Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Thundercrack85]

I never got the appeal of Fantastic Four. Some of the individual characters were kind of interesting. But overall, I couldn't care less about the movies. I do get the appeal of Green Lantern... and it was still a very bad movie.

 

[Lily Adler]

I watched FF for Chris Evans. He's hot and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

 

[chiefchirpa]

If that were the case, then Pixar would have gone out of business a long time ago and Avatar would have bombed at the Box-Office (cuz all the film revolved around was SFX/CGI).

Green Lantern doesn't to have go through the trenches to gain acceptence.

Pixar made animated film stories usually geared for children. Avatar, actually a mediocre film, was sold by its heavy budget director who made the film feel like a complete package. The most important thing is GL doesn't have the same quality to Pixar films and Avatar. It's still easier to sell realistic films than fantasy films.

My merit? Hardly.

The acting in Iron Man 2 was scattered like a disassembled puzzle and outside RDJ/Gwyneth (I'll make the exception for Rockwell since he was only on-screen for 5-6 minutes) the performances were unstimulating and vapid. Rourke, Johansson and Cheadle were as vanilla as it got. There was nothing there. Zlich.

Green Lantern, at the very least, had the collective acting aspect down. It didn't feel like a one or two man show with the rest of the cast putting in a minimal effort with the end result feeling like the performances were from an unrelated film. Like it or not, that is my opinion

I don't get what collective acting means. Worse acting performance (than what's in IM2) is worse acting performance/ I believe you're trying to window dress GL for yourself and justify its existence as one of your okay movies. Of course it's your opinion and I will not say it's wrong. But your opinion is different from the majority here or anywhere else who would say that IM2, far from a stellar film it is, have better acting performance than GL.

I suggest you watch Hick and Savages this year. She picked two very interesting scripts. It's yet to be seen if her acting will be memorable but we'll see.

I haven't watched I Bought a Zoo yet.

Did I state that Lively was the better actor? No.

My statement was that I found both (ScarJo and Lively) on the same level based on the one performance each that I found commendable.

Point? Johansson still brought virtually nothing to her role in IM2. She was just eye-candy -- that was her sole purpose in that film.

Why do you suggest watching those two yet to be released movies? Are they any good? Sorry they're not on my radar..

Johansson was a side character. Lively is a lead actress and should have bigger responsibility in the film. Yet Johansson kicking ass in the last moment of IM2 and her first entrance when RDJ is boxing with Favreau are more memorable to movie audiences than the whole scene with Blake Lively in GL.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think the Fantastic Four comparison is very fair for GL. I would not put it on the same level of bad as Catwoman, Elektra, and Ghost Rider 2. It's worse than Wolverine IMO, Wolverine was bad but far more entertaining.

 

[roach]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it

 

[craigdbfan]

Amen.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I watched FF for Chris Evans. He's hot and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

Fantastic Four had some pretty decent actors in it, and some pretty decent chemistry but the leads were too weak. Especially Reed. They never made him seem capable which brought down the whole movie. They focused too hard on making him nerdy and oblivious. I think some of what they did was very good, I even like the Reed bachelor party scene, but his general patheticness just highlighted how silly he was...which killed the point of that scene IMO. Then to top it off they never sold that Reed-Victor rivalry. That whole relationship was DOA.

 

[Boom]

Wolverine was a cinematic abortion.

 

[roach]

there was nothing as atrocious in GL as the mind wiping adamantium bullet...in fact the whole Wolverine script was stupid combined with craziness wrapped in dumb

 

[craigdbfan]

GL is slightly better than Wolverine and I mean very slightly. Like a fraction level of slightly.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it

I dunno. I like Hugh Jackman too much in that role to completely hate it. Plus it's very unintentionally satirical. The whole thing is like a parody of an action film.

The whole time I was watch GL, from frame one I was like "omg wtf am I watching".

