BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion

[jmc]

Whedon wrote Avengers himself. And he did some rewrites on CA and Thor, but only for continuity purposes.

As far as the MCU slate goes, they have had plans for what they wanted to do with it for a while.

Phase One was planned out entirely by time Iron Man came out, and the Phase 2 slate was cemented by time IM2 came out.

And according to Feige, they have, more or less, every thing planned out until 2021.

So basically Phase 3 and 4.

Eh, wasn't the post credit scene in IM done as a gag by Fevreau? I can buy them having penciled in films leading up to Avengers but I have a hard time buying it was even remotely locked into happening, especially considering IM was an unknown property.

 

[jmc]

Nobody is giving WB **** in a fanboy rage or whatever you think it is. I watch superhero films and enjoy them but honestly the cinema that I truly love is a of a very different kind. Superhero films are a diversion at best for me.

Yet even if I am not a DC fanboy, I am student of business administration and mainly from that point of view, I think WB/DC have done an exceptionally poor job in making money from their properties. Marvel has literally taken second and third tier superheroes and made them global blockbusters.

I had not even heard of Iron Man before the film came out.

As I have stressed before, this is a financial discussion. And simply on that level, one company has absolutely crossed all boundaries of potential with thought on planning. Its foolhardy to think that Marvel just lucked out in their current state. A lot of contracts have to be signed, a lot of people have to be hired.

And another company has failed to capitalize on their arguably superior roster of characters.

So what? As long as Batman keeps raking in the doe do you think WB really cares about bringing Flash or Aquaman to screen? Do you really think they care about a shared universe or give a damn what us fans want?

 

[jmc]

Where are you getting all of this? Take a deep breath and please read.

I understand all of this and if you carefully read my post, I never said nor implied they should "suffocate" their other films in favor for their comic properties. What kind of self respecting studio that's been around for as long as it has would it be if they suddenly were to favor their comic book films over their others? And I'm not getting "pissy." I'm questioning as to why a studio who has had these character for over 30 years have taken so long. And again, just because they aren't just a comic book studio like Marvel doesn't excuse them for their overall quality in managing these characters. Which has been pretty hit or miss. Mostly miss. They have the first two Donner films, the first Batman film, Nolan's trilogy and MOS as really the most successful comic book films they have put out. All the others, while I respect them for taking the risk, have either been unsuccessful, forgettable or bad.

Here's the reality: If they want to compete, which they clearly are by making a move with this film, it needs to be good, not just a business decision or a bad film to show for it. In WB's case, it's about finding the balance and putting out quality stuff.

I'm not saying they need to be Marvel studios to compete, I'm saying they have to plan things better. Their track record speaks for itself. And people ask why people are worried about this film. Sure you could say they're finally taking that next step, but there are legitimate concerns for this. Quality wise.

It wouldn't hurt if they had their own "brain trust" of comic book guys to look at these films. Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Geoff Johns. I'm just throwing some names out there.

And there plans are not primarily about superheros. That's all there is to the argument, you're arguing they should be doing this and that with their superheroes. They don't have to rely on them. It's an important market for them, but it's not the only market for them, they have other avenues.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

So what? As long as Batman keeps raking in the doe do you think WB really cares about bringing Flash or Aquaman to screen? Do you really think they care about a shared universe or give a damn what us fans want?

They did when Avengers made over a billion

 

[Loki882]

Yeah, they kind of announced that MOS would launch a DCCU not long after TA succeeded so brilliantly.

 

[John-An]

 

[BH/HHH]

Saw it again this morning, still love it. stick by my 10/10

 

[Tempest]

And I didn't know people had so much passionate love for WB. Where does that come from? TDK trilogy and Nolan love I am guessing.

I hope people realize that WB is a literally a bunch of billionaire suits sitting in a room.

To criticize a lack of business acumen is not to criticize the work itself. It doesn't seem clear to some in this thread that what is being criticized is their poor business sense and not their movies or comics or properties. It's a very obvious distinction but I had to make it explicit here since people don't seem to follow it.

No, what I see them being criticized for is that they aren't following Marvel's formula, that they have no clear plans, etc.

The counter-point to this argument is that WB isn't in the market just to make super-hero flicks, so complaining that they don't have a concise business plan is stupid.

They are not totally dependent on the super hero films. There's other things they market. What this means is that they've already considered the super hero films, and decided that the market is swollen, that the fans are unappreciative, or whatever, and that they are not going to go all in with the super hero films, and instead, focus on other kinds of films.

That's part of the business; certain segments will get the shaft, and I suspect that despite owning the rights to DC comics, they aren't going to focus solely on that franchise.

What you want to see happen does not actually equal a business plan, particularly since there was so much ******* with MOS. No sense in breaking their backs to make a series of films that fans won't go see if they don't get their way.

 

[slumcat]

They are in the business to make money and that's the hard and fast of it.

 

[NosfeRomas]

Hell even the directors/writers and "Artists" are in this to make money. Art dies when the director says cut for the final time, after that its only buisness.

 

[slumcat]

I feel horrified to say this but this is increasingly true in American cinema.

But thankfully European cinema, atleast the big auteur directors over there still do care about art and their films have kept up the legacy of our past masters.

Most of American cinema is now not art, just business.

 

[Loki882]

Or both, if you count people like Scorcese, Del Toro, and Bloomkamp.

 

[NosfeRomas]

As a European, a Greek but still a European, I am telling you thats not always the case. It's just a different culture.

