Batman/Superman Pushed Back to 2016 - Part 1

[NoLaNitE007]

Originally Posted by JackMercy

The Thor sequel wasn't moved due to creative issues; they planned these "unconventional" dates for the Thor and Cap follow-ups...Marvel and Disney made a different choice for a release date, and Patty Jenkins had just been hired...and this was done early on, in fall 2011. Studios shift a lot of things in early planning...

Oh yeah....Marvel just "plans" everything don't they? It didn't matter...Thor 2 was lousy anyway.

[TheVileOne]

Well Cap always had the April release date.

[Lantern Venom]

Originally Posted by Masone

Marvel is not a big film studio. They are more focused on getting films and characters out there as opposed to the quality of said films.

Considering that there has yet to be a bad Marvel Studios film, I think their approach is working perfectly.

[NoLaNitE007]

Originally Posted by Scar Predator

Considering that there has yet to be a bad Marvel Studios film, I think their approach is working perfectly.

What? "There has yet to be a bad Marvel film?" GTFO here with that!

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by NoLaNitE007

What? "There has yet to be a bad Marvel film?" GTFO here with that!

There's yet to be a bad Marvel Studios film. Which I agree with.

Lots of bad Marvel films. Elektra, Fantastic Fours, Daredevil, HULK, Spider-Man 3.

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by RAE072

There's yet to be a bad Marvel Studios film. Which I agree with.

I disagree. For me Thor 2 and Iron man 2/3 are pretty bad. And there's some others I find good/decent, but nothing special. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[Flint Marko]

Originally Posted by Masone

Marvel is not a big film studio. They are more focused on getting films and characters out there as opposed to the quality of said films. Every time we turn around there is an announcement of another Marvel movie or another character appearing in one of the Marvel movies. They have all these movies in various forms of development at one time. After flaunting this approach as something that's desirable(as opposed to DC's approach), you can't now claim that they don't do this. They do, and their films have suffered for it.

They're like a network TV series, 23 episodes a year, hectic schedule, filler episodes, stretched stories, more focused on quantity. Your typical NCIS type show. DC's approach is more like a 10 episode cable series, a Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones. More focused on the actual content than just hurrying up and getting to the next episode.

What in the world are you basing this off of?
I see this imagined flaw in Marvel Studios approach to film making being criticized here constantly and, quite frankly, it's completely ridiculous. All of their films have been critical successes and a hit with audiences; explain to me how their films have 'suffered'? They're pumping out movies at a consistent pace every year with an interwoven continuity, and have been dang successful at it. So successful in fact, that DC and other studios who own superhero properties are attempting to copy their plan.
On that note, it's a stretch to say that DC has any sort of "approach" to their movies. They've been throwing things at the wall to see what sticks; Jonah Hex? Green Lantern? They had a good thing with Nolan but now that he's out of the picture they're copying Marvel's blueprint to see if that'll work for them.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by MrsKent26

I disagree. For me Thor 2 and Iron man 2/3 are pretty bad. And there's some others I find good/decent, but nothing special. Of course, that's just my opinion.

You may not have liked them, which is fine, but they certainly were not bad movies.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by Flint Marko

What in the world are you basing this off of?
I see this imagined flaw in Marvel Studios approach to film making being criticized here constantly and, quite frankly, it's completely ridiculous. All of their films have been critical successes and a hit with audiences; explain to me how their films have 'suffered'? They're pumping out movies at a consistent pace every year with an interwoven continuity, and have been dang successful at it. So successful in fact, that DC and other studios who own superhero properties are attempting to copy their plan.
On that note, it's a stretch to say that DC has any sort of "approach" to their movies. They've been throwing things at the wall to see what sticks; Jonah Hex? Green Lantern? They had a good thing with Nolan but now that he's out of the picture they're copying Marvel's blueprint to see if that'll work for them.

Yep.

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by RAE072

You may not have liked them, which is fine, but they certainly were not bad movies.

"Bad" is subjective. They were bad to some people, like me.

[Lantern Venom]

Originally Posted by NoLaNitE007

What? "There has yet to be a bad Marvel film?" GTFO here with that!

Are we talking about pre-MCU joint productions like Elektra and Man-Thing? If so, those were bad. All of the MS productions (ie, the Avengers related movies) have been in the great-to-amazing range in terms of quality.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by MrsKent26

"Bad" is subjective. They were bad to some people, like me.

Which isn't what you said literally 2 minutes ago.

For me Thor 2 and Iron man 2/3 are pretty bad

If bad is subjective then good is also subjective and you wouldn't be able to call a film good or bad.

Whether or not you like a movie is where the subjectivity comes from. Movies can be objectively good or objectively bad.

Those movies were listed were not objectively bad. They were objectively good.

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by Scar Predator

Are we talking about pre-MCU joint productions like Elektra and Man-Thing? If so, those were bad. All of the MS productions (ie, the Avengers related movies) have been in the great-to-amazing range in terms of quality.

I think it's debatable. I feel the Phase II movies are amongst the worst that Marvel Studios has ever brought out (IMO worse than IM2, which gets **** on here quite often).

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by RAE072

Whether or not you like a movie is where the subjectivity comes from. Movies can be objectively good or objectively bad.

Objectivity based on what...?

[Flint Marko]

I think this bears repeating: I think it's tough to really criticize a studio whose every film has received reviews ranging from generally positive to unanimous acclaim.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by InJustice

Objectivity based on what...?

Directing, cinematography, writing, acting, etc.

