OFFICIAL: Best CBM of 2014 thread (so far)

[Heretic]

The Dark Knight Rises is pretty bad. 2 out of 3 isn't a bad record though.

And yes...making a cohesive universe out of properties that are quite different is fairly difficult...but it CAN be done. It just requires the desire to work hard to make it right and the talent to do so. If the assertion is that DC can't get the talent, I'd disagree. If the assertion is that DC doesn't care enough to do it right, then I'd agree with that.

 

[Heretic]

On topic:

I forgot that I, Frankenstein was based on a comic...and just watched it. Needless to say, it did not make me regret voting for The Winter Soldier.

Also, apparently Edge of Tomorrow was an unillustrated novel first. I just assumed that the Japanese sci-fi light novels were like comic books, so that was on my list incorrectly.

 

[Farren]

TWS for me.

I was actually a bit disappointed in DoFP. I liked that it fixed TLS but otherwise I felt it was over-rated. I have a feeling it won't age so well.

 

[Killer]

The Dark Knight Rises is pretty bad. 2 out of 3 isn't a band record though.

And yes...making a cohesive universe out of properties that are quite different is fairly difficult...but it CAN be done. It just requires the desire to work hard to make it right and the talent to do so. If the assertion is that DC can't get the talent, I'd disagree. If the assertion is that DC doesn't care enough to do it right, then I'd agree with that.

When i said those movies were mediocre, i wasn´t giving my opinion. I was just pointing out the fact that their critical reception wasn´t bad, but it wasn´t fantastic either. If i was stating my opinion, i would have said that they´re all boring crap, like the rest of Marvel movies. You saying TDKR is bad is just your opinion, because the fact is that TDKR is one of the most critically successful CB movies ever. So, we can´t really say Nolan failed.

 

[Micromind]

1. X-Men DOFP

2. Captain America TWS

3. GOTG

4. TASM 2

 

[Heretic]

When i said those movies were mediocre, i wasn´t giving my opinion. I was just pointing out the fact that their critical reception wasn´t bad, but it wasn´t fantastic either. If i was stating my opinion, i would have said that they´re all boring crap, like the rest of Marvel movies. You saying TDKR is bad is just your opinion, because the fact is that TDKR is one of the most critically successful CB movies ever. So, we can´t really say Nolan failed.

It was also one of the most commercially successful. Not that any of that matters though...DC has now told us that none of those ever happened in the universe that we are now being asked to spend money on. I don't like Man of Steel...he only movie that has taken place in this new universe, so I have no interest in seeing Batman v Superman, or Suicide Squad starring a Joker Ive never met. My money won't make or break the movies, but they aren't getting it because I have no connection at all to the characters the are presenting and I DO have a connection to characters of the same name that they aren't presenting.

 

[Killer]

It was also one of the most commercially successful. Not that any of that matters though...DC has now told us that none of those ever happened in the universe that we are now being asked to spend money on. I don't like Man of Steel...he only movie that has taken place in this new universe, so I have no interest in seeing Batman v Superman, or Suicide Squad starring a Joker Ive never met. My money won't make or break the movies, but they aren't getting it because I have no connection at all to the characters the are presenting and I DO have a connection to characters of the same name that they aren't presenting.

Well, they can´t please everyone. Minorities will always exist. It seems there are a lot of people excited for BvS though, so they will probably be ok.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I thought Edge Of Tomorrow was based on a book and not a comic book? Either way it's a superb movie that rewards repeat viewings.

I would still put GOTG and DOFP above it though.

 

[Lorus]

This.

People don´t realize TA isn´t really a Whedon film. It´s a studio film, like all Marvel movies. They´re studio projects, not director projects. TDK trilogy is a director project. Nolan did with it what he wanted to do. He had that kind of creative control. Joss Whedon was only allowed to play within certain limits.

This is a pretty silly and reductive way to look at things. All projects are studio projects at the end of the day. All film making is, of course, a collaborative process but blockbuster films especially so. Even Nolan would have had suits telling him he couldn't do things like turn the Batman films into hard R gore fests or what have you, even if they weren't suggesting villains or storylines.

