Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[Saint]

the devil, maybe.

LMAO! This is probably the best post ever.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

My point is that big name actors don't always make the film successful (just look at Tom Cruise). You also need a good director. You are trying to discount the success of Levy by saying that his films have big name actors. Once again the handwriting on the walls shows that he has been able to make a film successful with whatever budget he is given.

NO ONE is saying that a big name actor guarantees success. But they do HELP. Do you really think Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson didn't draw people in to Night at the Museum?

Yes. If they have seen at least one movie in a year and they say that the entertainment experience is money well spent then I would expect that most of the people who saw NAM would have thought that it was worth the experience. Yes, this is 2007, but the 2006 study is not out yet. I doubt that there will be that much of a difference in a year's time.

What the hell?!

You admit that you used a study of audience opinion on general movies in 2005 (which had many successful big budget films, like Batman Begins and ROTS), the WRONG year, and that somehow leads to your assumption that most people would think Museum was worth their time? Also, why the black-and-white poll? A movie can be "worth" it and just be ok or so-so, something that kept you entertained without actually being very good.

Then why are you defending them? I think they got it wrong with NAM because if you look at the numbers it was a popular film. 70 million people is pretty significant (that's almost 1/4 of the population of in the US). The same thing goes for his other films. So what if the think it was bad. There were enough people who went to see the films to make them successful.

Uh, 45% is NOT that bad of an overall rating. It's just a little below 50%, which numerically would mean an average film. The "consensus" stated at RT is "Parents might call this either a spectacle-filled adventure or a shallow and vapid CG-fest, depending on whether they choose to embrace this on the same level as their kids." Not exactly a scathing, hateful put down. Basically, the critics said it was a so-so movie when viewed on the level of any other movie, but that it would also be mindless fun that would appeal to kids.

And I've already gone over the many factors working in the movie's favor, including Ben Stiller, the excellent release date, being kid-friendly, and lacking any real competition.

I don't think they buchered Doctor Doom any more that he has been buchered in the comics (Victor Van Damme decendant of Dracula in the Ultimate titles?). Once again that is a matter of opinion and really had no bearing on the success or failure of the film.

It's a matter of opinion, but you'll be hard pressed to find many fans who didn't think Doom was butchered.

Movie Doom was crappy even if you knew nothing about the comic version. If he followed the comics, then he would have been a grand, majestic villain. But the movie version was utterly mediocre. He was just some cliche rich jerk who even lacked an evil scheme, with scenes and a motivation blatantly ripped off from movie Norman Osborn.

Making a darker film would have been more riskier since it would have played to a smaller demographic. By going the conservative route (making a more conservative, family friendly film) they were able to acheive success and get another film.

Having the villain be appropriately dark doesn't make the movie dark. Most fans will tell you that Doom is the comic equivalent of Darth Vader, and should have come across that way in the FF movie. Darth Vader is certainly a dark villain, but the Star Wars movies are NOT considered dark. They're even rated PG. However, they are darker, and have much more substance, than the forgettable fluff that FF was.

I understand that out of a population of 16 users, there was only one that had a negative response. Only one.

I understand that you DON'T understand what sample sizes are.

That is because most of you are quick to say that a film "sucked" because it lost money.

I don't say that. Financial success and artistic success are NOT the same. I've said that over and over.

 

[dnno1]

NO ONE is saying that a big name actor guarantees success. But they do HELP. Do you really think Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson didn't draw people in to Night at the Museum?..

He still had to work with them and the rapport that a director has with the actors is a major factor in the success of a film. Look, you could argue this point nine ways to Sunday but the fact remains that this guy (Levy) has never made a motion picture that has lost money. Even his film "Just Married" with Ashton Krucher and Brittany Murphy made $56 million on an $18 million budget in 2003. The studios know his work and that is why he is in demand. I think he is a logical choice for "The Flash" since it will be a film about a marginal character in the DC Universe (compared to Superman, and Batman) and is being targeted to both kids and young adults alike in his stories and merchandising.

What the hell?!

You admit that you used a study of audience opinion on general movies in 2005 (which had many successful big budget films, like Batman Begins and ROTS), the WRONG year, and that somehow leads to your assumption that most people would think Museum was worth their time? Also, why the black-and-white poll? A movie can be "worth" it and just be ok or so-so, something that kept you entertained without actually being very good...

