OFFICIAL: Best CBM of 2014 thread (so far)

[Erzengel]

Round 3 started.

Looks like Final Four will be GOTG, TWS, Hunger Games and while close Interstellar has small lead over Big Hero 6.

GOTG beat TWS in the Finals.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Interesting, just get RS to show, I did expect GOTG To do a lot better in this poll compared to TWS and DOFP.

 

[schereZada]

Interesting, just get RS to show, I did expect GOTG To do a lot better in this poll compared to TWS and DOFP.

Hey, AVEITWITHJAMON. Guardians was a lot of fun, but I think in the long run a more serious toned movie always gets the better results and more resounding with the audience. Or maybe not, but it's what I like to believe. Cheers.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Hey, AVEITWITHJAMON. Guardians was a lot of fun, but I think in the long run a more serious toned movie always gets the better results and more resounding with the audience. Or maybe not, but it's what I like to believe. Cheers.

In fairness, The Avengers was very funny and plenty of people seemed to love that t:. But yeah, TWS was probably the most serious MCU movie yet and many think it's their best yet. For me GOTG just had a bit more heart and emotion to it. And DOFP was well ahead in those steaks to either.

 

[schereZada]

In fairness, The Avengers was very funny and plenty of people seemed to love that t:. But yeah, TWS was probably the most serious MCU movie yet and many think it's their best yet. For me GOTG just had a bit more heart and emotion to it. And DOFP was well ahead in those steaks to either.

I think maybe the difference with Avengers was that all the main superheroes were much more popular and had their own movies first.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think maybe the difference with Avengers was that all the main superheroes were much more popular and had their own movies first.

Well yes there is that, but having those heroes in it didn't necessarily mean it would be a good movie. But anyway, I think GOTG stands up to repeat viewings much more than The Avengers does. And I say that as a huge Joss Whedon fan.

 

[TalismanRing]

I think maybe the difference with Avengers was that all the main superheroes were much more popular and had their own movies first.

That contributes to it, but I think the main characters are on the whole better more interesting characters and they were better acted.

The only character I wholeheartedly loved in GOTG was Groot. I enjoyed Rocket though at times he grated, to the point I found it difficult to care about his emotional pain except when it came to Groot. Drax was OK as a literal walking punchline but any attempt at anything emotive was just bad. I found Quill fine if too much the annoying child-man (yes that's in character but still...) Gamora was also pretty muted and dull for the "most dangerous woman in the universe" (Zoe was far more formidable and scary in The Losers)

Whedon's scripting and dialogue is also sharper, wittier and just all around smarter than Gunn's.

The action in The Avengers is also better especially the last half hour.

The main thing I liked best about GOTG over Avengers was the colorful design and feel of the film.

 

[Moridin]

Well yes there is that, but having those heroes in it didn't necessarily mean it would be a good movie. But anyway, I think GOTG stands up to repeat viewings much more than The Avengers does. And I say that as a huge Joss Whedon fan.

Total opposite for me. 2.5 years later Avengers has held up really well (just watched it the other day), but I struggled through my 3rd viewing of GotG a few weeks ago.

My thoughts are pretty much identical to Talisman's.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ah well we all have our opinions. As a big Joss Whedon fan I am surprised how much I have gone off Avengers after a few re watches, though it think that is more Marvel not truly letting him off the leash. Serenity for example I still watch and love years later, and that was pure Whedon.

Gunn seemed to have more freedom on GOTG than Whedon did on TA, at least that's how it seems to me.

 

[Heretic]

Having now finally seen them all (except for Big Hero 6 and any other animated films), I voted for Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

 

[DA_Champion]

Has anyone else voted for Snowpiercer yet?

 

[DA_Champion]

Ah well we all have our opinions. As a big Joss Whedon fan I am surprised how much I have gone off Avengers after a few re watches, though it think that is more Marvel not truly letting him off the leash. Serenity for example I still watch and love years later, and that was pure Whedon.

Gunn seemed to have more freedom on GOTG than Whedon did on TA, at least that's how it seems to me.