A better way to think about things is that a studio head comes to agreement with a director about the type of film they will make for them and then they move forward together. That process may not always be harmonious but to suggest that directors on Marvel Studios films lack control or input on their films is ridiculous. Hell, in the specific case of Avengers, Marvel had a script ready to go and they ditched it on Whedon's request and let him write a new one.

In many ways, there is no difference between Marvel films being required to introduce Infinity gems and the corporate overlords at WB watching the Avengers' BO take and saying 'Justice League is happening, soon, if you don't make it for us, we'll get someone who will'. Does that mean that Snyder is a corporate shill and that Justice League won't be his film? No, because they hired him to make his vision of a Justice League film. By the same principle, Marvel has a loose idea of where they are going, but potential directors have to pitch them their own personal ways of exploring and achieving that initial outline, and they're hired on the strength of that vision.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This is a pretty silly and reductive way to look at things. All projects are studio projects at the end of the day. All film making is, of course, a collaborative process but blockbuster films especially so. Even Nolan would have had suits telling him he couldn't do things like turn the Batman films into hard R gore fests or what have you, even if they weren't suggesting villains or storylines.

A better way to think about things is that a studio head comes to agreement with a director about the type of film they will make for them and then they move forward together. That process may not always be harmonious but to suggest that directors on Marvel Studios films lack control or input on their films is ridiculous. Hell, in the specific case of Avengers, Marvel had a script ready to go and they ditched it on Whedon's request and let him write a new one.

In many ways, there is no difference between Marvel films being required to introduce Infinity gems and the corporate overlords at WB watching the Avengers' BO take and saying 'Justice League is happening, soon, if you don't make it for us, we'll get someone who will'. Does that mean that Snyder is a corporate shill and that Justice League won't be his film? No, because they hired him to make his vision of a Justice League film. By the same principle, Marvel has a loose idea of where they are going, but potential directors have to pitch them their own personal ways of exploring and achieving that initial outline, and they're hired on the strength of that vision.

While I do agree with a lot of this, it's also painfully obvious most directors have to play by Marvels strict rules when they make a movie. Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man, and a good few other directors, and actors for that matter, refusing to work with them again is testament to that. Thor 2 especially had studio movie written all over it, but it seems they learned a bit of a lesson after that and TWS and GOTG turned out to be two of their best movies yet, the latter being THE best for me.

WB are lagging behind business wise, but they will give their directors more freedom than Marvel generally do. I could never see directors like JJ Abrams, Doug Liman, Edgar Wright (from now on of course), David Ayer, or Matt Reeves working for Marvel, but I bet some, if not all of them will work for WB at some point. Hopefully on DC projects.

 

[def28]

People keep saying this but look at Iron Man 3. That movie was all Shane Black, and plenty of fans complained about that. Can't win or lose sometimes. I don't see how with IM3, Cap 2 and GOTG that people can use that argument like it effects every film. 3 of their past 4 films clearly had heavy input from the Directors. Or how TDW was the movie that taught them anything about giving directors more creative control when it's in the middle of IM3 and WS. Some get the power and some don't.

Was Green Lantern really given more freedom then IM3, IM, The Avengers, GOTG, Winter Soldier and GOTG? And if so how was that a good thing?

 

[Heretic]

Well, they can´t please everyone. Minorities will always exist. It seems there are a lot of people excited for BvS though, so they will probably be ok.

Yes...because a lot of people love logos enough to go see a movie about them. It's kind of like how certain people will cheer on the Dallas Cowboys because they love the uniform, regardless of who is playing for them or coaching them. I can't get into sports because the outfit simply doesn't matter to me.

Me? I need more than a logo to get attached to a character. DC for DECADES has traded on the idea that the logo is all that matters.

 

[Heretic]

I thought Edge Of Tomorrow was based on a book and not a comic book? Either way it's a superb movie that rewards repeat viewings.

I would still put GOTG and DOFP above it though.

Yeah, it was. I (and many others) had it listed as a comic book movie though. Not being familiar with what a Japanese light novel is...and knowing that there was a manga published, I assumed they were the same thing. Turns out, it was a novel first, manga second.

 

[Killer]

Yes...because a lot of people love logos enough to go see a movie about them. It's kind of like how certain people will cheer on the Dallas Cowboys because they love the uniform, regardless of who is playing for them or coaching them. I can't get into sports because the outfit simply doesn't matter to me.

