• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨SPOILERS🚨)

Also who hates the Jimmy Carrey Grinch? It's considered a Christmas classic in my and many houses. It's my preferred Grinch. Those others can die in a fire.

tenor.gif
 
Also, in terms of artistic growth, I’d argue this film is a risk by default because Gunn has never handled a character like Superman before. “Earnest and wholesome” is not “safe” territory for James Gunn. Unless he makes this “edgelord Superman” like Snyder did, which is extremely doubtful just based on what he’s said thus far, he is already stepping outside of his comfort zone just in making this.

Well, the S-Symbol and Costume Design is outside of my comfort zone, so I guess everything does have a price.

tenor.gif
 
In a way, I respect Snyder for clearly making movies for himself and himself only, love or hate it, it's his.

But WB is also not in the bussiness of pouring $350m on blockbusters for them to be internet cult classics.
 
I think this is the first time I've seen "creative risks" and "Bill Murray's Garfield" in the same statement.
It's not a good movie by any means, hell, I'd argue it's one of the worst kids' movies ever made, but hey, it at least had more personality than Chris Pratt's Garfield, who barely had much character. It was at least interesting enough to have Garfield look like Tony the Tiger's testicles. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but that's a lot more interesting compared to the generic, bland, cookie-cutter stuff we saw with the latest Garfield movie. Again, ambitious or interesting (again, compared to the other movie) failure > safe success.

Both suffered from product placement for Olive Garden, though.

icegif-554.gif


I can see Carrey play Sherlock. Can Cumberbatch play The Mask?

602744c9da950d81f78b5b2746a12f9167998035.gif


Paul King can do no wrong.
Burton's had more respect for the novel, right down to the Oompah-Loompah's songs being straight from the book. Ok, Depp's Wonka, both the performance and the backstory, were the worst part, but the set design, the tone, the direction, it all felt like Dahl.

As much as y'all like the Wilder movie, that was made for money. Burton has said in numerous interviews that he was ok with this bombing since this showcased his love for Dahl and that was the most important thing about it.

This new movie gave us Olivia Colman doing her worst Helena Bonham Carter impression.
 
Last edited:
It's not a matter of quality. It's about ambition and imagination. Those 4 movies I've mentioned may have been polarizing but they at least tried to give a new take. Stories last forever because they can be reinterpreted in many different ways.

TL;DR I'd rather have an ambitious failure than a safe success. Respect > Enjoy
If the public doesn't like something who cares if it is creative? It's not like over time opinions have changed on most of those films they were not liked then and they are not liked now.
 
If the public doesn't like something who cares if it is creative? It's not like over time opinions have changed on most of those films they were not liked then and they are not liked now.
That's the kind of thinking that makes studios greenlight movies like Killers of the Flower Moon. Scorsese understood he was making a movie that would have the public crucify him, he got death threats for it, but he fought hard and finally got to make the film he wanted. Not by a studio, but by a company who can afford to lose money, like Apple, terrible as they are.

My main point was that if studios don't take risks, then Apple will monopolize the market by enticing auteurs with their funding all the while major studios are left in the dust.
 
It's not a good movie by any means, hell, I'd argue it's one of the worst kids' movies ever made, but hey, it at least had more personality than Chris Pratt's Garfield, who barely had much character. It was at least interesting enough to have Garfield look like Tony the Tiger's testicles. Was that a good idea? Probably not, but that's a lot more interesting compared to the generic, bland, cookie-cutter stuff we saw with the latest Garfield movie. Again, ambitious or interesting (again, compared to the other movie) failure > safe success.

Both suffered from product placement for Olive Garden, though.

icegif-554.gif


I can see Carrey play Sherlock. Can Cumberbatch play The Mask?
This is an argument of a 2nd grader. Like if two kids are given a math test. One answers the questions correctly and the other drew flames on a turd, you'd give more credit to the second one for being "more interesting". No, it's just a flaming turd.

Burton's had more respect for the novel, right down to the Oompah-Loompah's songs being straight from the book. Ok, Depp's Wonka, both the performance and the backstory, were the worst part, but the set design, the tone, the direction, it all felt like Dahl.

As much as y'all like the Wilder movie, that was made for money. Burton has said in numerous interviews that he was ok with this bombing since this showcased his love for Dahl and that was the most important thing about it.

This new movie gave us Olivia Colman doing her worst Helena Bonham Carter impression.
Using your logic, Paul Wonka's movie took more risk. Automatically a more interesting "failure".

But it didn't fail of course. It's bloody awesome and for my money, the best Wonka film.
 
This is a Superman movie. By definition its supposed to appeal to a four quadrant audience. That is James Gunn's job. Its not his job to appeal to a niche audience for Superman.