For me Liev Schrieber and Jackman do make that movie watchable. A great hero villain rivalry wrapped in a really silly popcorn flick.

 

[craigdbfan]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie.

Poor guy can't catch a break.

 

[BestGirl]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie.

Poor guy can't catch a break.

But his Wade Wilson was probably the most loved aspect of the movie, so he's got that going for him.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie.

Poor guy can't catch a break.

I think Reynolds is a match made in heaven for Deadpool. Other than his acting style, RR is:
a) a fan of Deadpool
b) Canadian like Wade.

The best DC role for Reynolds is Wally West. But DC didn't have a long-term time table so it picked any popular actor for any film it got at the time.

 

[CConn]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it

You what's funny?

The Wolverine video game - even simply story wise - was awesome. It was almost a perfect vehicle and story to showcase Wolverine as a character. I played it all the way through before seeing the movie, and it made me ridiculously excited to see what thy were going to do with it.

Then I actually saw the movie, and saw how they gutted 60% of the story that made the game worthwhile and reduced the entire film to a few cluttered scenes haphazardly thrown together and called a movie.

That's the real shame; if they had made it 30-40 minutes longer, it could've been pretty good.

 

[CConn]

I never got the appeal of Fantastic Four. Some of the individual characters were kind of interesting. But overall, I couldn't care less about the movies. I do get the appeal of Green Lantern... and it was still a very bad movie.

The pull for the FF is the character interaction and classic sci-fi focus on the adventure and mystery in exploring the unknown reaches of science.

 

[chiefchirpa]

GL is slightly better than Wolverine and I mean very slightly. Like a fraction level of slightly.

Wolverine biggest hole is the crappy "made by Fox, to hell with you comicbook readers" script. Acting-wise Wolverine is superior than Green Lantern.

 

[T"Challa]

Wolverine made me want to cry. The sad thing is , jackman nailed the character IMO..positively nailed it. He got dealt the worst card ever with that script. And Reynolds was put on this earth to play deadpool..(maybe Wally West too, but thats for another day). I hope the sequel is much better.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Pixar made animated film stories usually geared for children. Avatar, actually a mediocre film, was sold by its heavy budget director who made the film feel like a complete package. The most important thing is GL doesn't have the same quality to Pixar films and Avatar. It's still easier to sell realistic films than fantasy films.

Please provide evidence that 'realistic' films are easier to market than fantasy-based films. That's like saying Act of Valor is more simplistic to promote than The Avengers or Star Wars.

Pixar films were geared towards children, and yet thrived under the teenage/young adult demographic. The same demographic that CBMs thrive under.

I don't get what collective acting means. Worse acting performance (than what's in IM2) is worse acting performance/ I believe you're trying to window dress GL for yourself and justify its existence as one of your okay movies. Of course it's your opinion and I will not say it's wrong. But your opinion is different from the majority here or anywhere else who would say that IM2, far from a stellar film it is, have better acting performance than GL.

I'm starting to believe that you possess reading comprehension issues.

I've stated numerous times on this thread (and others) that Green Lantern was a subpar/low-tier film. I am not trying to justify anything as 'okay' (status-wise). However, while the acting in GL wasn't prestigious and more impressive than IM2, it was still more cohesive than Iron Man 2's ensemble cast.

Why do you suggest watching those two yet to be released movies? Are they any good? Sorry they're not on my radar..

Those films will have a strong cast, especially Savages. If she has any talent, we'll see. She's going to either sink or swim.

Johansson was a side character. Lively is a lead actress and should have bigger responsibility in the film. Yet Johansson kicking ass in the last moment of IM2 and her first entrance when RDJ is boxing with Favreau are more memorable to movie audiences than the whole scene with Blake Lively in GL.

'Kicking ass' and looking good have nothing to do with acting.

Furthermore, Rockwell was on-screen for possibly six minutes, and yet his performance overshadows anything that ScarJo presented.

 

[roach]

You what's funny?