There is no data for 2006 out yet, so what else do you want me to use? Using old data is not unsusual. Remember they only take census data evey ten years, so most of the people who use it are using old data and it hasn't bothered them. Get off you high horse and wake up and smell the coffee. An exceptional amount of people went to see "Night at the Museum" (in the tens of millions). Thats more than enough to say that it was a successful film, and I as well as others could care less if you think it was crappy.

Uh, 45% is NOT that bad of an overall rating. It's just a little below 50%, which numerically would mean an average film. The "consensus" stated at RT is "Parents might call this either a spectacle-filled adventure or a shallow and vapid CG-fest, depending on whether they choose to embrace this on the same level as their kids." Not exactly a scathing, hateful put down. Basically, the critics said it was a so-so movie when viewed on the level of any other movie, but that it would also be mindless fun that would appeal to kids...

Umm... If you got a 45% on your math test that would be considered a failing grade. I don't think you would want a doctor to operate on you knowing that he had a 1.8 GPA (out of 4.0, which is 45%) in med. school. That is the perception that people have when they look at statistics like that and I am sure that is the misleading message that you and others are trying to convey here. Looking at that type of rating and then again looking at the box office returns for the film, I feel confident that the critics got it wrong here and your point is moot.

It's a matter of opinion, but you'll be hard pressed to find many fans who didn't think Doom was butchered.

Movie Doom was crappy even if you knew nothing about the comic version. If he followed the comics, then he would have been a grand, majestic villain. But the movie version was utterly mediocre. He was just some cliche rich jerk who even lacked an evil scheme, with scenes and a motivation blatantly ripped off from movie Norman Osborn.

I have to dissagree. I am quite sure that there were millions of people who saw the film (that have now become fans) that new nothing about the character. I don't see how they could say that he was crappy. Outside of that I think you could find even more who were fans that still liked the film. The handwriting on the wall says that the "Fantastic Four" was a success (i.e. it made more money than it took to produce and a lot of people went to see it) and they are going to release a sequel this year. I think that point is moot as well.

Having the villain be appropriately dark doesn't make the movie dark. Most fans will tell you that Doom is the comic equivalent of Darth Vader, and should have come across that way in the FF movie. Darth Vader is certainly a dark villain, but the Star Wars movies are NOT considered dark. They're even rated PG. However, they are darker, and have much more substance, than the forgettable fluff that FF was...

Wait a minute. I don't really see where they changed the character any more than what he was originally in the comics. He still was a classmate of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm, his face was scarred as a result of a failed experiment, and he was still air to the Latvarian throne. They only modernized the character to relate to today's day and age - no different from what they have done to him in the comics over the years. In actuallity the modernization was more in line with the Ultimate Doom character. As far as being dark, I believe Doom did murder someone in the film. I think they stayed faithful to the source material, and by the way, Dr. Doom is no Darth Vader, he's Dr. Doom, and there shouldn't be any comparison.

I understand that you DON'T understand what sample sizes are.

Oh yes I do, and a sample size can be as small as 5 depending on what you want to survey. Like I was trying to say before, out of the 16 that posted to that review, only one had a negative comment about the film. If it was supposedly as bad as you say it was there should have been more bad reviews (but there wasn't). In addition the film has had more than 70 million viewers and more people are going to watch the film as I speak. I am sure that most of them do not think that it is bad else they wouldn't be going to see it and I am pretty confident that the response of the 16 posters was a pretty good reflection of how the film was.

I don't say that. Financial success and artistic success are NOT the same. I've said that over and over.

Look the determination of an artistic success is a subjective process. It can never have a definitive answer because there will always be someone who has either a positive or negative opinion about it. What is definitive is the fact that a film that makes money is successful. In additon if a significant percentage of the moviegoing public or a demographic of it goes to see it then it must be popular. I think that is what I have been trying to say over and over again here but you fail to agree to it. I guess it is because you have your silly adgenda.

