Well....Shawn Levy is Directing the Flash

[Saint]

but to say that it's a bad movie because it doesn't fit your taste shows a lack of vocabulary on your part...

Blatantly incorrect. "Bad" is not quantifiable, it has no objective value. It is a quality that exists in a purely subjective capacity. The quality of "badness," for lack of better term, is caused by inadequacy, lack of acceptability, disapproval, or moral failing. You will notice all of these criteria are subjective as well, which for our purposes means if Katsuro finds trash like "Cheaper by the Dozen" to be inadequate or unacceptable, then yes, it is bad.

Curiously, those of you defending this disgusting turn of events (the selection of Levy as Director) at once claim that we cannot call these films "bad" just because we didn't like them, and that you can call them good because they made X amount of dollars. Why are your standards for quality (Number of zeros on box office return) valid, but our standards (Personal enjoyment, accuracy relative adapted materials) not? Dollar signs are indicative of quality, but personal enjoyment is not?

Also interesting is that at least one person claimed that a high box office return is indicative of high enjoyment. How is this? One does not enjoy or dislike the film until after the fee has been paid. The returns will be the same (with some minor variation for negative or positive word-of-mouth) whether the film is enjoyed or not. I suppose it's possible word-of-mouth causes more variation than what I guess, but in the end, that too, is irrelevant, because "The Flash" is not a film that should be made with the goal of "acceptability." It is not a throw-away fluff film like Levy's standard fare.

Most baffling of all is that The Royal Guard of King Levy repeatedly assert that his selection is financially motivated--that it is necessary for the film to make money! HA! Yes, surely men and women will flood to the theaters because they are fans of Shawn Levy! Yes, we have seen generic superhero comedies like "My Super Ex-Girlfriend," "Zoom," and "Sky High" really rake in the cash compared to their competition, the likes of "Spider-Man" and "Batman Begins." Oh, wait: we haven't seen that. There is no indication that a generic comedy director is necessary to make The Flash successful. We don't need a Shawn Levy for this film, we need a Sam Raimi.

I know there is hope among some of you that this will turn out to be more along the lines of "The Incredibles," and that would be acceptable (though, as I have said, I prefer the Spider-Man tone), but I have seen nothing to indicate that Shawn Levy is anywhere near as clever or talented as Brad Bird.

 

[Saint]

Hmm... while I admit I didn't quantify "a bunch" of money, those are all mediocre movies at worst. The statement was "utter and complete chunks..." I'm talking about movies that make, say, 15% or less on Rotten Tomatoes... "Utter and complete" failures cinematically.

Someone here advised you that Levy's films fit that bill, and they do. Not one of his films has made it to 50% on the tomato meter, two of them rank at 24%, one at 19%, and one earned a horrifying six percent.

 

[Katsuro]

Hmm... while I admit I didn't quantify "a bunch" of money, those are all mediocre movies at worst. The statement was "utter and complete chunks..." I'm talking about movies that make, say, 15% or less on Rotten Tomatoes... "Utter and complete" failures cinematically. While those movies are mediocre, and some genuinely subpar, all of them have at least one or two strong points, some have several despite numerous shortcomings.

There are plenty of movies that you don't like that make a profit, but there simply aren't any big-numbers blockbusters that completely and utterly suck.

Honestly, when we can exchange "mediocre" for "utterly and completely blow chunks" I gotta wonder, is there any actual honesty or accountability in this conversation, or are we just free to say whatever makes us feel good, regardless of if it makes sense or not?

And I did enjoy Cheaper by the Dozen. I enjoy good family comedy and all that little kid cuteseyness that such movies thrive on. I think the goofy innocent storylines are great family fun, and so do many families. Now, if you are a single action junkie, of course you don't 'like' CBTD, but to say that it's a bad movie because it doesn't fit your taste shows a lack of vocabulary on your part...

Let me put it this way: I wouldn't piss on a copy of Batman Forever to put out a fire.

And no, calling a movie that doesn't fit my taste doesn't show a lack of vocabularly. Calling something bad means I dont like it, simple as that. I mean, if you wanna be like that then no movie is bad, since everything fits someone's taste. So yes, Cheaper by the Dozen is bad. You may not think it's bad, but I think it's bad.

 

[ClarkLuther55]

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.

