idea of killing criminals without any sort of due process. Maybe even have a new vigilante turn up using similar techniques to Batman, but willing to kill. Basically, I want something to address the issue so idiots will stop saying "Hurr durr, Batman should just kill Joker."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I see you're not familiar with the story where Batman does exactly that. Problem with that story is that someone else was guilty, and it made sense that Batman would want to find out who the real murderer was. Story would have been better if they'd kept the idea of an ambitious DA deciding to try and fight for the death penalty over an insanity plea, but make it for something Joker had actually done. What does Batman do when he's so against killing, but the direct result of him capturing someone will be that they're killed?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:The 80s carpenter remake? Or you mean the 'prequel' remake of Carpenter's remake? Carpenter's film wasn't a remake of The Thing From Another World, it was a more faithful version of Who Goes There? updated to modern times. But that's beside the point, if someone's honestly defending that lovely CGI'd remake, they are worse than Hitler.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Which Hitler??? Every family has a black sheep, ok? Even I can admit that great uncle Addy was... a bit naughty. Let's just accept that and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:I don't hate the prequel on the grounds that the 1982 version is sacred, I think it's 100% superfluous. While the finished 2011 film isn't a trainwreck it does nothing to disabuse the notion that its 100% superfluous. I'm sure SMG has some weird interpretation where it's about Zimbabwe religion that totally justifies its existence. Pretty much this. I'd rather they'd done a big screen re-release of the original than this totally unneeded prequel/remake.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 19:10
|
|