 

[cryptic name]

Wait a minute. I don't really see where they changed the character any more than what he was originally in the comics. He still was a classmate of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm, his face was scarred as a result of a failed experiment, and he was still air to the Latvarian throne. They only modernized the character to relate to today's day and age - no different from what they have done to him in the comics over the years. In actuallity the modernization was more in line with the Ultimate Doom character. As far as being dark, I believe Doom did murder someone in the film. I think they stayed faithful to the source material, and by the way, Dr. Doom is no Darth Vader, he's Dr. Doom, and there shouldn't be any comparison.

Vader was partly based on Doom, Doom is the perfect archetypal villain, and yes the movie version of him did suck horribly.

 

[Saint]

He still had to work with them and the rapport that a director has with the actors is a major factor in the success of a film. Look, you could argue this point nine ways to Sunday but the fact remains that this guy (Levy) has never made a motion picture that has lost money. Even his film "Just Married" with Ashton Krucher and Brittany Murphy made $56 million on an $18 million budget in 2003. The studios know his work and that is why he is in demand. I think he is a logical choice for "The Flash" since it will be a film about a marginal character in the DC Universe (compared to Superman, and Batman) and is being targeted to both kids and young adults alike in his stories and merchandising.

No, a "logical" choice would have been someone who has directed at least one action film--even one light-hearted.

Umm... If you got a 45% on your math test that would be considered a failing grade. I don't think you would want a doctor to operate on you knowing that he had a 1.8 GPA (out of 4.0, which is 45%) in med. school.

Then perhaps you'll understand why we don't want a Director with a 24% average Rotten Tomatoes score working on the Flash.

I have to dissagree. I am quite sure that there were millions of people who saw the film (that have now become fans)

So you're "quite sure" that the Fantastic Four film created millions of new Dr. Doom fans? Then why does the Fantastic Four comic not sell in the millions? Where are the millions of fans you (incorrectly) claim the film created? Why aren't they buying the book? Better yet, why didn't they buy the "Books of Doom" mini-series about the origin of Doctor Doom last year? Oh, right: because these phantom fans don't exist.

I don't see how they could say that he was crappy.

Here's the thing you seem to be missing entirely--the character should be done correctly. It doesn't matter if Joe Blow who has never read a comic book liked the deflated, boring, cliched piece of crap version of Doom from that film. We didn't like it, because it wasn't anything like Doom. It doesn't matter that it made money. Do you get it? We don't care about the box office returns. We don't care about the public reception. We care about accurate and well-done adaptations of our favourite characters. Doom was neither accurate nor well done, bottom line.

Success is irrelevant. All that matters is whether I enjoy the film. If a film I don't like (like Fantastic Four) does well and earns a sequel, what good does that do me? It just means they'll give me more of the same--which I didn't like the first time! Successful trash only results in more trash. I would rather have a Flash film be made properly and fail, then have it made wrong and spawn sequels. I would rather have a single quality film than a series of turds, like Fantastic Four.

Wait a minute. I don't really see where they changed the character any more than what he was originally in the comics. He still was a classmate of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm, his face was scarred as a result of a failed experiment, and he was still air to the Latvarian throne. They only modernized the character to relate to today's day and age - no different from what they have done to him in the comics over the years. In actuallity the modernization was more in line with the Ultimate Doom character. As far as being dark, I believe Doom did murder someone in the film. I think they stayed faithful to the source material, and by the way, Dr. Doom is no Darth Vader, he's Dr. Doom, and there shouldn't be any comparison.

Ha! Dr. Doom inspired George Lucas to create Darth Vader. Jesus, you're really out of your league here. It doesn't matter that the got some of the details right, they got the personality of the character wrong. Doom is not Generic Lex Luthor Clone #674532, nor is he a cosmic mutant with the powers of Colossus and Electro. Most important of all, Doom is not a dip*hit. Doom is not a petty criminal, and he is not a person who comes to power through any accident: he makes himself powerful. He took over his home country in his twenties, for Christ's sake--and he didn't do it because he was a generic power hungry jerk, he did it because he believed it was right.

What was his master plan? "Oh, I'll just shoot this missile at them." What? Are you serious? For the love of God, Doom has stolen the powers of Gods! He's escaped from hell! The idiots writing that script had forty years of comics to draw from, but Doom did none of the things he does in the comics because he was too busy being a pu*sy. "Oh no, Susan doesn't like me, now I'm sad! I'd better take revenge!"