Me? I need more than a logo to get attached to a character. DC for DECADES has traded on the idea that the logo is all that matters.

Then why did Batman & Robin lose money? Why did Superman Returns lose money? Why did Batman Begins barely made any profit at all? You´re assuming the movie will be successful because people will pay to watch whatever has a popular logo on it, and that´s simply not true.

You need more than a logo, and so do i. The reason i´m gonna pay for BvS isn´t because of the logo. The reason i´m gonna pay is because i loved Man of Steel and everything i´ve seen about BvS until now looks promising, wich makes me very curious about the movie. And if you think i´m the minority, you might be wrong.

 

[Lorus]

While I do agree with a lot of this, it's also painfully obvious most directors have to play by Marvels strict rules when they make a movie. Edgar Wright leaving Ant-Man, and a good few other directors, and actors for that matter, refusing to work with them again is testament to that. Thor 2 especially had studio movie written all over it, but it seems they learned a bit of a lesson after that and TWS and GOTG turned out to be two of their best movies yet, the latter being THE best for me.

WB are lagging behind business wise, but they will give their directors more freedom than Marvel generally do. I could never see directors like JJ Abrams, Doug Liman, Edgar Wright (from now on of course), David Ayer, or Matt Reeves working for Marvel, but I bet some, if not all of them will work for WB at some point. Hopefully on DC projects.

The only thing that's obvious, is that when you're a film studio working with a handful of different creatives on a handful of separate projects over the course of about 7 years, you're not always going to hit oil. As I mentioned before, the process won't always be harmonious but that hardly means that the whole system is broken.

It's true that TDW wasn't that strong a film, but who among us can actually say what went wrong behind the scenes? You say that Marvel's directors clearly have to play by Marvel's strict rules and that they 'learned their lesson' but that just seems like a narrative constructed after the fact to justify how you feel about certain films.

After all, what sense does it make for Marvel to give Whedon and Black free reign to come in and change the script and do their own thing, get heavily rewarded by great reviews and huge monetary return and then turn around and micromanage TDW to death? Especially when TDW and IM3 would have been in production side by side. Why the inconsistency if that's just the way Marvel does business? If they learned their lesson from TDW then why would they let go of Wright?

As I said before, it's simplistic and reductive to label all of this as just the result of the Marvel boogeyman. Making blockbuster films means you're working with a lot of somebody else's money, and in this case you're working with somebody else's IP as well. It's all a collaboration, sometimes people work well together, sometimes they don't. You could blame Marvel entirely for every disappointing move or misstep, but there isn't enough information or evidence to support that at the moment, while there is evidence that appears to contradicts it.

Lets not forget that Whedon has suffered through studio executives meddling in his work for years, suggesting he's particularly wary of it. After Avengers though, despite being very open about how exhausting it was, he signed up for three years of more of the same. He also said that Marvel were less intrusive than any other studio he'd worked with. As did James Gunn.

The overall point being, sometimes a disappointing film is just a disappointing film, not a symbol of omnipresent oppressive overlords. Marvel made a so-so film. It's happened before, it'll happen again. The same thing will happen with WB as soon as they've made 10 films in their DCCU.

 

[Killer]

It´s pretty obvious by the similarities between the movies that Marvel has a formula that forces its directors to follow. They all follow the same path. Or do you really think Whedon could have ended the series with The Avengers, if he wanted to? Do you think he could have killed or retired Ironman? Do you think he could have presented the heroes only 45 minutes into the movie? Do you think he could have ended without a massive destruction scene? Do you think he could have made it dark instead of happy and family friendly? I don´t think so. I honestly don´t.

It´s true that no director in any studio has 100% creative control. But it´s pretty obvious that TDK trilogy is much more of a Nolan´s baby than The Avengers is Whedon´s.

 

[Lorus]

It´s pretty obvious by the similarities between the movies that Marvel has a formula that forces its directors to follow. They all follow the same path. Or do you really think Whedon could have ended the series with The Avengers, if he wanted to? Do you think he could have killed or retired Ironman? Do you think he could have presented the heroes only 45 minutes into the movie? Do you think he could have ended without a massive destruction scene? Do you think he could have made it dark instead of happy and family friendly? I don´t think so. I honestly don´t.