How hard is it to let Ben Stiller be Ben Stiller? What did he do in Night at the Museum that any competent director couldn't?

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.

Others see him as an illogical choice because his movies are poorly reviewed (and we agree with those reviews), and he doesn't have much if any experience in big budget action adventures. But I guess he's alright if making money by pandering to indiscriminate child audiences is the only thing that matters.

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.

WOW. Just wow. Let me go over the relevant points that have been revealed in the last few posts between you and me:

-This survey you're using is NOT about whether people were satisfied with Museum.
-It's not even about any one movie, but about audience's GENERAL movie going experiences.
-It's from 2005, the WRONG YEAR. Before Museum even came out.
-This particular poll is taken once ever ten years. So what you've basically shown is that people were generally satsified by the theatrical movies that came out between 1995 and 2005, right?

Yet you still insist this is somehow relevant to Museum because you don't have more current data. Maybe instead of polling people to find George W. Bush's approval ratings, people should just go by Bush Sr. and Clinton's ratings.

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.

Yes, it MADE MONEY. No one is denying that. But the reviews by BOTH professional critics and normal people (IMDB) say that this movie is nothing exceptional. Around average, if you want to turn off your brain and enjoy the movie with the kids you were recommended to bring along with you.

Umm... If you got a 45% on your math test that would be considered a failing grade.

Wow! The A,B,C,D,F grading system used in schools is NOT the same as a 1-10 (or 1-100, same thing) rating system. It's an arbitrarily stricter system designed to make sure kids really know their crap. But on a 1-10 scale, 5 out of 10 places you RIGHT in the middle. Why wouldn't Rotten Tomatoes call Museum an utter failure (rather than a mediocre kids movie) if what you say is true?

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.

Do you see ANYONE saying that movie Doom was an awesome character (please don't bring up one or two people as if that means something). I know some people who don't care for comics at all, but called movie Doom a cliche, petty richboy jerk. The blatant ripoffs from movie Norman Osborn were also apparent to people.

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,

Not even close to the same experiment.

and he was still air to the Latvarian throne.

Yeah, he was some petty richboy who namedropped the unseen Latveria a couple of times.

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.

The comics have NOT done something so drastic as to completely change Doom's personality, background, abilities, and power levels.

Oh yes I do, and a sample size can be as small as 5 depending on what you want to survey.

Do you even know what you're talking about? A sample of 5 people (or 16, big difference) is USELESS for making conclusions about a large number of people (like what American moviegoers thought about a certain movie).

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).

There weren't many reviews PERIOD. 16 people posted in total. SIXTEEN. That's nothing. That's more evidence that people didn't care to spend their time to write a review.

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.

Of course artistic success is subjective. However, there ARE commonly shared opinions on what makes a good film. You see it showing up in the general consensus of critics and moviegoers who rate a movie.

 

[GL1]

Uhhh it is all opinion. Date Movie and Scary Movie 4 COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BLEW CHUNKS to me and they made a huge profit at the box office. I am not overstating that I honestly feel that way I would put them on my worst movies ever made list. I saw Date Movie for free and still wanted a refund after sitting through it. And just for the record it had 7% on Rotten Tomatoes and made nearly 85 million worldwide.

I guess I just don’t get that… when I think ‘worst movies’ ever made, I’m thinking Gigli, the Super Mario Brothers Movie, Spiceworld… moves that make you truly SAD to be alive and simply can’t be entertaining to anybody ever. If all you want is a refund, it’s just a bad movie, not an utter tragedy of film. Perhaps you haven’t seen movies bad enough if you think utter mediocrity like the Scary Movie Crew is utter failure… go watch some REAL bad movies and perhaps Date Movie will become ‘okay.’

So now we are just hoping for a blockbuster that can eek over your 15% "Mediocre/blow chunks" barrier? I guess it's good to have standards

Who said anything about hoping? I’m talking about expectations, not dreams.

Blatantly incorrect. "Bad" is not quantifiable, it has no objective value. It is a quality that exists in a purely subjective capacity. The quality of "badness," for lack of better term, is caused by inadequacy, lack of acceptability, disapproval, or moral failing. You will notice all of these criteria are subjective as well, which for our purposes means if Katsuro finds trash like "Cheaper by the Dozen" to be inadequate or unacceptable, then yes, it is bad.

