|
THR has the scoop: WB is launching a seemingly Marvel Studios-esque DC Films division with Geoff Johns and current WB exec Jon Berg in charge. No prizes for guessing what prompted this. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/batman-v-superman-fallout-warner-895174
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Apparently, Justice League set visit embargo is being lifted at 9AM Eastern tomorrow. Highly atypical for an embargo to be lifted this far in advance of a film's release (Marvel usually embargoes theirs for 9-12 months), but I guess WB marketing has a narrative they really want to push.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Doctor Strange preview was so loving good. Can't really judge the story and McAdams seems to be wasted in a bland love interest role, but this is gonna look amazing in 3D. Not just folding buildings, either, though there was plenty of that. Oh, and Marvel had Sebastian Stan introduce the footage at my theater, which was nice of them even though he's not in this movie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
So, uh... aside from the Amazons themselves, where are the mythological elements?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Affleck had apparently been unhappy with the script for some time, and Live By Night bombing was also a factor. http://bit.ly/2jwXWxe
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Unlucky7 posted:He has since deleted the tweets and apologized, but it is Kevin Maguire fwiw https://twitter.com/CBNostalgia/status/866784892075384832
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Setting aside the obvious callousness of celebrating this news, most indications are that Snyder was going to have a significantly diminished role in the DCEU going forward anyway, so it's just dumb and pointless on top of being sociopathic.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Affleck increasingly likely to leave the DCEU http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ben-afflecks-batman-future-doubt-as-warner-bros-plots-franchise-future-1023296
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
ouch https://twitter.com/tatianasiegel27/status/888449408848842752
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Remember when WB issued a press release announcing Reeves as the director of The Batman and it didn't mention Affleck at all? http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20170223006421/en/Matt-Reeves-Direct-Produce-%E2%80%9CThe-Batman%E2%80%9D
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There's actually numerous scenes in BvS where large crowds of people are shown looking upon him as a saviour. BvS shows some people basically worshipping Superman as a god, true, even if Snyder is much more interested in those who have the opposite reaction for most of the running time. What it absolutely fails to do is show that anyone besides Lois and Martha admires, respects, is inspired by, or just plain likes him on anything resembling a human level.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
Also, I don't buy Affleck's denial of THR's report yesterday. He denied the rumors he was exiting the director's seat of The Batman pretty much until the day they were confirmed. If it's true, there's next to no chance that WB would confirm it before the promotional cycle for Justice League is over.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:Justice League embargo for social media is lifted. A lot of people are sharing similar impressions. It's fun and the cast has good chemistry but there's a lot of poo poo that's rushed through and the villain is as throw-away as they come. It's got some tone issues and tries to cram way too much story into too little movie. Better than BvS and MoS but not exactly a great movie (probably C+/B- is what I'd rate it). A few of them also report that there's an uncanny valley effect from the CG used to remove Cavill's MI6 mustache from the reshoots, which I look forward to seeing for myself. Anyway, the prevailing sense I get from the Twitter impressions is less one of genuine enthusiasm for the film than one of palpable relief that it's not as bad as BvS, which can't be what WB was hoping for. I expect pretty middling reviews from the mainstream film critics next week.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:It's a jar labelled "Grandma's Peach Tea". Sure, we're clearly supposed to be thinking, "Oh, the savage wit of that Lex! Literalizing the Senator's own words and turning them against her just before he kills her! I love to hate this compelling, well-realized villain!" Me, I was just laughing at the attempt to wring actual dramatic tension out of a jar of piss.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
David D. Davidson posted:The thing is Zack Snyder seems to live under the delusion that he is some kind of auteur Micheal Bay but really isn't as clever as he thinks he is. See also Martha. I don't know which out of Snyder, Goyer, or Terrio came up with the Martha bit, but that's exactly the sort of plot point that only someone who's convinced he's being extremely clever could come up with, which makes it all the more amusing how badly it worked and how poorly it was received. Lick! The! Whisk! posted:It's nice to know I called how dumb of an idea it was to structure the villain of a loving Justice League movie around loving Steppenwolf like two years ago. It's pretty obvious that Steppenwolf was only chosen as the villain for the purpose of setting up Darkseid as the villain in the sequel, but it seems that most of that setup didn't make it into the final cut of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:I’m not sure it was ever there to be cut. Darkseid is mentioned once as a “for darkseid” statement. Never shown. Or explained / alluded who he is. Same with the New Gods. Just a quick name drop without context. The boom tubes aren’t explained either. Steppenwolf just uses them every now and then. No hint at the end of this “attack” being part of a bigger plan. There have been rumors from sites like Batman-On-Film that there were more extensive Darkseid/Fourth World teases in the shooting script (which may have even made it into earlier cuts of the film), including a full-on Darkseid cameo appearance a la Thanos. We'll probably never know for sure, but I'm inclined to believe them, because, well, why else would you choose fuckin' Steppenwolf as the villain?