It´s true that no director in any studio has 100% creative control. But it´s pretty obvious that TDK trilogy is much more of a Nolan´s baby than The Avengers is Whedon´s.

Obviously Whedon couldn't have killed Iron Man or anything like that. The point I've been stressing is that the creative process is collaborative and that Whedon is a monumentally huge part of that process. Nolan was given more control than most (for Rises at least) but that's really neither here nor there. The initial point being contested was that Avengers wasn't really a Whedon film.

Furthermore, I defy anyone to actually write down this so called 'Marvel formula' that they force all directors to use that isn't so generic it could be applied to any and all big action blockbusters.

 

[Killer]

Obviously Whedon couldn't have killed Iron Man or anything like that. The point I've been stressing is that the creative process is collaborative and that Whedon is a monumentally huge part of that process. Nolan was given more control than most (for Rises at least) but that's really neither here nor there. The initial point being contested was that Avengers wasn't really a Whedon film.

Furthermore, I defy anyone to actually write down this so called 'Marvel formula' that they force all directors to use that isn't so generic it could be applied to any and all big action blockbusters.

Nolan had the creative control in the whole trilogy. At least in most aspects.

In The Avengers, those characters were already established. It wasn´t Whedon´s job to decide how Captain America was going to look and act on screen, or who was gonna play him, because those decisions had already been made. The foundation had already been established. He didn´t have to decide how that Universe was going to look and feel, because that had already been decided. All those characters had already been played with, so he had to stay true to the blue print. He couldn´t just decide "oh, hell, i don´t like this character acting like this, so in this movie he is going to act completely differently".

As for the Marvel formula:

- The story is very action-driven and the plot is pretty simplistic, for the most part. Very few layers and very straight to the point. Most Marvel movies are very easy for a 9 year old kid to follow and understand.

- Colorful, happy, family friendly, for the most part. Tons of eye candy also.


- The dramatic moments are presented in a very soft way and are quickly discarded in favour of more happy and funny moments. There´s a lot of tragedy in these movies, but they don´t feel tragic. TDK feels tragic. I can´t say the same for The Avengers.

- Tons of attempts at humour. The characters are constantly trying to act funny. Lots of cheesy one-liners and "casual" moments, to make the heroes feel more relatable.

- Very few risks taken. The plot is generally very safe and predictable, not only in the way it treats its characters, but also in the way the story is told. You look at Rises, for example, that´s not a very conventional way to tell a super hero story. We don´t get much Batman, and we don´t see him until 45 minutes into the film. This is not safe or conventional, because it´s not what people are used to. This is actually pretty risky and turned a lot of people off, especially kids.



This is the Marvel formula.

 

[Lorus]

Nolan had the creative control in the whole trilogy. At least in most aspects.

In The Avengers, those characters were already established. It wasn´t Whedon´s job to decide how Captain America was going to look and act on screen, or who was gonna play him, because those decisions had already been made. The foundation had already been established. He didn´t have to decide how that Universe was going to look and feel, because that had already been decided. All those characters had already been played with, so he had to stay true to the blue print. He couldn´t just decide "oh, hell, i don´t like this character acting like this, so in this movie he is going to act completely differently".

As for the Marvel formula:

- The story is very action-driven and the plot is pretty simplistic, for the most part. Very few layers and very straight to the point. Most Marvel movies are very easy for a 9 year old kid to follow and understand.

- Colorful, happy, family friendly, for the most part. Tons of eye candy also.


- The dramatic moments are presented in a very soft way and are quickly discarded in favour of more happy and funny moments. There´s a lot of tragedy in these movies, but they don´t feel tragic. TDK feels tragic. I can´t say the same for The Avengers.

- Tons of attempts at humour. The characters are constantly trying to act funny. Lots of cheesy one-liners and "casual" moments, to make the heroes feel more relatable.

- Very few risks taken. The plot is generally very safe and predictable, not only in the way it treats its characters, but also in the way the story is told. You look at Rises, for example, that´s not a very conventional way to tell a super hero story. We don´t get much Batman, and we don´t see him until 45 minutes into the film. This is not safe or conventional, because it´s not what people are used to. This is actually pretty risky and turned a lot of people off, especially kids.