Curiously, those of you defending this disgusting turn of events (the selection of Levy as Director) at once claim that we cannot call these films "bad" just because we didn't like them, and that you can call them good because they made X amount of dollars. Why are your standards for quality (Number of zeros on box office return) valid, but our standards (Personal enjoyment, accuracy relative adapted materials) not? Dollar signs are indicative of quality, but personal enjoyment is not?

Also interesting is that at least one person claimed that a high box office return is indicative of high enjoyment. How is this? One does not enjoy or dislike the film until after the fee has been paid. The returns will be the same (with some minor variation for negative or positive word-of-mouth) whether the film is enjoyed or not. I suppose it's possible word-of-mouth causes more variation than what I guess, but in the end, that too, is irrelevant, because "The Flash" is not a film that should be made with the goal of "acceptability." It is not a throw-away fluff film like Levy's standard fare.

Most baffling of all is that The Royal Guard of King Levy repeatedly assert that his selection is financially motivated--that it is necessary for the film to make money! HA! Yes, surely men and women will flood to the theaters because they are fans of Shawn Levy! Yes, we have seen generic superhero comedies like "My Super Ex-Girlfriend," "Zoom," and "Sky High" really rake in the cash compared to their competition, the likes of "Spider-Man" and "Batman Begins." Oh, wait: we haven't seen that. There is no indication that a generic comedy director is necessary to make The Flash successful. We don't need a Shawn Levy for this film, we need a Sam Raimi.

I know there is hope among some of you that this will turn out to be more along the lines of "The Incredibles," and that would be acceptable (though, as I have said, I prefer the Spider-Man tone), but I have seen nothing to indicate that Shawn Levy is anywhere near as clever or talented as Brad Bird.

Interesting. I call the movies in question ‘successful’ and I don’t assign subjective qualities to movies arbitrarily… such comments are completely useless. “The movie was bad.” “No the movie was good!” “No it was bad” “Bad!” “It was good!”

By discussion the action qualities of the movie, or how we felt about it, a useful conversation. When you say you didn’t like Batman Begins because it wasn’t an accurate translation, I could then suggest that it was a bad “translation” while still being a good film in and of itself… but that’s just me, if no one enjoys exposition on their feelings, then I’ll have to find intelligent bandwagonless conversation elsewhere.

I have asserted additional reasons for Levy’s selection other than financial, and there’s no reason for anyone to compare films he didn’t make as a standard of what success he might have…

As for hope: I have none. WB is defecating on it’s DC properties to make a quick buck. Should they hire Stephen Spielberg and WETA and Ryan Reynolds? OF COURSE! Do they WANT to? Do they CARE? Eh… notsomuch. And I don’t find talking about directors and casting NEARLY as much fun as I enjoy talking about story ideas and visual details, so I don’t really take part in those conversations anyway.

Again, my goal is not to defend these turn of events, but to explain them, for good or ill. They make sense, even if we disagree with them, and to try and disprove the simple logic WB is using is just futile.

Let me put it this way: I wouldn't piss on a copy of Batman Forever to put out a fire.

And no, calling a movie that doesn't fit my taste doesn't show a lack of vocabularly. Calling something bad means I dont like it, simple as that. I mean, if you wanna be like that then no movie is bad, since everything fits someone's taste. So yes, Cheaper by the Dozen is bad. You may not think it's bad, but I think it's bad.

No cheaper by the Dozen ISN’T bad. See? Pointless unqualified statement, just like yours. “I didn’t like CBTD because XYZ” is a useful statement, and a discussion about how ‘it just wasn’t your type of film’ could then be engaged in… but apparently the use of ‘movie is bad’ versus ‘I don’t like it’ is a semantic argument… I am simply not in the habit of saying absolute statements unless I am the authority.

 

[Saint]

Interesting. I call the movies in question ‘successful’ and I don’t assign subjective qualities to movies arbitrarily… such comments are completely useless. “The movie was bad.” “No the movie was good!” “No it was bad” “Bad!” “It was good!”

By discussion the action qualities of the movie, or how we felt about it, a useful conversation. When you say you didn’t like Batman Begins because it wasn’t an accurate translation, I could then suggest that it was a bad “translation” while still being a good film in and of itself… but that’s just me, if no one enjoys exposition on their feelings, then I’ll have to find intelligent bandwagonless conversation elsewhere.

