Jimmy Kimmel is used as a great resource by Disney studios to pump up interest and positive vibes. ABC of course is owned by Disney. They also use ESPN alot to get in references to opening movies or buzz upcoming releases. I don’t blame them for using all their avenues to promote their movies, I just want to point out what their game is. One of the consequences of the upcoming Disney monopoly is that we’ll be force fed Disney and told how yummy it is and I don’t know if that many people will be able to tell if it’s actually good or not.
It’s incredibly hard to do I think. Which is why isn’t not really done. Can you think of a blockbuster movie character that fit that mold? Is there anything or anyone you’d suggest Justice League should model themselves after?
Hollywood’s never fallen in love with Morrison despite him being there for years and years now pitching stuff. I think he does something in comics that doesn’t translate to the big screen. Even Happy is a different animal from the comic book.
There’s not been a lot of team movies of this kind; I’m not sure I could’ve given you a model for Avengers. In TV, “Angel” kind of had that kind of dynamic. I am quite sure Whedon could’ve pulled off a great first JLA movie if he’d been hired from the get-go, but then there’s few writers who can do teams as well as he can.
Morrison’s stuff works smashingly in drawn comic books, but I think a lot of it like Doom Patrol and The Invisibles just wouldn’t work in live action without laying out nine figures for CGI, and even then it’s going to confuse the audience and get awful word of mouth and never recoup costs.
We3 would probably be the best bet to get a Morrison movie made. It wouldn’t be too special effects heavy, and the story is straight-forward and not too obtuse.
It’s not that I don’t get it. I just didn’t think it was well done. Do I understand why Batman doesn’t like Superman and see him as a threat? Sure. But Superman is still largely viewed by the world as a hero yet Batman’s first reaction is basically “I’ve gotta kill this guy”. Even with Alfred protesting. And the Martha moment just came off as silly to me. The whole movie felt forced. I can see the story logic, I just don’t think it worked. Obviously plenty of that is purely subjective. But like Jim says, Batman and Superman fighting feels contrived, so the movie had an uphill battle to sell me on it and, ultimately, it failed to do so.
I don’t understand how you don’t understand that people don’t understand.
No-one is going to like the movie, or dislike it, based on this, so (at least for this thread), how about we go back to showbiz money news?
Let’s start with $64bn?
Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman Lifts Saudi Arabia’s 35-Year Theater Ban, Sets Sights On Hollywood — Deadline Disruptors
In late 2017, a seismic shift began in Saudi Arabia, an ultraconservative and once-insular Kingdom, when it was announced a 35-year ban on public movie theaters would be lifted—and it wanted the world to know it was serious about entertainment. The bold initiative was sparked by Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, heir to the throne and a progressive looking to diversify the Kingdom’s economy.
The Crown Prince, or MBS as he’s called, is known for his decisive business moves, ones currently causing Hollywood to salivate over the prospect of another deep-pocketed player. An executive says, “We need fresh blood as we have been through most other sources, so step on up.”
Putting his money where his mouth is, in February 2018, the Kingdom announced a staggering $64 billion investment earmarked specifically for the entertainment sector within Saudi Arabia. Though its citizens do have access to YouTube, Netflix and Amazon, they routinely cross over to the UAE or Bahrain seeking entertainment, and the Kingdom wants that money to stay within its borders.
The Kingdom is also making a $400 million investment in Endeavor, and industry watchers wouldn’t be surprised to see a slate deal here or a co-fi pact there. An additional $10 billion content fund could see investment in Hollywood and around the Gulf region, which is expected to yield announcements about production incentives and other enticements this year in Cannes.
Either way, many are optimistic about future partnerships and cite a hangover from China, which has been a recalcitrant bedfellow. “We know this money is real,” said one exec. But the lack of a local industry means that unlike China, Saudi doesn’t have a booming box office market to dangle in front of Hollywood — yet. The Kingdom’s 33 million population is dwarfed by China, but it is expected to become a $1 billion annual box office play once the build-out is complete. That would land it in the Top 10 territories worldwide. “That’s a huge thing for the industry,” says an international exhibition exec.