The character in that film wasn't Dr. Doom--he was an entirely different character who happened to have the same name.

 

[jaguarr]

That pSuedo Storm....she's a real heartbreaker. Poor Doom.

jag

 

[dnno1]

No, a "logical" choice would have been someone who has directed at least one action film--even one light-hearted.

I don't think you have looked at his resume. He did direct the TV series "Birds of Prey" and "The Famous Jett Jackson". Those are considered to belong to the Action/Adventure generes (not comedies). Also if I were an investor in major motion pictures I wouldn't risk my millions on a director who may have had a few productions that were loosers at the boxoffice just because he directed at least one action film. I think a more conservative (and logical) choice would be to go with someone who is a winner.

Then perhaps you'll understand why we don't want a Director with a 24% average Rotten Tomatoes score working on the Flash.

Perhaps you are one of those who have been misled by silly non-scientific statistics. RottenTomatoes does not sample the true moviegoing population and it is irresponsible to think that film critics actually know the likes and tastes of moviegoers. That website says one thing but the scoreboard (of box office and business results) says another. Now who are you going to believe.

So you're "quite sure" that the Fantastic Four film created millions of new Dr. Doom fans? Then why does the Fantastic Four comic not sell in the millions? Where are the millions of fans you (incorrectly) claim the film created? Why aren't they buying the book? Better yet, why didn't they buy the "Books of Doom" mini-series about the origin of Doctor Doom last year? Oh, right: because these phantom fans don't exist.

Yes. My kids didn't know about any of the characters until they saw the film and they are fans now. I am sure there are millions of kids that didn't either. I a sure that there are a lot of adults that didn't read the comics when they were younger that are now as well.

Here's the thing you seem to be missing entirely--the character should be done correctly. It doesn't matter if Joe Blow who has never read a comic book liked the deflated, boring, cliched piece of crap version of Doom from that film. We didn't like it, because it wasn't anything like Doom. It doesn't matter that it made money. Do you get it? We don't care about the box office returns. We don't care about the public reception. We care about accurate and well-done adaptations of our favourite characters. Doom was neither accurate nor well done, bottom line.

Who says that? Characters are no more than products to be sold to a market. Some times you have to diferentiate or alter the product in order to sell it to a larger market or sustain an existing market. The only way you know if it was done correctly is if the product sells. In the case of the "Fantastic Four", the film made money, in spite of what you may have though about the Dr. Doom character. It certainly made enough money that it warranted a sequel.

Success is irrelevant. All that matters is whether I enjoy the film. If a film I don't like (like Fantastic Four) does well and earns a sequel, what good does that do me? It just means they'll give me more of the same--which I didn't like the first time! Successful trash only results in more trash. I would rather have a Flash film be made properly and fail, then have it made wrong and spawn sequels. I would rather have a single quality film than a series of turds, like Fantastic Four.

Both the success of a film and the enjoyment of the audience are both relevant factors in good filmmaking. If films stopped being successful, then studios would stop making them, and that would be disappointing. If the audience didn't enjoy watching them, they wouldn't go to see them and hence they would cease to be successful. Realize this though, filmmakers can't please everybody, so they try to either appease the masses with their films or tailor them to a target audience when it is profitable to do so. We have yet to see how "The Flash" will come out so I don't think it is right to condemn it now, but looking at the track record of Shawn Levy and the fact that he seems to be a respected director among the studios in the industry we should have no reason to believe that this film will not be a success.

Ha! Dr. Doom inspired George Lucas to create Darth Vader. Jesus, you're really out of your league here. It doesn't matter that the got some of the details right, they got the personality of the character wrong. Doom is not Generic Lex Luthor Clone #674532, nor is he a cosmic mutant with the powers of Colossus and Electro. Most important of all, Doom is not a dip*hit. Doom is not a petty criminal, and he is not a person who comes to power through any accident: he makes himself powerful. He took over his home country in his twenties, for Christ's sake--and he didn't do it because he was a generic power hungry jerk, he did it because he believed it was right.