I have asserted additional reasons for Levy’s selection other than financial, and there’s no reason for anyone to compare films he didn’t make as a standard of what success he might have…

As for hope: I have none. WB is defecating on it’s DC properties to make a quick buck. Should they hire Stephen Spielberg and WETA and Ryan Reynolds? OF COURSE! Do they WANT to? Do they CARE? Eh… notsomuch. And I don’t find talking about directors and casting NEARLY as much fun as I enjoy talking about story ideas and visual details, so I don’t really take part in those conversations anyway.

Again, my goal is not to defend these turn of events, but to explain them, for good or ill.

They make sense, even if we disagree with them

No, they do not make sense. What would make sense is not calling the film "The Flash" because they obviously have no interest in making a real Flash film. If they want to make a quick buck off a comedy superhero film, they can go make up an original property. Fu*king with an existing one makes no sense, especially since the name "The Flash" will not fill seats. Hell, they should know they won't make a quick buck anyway: go look up the numbers on Batman & Robin. In the long run, they're screwing themselves out of even more money than that, because when this film fails, they won't try again. Unlike Superman and Batman, who will make money on name alone, they will not see a Flash reboot as financially viable. This film will kill any hope of a decent Flash film for twenty years. A well-done, Spider-Man-esque Flash film, however, would result in good box office returns and sequels which would also have good box office returns.

No cheaper by the Dozen ISN’T bad. See? Pointless unqualified statement, just like yours. “I didn’t like CBTD because XYZ” is a useful statement, and a discussion about how ‘it just wasn’t your type of film’ could then be engaged in… but apparently the use of ‘movie is bad’ versus ‘I don’t like it’ is a semantic argument… I am simply not in the habit of saying absolute statements unless I am the authority.

And yet you says "X is successful" over and over. Here's a secret tip: success is unquantifiable and subjective, just like "good" and "bad."

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I guess I just don’t get that… when I think ‘worst movies’ ever made, I’m thinking Gigli, the Super Mario Brothers Movie, Spiceworld… moves that make you truly SAD to be alive and simply can’t be entertaining to anybody ever. If all you want is a refund, it’s just a bad movie, not an utter tragedy of film. Perhaps you haven’t seen movies bad enough if you think utter mediocrity like the Scary Movie Crew is utter failure… go watch some REAL bad movies and perhaps Date Movie will become ‘okay.’

I think those are terrible movies too. I was just listing a few recent big budget movies that were god awful and yet they made serious coin as examples. I like all these rules and levels you have that you personally have and try to pass it off as fact. I...ME...PERSONALLY...Thought that Date Movie WAS an utter tragedy of a film. And I know there are other bad movies out there but Date Movie is an example of a big budget one.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I would just give up Saint. I agree with everything you said but I guess he wants his opinion on good and bad to be the truth.

 

[dnno1]

How hard is it to let Ben Stiller be Ben Stiller? What did he do in Night at the Museum that any competent director couldn't?

This video clip shows that during the production of the film "Night of the Museum", Levy had to do voices, make roaring sounds and direct behind a mock-up dinosaur inorder to get Ben Siller to act the appropriate way. Apparently he prefers to act in front of real things, which indicates to me that he needed direction for this film. Stiller admits to this in a Rebbeca Murry interview for About.com. Also there were some scenes in the film that I am quite sure he did not think of himself. This clip has a scene where Stiller slaps a monkey (BTW I actually went to school with Hana Storm). Although quite hillarious, I find it a pretty unique stunt for today's comedies. Finally at $489 million (and still counting) NATM was by far the second highest grossing film that Ben Stiller has ever been in and Shawn Levy directed it (I think the higest was "Meet the Fockers" and that one made $516 million) so I don't think that Levy is any slouch as a director.

Others see him as an illogical choice because his movies are poorly reviewed (and we agree with those reviews), and he doesn't have much if any experience in big budget action adventures. But I guess he's alright if making money by pandering to indiscriminate child audiences is the only thing that matters.