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:It's not like he had to be bad just because it was Steppenwolf. They could have altered him for the movie. Definitely, but at least to some extent, his weakness as a villain probably stems from his being selected mainly to set up Darkseid for a film that now may never happen, as opposed to Snyder/Terrio actually having a story idea for him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:That projection is less than what BvS made so heads are going to roll if it holds up The heads already rolled after BvS, for the most part. When Abe Riesman from Vulture did his recent report on the future of the DCEU, he more or less said there was a palpable sense at WB that they'd already written off Justice League as the last gasp of the old DCEU regime, and that the execs he spoke to were much more interested in talking about the solo films (not just WW, but Aquaman and Shazam as well) than they were about JL.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:I went and rewatched Wonder Woman recently and while it was a pretty good movie, I feel like a lot of the hype had to do with it being the first D.C. Movie that wasn't a complete dumpster fire. It was good, but the "holy poo poo, wow!" reaction feels a little oversold in retrospect. I agree, and while I'm sure this will be taken the wrong way, I also think it benefited hype-wise from being the first female-led superhero film that wasn't trash. It's a good, fun, competently made superhero film that shits the bed in the third act. Miles above the first three DCEU films by virtue of having two good acts and a compelling, likable protagonist, and probably somewhere above the median MCU film in quality, but I don't really get treating it as some all-time masterpiece of the genre.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
X-O posted:There was only one "all time masterpiece of the genre" or whatever similar designation you want to use that came out this year. And it wasn't made by Marvel Studios or DC. I didn't realize Power Rangers had such passionate fans!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
teagone posted:Unconfirmed sources on twitter say that Snyder shot only 3 scenes with Henry: the Heroes Park fight, the scene in the cornfield with Lois, and a scene with Affleck near the end of the film. That’s scenes Snyder shot that ended up in the theatrical cut, not scenes he shot, period. Superman was always going to have a major role in the film. The main leaker for this stuff, assuming it’s the ResetEra guy and assuming he’s telling the truth, has said that he only came on board well into post-production. So if legit, he only knows about scenes that made it or almost made it into the theatrical cut, not Snyder scenes that were cut earlier in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
I just realized that BvS and Justice League would both have been greatly improved if Lex Luthor had had a jar of Granny Goodness' Peach Tea instead
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Was Johns brought in early enough to have made a difference? I can’t remember. JL started filming only a few weeks after BvS opened, and Johns didn't take on his expanded film role until a month or two after that. So Johns probably had significant involvement in on-set rewrites, reshoots, and general post-production, but not in the film's development or pre-production.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:Also, why even bother doing anything to do with the Fourth World if you're not going to Kirby the gently caress out of it? People loved that poo poo in Thor: Ragnarok. Nobody wants another generic video game alien horde. The flashback scene with Amazons, Atlanteans, Greek gods, and Green Lanterns teaming up was pretty cool, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
mycot posted:From all the points brought up so far Justin Hammer is the guy who checks off all the boxes of "Wasted Actor" "Doesn't Do A Lot" "Is a Joke" and "The Good Guy but Bad." Hey, they brought him back for a homophobic cameo in All Hail the King.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Multiple outlets, including CNBC and The Guardian, are reporting that the Disney/Fox deal is likely to be announced tomorrow morning. It'll take a while to finalize a deal of this size, so don't expect to hear anything about MCU X-Men/F4 plans until late next year at the absolute earliest, and more likely not until 2019.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Cocks Cable posted:At least with Disney owning these properties again, they won't have a reason to squeeze the X-Men and F4 out of other merchandising lines such as video games and collectible markets. You probably already know this, but AFAIK, Disney has owned 100% of the licensing rights for those properties for many years now, aside from possibly anything directly based on Fox films. The X-Men/FF licensing ban was enacted out of pure spite for Fox and nothing more. Ojjeorago posted:Due to the recent acquisition of Fox, the villain of Infinity War has been changed from Thanos to Hilary Clinton. I know this is just a joke, but Fox News isn’t part of the acquisition. I’d worry more about Murdoch buying CNN. Barry Convex fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It wasn't JUST spite. It was done under the logic that licensing this stuff and making animated and other versions of the Fox-owned properties would basically end up being free advertising for their movies. Well, you’re right, but I think that was always pretty lovely logic. Anyway, it’s almost poetic, isn’t it? All these years of Perlmutter et al. pushing from the top down to turn Inhumans into an X-Men-like property and failing at it, and just a month or so after the abysmal TV series ends, the whole thing becomes moot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:It's not, really. The deal where Marvel sold off the rights to their properties was made to keep the company afloat, and are thus full of really exploitative terms that favored the studios. The profits for all tie-in products would go to Fox, which included toys, promotional stuff, everything. The only way for Marvel to make money off of these characters is to include them in standard Marvel-branded stuff. Meanwhile, comics make a fraction of the actual money they can get from movies and all that other stuff, so from a business perspective it would look like pouring money into a hole for the sake of the other team. As ubiquitous as the "Marvel was forced into making bad deals out of financial desperation" narrative has become, it's not actually true. You can read more in Marvel Comics: The Untold Story, by Sean Howe, but the short version is that the X-Men and FF rights were sold years before Marvel filed for bankruptcy in 1996, and the Spider-Man rights