Art Cinema in Europe is like a hanged man with a fetish of pain. If you tie his knot really really hard he will enjoy it but he will also die, Europe is full or pretentious dudes who make movies that hardly any normal person will understand. Not talking about gems like lets say Amores Perros, Dogville and Festen but Trier's movie about *********ion ? give me a break, you are not telling a story, you are not exploring human behaviour, you are going for shock value like a cheap horror film. IMO English and Spanish cinema is the best example of good European cinema right now. Euerope had its chance, it was beautiful during the 20th century but after the 2000s its 50% rotten.

Many directors did evolve their craft and became better, they explored their capabilities (like my much beloved Werner Herzog) but others stayed stuck into their glorious past. Others retired which is respectable if you don't have stories to tell and others chose to become *******s.


The most agile and flexible cinema right now is American but its purged by the over the top commercialisation.

 

[Loki882]

Jean-Luc Godard is one such pretentious "artist" who hasn't made a decent movie in years. Personally. I consider Neil Bloomkamp to be much more of an artist than Lars von Triers.

 

[NosfeRomas]

Different style, different people. I can't say the one is less of an artist than the other.

 

[Loki882]

True, but I just find Lars's films to have far less substance than he would like you to believe. Back to the WF movie, I still think that WB had this in the back of their mind for a while, and MOS convinced them to go ahead with it.

 

[slumcat]

As a European, a Greek but still a European, I am telling you thats not always the case. It's just a different culture.

Art Cinema in Europe is like a hanged man with a fetish of pain. If you tie his knot really really hard he will enjoy it but he will also die, Europe is full or pretentious dudes who make movies that hardly any normal person will understand. Not talking about gems like lets say Amores Perros, Dogville and Festen but Trier's movie about *********ion ? give me a break, you are not telling a story, you are not exploring human behaviour, you are going for shock value like a cheap horror film. IMO English and Spanish cinema is the best example of good European cinema right now. Euerope had its chance, it was beautiful during the 20th century but after the 2000s its 50% rotten.

Many directors did evolve their craft and became better, they explored their capabilities (like my much beloved Werner Herzog) but others stayed stuck into their glorious past. Others retired which is respectable if you don't have stories to tell and others chose to become *******s.


The most agile and flexible cinema right now is American but its purged by the over the top commercialisation.

I think Michael Haneke, Bela Tarr, Alain Resnais, Olivier Assayas, Lars von Trier etc. are easily amongst the greatest directors of all time.

Their work has an intelligence, a cerebral purpose which is very enticing and bracing.

 

[slumcat]

Jean-Luc Godard is one such pretentious "artist" who hasn't made a decent movie in years. Personally. I consider Neil Bloomkamp to be much more of an artist than Lars von Triers.

His last film, Film Socialisme, was very good IMO.

 

[slumcat]

Jean-Luc Godard is one such pretentious "artist" who hasn't made a decent movie in years. Personally. I consider Neil Bloomkamp to be much more of an artist than Lars von Triers.

I think Bloomkamp is just balls. I hated District 9. It was just a glorified blow em up action film.

von Trier is a true artist I think. He is nothing if not original. We definitely have not seen films like Dogville/Antichrist/Melancholia.

I am immensely looking forward to his new epic film - Nymphomaniac.

His films can be irritating but I am always awed and fascinated by them. Watching Melancholia on a giant screen with a festival going audience was an unforgettable experience.

 

[NosfeRomas]

I do agree and i do share your opinion but not in all cases and my point is mainly with Trier I do think he takes advantage of his persona to shock. Not that his films don't hold artisticaly, all of them are art classes 101, but the substance isn't really there which means they are pretentious. Also that is my only critisism for Nicolas Winding Refn.

Alain Resnais is a true example of a honest, brilliant european filmmaker again who has evolved with his time and he is not the same man he was 50 years ago.


Anyway, sort of on topic ! Would you give a superhero movie to a european filmmaker ?

 

[slumcat]

Also that is my only critisism for Nicolas Winding Refn.

I really do think that that guy is absolutely mindless and thoughtless. He is Exhibit A of pretentiousness except it doesn't come from him but from his fans. I think his films are barren with nothing to say.

Anyway, sort of on topic ! Would you give a superhero movie to a european filmmaker ?

Oliver Assayas abso-fukcing-lutely. His direction of action and his staging has a beautiful cleanliness and logic and sense of excitement and thrill that far outclasses even the best action directors in Hollywood. Watch Carlos or Something In The Air.

I think he could make a magnificent action film or superhero film. But nobody would offer it to him and he proly won't do it either. But definitely him.

Oh and I would absolutely get a kick out of the great Michael Haneke directing a superhero movie. That would indeed be something to behold as the audience would be thunderstruck at what they ware watching. t:

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

Ok I thought that this would be a fun little idea. Everybody talks about that this could be a flop, this could be bad and all that. Let's thing of some reasons that would make this movie bad. Reasons that would piss you off about the film.

I got many but I'm gonna say if this is a verses movie. That would piss me off. Superman and Zod fighting nearly took down Metropolis, sorry Batman he's out of your league no matter what.

Also if Batman finds out and uses Superman's weakness of Kryptonite against Superman before Lex. That would piss me off.

Now what are some things that if in the movie would piss you off or some things that you think would be bad for the movie.

 

[Loki882]

Did Godard finally add subtitles to Film Socialisme, because I cant understand a word of it otherwise? I don't think that too many European filmmakers would be interested in superhero films, I was surprised that Kenneth Branagh agreed to direct Thor.

 

[dnno1]

Christian Bale Reportedly Offered $50 Million To Reprise Batman

http://latino-review.com/2013/08/ch...lion-to-reprise-batman-according-to-new-book/

 

[Loki882]

Let me know when an actual news source reports it