I have absolutely zero interest in the Flash movie, specifically because of this reason. Had they done a movie with the actors from the series, I would have watched it. Using the IP in this manner, is nothing more than a cash-grab by the studio, not the desire to put out a good film (which could have been achieved with the series actors) so I refuse to fall for it like some rube buying snakeoil at the county-fair...
I have absolutely zero interest in the Flash movie, specifically because of this reason. Had they done a movie with the actors from the series, I would have watched it. Using the IP in this manner, is nothing more than a cash-grab by the studio, not the desire to put out a good film (which could have been achieved with the series actors) so I refuse to fall for it like some rube buying snakeoil at the county-fair...
The whole "money grab" thing is pretty much a red herring. They are doing the movies, the comics and the TV shows to make money. It's a meaningless complaint.
I like the idea of one consistent universe.
But I can also see the appeal of not having to do that, and telling the kind of stories you want to tell in your show/movie that you want to tell, without needing to worry about some other show or movie. There is nothing inherently "money-grabby" about that - it's just about the kind of creative freedom and limitations you want to accept. DC has decided that the movie verse will be one continuity, and the TV shows will be seperate from that. That's okay, it's not inherently troublesome.
That they try to fast-forward the whole DC setting in their movie continuity - that might prove troublesome. Batman v Superman was not very approachable to people that don't know the setting that well. An "old" Batman without an origin story can work, IMO, the character is familiar enough. But all the weirdo darkseid knightmare related stuff and sudden time jump flashes and what not - that's too much. I didn't understand any of that during the movie, and overall the movies plot was a mess of sequences that didn't all seem to fit together to a real story.
Pretty much all the Marvel movies manage to tell their story better, without requiring me to recognize all that exotic stuff. The Sony Marvel-based stuff managed to do that better most of the time.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I have absolutely zero interest in the Flash movie, specifically because of this reason. Had they done a movie with the actors from the series, I would have watched it. Using the IP in this manner, is nothing more than a cash-grab by the studio, not the desire to put out a good film (which could have been achieved with the series actors) so I refuse to fall for it like some rube buying snakeoil at the county-fair...
The whole "money grab" thing is pretty much a red herring. They are doing the movies, the comics and the TV shows to make money. It's a meaningless complaint.
I like the idea of one consistent universe.
But I can also see the appeal of not having to do that, and telling the kind of stories you want to tell in your show/movie that you want to tell, without needing to worry about some other show or movie. There is nothing inherently "money-grabby" about that - it's just about the kind of creative freedom and limitations you want to accept. DC has decided that the movie verse will be one continuity, and the TV shows will be seperate from that. That's okay, it's not inherently troublesome.
That they try to fast-forward the whole DC setting in their movie continuity - that might prove troublesome. Batman v Superman was not very approachable to people that don't know the setting that well. An "old" Batman without an origin story can work, IMO, the character is familiar enough. But all the weirdo darkseid knightmare related stuff and sudden time jump flashes and what not - that's too much. I didn't understand any of that during the movie, and overall the movies plot was a mess of sequences that didn't all seem to fit together to a real story.
Pretty much all the Marvel movies manage to tell their story better, without requiring me to recognize all that exotic stuff. The Sony Marvel-based stuff managed to do that better most of the time.
This is where the ideology of film-making really comes into the discussion... Are they making movies to entertain, out of a love of film-making, or are they literally, only doing it to make $$s? I accept that studios (like any business) make money out of what they do, said money gets reinvested in making more movies and keeping people entertained, but to literally only be in the business to make money, on a personal level, I find that distasteful, and an insult to any film-maker who does so out of a desire to tell a story and for people to enjoy it (or any other artist, who produces out of a love of their craft)
Then they should tell their own stories, but with their own Verse and characters, rather than relying on the goodwill of existing fans or love of a character/franchise to simply get 'bums on seats'... Defiance, for example, I found significantly more enjoyable than Enterprise, for the very reason that it was something new... Or the amount of Spiderman movies being made... I quite enjoyed the Tobey Maguire ones, but I never really bought him in the role. IMHO, Andrew Garfield captured the character better, to how I thought of Spiderman, but how many times do they need to re-tell the same story just to get $$s? Same with Flash, hence why I call it a cash-grab. If they were to use the cast from the series, they could just get on with telling a story which they might not have the scope to tell in a 45 minute episode. By using a new cast, that's not only giving the finger to the existing cast, effectively saying that they aren't good enough, it's also pointlessly bogging the film down with the need to explain who's who and any relevent origin. That can take up at least a third of the film, if not the whole film, with the character 'taking up the mantle' just as the credits run, meaning a second film is needed, just to tell the story they wanted to tell in the first place... Two movies = more $$s than one movie...