This is the Marvel formula.

It's funny that you say Whedon couldn't change things like how characters act because arguably that's exactly what he did do in regards to Banner and Black Widow. That said, you're right that Whedon couldn't suddenly decide that Thor is an anti Semitic praying mantis when he wasn't before but that hardly represents a huge concession of creative control when you're talking about existing IPs with well defined characterisations.

As for your description of the Marvel formula, you didn't really describe a formula so much as you made a bunch of generalisations about Marvel films. Being easy to follow is something that could be said for almost every blockbuster for example. The rest of the points are just iterations of the same old tired arguments about 'too much humour' and 'not serious enough'.

Quite frankly, if the billion dollar formula was as simple as:
1, Colour
2, Action
3, Humour
4, Happy ending
there would be a lot more billion dollar mega franchises than there are right now.

 

[Shikamaru]

No doubt that a decent amount of Marvel films have been generic and formulaic, particularly with some of the first solo films.

However, I really resist the idea that killing or retiring a character is a sign of "creative input". Maybe in the sense that the director has more control, but at the core it's no more original or creative than the alternative. If anything, it can a juvenile attempt at being "edgy" and rebellious, with no artistic decision behind it past "**** da rules".

Another way to put it is like this: "unpredictable" doesn't necessarily equate to any of the above. At that point you're no better off than the Marvel editors who go for shock value than good storytelling. Spider-Man making a deal with the devil is entirely "original" and "unpredictable", it was still a shallow paperthin story with no substance. As are the 10 billion character deaths we get every year now.

And while Rises may have been unique in breaking that norm with its (imo rather simplified) ending, it had to do that at the price of completely going against everything established in Nolan's own universe. From its own internal logic to the previous two (imo vastly superior) films.

 

[Killer]

It's funny that you say Whedon couldn't change things like how characters act because arguably that's exactly what he did do in regards to Banner and Black Widow. That said, you're right that Whedon couldn't suddenly decide that Thor is an anti Semitic praying mantis when he wasn't before but that hardly represents a huge concession of creative control when you're talking about existing IPs with well defined characterisations.

As for your description of the Marvel formula, you didn't really describe a formula so much as you made a bunch of generalisations about Marvel films. Being easy to follow is something that could be said for almost every blockbuster for example. The rest of the points are just iterations of the same old tired arguments about 'too much humour' and 'not serious enough'.

Quite frankly, if the billion dollar formula was as simple as:
1, Colour
2, Action
3, Humour
4, Happy ending
there would be a lot more billion dollar mega franchises than there are right now.

It´s a formula because those are elements that Marvel makes sure they have in all their movies. Those are also elements that make a huge difference in the way the movies are received.

The combination of great looking actors + well established comic book characters + tons action and visual effects + Simple narrative + humour and characters acting very casual is actually something that wasn´t being really fully explored before Marvel came into the game. So, in a way, it´s their formula. Their way of doing things. They know it works, so they apply it to all their movies.

No doubt that a decent amount of Marvel films have been generic and formulaic, particularly with some of the first solo films.

However, I really resist the idea that killing or retiring a character is a sign of "creative input". Maybe in the sense that the director has more control, but at the core it's no more original or creative than the alternative. If anything, it can a juvenile attempt at being "edgy" and rebellious, with no artistic decision behind it past "**** da rules".

Another way to put it is like this: "unpredictable" doesn't necessarily equate to any of the above. At that point you're no better off than the Marvel editors who go for shock value than good storytelling. Spider-Man making a deal with the devil is entirely "original" and "unpredictable", it was still a shallow paperthin story with no substance. As are the 10 billion character deaths we get every year now.

And while Rises may have been unique in breaking that norm with its (imo rather simplified) ending, it had to do that at the price of completely going against everything established in Nolan's own universe. From its own internal logic to the previous two (imo vastly superior) films.

Shocking and unpredictable doesn´t make a good movie. But knowing exactly where the story is going to take me makes it boring as hell, at least for me. That´s why Marvel movies are nothing more than popcorn fun for me. I don´t feel challenged or excited by their simplistic and juvenile storytelling techniques.

Btw, Rises doesn´t go against anything established in the previous films.