Also, it wasn't a "risk" to hire Jim Carry and Johnny Depp to play those roles mentioned, when both guys were A-list movie stars at the time, and they largely did their shtick that they were known for/got popular for doing, in those roles. There were no real risks being taken. That Tim Burton Charlie And The Chocolate Factory movie starring 2004 Johnny Depp was exactly what people should have expected that to look like. The same goes for Jim Carry as The Grinch. They hired Jim Carry to do his **** in green makeup and that is exactly what he did. Those movies were as commercial as you could get in 2001 and 2005.

The same goes for Man Of Steel. That was WB putting out a Superman movie that aped the Nolan Batman trilogy in terms of look and esthetic, when that was the most popular take on Batman at the time, and thus what WB wanted to chase for Superman. Where was the risk there?
 
That's the kind of thinking that makes studios greenlight movies like Killers of the Flower Moon. Scorsese understood he was making a movie that would have the public crucify him, he got death threats for it, but he fought hard and finally got to make the film he wanted. Not by a studio, but by a company who can afford to lose money, like Apple, terrible as they are.

My main point was that if studios don't take risks, then Apple will monopolize the market by enticing auteurs with their funding all the while major studios are left in the dust.
lol if Apple keeps making movies that lose money the people at the top are getting fired, period. They made KotFM to build their streaming service brand. The theatrical run was just part of the deal to get Scorsese to agree. It was not a “failure” like the ones you’re talking about.

Your whole notion of “ambitious failure > safe success” sounds all noble and all, and could be, when someone tried something genuinely artistic and ambitious with something that just didn’t work. Like, say, Ang Lee’s Hulk. Dude tried something there. It had soul. But ultimately missed. I get advocating for that kind of stuff. But no, you’re saying you’d rather live in a world of insipid trash - - like Bill Murray’s easy paycheck Garfield movie or Tim Burton doing the same stuff he always does but with Wonka - than with “safe” (which from you seems to mean family friendly / broad appealing, apparently) gems like Wonka, and on no planet does that make a lick of sense. If you hate the family audience, fine, but let them have actual good movies!
 
lol if Apple keeps making movies that lose money the people at the top are getting fired, period. They made KotFM to build their streaming service brand. The theatrical run was just part of the deal to get Scorsese to agree. It was not a “failure” like the ones you’re talking about.

Your whole notion of “ambitious failure > safe success” sounds all noble and all, and could be, when someone tried something genuinely artistic and ambitious with something that just didn’t work. Like, say, Ang Lee’s Hulk. Dude tried something there. It had soul. But ultimately missed. I get advocating for that kind of stuff. But no, you’re saying you’d rather live in a world of insipid trash - - like Bill Murray’s easy paycheck Garfield movie or Tim Burton doing the same stuff he always does but with Wonka - than with “safe” (which from you seems to mean family friendly / broad appealing, apparently) gems like Wonka, and on no planet does that make a lick of sense. If you hate the family audience, fine, but let them have actual good movies!
It equates creative success with failure. If Flower of the Killer Moon had done well, using this logic, it would've been a failure. A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, John Wick, The Lion King, Dune, Everything, Everywhere, anything that got over with audiences and made money, are a failure.
 
lol if Apple keeps making movies that lose money the people at the top are getting fired, period. They made KotFM to build their streaming service brand. The theatrical run was just part of the deal to get Scorsese to agree. It was not a “failure” like the ones you’re talking about.

Your whole notion of “ambitious failure > safe success” sounds all noble and all, and could be, when someone tried something genuinely artistic and ambitious with something that just didn’t work. Like, say, Ang Lee’s Hulk. Dude tried something there. It had soul. But ultimately missed. I get advocating for that kind of stuff. But no, you’re saying you’d rather live in a world of insipid trash - - like Bill Murray’s easy paycheck Garfield movie or Tim Burton doing the same stuff he always does but with Wonka - than with “safe” (which from you seems to mean family friendly / broad appealing, apparently) gems like Wonka, and on no planet does that make a lick of sense. If you hate the family audience, fine, but let them have actual good movies!
Well, at least we can all agree that Ang Lee's Hulk was underappreciated. Did Batman Begins before Batman Begins.
 
It equates creative success with failure. If Flower of the Killer Moon had done well, using this logic, it would've been a failure. A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park, John Wick, The Lion King, Dune, Everything, Everywhere, anything that got over with audiences and made money, are a failure.
I didn't insinuate Killers of the Flower Moon was a failure; I meant it's an example of doing a risky movie. By all accounts, it did as well as it could have possibly done and the general public, outside the usual suspects, did seem to like it. That's rare, unfortunately.
 
Also, in terms of artistic growth, I’d argue this film is a risk by default because Gunn has never handled a character like Superman before. “Earnest and wholesome” is not “safe” territory for James Gunn. Unless he makes this “edgelord Superman” like Snyder did, which is extremely doubtful just based on what he’s said thus far, he is already stepping outside of his comfort zone just in making this.
Tbh I feel like the overall themes explored in GOTG are somewhat earnest and wholesome.
 