were sold to Sony several years after, when Marvel had largely recovered. Far from being desperate, Marvel's management at the time was eager to sign these deals, which of course look lovely in the post-MCU world, because they viewed potential films based on their IP primarily as risk-free advertising for their IP in other media - comics, animation, and merchandising - rather than as a viable revenue stream in and of themselves. From that perspective, the perpetuity clauses in many of these deals were actually a good thing, as they gave the studios in question an incentive to keep making films every few years, whereas many of Marvel's previous film deals had led to nothing but their properties languishing in development hell until the deals expired. As for merchandising rights, I'm not sure what the exact terms were throughout the 90s or the 2000s, or even at the beginning of this decade, but I'm pretty sure that Marvel has fully controlled the X-Men and FF licensing and animation rights for a good few years now. If there's reporting to the contrary, I stand corrected.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Marvel always had the contracts with Mattel etc., but Sony and Fox got most of the revenue from merchandise related to their movies. Marvel probably got some, but a small share at best. Right, but I don't think Fox has any financial stake in, or control of, X-Men or FF licensing/animation that isn't specifically based on films Fox makes with those IP. Maybe they did at one point, but I'm fairly certain that that hadn't been the case for at least a few years before the Perlmutter-imposed licensing ban. But feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
so Marvel (probably) getting the FF rights back inspired me to finally watch the Josh Trank Fantastic Four out of morbid curiosity and Jesus Christ it's so bad. Well, the overlong first act is at least halfway competent, but it rapidly goes downhill after the One Year Later title card, culminating in what feels like a deadpan parody of generic superhero movie climaxes, literally just the heroes and villain throwing CG and spouting terrible dialogue at each other for ten minutes, with no stakes or weight to any of it. and forget fidelity to the source, this version of Doom is a loving travesty on a basic level of characterization. He's introduced as a douchey, but not particularly evil guy, stays that way throughout the first act, disappears for half an hour, and then returns as a generic MANKIND MUST BE DESTROYED supervillain with no real explanation. thank god we'll finally get a decent adaptation in 2021 or so
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Fant4stic also has the dubious distinction of being a superhero film where there are zero proper action sequences until the climax. Before that, the closest things in the movie are just the pre-powers Planet Zero escape and one brief scene where Reed fights a handful of military grunts. I'd love to know what Trank's version would have been like. I'm sure it wouldn't have been particularly good, but I can't imagine it could have been much worse than what we got.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
The X-Men characters work fine in the context of the broader Marvel Universe, but I've always thought that the concept would work better in a self-contained universe where mutation is the sole source of superpowers. Various writers have attempted over the years to explain why mutants are so much more hated and feared than people who acquire superpowers by other means, but I've never found any of those explanations terribly convincing. Yeah, bigotry is rarely rational, but there's literally no outward difference between mutants and other superpowered humans. It just doesn't seem like a distinction that any bigot would actually bother to draw.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/deadline/status/949059890953166848 Could be Monica Rambeau, could be any other female character with any connection at all to Carol Danvers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
If it’s Monica, she probably won’t have any powers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
I’m really glad to hear that BP has actual thematic content about race and colonialism, even though I’m sure it’s inevitably limited by the constraints of blockbuster superhero filmmaking. Certain other “diverse” superhero films could learn from that; I liked Wonder Woman, but it’s amazing how it had absolutely nothing to say about gender roles aside from a few quips here and there.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Not only that, but because it’s so long and upbeat it ends up throwing off whatever tone you just established in the opening scene. It felt incredibly off-putting in BP. Like, we get it, you have all these heroes to show off, we’ve been seeing them for 10 years now. Just do the old comic page flip thing and get to the movie. It would be fine if it were half as long and they allowed directors to put their own soundtrack over it instead of using the drat fanfare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:The Root has a really good article debunking this poo poo called "Killmonger was wrong and y'all know it" phoneposting right now but everyone should read it. I'm no CineD Marvel hater, but this is a pretty lovely take that completely misses the point of the "Killmonger Was Right" meme by focusing primarily on his literal onscreen actions during the film. He's a fictional character written as the villain in a big-budget franchise superhero film; of course he's not "right" on a literal surface level, because the human beings who wrote the film chose to make his actions so thoroughly irredeemable.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
This thread elaborates more on the point I raised above. Don't completely agree with all of this, but it does explain why I find the Root article to be a pretty shallow, unconvincing rebuttal to leftist criticism of the film's politics. https://twitter.com/RickyRawls/status/965663896072749060
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 09:36 |
|
|
Roth posted:Oh, I figured it was an abbreviation for something. One can certainly, say, point out that the film took pains to say absolutely nothing about gender roles or systemic sexism outside a few gags here and there without shaming people who liked it. I liked it too, but it's not particularly feminist on more than a "women can kick rear end too" representational level, which is a pretty remarkable feat given that the premise begs for more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:38
|
|