I didn't say that. What I did imply was that Dr. Doom should not be a carbon copy of Darth Vader. He was not portaryed as a a Lex Luthor Clone either. The fact that he was portrayed as a wealthy business mogul only indicates that he was a man of power. If he were a common criminal, he would easily be in prison and ineffective as a arch nemisis. There are lots of other villians who are wealthy businessmen in the comics so I don't think that Lex Luthor owns a patent on that. As far as him having cosmic mutant powers I look as that as a reinterpetation of the character which is done all the time in the comics. By my count there were at least 10 versions of Dr. Doom in the comics and nobody has made any significant complaints about that. In any case, the version portrayed in "Fantastic Four" (2005) was certainly better than the one in "Fantastic Four" (1994), which never made it to the box office.

What was his master plan? "Oh, I'll just shoot this missile at them." What? Are you serious? For the love of God, Doom has stolen the powers of Gods! He's escaped from hell! The idiots writing that script had forty years of comics to draw from, but Doom did none of the things he does in the comics because he was too busy being a pu*sy. "Oh no, Susan doesn't like me, now I'm sad! I'd better take revenge!"

And they only had $100 million and 1 hr and 46 minutes of air time to do it in. You are very demanding with sombody else's money. Aren't you?

The character in that film wasn't Dr. Doom--he was an entirely different character who happened to have the same name.

That's funny how that is comming to be a standard line nowadays. All I can say to this is if writers and directors had to always stick as closely to the souce material as you would have it, it would limit their creativity, which I think is fundamentally wrong. I think this is irrelavant anyway since, once again, "Fantastic Four" was a successful film and they are relasing a sequel this year.

 

[Hunter Rider]

We have yet to see how "The Flash" will come out so I don't think it is right to condemn it now, but looking at the track record of Shawn Levy and the fact that seems to be a respected director among the studios in the industry we should have no reason to believe that this film will not be a success.

By success do you mean BO wise or as a good film ? which i admit is quite subjective

 

[dnno1]

By success do you mean BO wise or as a good film ? which i admit is quite subjective

I will be honest with you, hunter rider. I do not expect "The Flash" to be an academy award winning picture (though it could have a chance to get recognition for SfX or musical score). When I say success I mean BO wise and I mean the ability to make a film within the given budget and come out with a significant profit margin. It seems like a lot of people equate bad films with its loss of money. To me they are certainly not necessarily bad (for that is subjective), but they were failures (at the BO at least). On the flip side I they personally didn't like the film although it was successful at the BO, the still want to say it was bad and not good. The whole good film/bad film argurment is subjective and you will never trully get a right answer from it. I think we should be looking at and be more concerned with the success/failure of the film (so we can get a franchise or not out of it) and leave the good/bad thing to the individual.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I will be honest with you, hunter rider. I do not expect "The Flash" to be an academy award winning picture (though it could have a chance to get recognition for SfX or musical score). When I say success I mean BO wise and I mean the ability to make a film within the given budget and come out with a significant profit margin. It seems like a lot of people equate bad films with its loss of money. To me they are certainly not necessarily bad (for that is subjective), but they were failures (at the BO at least).

Oh i'm not expecting Oscar worthy and never was,i'd be happy with something as fun and enjoyable as the first Mummy movie
I get where you are coming from with the success though,just wanted to clarify it

 

[dnno1]

Oh i'm not expecting Oscar worthy and never was,i'd be happy with something as fun and enjoyable as the first Mummy movie
I get where you are coming from with the success though,just wanted to clarify it

Here Here!

 

[Saint]

I don't think you have looked at his resume. He did direct the TV series "Birds of Prey" and "The Famous Jett Jackson". Those are considered to belong to the Action/Adventure generes (not comedies).

He directed one episode of Birds of Prey, which was a pretty bad show to begin with, and Jett Jackson, which was a crappy Disney Channel show. Neither makes him appropriate for the Flash.

Also if I were an invester in major motion pictures I wouldn't risk my millions on a director who may have had a few productions that were loosers at the boxoffice just because he directed at least one action film. I think a more conservative (and logical) choice would be to go with someone who is a winner.

Yeah, Stellar logic: instead of hiring an experienced adventure director for an adventure film, hire a dime-a-dozen comedy director.