The Wolverine video game - even simply story wise - was awesome. It was almost a perfect vehicle and story to showcase Wolverine as a character. I played it all the way through before seeing the movie, and it made me ridiculously excited to see what thy were going to do with it.

Then I actually saw the movie, and saw how they gutted 60% of the story that made the game worthwhile and reduced the entire film to a few cluttered scenes haphazardly thrown together and called a movie.

That's the real shame; if they had made it 30-40 minutes longer, it could've been pretty good.

"How are we gonna convince a person with hyper senses like hearing and smell that his girlfriend is dead?"
"Eh just cover her in blood...don't even bother making cuts on her...tell her to hold her breath really long."
"That makes no sense...he's still gonna come after us."
"Don't worry if I shoot him in the head with this bullet he'll forget everything."
"Wait what?"

 

[chiefchirpa]

Please provide evidence that 'realistic' films are easier to market than fantasy-based films. That's like saying Act of Valor is more simplistic to promote than The Avengers or Star Wars.

Pixar films were geared towards children, and yet thrived under the teenage/young adult demographic. The same demographic that CBMs thrive under.

Actually Act of Valor will have an easier time to market than Avengers (need a string of member films for the average people to get interested) and Star Wars (1977 WOM to scifi fantasy starved people)

However, while the acting in GL wasn't prestigious and more impressive than IM2, it was still more cohesive than Iron Man 2's ensemble cast.

This is where we have our differences. You have a glass filter called "Lifetime DC Comics fan membership" to distort reality which a film so bashed by critics on some of its acting performances to become better than what it really is. I am not the only who's saying it that GL acting performances are nothing worth to note. Almost everyone said it here, do you agree?

If you choose to be "unique", suit yourself.

Those films will have a strong cast, especially Savages. If she has any talent, we'll see. She's going to either sink or swim.

Don't care about Savages. Wake me up when there's any good review about the film.

Tell me you just IMDB'ed the film because you're trying to defend Blake Lively.

'Kicking ass' and looking good have nothing to do with acting.

Furthermore, Rockwell was on-screen for possibly six minutes, and yet his performance overshadows anything that ScarJo presented.

Scarjo was also in IM2 for around six minutes. What is your point? That she was a very important cast in IM2 that she had 20 minutes or so screen time like Lively in GL? Scarjo and SLJ are cast placement for the Avengers. While Rockwell acted as RDJ's primary business competition. Rockwell was doing a more important role than Scarlet Johansson.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Actually Act of Valor will have an easier time to market than Avengers (need a string of member films for the average people to get interested) and Star Wars (1977 WOM to scifi fantasy starved people)

That wasn't the point. I didn't state what was needed to promote these films. Quite simply, films such as The Avengers, Toy Story, Alien, and Star Wars are not more difficult to promote than films like Public Enemies, Miami Vice, Se7en, and Act of Valor.

This is where we have our differences. You have a glass filter called "Lifetime DC Comics fan membership" to distort reality which a film so bashed by critics on some of its acting performances to become better than what it really is. I am not the only who's saying it that GL acting performances are nothing worth to note. Almost everyone said it here, do you agree?

Wow, I stand by my statement. You really have issues understanding what people write.

If you choose to be "unique", suit yourself.

Is that the word?

Don't care about Savages. Wake me up when there's any good review about the film.

Tell me you just IMDB'ed the film because you're trying to defend Blake Lively.

Oh yes, I'm a huge Lively supporter... even though I've said (about three times now) that I don't view Blake as a credible actor.

I'm an Oliver Stone fan. I follow his work, but I'm sure you don't care. Your little swipe wasn't about Lively.

ScarJo was also in IM2 for around six minutes. What is your point? That she was a very important cast in IM2 that she had 20 minutes or so screen time like Lively in GL? Scarjo and SLJ are cast placement for the Avengers. While Rockwell acted as RDJ's primary business competition. Rockwell was doing a more important role than Scarlet Johansson.