Saudi also has something to offer that China did not. By 2008 when the Middle Kingdom began opening up, it already had a local industry which has grown exponentially since. USC professor Stanley Rosen notes, “Unlike China in the earlier days, the Saudis seem fully committed to spending money quickly to jump-start the market, and they do not have a competing product as China’s domestic films would be.” Bollywood, however, is expected to be a serious competitor to Hollywood on the ground in Saudi which is also very keen to cultivate homegrown filmmakers. Says one observer, “They have stories that haven’t been told. There’s a lot of untapped talent there.”
Exhibition chains quickly jumped on the Saudi bandwagon once it was clear the ban was being lifted. Among those moving in are Vue International, AMC, Cineopolis, iPic, Vox and MAX. MBS recently toured the US, meeting and rubbing shoulders with everyone from President Donald Trump to Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Rupert Murdoch, Oprah Winfrey, Bob Iger, Kevin Tsujihara and Stacey Snider among many others.
Overall, MBS has been seeking to change the perception of Saudi Arabia as an extremist state. To be sure, it carries some nasty political baggage and it has a poor track-record on human rights. In a March interview, he told 60 Minutes that his goal was to take Saudi Arabia back to a time before the Iranian Revolution. “We were living a very normal life like the rest of the Gulf countries. Women were driving cars. There were movie theaters in Saudi Arabia. Women worked everywhere. We were just normal people developing like any other country in the world.”
A lot of these superhero movie fights are metaphorical; they’re about society’s current inability to reconcile conflicting viewpoints. That’s what Civil War was about, and that’s how they deal with it in Infinity War, and that’s BvS, too. Superman is seen as the guy no one could possibly misinterpret, and yet we are presented with a scenario where he is. But Batman’s response is contrasted with Lex Luthor’s. We don’t really have to wonder why Luthor doesn’t understand Superman, because that’s a familiar story that usually has the same ending (although I love that we now get stories where this isn’t the case, like Final Night and the last few years of comics). But trying to explain why Batman won’t automatically embrace Superman, that seems trickier. He sees the destruction wrought in the fight with Zod the same way audiences did. That was the whole point. He doesn’t care what Superman is doing otherwise, only that he’s creating a lot of destruction along the way. That’s something Batman would never do (unless he’s pancaking cop cars), and can’t imagine doing. So he condemns Superman as a menace, and sets about trying to eliminate that menace. Until he realizes that Superman isn’t the menace he thinks he is.
One part of BvS (better revealed in the Ultimate Edition - the theatrical is really not worth watching due to the studio editing) is that just about anybody can be manipulated. Come ON! This is Superman and Batman! Kal-El was not only manipulated (LL sent him clippings and such) but was operating from his demented daddy’s Kansas POV about some sort of absolute morality that made him let a tornado eat him (that still makes absolutely no damned sense) but was the one to first admit he was wrong and manipulated. Bruce built his life on a couple of obsessions, and to break loose of those above Luthor’s manipulations showed a true strength of character. It was just hideously written. All of it - and Nolan’s first two Bat-films - are about fear.
Seems like this should now just be moved to the DC movies thread for discussion so that this thread can be about box office happenings.
Well I for one still don’t see how it’s so difficult for some to just accept there is bias at play here, irregardless of wether people liked a movie or not.
Would you guys be arguing with me if I talked about something less controversial like the usual anti-Michael Bay bias? 'cause that’s pretty much the same same thing we’re talking about here, irregardless of how many people liked or hated the Transformers movies… =/
Hell, I’m not even defending DC/Warner, honestly, as far as I’m concerned they can go frack themselves after how badly they misshandled the Snyder-verse… And Marvel has done a terrific job at cultivating and growing that “bias” (or that “reputation” if you will), so fair play.