Perhaps you are one of those who have been misled by silly non-scientific statistics. RottenTomatoes does not sample the true moviegoing population and it is irresponsible to think that film critics actually know the likes and tastes of moviegoers. That website says one thing but the scoreboard (of box office and business results) says another. Now who are you going to believe.

You are under the mistaken impression that I care what the movie going public thinks. I only care about my enjoyment. I thought I made that clear? I do not enjoy trash like "Cheaper by the Dozen," and the man who directed that film is not the type of director who would produce a Flash film that I will like. Therefore, he is a poor choice.

His selection tells me one thing: that WB does not want "The Flash" to be a tentpole film. That means they don't expect it to make big money, and they will not spend big money on it's production. If the opposite was true, they would have selected a director with experience producing tentpole adventure films, instead of pulling some jerk out of the "generic comedy director" bag.

Yes. My kids didn't know about any of the characters until they saw the film and they are fans now. I am sure there are millions of kids that didn't either.

If the film was so great that it transformed millions of people into FF fans (despite the fact that you pulled that number out of your ass), then the comic book would be selling in the millions, no? These fans don't exist, or they'd be buying the comic. They may have liked the movies, but they're not fans.

Who says that?

I do. As I have explained, my opinion is the only one that matters. I am not watching the film so WB can make money, and I am certainly not watching the film for the enjoyment of your silly children who like Doom-in-name-only. I'm watching it for my enjoyment. I have a consideration for other comic book fans, because they too respect these characters, but I have no consideration for the thoughts of anyone else.

Characters are no more than products to be sold to a market.

This may shock and amaze you, but some of us feel strongly about these characters. They are important to us. They are not important to Joe Blow who has never read a Fantastic Four comic. Since a properly-written Doom would have had no ill-effect on the box office return of the film, the logical choice is to satisfy we comic book fans, because the general public doesn't care either way.

Both the success of a film and the enjoyment of the audience are both relevant factors in good filmmaking.

But not to my enjoyment, which I have explained is all that matters.

If films stopped being successful, then studios would stop making them, and that would be disappointing.

As I said in my previous post, I would rather have a quality film fail commercially, than have a crappy film succeed and spawn sequels. I would have preferred a decent FF film with no sequels to the crappy one when got and it's inevitably crappy sequels.

Furthermore, there is no logical reason that a better, more faithful FF film would have failed commercially. A film can be light-hearted and funwithout degenerating into the useless fluff that the FGantastic Four film became, and that The Flash will likely become. I think Sam Raimi has proven this rather clearly. There is nothing to indicate that a Flash film directed by a mediocre funnyman will be any more profitable than a Flash film directed by a seasoned adventure director.

I didn't say that. What I did imply was that Dr. Doom should not be a carbon copy of Darth Vader. He was not portaryed as a a Lex Luthor Clone either.

Yes, he was portrayed as a Luthor clone.

The fact that he was portrayed as a wealthy business mogul only indicates that he was a man of power. If he were a common criminal, he would easily be in prison and ineffective as a arch nemisis.

He was ineffectual as a nemesis: he was defeated by a goddamn fire hydrant.

As far as him having cosmic mutant powers I look as that as a reinterpetation of the character which is done all the time in the comics.

It's not that he had super powers, it's that they are the sole reason he was a formidable opponent. Doom doesn't need super powers to make him great: he makes himself great. The Victor Von Doom in that film was a whiny little priss who was lucky enough to get whacked with cosmic rays. The real Doom is the ultimate self-made man, a man who achieved power through his own effort and intelligence. If I had to sum it up in a single line, I would say that Doom in the comics is a formidable enemy, and Doom in the film was not.

By my count there were at least 10 versions of Dr. Doom in the comics and nobody has made any significant complaints about that.

Ha! You should pay closer attention, then.

And they only had $100 million and 1 hr and 46 minutes of air time to do it in. You are very demanding with sombody else's money. Aren't you?

Yes. What do I care about the budget limitations? Better filmmakers have made better films with less money.

That's funny how that is comming to be a standard line nowadays. All I can say to this is if writers and directors had to always stick as closely to the souce material as you would have it, it would limit their creativity, which I think is fundamentally wrong.