Once again going off of what paid critics opinions on a film is not a good indication of how an audience will feel of felt about a film. To find that out in advance, you will need to spend some money and get some real market research data. I spoke with a woman who worked for AMC Theaters at the supermarket just the other day. I asked her if NATM was any good and she (an adult female about the age of 23) said that she loved it. She said that she loved it so much that she had to go back and take her son to see it too. She also said that for the 9 weeks or so the film has been out the the theater has been packed every night. I don't think that it is always the case (if at all) that children are draging their parents to see this pic, but the other way around.

WOW. Just wow. Let me go over the relevant points that have been revealed in the last few posts between you and me:

-This survey you're using is NOT about whether people were satisfied with Museum.
-It's not even about any one movie, but about audience's GENERAL movie going experiences.
-It's from 2005, the WRONG YEAR. Before Museum even came out.
-This particular poll is taken once ever ten years. So what you've basically shown is that people were generally satsified by the theatrical movies that came out between 1995 and 2005, right?

I don't think you understood what I said. Let me explain this again. According to the MPAA a Nielsen Entertainment report found that 81% of movie goers who saw at least one movie in 2005 believed that their experience was that of time and money well spent. This study is taken every year (not every 10 years like the US Census, which was what I was trying to allude in my previous post). There is no report out for 2006 yet, but I am quite certain that the movie goers for that year are the same people that were going to the movies in 2005 and would more than likely have the same opinion. Thus if 81% of movie goers thought that the films they saw were time and money well spent, it wouldn't be unreasonable to think or infer that most of those who saw "Night at the Museum" thought that this film was the same way.

Yes, it MADE MONEY. No one is denying that. But the reviews by BOTH professional critics and normal people (IMDB) say that this movie is nothing exceptional. Around average, if you want to turn off your brain and enjoy the movie with the kids you were recommended to bring along with you.

More than 75 million people went to see this film. That's a lot of people. I find it hard to believe what a few paid critics and some ordinary people say when the bottom line is 75 million people went to see it and more are still going.

Wow! The A,B,C,D,F grading system used in schools is NOT the same as a 1-10 (or 1-100, same thing) rating system. It's an arbitrarily stricter system designed to make sure kids really know their crap. But on a 1-10 scale, 5 out of 10 places you RIGHT in the middle. Why wouldn't Rotten Tomatoes call Museum an utter failure (rather than a mediocre kids movie) if what you say is true?

Oh yes it is! The standard grading scale is usually A (90-100), B (80-89), C (70-79), D (60-69) and F (59 or below). A 45% grade will always be considered an F under that system. 45% would translate into a 4.5 in a 1-10 grading scale (close to the middle but still failing) and would be a 1.8 in a 0-4 scale (all failing grades). I still stand by my point here.

Do you see ANYONE saying that movie Doom was an awesome character (please don't bring up one or two people as if that means something). I know some people who don't care for comics at all, but called movie Doom a cliche, petty richboy jerk. The blatant ripoffs from movie Norman Osborn were also apparent to people.

Yes. Just check around on the Internet. Also keep in mind that he is the Villian and is not expected to be liked by many.

Not even close to the same experiment.

But there was an experiment and there was an accident, which is what caused him to change in the first place. I don't think that they just created that scene based on an original idea, but rather based on the source material.

I will respond more to the rest your posts later.

 

[Saint]

Yes. Just check around on the Internet. Also keep in mind that he is the Villian and is not expected to be liked by many.

Haha! You must be joking. I can't fathom anyone actually believing something so ridiculous. If the audience doesn't like your villain, then the villain is a failure. That's true of every character, in every medium, ever. Yeah, you can "hate" the villain because he's so evil, but the bottom line becomes if you don't really like the character, he's not effective. The most popular villains of all time are popular because people love them. Darth Vader, the Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Magneto, and yes, Dr. Doom (the real Dr. Doom, not the prissy rich boy imposter in that crappy movie).

 

[GL1]

No, they do not make sense. What would make sense is not calling the film "The Flash" because they obviously have no interest in making a real Flash film. If they want to make a quick buck off a comedy superhero film, they can go make up an original property. Fu*king with an existing one makes no sense, especially since the name "The Flash" will not fill seats. Hell, they should know they won't make a quick buck anyway: go look up the numbers on Batman & Robin. In the long run, they're screwing themselves out of even more money than that, because when this film fails, they won't try again. Unlike Superman and Batman, who will make money on name alone, they will not see a Flash reboot as financially viable. This film will kill any hope of a decent Flash film for twenty years. A well-done, Spider-Man-esque Flash film, however, would result in good box office returns and sequels which would also have good box office returns.

