Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - Part 13

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]533549[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]532489[/split]

 

[misslane38]

Define good storytelling. Coz I was always of this opinion that the whole point of "telling" a "story" is to help it reach audiences.

Surely, you are aware of the fact that there are films that are loved by niche audiences that don't have what one would necessarily consider four quadrant appeal to the general audience, including children and families. Heck, even a classic Christmas film like It's a Wonderful Life and a novel like The Lord of the Rings were either critical or audience disasters at one point because the public wasn't receptive for stories in that vein at the time.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Surely, you are aware of the fact that there are films that are loved by niche audiences that don't have what one would necessarily consider four quadrant appeal to the general audience, including children and families. Heck, even a classic Christmas film like It's a Wonderful Life and a novel like The Lord of the Rings were either critical or audience disasters at one point because the public wasn't receptive for stories in that vein at the time.

Did anyone who work on those talk about how they made "mistakes" consistently? Because we have 2 of the big three talking about the mistakes and how they are going to fix or forget these problems, and do this right. Even Alfred thought BvS was bad. We have shareholder meetings talking about fixing this stuff.

 

[misslane38]

Did anyone who work on those trash them consistently? Because we have 2 of the big three talking about the mistakes and how they are going to fix or forget these problems, and do this right. Even Alfred thought BvS was bad.

Frank Capra and Tolkien were from a different time -- one without so much of a voracious appetite for public relations and feeding the endless Hollywood news cycle. Neither had to sell sequels. Cavill isn't trashing anything. Cavill is saying previous DCEU films looked at superheroes from a different perspective that didn't pander to audiences. He calls this a "right mistake" to make while also acknowledging that moving forward the DCEU needs to embrace more broadly appealing films.

 

[Wanda Detroit]

Didn't want this to get lost from the previous thread closing.
All he is saying is they are going the rebirth route with these movies. Like it or not but it is important for most of these superheroes like Superman and Wonder Woman to appeal to a larger group of people. Yes, 4 quadrant movies.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Frank Capra and Tolkien were from a different time -- one without so much of a voracious appetite for public relations and feeding the endless Hollywood news cycle. Neither had to sell sequels. Cavill isn't trashing anything. Cavill is saying previous DCEU films looked at superheroes from a different perspective that didn't pander to audiences. He calls this a "right mistake" to make while also acknowledging that moving forward the DCEU needs to embrace more broadly appealing films.

You do realize the time period works against this idea right? One of the major differences between even 30 years ago and now, is the internet. Allows for wide ranging opinions to come together.

And you are just avoiding what he is saying. Twisting it really. He is admitting fault. Not simply in style, but what it delivered.Explain to me what "hasn't necessarily work" and "it hasn't given everyone that sensation which superhero movies should give a viewer."

These are superhero movies. If they aren't giving people the sensation of a superhero movie, how is that not a failure? A mistake?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Also, something I never understand with these conversations. Why is it always he or she is pandering to audiences? Doesn't it make just as much sense that they are doing the same to the studio? They still work for them. More over, most of these actors and actresses just don't speak ill of those they work with. That these things are even said are telling.

 

[honestbharani]

Surely, you are aware of the fact that there are films that are loved by niche audiences that don't have what one would necessarily consider four quadrant appeal to the general audience, including children and families. Heck, even a classic Christmas film like It's a Wonderful Life and a novel like The Lord of the Rings were either critical or audience disasters at one point because the public wasn't receptive for stories in that vein at the time.

I give up. Good storytelling, at its essence, is the ability to appeal to audiences first and foremost. The folks who went to the movies and who read books at those time periods from your examples were actually perhaps more "niche" than the general movie audience we have today. And as much as I would love to oversell your idea that the guys who like DCEU movies are some sort of "niche audience who are intellectually superior" to us commoners, the fact is it simply is not true. Snyder was making a tentpole blockbuster and blew it. That's all. There is no "good storytelling that does not click with the majority audience". That is a true lie if ever there was one.

 

[Greens]

In his statements he literally says that mistakes have been made and that they're moving in the right direction. There's no getting around it.