Tbh I feel like the overall themes explored in GOTG are somewhat earnest and wholesome.
They are. But I think Superman is a pretty different beast compared to GOTG. there's also a ton of comedy in GOTG as well. Superman Is gonna have to be balanced a little differently, and I think Gunn will obviously pull back on a lot of the humor he's known for. Based on everything he's said, and his approach, I'm expecting this to feel very different than what he's done with CBM's so far.
 
That's the kind of thinking that makes studios greenlight movies like Killers of the Flower Moon. Scorsese understood he was making a movie that would have the public crucify him, he got death threats for it, but he fought hard and finally got to make the film he wanted. Not by a studio, but by a company who can afford to lose money, like Apple, terrible as they are.

My main point was that if studios don't take risks, then Apple will monopolize the market by enticing auteurs with their funding all the while major studios are left in the dust.
You don't take risks with $200 million budget films...not if you want to stay in business as a studio. Taking risks is part of why WB has issues even getting these films off the ground. You need to people to want to see your films...otherwise they wont see them and the studio struggles. Apple doesn't care about anything but trying to get people to sign up for their service which has not been lighting the world on fire when it comes to subs. They need content and headlines...and they can "afford" to lose money but they don't want to lose it and it will have to be made up somewhere else. Di$ney can afford to lose money too...ask E$PN how much fun they have been having the last decade or so as more money gets pumped into the MCU and the Star Wars/Indy money pits. Someone will pay for the fact that KOTFM Got nowhere close to breaking even and it won't be Apple Corporate.

And you can't compare Scoresese to directors like James Gunn. The guy has access and clout almost no one has. Do you really think if James Gunn wanted to make a $200 million blockbuster he could find a way to make that work without a major studio and not have severe interference? Would his film be almost guaranteed to be a critical hit and get award noms and festival access and love based on his clout alone? Apples and oranges man.

Risk is not some sort of elixir that guarantees greatness. Risk for risks sake can be more harmful than helpful. If the audience is turned off by the risks then your risks are wrong. For years we have heard the audience wanted risks taken with Superman, that he was boring and too 4 color. They wanted more "depth" and "pathos" darken him up a bit and make him edgy. It never works no matter the medium...because those changes or risks (while I applaud the effort) take away from the core of who Superman is. Despite it not being popular to say, people want the Superman they grew up with...just like they want the Indy they grew up with, The Luke/Leia/Han they grew up with...etc. Some stories and characters are great just the way they are. And if the audience doesn't want to see your film it doesn't matter how creative or risky it was...ask Furiosa. WB let Miller make his story and take a risk, and it is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars and killed what they hoped was another franchise.
 
Last edited:
You don't take risks with $200 million budget films...not if you want to stay in business as a studio. Taking risks is part of why WB has issues even getting these films off the ground. You need to people to want to see your films...otherwise they wont see them and the studio struggles. Apple doesn't care about anything but trying to get people to sign up for their service which has not been lighting the world on fire when it comes to subs. They need content and headlines...and they can "afford" to lose money but they don't want to lose it and it will have to be made up somewhere else. Di$ney can afford to lose money too...ask E$PN how much fun they have been having the last decade or so as more money gets pumped into the MCU and the Star Wars/Indy money pits. Someone will pay for the fact that KOTFM Got nowhere close to breaking even and it won't be Apple Corporate.

And you can't compare Scoresese to directors like James Gunn. The guy has access and clout almost no one has. Do you really think if James Gunn wanted to make a $200 million blockbuster he could find a way to make that work without a major studio and not have severe interference? Would his film be almost guaranteed to be a critical hit and get award noms and festival access and love based on his clout alone? Apples and oranges man.

Risk is not some sort of elixir that guarantees greatness. Risk for risks sake can be more harmful than helpful. If the audience is turned off by the risks then your risks are wrong. For years we have heard the audience wanted risks taken with Superman, that he was boring and too 4 color. They wanted more "depth" and "pathos" darken him up a bit and make him edgy. It never works no matter the medium...because those changes or risks (while I applaud the effort) take away from the core of who Superman is. Despite it not being popular to say, people want the Superman they grew up with...just like they want the Indy they grew up with, The Luke/Leia/Han they grew up with...etc. Some stories and characters are great just the way they are. And if the audience doesn't want to see your film it doesn't matter how creative or risky it was...ask Furiosa. WB let Miller make his story and take a risk, and it is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars and killed what they hoped was another franchise.
If it helps them, WB doesn't own Furiosa; they just distribute it. The real people behind it were Kennedy/Miller and Domain Entertainment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,763
Messages
21,804,118
Members
45,624
Latest member
WarMachine95
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"