You're blinding yourself to the simple logic of a businessman, apparently because you know that your way would be better. Flash will fill as many seats as Ghost Rider or Blade. It's not a direct translation of the installed fanbase at all. Obviously, they aren't thinking about reboots in twenty years (they'll be retired) and they certainly aren't comparing it to the built-for-empathy, massive-installed-fanbase Spider-Man. From a businessman's perspective, those two aspects are what make Raimi-Spidey work, finance-wise.

It's possible that the magic of "doing comics right" mystically makes a movie successful, but that's just fanboyism, and there's no scientific evidence to back that up.

This bolded statement is where your fanboyism steals you from reality... If WB wants to make a quick buck of a superhero comedy they can go make an origional property OR they can use The Flash and make two quick bucks. That's reality, even though we don't like it. Ignoring the plain logic being used is just... blind... ignorant. "Everyone who doesn't do what I want them to is making a mistake..." does that thining make you feel better or something? You do realize that someone else's best interests can be contrary to your desires, right?

And yet you says "X is successful" over and over. Here's a secret tip: success is unquantifiable and subjective, just like "good" and "bad."

Goal of movie: To Make money.
Did It turn a profit: Yes.

Goal reached.

Goal of Movie: To entertain
Did it entertain some people: Yes

Goal reached.

Nothing subjective about that.

I would just give up Saint. I agree with everything you said but I guess he wants his opinion on good and bad to be the truth.

I've stated my opinion and goals plainly multiple times... if you're "guessing" then you're just not reading. It's okay, I'm used to having my points ignored.

But for those who ARE reading, now that we've established what WB might be thinking by putting a comedy director onto The Flash, considered a trickster-style hero nowadays, what are the chances of us getting a good Flash movie?

Is Shawn Levy immune to the human tendency to improve a skill with time? Perhaps he was born retarted and simply has zero chance of getting better, or perhaps his potential for growth is limited because his mother dropped him on his head and any dramatic improvement in anything will kill him instantly... (There was quite a scare when he learned to play the cello in middle school).

 

[Saint]

It's possible that the magic of "doing comics right" mystically makes a movie successful, but that's just fanboyism, and there's no scientific evidence to back that up.

We've been over this: I don't care if it's financially successful. It can make zero dollars, as far as I'm concerned, so long as I enjoy it.

This bolded statement is where your fanboyism steals you from reality... If WB wants to make a quick buck of a superhero comedy they can go make an origional property OR they can use The Flash and make two quick bucks.

By that logic, they could make even more money by making their crappy No-Name Superhero Comedy and a quality Flash film.

That's reality, even though we don't like it. Ignoring the plain logic being used is just... blind... ignorant. "Everyone who doesn't do what I want them to is making a mistake..." does that thining make you feel better or something?

No, it makes me honest. I don't care about WB's financial returns, and I don't care about your enjoyment of the film, As such, when WB makes a decision I don't like, it's the wrong decision, period. There is no room for negotiation.

You do realize that someone else's best interests can be contrary to your desires, right?

Yes, and I don't care. We are not talking about a person's well-being or health, or any situation where it would be appropriate to care about the interests of someone else. We're talking about a film, and when it comes to film the only interests that matter are mine.

Goal of movie: To Make money.
Did It turn a profit: Yes.

Goal reached.

Goal of Movie: To entertain
Did it entertain some people: Yes

Goal reached.

Nothing subjective about that.

Ha! You just illustrated that it is subjective (hint: look up definition of subjective) because different people define success differently. And hell, your examples don't even capture the extent to which it is subjective: how many people does it have to entertain to be successful? How much does it have to make? Does another executive think it has to make more than the first executive? Does Joe Blow think it needs X amount of explosions? Does Jack Blow think it needs more? In any case, thanks for proving that yes, success is subjective.

considered a trickster-style hero nowadays

The Flash is not considered a "trickster-style" hero. Go buy a Flash comic.

 

[Katsuro]

It's possible that the magic of "doing comics right" mystically makes a movie successful, but that's just fanboyism, and there's no scientific evidence to back that up.