 

[BH/HHH]

He doesn’t come out and say the films as a whole were mistakes though. He says there were mistakes made. So people need to stop spinning it into something it isn’t and read the whole damn thing.

 

[misslane38]

Didn't want this to get lost from the previous thread closing.
All he is saying is they are going the rebirth route with these movies. Like it or not but it is important for most of these superheroes like Superman and Wonder Woman to appeal to a larger group of people. Yes, 4 quadrant movies.

Spoiler

They're not going the Rebirth route. Rebirth, especially with Superman, involved literally replacing or combining one version of the character with another one. Moreover, we weren't debating Cavill's comments on the future of the DCEU. Were weren't debating whether or not Cavill was indicating a course correction, but whether he condemned the previous direction harshly and wholeheartedly. I'm saying he didn't, and that he was diplomatic and nuanced in his comments, because he praises the DCEU for making the right mistakes and not pandering to audiences while acknowledging that to improve reception among audiences and critics, the films have to adopt storytelling with more broad appeal.

You do realize the time period works against this idea right? One of the major differences between even 30 years ago and now, is the internet. Allows for wide ranging opinions to come together.

The time period doesn't work against the idea. People weren't as aware of what other people were thinking back then, because they weren't exposed to social media and didn't have loads of bloggers and fans who were able to share their opinions. Only a small number of respected individuals were given a platform to share their opinions in ways that the public was able to consume. Film journalism and commentary wasn't as dispersed, so to speak, as it is now. And I have to disagree about the internet allowing for a wide range of opinions. While more people are able to share their opinions, people still act like people. People are prone to herd or tribe mentality, conformity, and peer pressure. With the internet, a dominant opinion still emerges and it puts pressure on people as a result.

And you are just avoiding what he is saying. Twisting it really. He is admitting fault. Not simply in style, but what it delivered.Explain to me what "hasn't necessarily work" and "it hasn't given everyone that sensation which superhero movies should give a viewer."

Cavill frames what didn't work in terms of how others perceived it, which is an objective truth that anyone can observe and even I as a fan of the films can acknowledge. His so-called admission of fault is to describe what the DCEU has been as something that made the "right" mistakes and that didn't "pander" to audiences.

These are superhero movies. If they aren't giving people the sensation of a superhero movie, how is that not a failure? A mistake?

Cavill describes this kind of error as a "right" mistake, though. So what he's saying is that not only are they fortunate they can move forward in a more constructive way, but there was value in exploring some of the more complicated aspects of superheroes even if that didn't necessarily win over audiences. It's like saying that food should be enjoyable, so why not give everyone pizza and ice cream all the time, since those foods have a broad appeal? There is value in telling stories and exploring sides of characters that give you something new to chew on or another way of looking at things regardless of whether it's well-received. Cavill is saying that it was a "right" mistake to do that because it's not pandering, and that it's also "right" because now they can move forward; they gave audiences their vegetables and now they get dessert.

Also, something I never understand with these conversations. Why is it always he or she is pandering to audiences? Doesn't it make just as much sense that they are doing the same to the studio? They still work for them. More over, most of these actors and actresses just don't speak ill of those they work with. That these things are even said are telling.

Cavill has new bosses now with a new direction, and what he said was diplomatic because it offers kind words to both his past and the present collaborators.

 

[FunkMiller]

Two cast members now saying mistakes were made, and that things have changed, or will change.

 

[misslane38]

Two cast members now saying mistakes were made, and that things have changed, or will change.

That's right. Gal was more black and white or blunt in what she said while Henry was more diplomatic and nuanced. They're both being good soldiers for their new bosses and their company's new direction with their comments.

 

[Bren]

"Hi. I'm so glad we had the opportunity to meet!"

Misslane: "they never actually met. They are merely expressing joy they had the opportunity, but there is no facts to back up them actually meeting."

 

[misslane38]

"Hi. I'm so glad we had the opportunity to meet!"

Misslane: "they never actually met. They are merely expressing joy they had the opportunity, but there is no facts to back up them actually meeting."