If Avengers had been a true Whedon film, Tony Stark's suicide attack would have led to his death.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If Avengers had been a true Whedon film, Tony Stark's suicide attack would have led to his death.

Na, think Whedon is smart enough to not kill off a major Avenger. I know what you mean about him killing people off though! Listening to his thoughts on Firefly/Serenity and how he would have continued it, it sounds by the end they all would have been dead .

 

[schereZada]

Hi there. I don't think Whedon could have killed Iron man off even if he wanted.

 

[Killer]

Hi there. I don't think Whedon could have killed Iron man off even if he wanted.

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.

 

[schereZada]

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.

Hi, Killer. I agree. I feel no Marvel movie is an actual director project. Even when they can come up with a bit of their own style, they all have to fit into the standard formula. I'm not even saying that's bad (or good), but when I saw a Kenneth Branagh directed Thor movie and it felt nothing like the usual Branagh film, it was clear that the formula is what predominates. But, as you say, with Nolan you could feel his direction all over the three movies. Cheers.

 

[Heretic]

Nolan got so much control that DC was willing to throw away the most profitable franchise in company history just so he could play all by himself. As a result, we now have a DC universe that exists without Heath Ledger's Joker...and that can not be a good thing.

When a company owns a trademark that will continue to exist for decades after a certain work, they shouldn't allow one creator to have it all to themselves. It's fine with "Elseworlds" comics (something I've never been a fan of), but in movies or in-continuity comics? No, it does a disservice to the brand.

 

[Killer]

Nolan got so much control that DC was willing to throw away the most profitable franchise in company history just so he could play all by himself. As a result, we now have a DC universe that exists without Heath Ledger's Joker...and that can not be a good thing.

When a company owns a trademark that will continue to exist for decades after a certain work, they shouldn't allow one creator to have it all to themselves. It's fine with "Elseworlds" comics (something I've never been a fan of), but in movies or in-continuity comics? No, it does a disservice to the brand.

DC/Warner gained a lot of money and prestige with TDK trilogy, so i doubt they regret the decision of letting Nolan "play all by himself".

And how can you tell than having a different Joker is going to be a bad thing? The comic book world is made of multiple interpretations of the same character, and that´s part of the fun of it. Helps to keep things fresh and interesting.

 

[schereZada]

Nolan got so much control that DC was willing to throw away the most profitable franchise in company history just so he could play all by himself. As a result, we now have a DC universe that exists without Heath Ledger's Joker...and that can not be a good thing.

When a company owns a trademark that will continue to exist for decades after a certain work, they shouldn't allow one creator to have it all to themselves. It's fine with "Elseworlds" comics (something I've never been a fan of), but in movies or in-continuity comics? No, it does a disservice to the brand.

Hey, this will look a lot like one of my last posts but, they couldn't have Ledger's Joker even if they wanted.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

I think to Whedon fans it's pretty obvious he was very restrained. When make not TA, just compare Serenity to it which did some bold things Joss simply couldn't have done with TA. I just hope he has gotten more freedom on AOU.

 

[Heretic]

Hey, this will look a lot like one of my last posts but, they couldn't have Ledger's Joker even if they wanted.

When an artist leaves Batman, they get a new artist...they don't pretend that none of the characters have ever appeared before. The same goes for writers.

Heath Ledger's death does NOTHING to dictate the future of The Joker character. It only means that he could no longer play that character. Other actors could build on what he created.

 

[Heretic]

DC/Warner gained a lot of money and prestige with TDK trilogy, so i doubt they regret the decision of letting Nolan "play all by himself".

And how can you tell than having a different Joker is going to be a bad thing? The comic book world is made of multiple interpretations of the same character, and that´s part of the fun of it. Helps to keep things fresh and interesting.

They could have let Nolan do ALL of that stuff. In fact, theoretically, the movies could have been EXACTLY the same. You just need a tv miniseries or something that shows that, without Bruce Wayne, Gotham goes down hard to crime...and set up the need for Bruce to return in another movie. Or they could have just dictated to Nolan that, while he would have total creative control, he would not be allowed to permanently remove Bruce Wayne from being Batman.