The comics are successful for a reason, aren't they? There's obviously something about the comics that people love, so it's only logical to assume if the movie stays faithful, people will probably love it too.

 

[dnno1]

The comics are successful for a reason, aren't they? There's obviously something about the comics that people love, so it's only logical to assume if the movie stays faithful, people will probably love it too.

The thing about that is that there aren't enough people who buy the comics that can pay for even an $80 million major motion picture. It's going to take more than staying faithful to the comics to make the film even worthy of producing. It's going to take an audience -- an audience that contains a lot of viewers who more than likely haven't read the comics and maybe even not know who The Flash is (today or even yesterday). This means that they may need to add elements to the script and production that will attract them. Sticking with the souce material will only make it easier to write the storyline, but it is going to take more than that to fill the seats and keep them coming.

 

[Saint]

The thing about that is that there aren't enough people who buy the comics that can pay for even an $80 million major motion picture. It's going to take more than staying faithful to the comics to make the film even worthy of producing. It's going to take an audience -- an audience that contains a lot of viewers who more than likely haven't read the comics and maybe even not know who The Flash is (today or even yesterday). This means that they may need to add elements to the script and production that will attract them. Sticking with the souce material will only make it easier to write the storyline, but it is going to take more than that to fill the seats and keep them coming.

Unfortunately, none of that requires the film to be directed by a generic comedy director, or for it to become a useless fluff film. You may notice that the most successful comic book films are those that treat their source material seriously, whether they make changes or not.

 

[dnno1]

Haha! You must be joking. I can't fathom anyone actually believing something so ridiculous. If the audience doesn't like your villain, then the villain is a failure. That's true of every character, in every medium, ever. Yeah, you can "hate" the villain because he's so evil, but the bottom line becomes if you don't really like the character, he's not effective. The most popular villains of all time are popular because people love them. Darth Vader, the Joker, Hannibal Lecter, Magneto, and yes, Dr. Doom (the real Dr. Doom, not the prissy rich boy imposter in that crappy movie).

I can barely fathom you, but if you try to look around you will find that there are some people who did like the costume. I understand that Dr. Doom will be in the sequel so the point is moot anyway.

 

[Saint]

I can barely fathom you, but if you try to look around you will find that there are some people who did like the costume.

What does the costume have to do with it? That he had an awesome costume (and he did) has nothing to do with any point I have made about him, ever. The nice costume doesn't change the utter character ruination they bestowed upon him.

I understand that Dr. Doom will be in the sequel so the point is moot anyway.

I don't see how putting him in the sequel makes any of my points moot. Crappy stuff endures all the time (just look at Smallville).

 

[dnno1]

The comics have NOT done something so drastic as to completely change Doom's personality, background, abilities, and power levels

Last I checked there have been at least 9 different versions of the Doom character in the comics. I don't think you are being truthful here.

Do you even know what you're talking about? A sample of 5 people (or 16, big difference) is USELESS for making conclusions about a large number of people (like what American moviegoers thought about a certain movie)...

There weren't many reviews PERIOD. 16 people posted in total. SIXTEEN. That's nothing. That's more evidence that people didn't care to spend their time to write a review...

This is done all the time. It would be very costly to sample the total population so in many cases a check of a small sample (at least 5) can give you an idea if some thing is wrong and deserves further investigation. I think this is called statistical process control. In the case of the film review in question, you can see that out of 16 posts, only one was negative which is in contrast to the seemingly dubious review of the film. To me that indicates that something might be wrong with the review and further investigation is needed. Looking at the box office results for the film confirms that the negative review(s) of the film are suspect and more than likely an untrue representation of reality. Now you know.

Of course artistic success is subjective. However, there ARE commonly shared opinions on what makes a good film. You see it showing up in the general consensus of critics and moviegoers who rate a movie.

Critics are not always right. I think that it has been proven in this thread alone. It is dumb to think that a (subjective)sample of what 100 paid film critics think about a film would represent what the general or target audience would think about a particular film. It's just plain dumb. Those people don't know what you or I like so how can they speak for us or even a consensus of moviegoers? To belive that as the case would equate to beliveing in an athoritarian society where a small group of people tell you what you should and should not see or do. That isn't right.