Your statement makes no sense. Your hypothetical quote is someone one says to someone one has just met, as in he or she is standing right in front of you or you are in direct communication with them. And if there wasn't any evidence two people actually met, then of course they would more than likely never have actually met.

You are making an argument that just because someone says something is true, then it must be true. When has that ever been 100 percent the case? One just has to use common sense, and if additional context is available, then rely on that to make an assessment of fact vs. fiction.

Henry Cavill went out of his way to include qualifiers and caveats in his statement, and it seems the only acceptable way to receive that information is to strip what he said of the very nuance he was careful to acknowledge.

 

[FunkMiller]

That's right. Gal was more black and white or blunt in what she said while Henry was more diplomatic and nuanced. They're both being good soldiers for their new bosses and their company's new direction with their comments.

A new direction that has come about because the old one was wrong.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's right. Gal was more black and white or blunt in what she said while Henry was more diplomatic and nuanced. They're both being good soldiers for their new bosses and their company's new direction with their comments.

If they say they liked working on the older films, its honest. If they say they weren't great, its being a good soldier.

 

[I Am The Knight]

A new direction that has come about because the old one was wrong.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it. But if it is...

 

[Wanda Detroit]

"Hi. I'm so glad we had the opportunity to meet!"

Misslane: "they never actually met. They are merely expressing joy they had the opportunity, but there is no facts to back up them actually meeting."

Bingo!

 

[misslane38]

A new direction that has come about because the old one was wrong.

Well, of course if you're going to be trying to do PR that frames what you're doing now and in the future in a positive light, you will express agreement about the issues many had with what came before. However, in Gadot's case, the films themselves never explicitly made the "mistake" she identifies nor do they explicitly correct anything; they all present one consistent characterization despite her discussion of correction. And in Cavill's case, he is careful to describe what went wrong more in terms of reception than conception, because he describes what was "wrong" as a "right" mistake that didn't "pander," yet also something that gives them a place to build off of and toward something better and brighter.

 

[-Arya-]

Well, of course if you're going to be trying to do PR that frames what you're doing now and in the future in a positive light, you will express agreement about the issues many had with what came before. However, in Gadot's case, the films themselves never explicitly made the "mistake" she identifies nor do they explicitly correct anything; they all present one consistent characterization despite her discussion of correction. And in Cavill's case, he is careful to describe what went wrong more in terms of reception than conception, because he describes what was "wrong" as a "right" mistake that didn't "pander," yet also something that gives them a place to build off of and toward something better and brighter.

If the reception overall has been poor wouldn't that mean there was something intrinsically wrong with the conception of the idea?

 

[misslane38]

If the reception overall has been poor wouldn't that mean there was something intrinsically wrong with the conception of the idea?

Not necessarily. Some things are just challenging. Just because something doesn't pander, and doesn't get wholeheartedly embraced as a result, doesn't mean that it was a bad idea. In a business sense, it might be, and it is risky, but from a storytelling point of view it's not inherently flawed altogether.

 

[All-Father]

"Hi. I'm so glad we had the opportunity to meet!"

Misslane: "they never actually met. They are merely expressing joy they had the opportunity, but there is no facts to back up them actually meeting."

You couldn't have described it better.

 

[Bren]

Your statement makes no sense. Your hypothetical quote is someone one says to someone one has just met, as in he or she is standing right in front of you or you are in direct communication with them. And if there wasn't any evidence two people actually met, then of course they would more than likely never have actually met.

You are making an argument that just because someone says something is true, then it must be true. When has that ever been 100 percent the case? One just has to use common sense, and if additional context is available, then rely on that to make an assessment of fact vs. fiction.

Henry Cavill went out of his way to include qualifiers and caveats in his statement, and it seems the only acceptable way to receive that information is to strip what he said of the very nuance he was careful to acknowledge.

My very simple point is, you'll spin anything if it doesn't suit you.
You actually remind me of the South African govt, tbh. That's not a compliment... But at least you're eloquent.