DC Comics reboots fairly often...but in general when a writer exits Batman, they keep building off of what they wrote...and the new writers tend to be aware that Bruce Wayne will at some point have to be the focal point of the long-term Batman franchise.

 

[Killer]

They could have let Nolan do ALL of that stuff. In fact, theoretically, the movies could have been EXACTLY the same. You just need a tv miniseries or something that shows that, without Bruce Wayne, Gotham goes down hard to crime...and set up the need for Bruce to return in another movie. Or they could have just dictated to Nolan that, while he would have total creative control, he would not be allowed to permanently remove Bruce Wayne from being Batman.

DC Comics reboots fairly often...but in general when a writer exits Batman, they keep building off of what they wrote...and the new writers tend to be aware that Bruce Wayne will at some point have to be the focal point of the long-term Batman franchise.

Long-term franchises aren´t a good idea because:

1- It´s almost impossible to make a big number of films within the same series without screwing them up. It comes to a point where consistency is no longer there and everything gets played out. Making 3 good films is already a very tough task. Imagine making 10 or 15.

2- It would force you to live with just one interpretation of Batman instead of exploring different ones, and i don´t think that´s what people in general want. It´s nice to see something different.

3- It makes everything much more predictable and limited because you know that the studio has long-term plans for the characters. Look at the MCU. Those movies are cool, but they feel like a carefully designed formula that allows the story to flow only in certain directions. To me, at least, that´s not exciting.

 

[Heretic]

Long-term franchises aren´t a good idea because:

1- It´s almost impossible to make a big number of films within the same series without screwing them up. It comes to a point where consistency is no longer there and everything gets played out. Making 3 good films is already a very tough task. Imagine making 10 or 15.

2- It would force you to live with just one interpretation of Batman instead of exploring different ones, and i don´t think that´s what people in general want. It´s nice to see something different.

3- It makes everything much more predictable and limited because you know that the studio has long-term plans for the characters. Look at the MCU. Those movies are cool, but they feel like a carefully designed formula that allows the story to flow only in certain directions. To me, at least, that´s not exciting.

1. I dont have to imagine 10. Marvel has already done it. The most recent two are among the best in their franchise.

2. No, it doesn't. Batman could return to Gotham, feeling more driven than ever before...even paranoid over the rise of super powered beings...and the same character as before would evolve. After awhile of being the paranoid super-prepared hero, he could evolve again...maybe after his way of doing things results in a big problem and that forces him to rethink things. It wouldn't have to stay the same for decades.

Take Spider-Man for instance. Do 3 movies with Peter as the wisecracking high school student in love with Gwen. Kill Gwen in part 3. Recast the actor, get a new director, and in Spider-Man 4 (or you could call it Amazing Spider-Man), Peter is a darker character, still suffering from the loss of Gwen...maybe give him the symbiote to push the darker aspect...have him fight Kraven...wrap that up in part 6 with a fight with Venom. In part 7 (or Spectacular Spider-Man) recast the role, get a new director, and bring in Mary Jane to lighten the tone. This isn't rocket science.

3. If anything, the worst thing about the Marvel movies is that they are building a franchise based on The Infinity MacGuffins, making the plots of several movies interchangeable. Hopefully, the payoff will be awesome. After that, there is no reason to think that the movies can't go off in their own directions. Even now, my biggest issue with the Thor franchise is that they haven't focused on the realms and concepts that makes Thor unique.

 

[Killer]

It´s just difficult to keep that sort of thing together. Consistency is something difficult to achieve. And using Marvel as an example doesn´t do your argument any favours since their cinematic universe is already packed with mediocre movies. IM2, IM3, TFA, TDW. None of these movies is particularly fantastic. At least Nolan´s trilogy is, as a whole, highly acclaimed and successful. I´d take a "short-term" franchise like TDK over a "long-term" like the MCU any day of the week.

I wouldn´t be completely against a Batman series with a bigger number of movies, like 5, 6, 7, 8. I actually would like that. I just don´t think anyone could pull it off.