 

[dnno1]

What does the costume have to do with it? That he had an awesome costume (and he did) has nothing to do with any point I have made about him, ever. The nice costume doesn't change the utter character ruination they bestowed upon him.


I don't see how putting him in the sequel makes any of my points moot. Crappy stuff endures all the time (just look at Smallville).

The first film was a success. Successful enough to warrant a sequel. Doctor Doom will (allegedly) be in the sequel. Like it or not, that is where we stand. My bet is that the sequel will be even more successful. I don't think this discussion is going to change anything about the films.

 

[Saint]

Last I checked there have been at least 9 different versions of the Doom character in the comics. I don't think you are being truthful here.

Not technically correct. Since Marvel doesn't do broad continuity reboots, there have really only been two in-continuity versions of Doom: the original, and the "Heroes Reborn" version, who was simply the original version temporarily transported to a pocket universe.

Yes, there's Ultimate Doom, Doom 2099, and plenty of other Dooms from mini-series, events, possible futures and so on, but these instances are not in continuity, and thus do not matter. They are irrelevant, short-lived off-shoots in most cases, and are not the material being adapted by the filmmakers.

 

[dnno1]

Unfortunately, none of that requires the film to be directed by a generic comedy director, or for it to become a useless fluff film. You may notice that the most successful comic book films are those that treat their source material seriously, whether they make changes or not.

When this guy was in college, I am pretty sure he didn't just study comedy. I am sure he knows how to direct action and drama because he has it on his resume. Your insinuation that he is just a generic comedy director is just flat out wrong and not trully stating the facts here. The true fact of the matter is that the man makes money with his films regardless of the budget he's given. If I had to stick my neck out and risk some money on the production of a film I would certainly go with him knowing his track record.

 

[Saint]

The first film was a success. Successful enough to warrant a sequel.

I have explained many times that I care about my enjoyment, not success. Success or not, it was trash. It just so happens that lots and lots of people are willing to watch trash.

Doctor Doom will (allegedly) be in the sequel. Like it or not, that is where we stand. My bet is that the sequel will be even more successful. I don't think this discussion is going to change anything about the films.

I have not been posting to change anything, I have been posting to argue my point to those present. That point is my distaste for the ridiculous attitude that these films should be reduced to generic, unfaithful trash for the sake of the general audience. It's stupid, and it's unnecessary. Plenty of comic book films have illustrated that well-directed, well-scripted, tonally accurate adaptations that are faithful (at least in spirit) are financially viable, and oftentimes do far better than the alternative. To be more specific, I refuse the idea that Dr. Doom must be a prissy rich boy, that The Flash must be a fluffy kid's film, and that Fantastic Four has to be a generic turd in order for these films to be successful.

 

[dnno1]

Not technically correct. Since Marvel doesn't do broad continuity reboots, there have really only been two in-continuity versions of Doom: the original, and the "Heroes Reborn" version, who was simply the original version temporarily transported to a pocket universe.

Yes, there's Ultimate Doom, Doom 2099, and plenty of other Dooms from mini-series, events, possible futures and so on, but these instances are not in continuity, and thus do not matter. They are irrelevant, short-lived off-shoots in most cases, and are not the material being adapted by the filmmakers.

See Wikipedia.org. They list at least 9 alternate versions of the character. Although not all of them are cannon, neither were the films. If you are going to consider the FF (2005) Dr. Doom as an alternate version, then you will have to consider those as well.

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

I wish these studio guys had your brain Saint.

 

[dnno1]

I have explained many times that I care about my enjoyment, not success. Success or not, it was trash. It just so happens that lots and lots of people are willing to watch trash.


I have not been posting to change anything, I have been posting to argue my point to those present. That point is my distaste for the ridiculous attitude that these films should be reduced to generic, unfaithful trash for the sake of the general audience. It's stupid, and it's unnecessary. Plenty of comic book films have illustrated that well-directed, well-scripted, tonally accurate adaptations that are faithful (at least in spirit) are financially viable, and oftentimes do far better than the alternative. To be more specific, I refuse the idea that Dr. Doom must be a prissy rich boy, that The Flash must be a fluffy kid's film, and that Fantastic Four has to be a generic turd in order for these films to be successful.

Like I said before, it's too late for that. The sequel is almost in the can and ready for shipping. Your opinion is hardly going to change that.