Let's see, what have I been discussing for 3-4 pages now? Hmmmmm... oh! That ScarJo is a mediocre actress on par with Lively, as of late, in my personal opinion.

Well, she was casted as Black Widow (an apparent Avenger). I would assume that's a big deal, but that's just my line of thinking.

 

[chiefchirpa]

That wasn't the point. I didn't state what was needed to promote these films. Quite simply, films such as The Avengers, Toy Story, Alien, and Star Wars are not more difficult to promote than films like Public Enemies, Miami Vice, Se7en, and Act of Valor.

Well of course it is. Act of Valor could just have that single ad with that blaring music and people would see that so-called "marines with guns" movie, no explanations given. Avengers got that string of solo films so people will be more acquainted to what it is about. It's not about marketing to the comic book people, but to the average people who usually don't give a damn to fantasy/comic book/sci-fi stuff.

Oh yes, I'm a huge Lively supporter... even though I've said (about three times now) that I don't view Blake as a credible actor.

I'm an Oliver Stone fan. I follow his work, but I'm sure you don't care. Your little swipe wasn't about Lively.

Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.

I see movies for what they are. Trailers might catch my eye but WOM + reviews are the ones who pull me. I'm not a director's fanboy, actor's fanboy, company's fanboy and I don't waste time researching IMDB on upcoming films. I do like comicbook films so yeah I don't follow Oliver Stone whose last film, Wall Street 2, never bother to watch.

Let's see, what have I been discussing for 3-4 pages now? Hmmmmm... oh! That ScarJo is a mediocre actress on par with Lively, as of late, in my personal opinion.

Well, she was casted as Black Widow (an apparent Avenger). I would assume that's a big deal, but that's just my line of thinking.

Not a big deal during IM2 when Avengers is still a working project. She was a bit more than a cameo. Avengers wasn't that big and certainly Widow wasn't that obvious will be in the Avengers movie. With IM2 having War Machine as another heroic role, Black Widow's screen time should have been limited.

Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Well of course it is. Act of Valor could just have that single ad with that blaring music and people would see that so-called "marines with guns" movie, no explanations given. Avengers got that string of solo films so people will be more acquainted to what it is about. It's not about marketing to the comic book people, but to the average people who usually don't give a damn to fantasy/comic book/sci-fi stuff.

De facto, your argument holds little to no ground at all. Realistic films rarely outgross CB/Sci-Fi/Pixar/Mythology films, and it's not because of ingenious marketing schemes. It's because the general audience gravitates to these genres.

Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.

I see movies for what they are. Trailers might catch my eye but WOM + reviews are the ones who pull me. I'm not a director's fanboy, actor's fanboy, company's fanboy and I don't waste time researching IMDB on upcoming films. I do like comicbook films so yeah I don't follow Oliver Stone whose last film, Wall Street 2, never bother to watch.

No one is trying to make this a DC vs Marvel fanboy debate except you, so please, just stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't care what you are, and what you're a fan of or follow, but I'm a fan of cinema. So yes, from to time, I'll follow my favorite directors and actors to see what type of new projects they're creating and/or attached to.

The hypocrisy is mind-blogging.

Not a big deal during IM2 when Avengers is still a working project. She was a bit more than a cameo. Avengers wasn't that big and certainly Widow wasn't that obvious will be in the Avengers movie. With IM2 having War Machine as another heroic role, Black Widow's screen time should have been limited.

Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.

That's a seldom excuse. Black Widow is still an Avenger and Scarlett Johansson's name was billed in Iron Man 2. Imagine that.

It's cute that you believe that 10-15 more minutes for ScarJo's character would have made an immense or significant difference when, in fact, it wouldn't -- unless you consider three more scenes of her speaking no more than five words in latex or performing Lucha Libre stunts as stellar acting.

 

[Micromind]

Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.

Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.

The Irony.

You are a Marvel fan, admit it.