[TheNextNolan22]

Only reason why Marvel Studios are pumping out superhero movies left and right is because that's all they can afford to do.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by Flint Marko

I think this bears repeating: I think it's tough to really criticize a studio whose every film has received reviews ranging from generally positive to unanimous acclaim.

Again, yep.

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by RAE072

Which isn't what you said literally 2 minutes ago.



If bad is subjective then good is also subjective and you wouldn't be able to call a film good or bad.

Whether or not you like a movie is where the subjectivity comes from. Movies can be objectively good or objectively bad.

Those movies were listed were not objectively bad. They were objectively good.

You're twisting what I said. I mean "bad" is in the eye of the individual view. As is "good." No movie is objectively good. None. It's up to each viewer to decide. That's what I said. Subjective. Opinions. My post was clearly stating that they are bad to me. And good to you.

Objective means: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective means: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

There is no objective opinion on whether a movie is good or bad. There are subjective opinions. Which is literally what I said 2 minutes ago.

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by RAE072

Directing, cinematography, writing, acting, etc.

That's still subjective no matter how you slice it. See: MOS's writing and directing. People liked and people hated these things.

Originally Posted by Flint Marko

I think this bears repeating: I think it's tough to really criticize a studio whose every film has received reviews ranging from generally positive to unanimous acclaim.

So legitimate criticisms should be ignored because of what the majority thinks?

That's like someone saying TDKR has no problems because it has an 85% in RT and generally positive review. Surely, you realize how arbitrary this way of thinking is.

[RAE072]

Originally Posted by MrsKent26

You're twisting what I said. I mean "bad" is in the eye of the individual view. As is "good." No movie is objectively good. None. It's up to each viewer to decide. That's what I said. Subjective. Opinions. My post was clearly stating that they are bad to me. And good to you.

Objective means: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective means: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

There is no objective opinion on whether a movie is good or bad. There are subjective opinions. Which is literally what I said 2 minutes ago.

Look at it this way.

Bad movies have bad writing, directing, etc. but can still be liked.

Good movies can have good writing, directing etc. but can still be disliked.

Movies can be objectively good or bad. Subjectivity comes in when someone expresses their feelings about said movie.

[MrsKent26]

Originally Posted by RAE072

Look at it this way.

Bad movies have bad writing, directing, etc. but can still be liked.

Good movies can have good writing, directing etc. but can still be disliked.

Movies can be objectively good or bad. Subjectivity comes in when someone expresses their feelings about said movie.

There is no objectivity. There's only popular opinions and less popular ones when it comes to movies. Who decides what is good or bad writing? Opinions decide and opinions are subjective.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by InJustice

I think it's debatable. I feel the Phase II movies are amongst the worst that Marvel Studios has ever brought out (IMO worse than IM2, which gets **** on here quite often).

Agree on Iron Man 3, but I felt Thor 2 was better, Agents of SHIELD I can understand. I feel the preferences of what most General Audiences liked about the Marvel Studios films so far(the style of humor akin to that of Joss Whedon and Shane Black) are being milked to the max in order to increase good reception and thus box office return as they're the ones really paying for the movie. Since they're a business, no doubt this is their motive. One of these days, the GA and critics are going to get tired of this and that day will be the downfall of Marvel Studios. That is unless Captain America: TWS and Guardians of the Galaxy redeems it. However, they did say Avengers 2 would be more serious.

[Flint Marko]

Originally Posted by InJustice

So legitimate criticisms should be ignored because of what the majority thinks?

That's like someone saying TDKR has no problems because it has an 85% in RT and generally positive review. Surely, you realize how arbitrary this way of thinking is.

I see little to no legitimate criticisms to speak of in this thread; every negative comment I've seen made towards Marvel here amounts, in my eyes, to nothing more than senseless nitpicking.
It's fine if you don't like the movies they're making, I get that. But to make baseless accusations that they're mindlessly churning these things out and paying attention only to quantity and not quality (a criticism I've seen on this thread and elsewhere) is nonsense.

[InJustice]

Originally Posted by Flint Marko

I see little to no legitimate criticisms to speak of in this thread; every negative comment I've seen made towards Marvel here amounts, in my eyes, to nothing more than senseless nitpicking.
It's fine if you don't like the movies they're making, I get that. But to make baseless accusations that they're mindlessly churning these things out and paying attention only to quantity and not quality (a criticism I've seen on this thread and elsewhere) is nonsense.

What do you consider "senseless nitpicking?"

I think a case can be made for deteriorating quality if you compare both Phase I and II movies.

Originally Posted by smallville fan

Agree on Iron Man 3, but I felt Thor 2 was better, Agents of SHIELD I can understand. I feel the preferences of what most General Audiences liked about the Marvel Studios films so far(the style of humor akin to that of Joss Whedon and Shane Black) are being milked to the max in order to increase good reception and thus box office return as they're the ones really paying for the movie. Since they're a business, no doubt this is their motive. One of these days, the GA and critics are going to get tired of this and that day will be the downfall of Marvel Studios. That is unless Captain America: TWS and Guardians of the Galaxy redeems it. However, they did say Avengers 2 would be more serious.

I think Thor II is problematic in its plot (or lack thereof IMO). We see characters do things, but the script never really shows the larger narrative at work (mainly because Marvel never really made Malekith's intentions clear, and the poor decision to have little backstory on him). I also feel that they really went overboard with the humour.

I agree in terms of milking, I mean it's jarring to see the tonal differences between Phase I and II. Marvel isn't known for their serious tone, but they really went overboard with the crappy humour rather than create a healthy balance like what Joss Whedon accomplished. And if they don't realize that they're doing it in excess, then people are eventually going to be tired of them.