That's because you're naive. There is nothing preventing a combination of creativity and accurate adaptation (see: Lord of the Rings). More importantly, if a director wants to go off and create his own original film, then he should do that, instead of messing with an established character. I am less concerned with how Director X thinks he "improve" comic book characters, and far more concerned with seeing the characters I know (not watered down bastardized versions) brought to the screen. I think that's fairly reasonable. I'm not a fan of "Whiny Priss Doom," I'm a fan of the real Dr. Doom. Obviously I won't be satisfied unless I get the latter. By the same token, I will not be satisfied with the inevitable "Flash in Name Only" film.

The bottom line is that the film doesn't need Shawn Levy to be financially viable, so your repeated assertion that he creates successful films is irrelevant. There's nothing preventing a better director from creating a faithful film that is just as successful. Plenty of comic book films have illustrated this point, but most notably Spider-Man, which has essentially the exact balance of humour, drama, and adventure that a quality Flash film should have. Fantastic Four also would have benefited from this approach.

 

[terry78]

I think wanting every single comic book movie to be dark and gritty is just as bad as wanting them all to be fun loving and fancy free. There has to be some kind of balance. Most comic books teeter on the edge of self aware humor and soap opera drama as it is.

 

[Saint]

I think wanting every single comic book movie to be dark and gritty is just as bad as wanting them all to be fun loving and fancy free. There has to be some kind of balance. Most comic books teeter on the edge of self aware humor and soap opera drama as it is.

Who here said the Flash should be dark and gritty? Nobody wants that. They want it to be taken seriously, though, like Spider-Man.

 

[Hunter Rider]

I do. As I have explained, my opinion is the only one that matters. I am not watching the film so WB can make money, and I am certainly not watching the film for the enjoyment of your silly children who like Doom-in-name-only. I'm watching it for my enjoyment. I have a consideration for other comic book fans, because they too respect these characters, but I have no consideration for the thoughts of anyone else.

Leave this kind of crap out of your abrasive posts

 

[Saint]

I'm going to take this opportunity to suggest that certain members here go out and pick up a Flash TPB before rambling on about how awesome a director they think Levy will be. It helps to know something about the character you're talking about. I suggest Blitz: http://www.amazon.com/Flash-Vol-4-Blitz/dp/1401203353

 

[Saint]

Leave this kind of crap out of your abrasive posts

Very well, but my posts will be abrasive nonetheless.

 

[deathshead2]

After thinking about it. Maybe Levy could work and make a good Flash movie. Hey it can't be any worse than GR.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Very well, but my posts will be abrasive nonetheless.

Actually they will be as abrasive as i let them be,step over the line with the condescension and aggression and you'll be treat the same as any flamer....so on a side note your last post in here is the limit,any further and you can take a break

 

[The Only Woj]

movies shouldn't be 'light' just to have wider appeal, it should be an accurate translation of the tone of that specific material. this is why I don't like what they did to Ghost Rider. even Fantastic Four, which should be far from a dark film, was turned into something that was stupid for the sake of being even lighter in tone that it needed. unless someone gets Goyers Flash script, we won't know how "dark" it really is. But I think if Levy is borrowing from Goyer's draft for this lighter version, then by lighter I think we're going to get cheesy/stupid humor.

 

[SilentType]

Edit-**wrong page**

 

[The Guard]

Not interested in arguing whether or not all films have their strengths and weak points. Seems kind of pointless to me...

I do think Doom wasn't close to being on spot in FF (though his character can still be redeemed cinematically, and I felt McMahon did well with what he had to work with, and that Doom LOOKED great and had good "villain moments"), but I will say that Doom didn't just launch a missle at the Four. He launched a missle at Sue and Johnny. He really did take out the Four in a pretty ingenius and methodical manner, via freezing Reed (I believe I saw this done in the comics a few times, and it happened to Plastic Man in JLA's TOWER OF BABEL), taking away Ben's power, and then launching a heat-seaking missle at Johnny, and of course, beating up on Sue. The missle thing I particularly liked, because it made Johnny think a little to get them both out of a jam, gave us a nice chase sequence, and it was a nice twist for his character to both learn what he could really do, and to have to use his powers intelligently.