 

[Shikamaru]

Shocking and unpredictable doesn´t make a good movie. But knowing exactly where the story is going to take me makes it boring as hell, at least for me. That´s why Marvel movies are nothing more than popcorn fun for me. I don´t feel challenged or excited by their simplistic and juvenile storytelling techniques.

So because you know the "good guys" (and more specifically the main protagonists) survive by the end, that binominal factor by itself makes it predictable and boring? There can be no twists or surprises otherwise?

Do you already know where Avengers 2 will take you simply due to Ultron's presumable defeat at the end? Did you see HYDRA reveal in Winter Soldier coming and how it would shake the entire status quo of the MCU?

How many cinematic experiences would fail your "test" if applied universally? It's quite common, and nothing newly fathomed by Marvel. Some of the greatest pieces of fiction in our culture have had "happy" endings while gaining critical success and/or managing to succeed expectations.

Btw, Rises doesn´t go against anything established in the previous films.

I probably have hundreds of rants and debates in the Rises forums that would disagree with you, as well as from other veteran users that have accumulated there over the span of 2 years.

If you want to check them out, by all means to ahead, but I don't want to turn this whole thread in a TDKR debate.

 

[Heretic]

Then why did Batman & Robin lose money? Why did Superman Returns lose money? Why did Batman Begins barely made any profit at all? You´re assuming the movie will be successful because people will pay to watch whatever has a popular logo on it, and that´s simply not true.

You need more than a logo, and so do i. The reason i´m gonna pay for BvS isn´t because of the logo. The reason i´m gonna pay is because i loved Man of Steel and everything i´ve seen about BvS until now looks promising, wich makes me very curious about the movie. And if you think i´m the minority, you might be wrong.

Did Superman Returns and Batman & Robin lost money??? I was under the impression that they did okay business. Batman Begins was (in my opinion) a very good movie...the second best Batman movie ever...and it barely made any money? Apparently the public is concerned with cool factor more than what I perceive to be quality (or maybe I just have a warped view of quality).

I don't think you're in the minority...I think BvS will do quite well at the box office. I personally have no reason to go see it though because I didn't like the character they called Superman in Man of Steel, and have never met the character they are calling Batman...and without a trailer or any other info, I have no reason to get excited.

 

[Killer]

So because you know the "good guys" (and more specifically the main protagonists) survive by the end, that binominal factor by itself makes it predictable and boring? There can be no twists or surprises otherwise?

Do you already know where Avengers 2 will take you simply due to Ultron's presumable defeat at the end? Did you see HYDRA reveal in Winter Soldier coming and how it would shake the entire status quo of the MCU?

How many cinematic experiences would fail your "test" if applied universally? It's quite common, and nothing newly fathomed by Marvel. Some of the greatest pieces of fiction in our culture have had "happy" endings while gaining critical success and/or managing to succeed expectations.

It´s boring and predictable because, if you remove all the "distractions", all those Marvel movies boil down to the same: Simplistic storylines with simplistic resolutions and massive amounts of action convering up the lack of a more elaborated and carefully developed plot. Sure, i can´t predict everything that happens in these movies, but all their unpredictable moments fail to change the predictable direction of the story and its characters.

Also, the problems the characters are confronted with aren´t exactly interesting enough to make me care, because they all feel overplayed. They all have a very strong feel of deja vu to it. They´re not intriguing. They don´t make me go "wow, what now?". And without that, a movie isn´t interesting for me.

But hey, this is just the way i feel about it. Plenty of people probably piss in their pants from excitment by watching the most dullest of the storylines. I´m just not like that. In Marvel´s defense though, i´m very difficult to please.

I probably have hundreds of rants and debates in the Rises forums that would disagree with you, as well as from other veteran users that have accumulated there over the span of 2 years.

If you want to check them out, by all means to ahead, but I don't want to turn this whole thread in a TDKR debate.

I stand by what i said. I´ve seen the movie enough times to believe it stays true to the previous films. I´ve also read enough "rants and debates" to know 99% of them are just lack of attention or inability to understand certain things. People don´t analyze movies as good as they think they do. There are a lot of flaws in what they say, and they´re pretty easy to spot.

 

[OcStat]

I hate it when movies have a beginning, middle, and end. I see it coming every time!