I really don’t see what’s the issue here… u_u
Jonathan insists that Clark not save him because to Jonathan that would’ve been the definitive moment of Clark revealing himself to the world. Clark was already saving people well before that, and he wasn’t always successful about hiding that. Jonathan was paranoid about what would happen next, and that’s really what BvS explores, that idea that universally embracing Superman would not happen instantly, that he would be feared, too. It makes absolute sense to me. What father who cared for their kid wouldn’t fear such things? The world exploits people, and it chews them up and it spits them out. Clark’s instincts are always to do what he thinks is right, but not everyone will agree with him, and because of his extraordinary abilities, they have a lot of incentive not to trust him, because he can do whatever he wants. That’s the whole point of Snyder’s vision, that Superman would face challenges, and that his dad saw them coming, and wanted to make sure he was ready, understood how difficult it would be for others to accept him. And Jonathan dies convinced his son hasn’t reached that point yet, and as far as the narrative goes, he’s proven right.
He’s right too. His son is subject to a witch hunt from Congress and then murdered shortly afterwards. He was right to want to protect his son, rather than Jor-El who wanted him to take the throne and lead.
Marvel doesn’t deal with consequences like DC did. There’s no consequence to Tony Stark becoming Iron Man. His house gets blown up and he gets grilled by Congress but he’s able to blow both those things off and they don’t slow him for even a second. Tony’s main trouble has been tripping over himself, not answering to the world. It works that Marvel can be lighter on the consequences of these superheroes (Vision is a living robot superweapon, right after Ultron tried to destroy the world and he’s able to freely canoodle with an Olsen sister in Scotland rather than, you know, be locked up in a cell or shut down).
Wonder Woman is different. She goes from the 40’s to the 10’s and doesn’t really seem to mind. Cap on the other hand never stops brooding for the good old days.
ahhh even though it’s got nothing to do with me, it’s still very pleasing to hear the words “Jonathan was right”
But she also lives through all of it. Most of that is just her trying to stay out of history’s way. Cap never gets the option, or seems to consider, a life other than being a superhero. That’s what I like about Justice League, watching all these superheroes decide to be superheroes, and why Cyborg is the best character to build the story around, the one who’s most reluctant to sign up. Aquaman essentially is Superman before Superman in Man of Steel, making sea rescues without really having to get a reputation from it. And Wonder Woman is Superman getting to be the kind of superhero we expect. The bank robbery, I think, is consciously evoking the opening of Dark Knight. She’s the middle ground between Superman and Batman. Until the League, Batman operated in shadows, too. And the Flash is just the dude who has no idea what it means to be a superhero, even though he’s already doing everything that makes him one. So I absolutely dig that movie. People will say the humor is sloppy, forced into the movie, but they were billing this as a lighter toned movie, I think, before Whedon ever joined the production. And it’s worth noting that Whedon isn’t just humor. Serenity has some good dramatic moments, like Wash’s death, and it’s finally when Whedon embraces River’s potential.
eh Justice League is a butchered mutilated corpse… it deserved that low BO. Hell it deserved worse… well WB deserved it, the JL franchise deserved so much better =(
So anyways, the reviews/reactions for Solo are starting to trickle in… I’m not buying it, tbh… I think it’s gonna be and do like Rogue One at best… but then again I’m not a SW fan so who knows
Still though, even if Solo performs mildly, it’s gonna be aheck of a year for Disney… I’m a expecting a little bump for Ant-Man too… not that much, but a wee bump after IW.
I did like how they dealt with this in Man of Steel a lot, and SvB also had a lot of potential where that is concerned - that scene in the senate, with everybody being afraid of Superman… those are good ideas.
Everybody knows how the story is supposed to work; it’s not exactly subtle. It’s just that it’s not well done, like Chris said. And one of the biggest problems is that the plot of the movie relies on both Superman and Batman being pretty dumb about everything.
As I mentioned above these Twitter reactions are rather irrelevant. They come out when reviews are officially embargoed but they know Disney won’t do anything if someone just posts that it’s great. Any reviewers who may have thought it wasn’t will just hold off until the embargo ends.
For me, the silliest part of Avengers was Iron Man in mock-Shakespeare, wondering if Thor is “wearing mommy’s drapes.” A lot of this really is different preferences in storytelling.