The Flash has always been a much brighter, hopeful, and somewhat generational tale with serious undertones and themes. Not neccessarily "darker" ones, but serious ones. Dark things will happen just by the virtue of The Flash being superhero mythology (I.E, villains, threats, etc). Can darker themes exist within it? Sure. But the concept itself, to me has always been meant to be uplifting and exemplary. The SPIDER-MAN comparison is interesting, and fairly accurate, because SPIDER-MAN itself is chock full of comic book/lighthearted cheese amidst the darker moments.

Once again, it amazes me that people actually think THE FLASH will just be lighthearted cheese a la BATMAN & ROBIN (which itself had some pretty good serious moments).

 

[dnno1]

movies shouldn't be 'light' just to have wider appeal, it should be an accurate translation of the tone of that specific material. this is why I don't like what they did to Ghost Rider. even Fantastic Four, which should be far from a dark film, was turned into something that was stupid for the sake of being even lighter in tone that it needed. unless someone gets Goyers Flash script, we won't know how "dark" it really is. But I think if Levy is borrowing from Goyer's draft for this lighter version, then by lighter I think we're going to get cheesy/stupid humor.

There is no law that says that is the case. You are just stating your own opinion here and that should be clarified. The bottom line here is that the studios should be making films that people want to see and if it can appeal to a wider audience and result in larger box office revenues, then so be it. I think that is the goal here.

 

[hotrider12]

to silent type: now I agree with you there is no easter bunny and santa or any other fictional character the media want you to beleive to make money off of us. but when you say there's no God your dead wrong without him we all!!! human would not be able to breathe,move or talk or think he is the source of life itself. and if you beleive in the big bang theory how life was started thats a dam joke imo
now about the flash, imo they should make a serious movie about the flash not a light hearted movie like the tv show which sucked Im a flash fan big time, like the rest of you guys. imo what made the tv show suck: in one episode the flash was in a house if I remember correctly a bomb was set and exploded and the flash was caught in the emplosion now if he was the fastest man alive how in the hell did he get caught in that?? all the barry allen flash (comic books) he never was that sloppy. we need a strong movie that shows how great the flash really is,Jlu made the flash look like a big bafoon , a wise-crack idiot that is not the flash I was raised up on. hell if they going to make a film on wally west like that they mise well put abott and costello in the movie. flash and kid flash team make it a comedy film for family to gag at I can keep my 9.00 rent out the tv show flash have more of a entertainment with a bowl of popcorn. last but not lease
its sad that david goyer jump ship on this project. I was excited like the rest of you guys when report was first known about a flash movie was taken into consideration I waited 48 years for a good serious adaptation movie. like someone one here said : alot of people dont really know about the flash origins and batman and so on superhero's those people maybe teenager seen Jlu on cartoonetwork. what they know is what currently aired. and might not know about superfriends late 60' and 70's even then flash was barry allen back then, not a bubbling fool like they betray wally west.doing a thousand miles a sec. is hardly funny triping over a pebble every few feet make you feel sorry for him or everytime flash runs he need to run to the nearest restuarant to be recharged (tv show flash) they need to stick with the originality of the flash from the comic book. I personally would not see a movie if flash had to run to a restarant or trip over things at the wrong time.or suddently lose his speed at the wrong time and do more than whirl winds and run on water. they need to show him as barry allens flash able to vibrate thru walls, run up side of building, leave after image of himself with na-no sec explore all of his abilities with amazing fx I know if wb want a huge profit in return thats how they should do it. get the dam lead out of their ass'es and get real!!!!!!!!

 

[Katsuro]

There is no law that says that is the case. You are just stating your own opinion here and that should be clarified. The bottom line here is that the studios should be making films that people want to see and if it can appeal to a wider audience and result in larger box office revenues, then so be it. I think that is the goal here.

Your problem is you seem to care more about the film making money than the film being good. Are you a WB exec? Are you gonna benefit at all from a box office smash, even if you personally cant stand to watch the thing?

The only benefit we could possibly get from it being a box office success is the prospect of a sequel, but would you want a sequel if the movie sucks? If this movie blows complete and utter chunks, but somehow the masses eat it up or rush to the thing on opening day not realizing how bad it's gonna be, are you gonna even want them to make another?

I'd rather have one Flash movie that knocks my socks off than a whole bunch of Flash movies that make Catwoman look like it deserves an Academy Award.