It would be like them doing a Star Trek movie, and re-casting each known character, and introducing them to the audience for the... Oh wait, they already did that... But I hope you can see the point I'm making? If they want to make a film, fine, make a film, but make it the right way and for the right reasons, ie having a good story to tell, not just be ause it'll bring in $$s
This is where the ideology of film-making really comes into the discussion... Are they making movies to entertain, out of a love of film-making, or are they literally, only doing it to make $$s? I accept that studios (like any business) make money out of what they do, said money gets reinvested in making more movies and keeping people entertained, but to literally only be in the business to make money, on a personal level, I find that distasteful
Sure, I can understand that, but I honestly believe such persons don't really exist in sufficient measures to worry about them.
Maybe some exec really does the job in a media company only because that was the job he could get with the money he wanted. But there are so many other people there that do it because they love producing the type of stuff a media company produces, and they have "artistic" ambitions that go beyond $ bills.
I would even go so far and argue that the "just for the sake of money" complaint is a strawman. Even if someone in the upper echelon only makes hard numerical calculations, somewhere below is going to be asked to do creative things and he will have goals. Even someone that has produced notoriously bad sh*t like Uwe Boll has those.
How often do you need to retell an origin story? How often you can make money with it, and how often you come with a take that you feel is unique and worth telling. That is obviously quite subjective. But you shouldn't believe that they retold the Spiderman story again just because they thought it would make more money than a new movie. They also did it because some felt they had something to tell there, that there was something they could contribute, just like every Shakespeare production thinks they can provide something that makes it worth producing another MacBeth (and if it's just bringing something awesome to a local audience).
Personally, I didn't bother with the Garfield Spiderman movies. I didn't care for a new origin story of Spiderman. I wanted a continuation of the old, or something that felt genuinely knew.
Ironically, Spiderman might have been the one Superhero movie that even got interested me in the whole shebang of Superhero movies. Before that, I considered the whole concept to be "just for kids". I was heavily into Science Fiction of course, but Superheroes just seemed too silly and didn't feel like they had an actual story to tell. Spiderman showed me that I was wrong on the last part.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Sure, I can understand that, but I honestly believe such persons don't really exist in sufficient measures to worry about them.
Apply that mindset to KKK members, and it's still enough to be worrying There are lots of reboots/remakes being needlessly made, rather than simply making an original film, which, given they are 'revising' is essentially what they want to do, but use the trappings of the existing franchise to lure viewers, and IMHO, that's just weak...
Maybe some exec really does the job in a media company only because that was the job he could get with the money he wanted. But there are so many other people there that do it because they love producing the type of stuff a media company produces, and they have "artistic" ambitions that go beyond $ bills. I would even go so far and argue that the "just for the sake of money" complaint is a strawman. Even if someone in the upper echelon only makes hard numerical calculations, somewhere below is going to be asked to do creative things and he will have goals. Even someone that has produced notoriously bad sh*t like Uwe Boll has those.
Not really, because as I said, if they wanted to be creative, they would create their own thing, ie Defiance... It's the use of another IP and then 'making it fit but calling it a reboot' which shows their mindset... The most recent Fantastic Four, for example... If you're going to tweak that much, why bother? Why not just make their own unique movie (like Watchmen, for example) For the simple reason that they know it'll get bums on seats, and $$s in their bank...
How often do you need to retell an origin story? How often you can make money with it, and how often you come with a take that you feel is unique and worth telling. That is obviously quite subjective. But you shouldn't believe that they retold the Spiderman story again just because they thought it would make more money than a new movie. They also did it because some felt they had something to tell there, that there was something they could contribute, just like every Shakespeare production thinks they can provide something that makes it worth producing another MacBeth (and if it's just bringing something awesome to a local audience).
My point precisely, and which I would say their attitude is; "As long as it makes money..."
Equally, the Spiderman fiasco was to do with retention of rights, so ultimately, more about money then artistic expression. As mentioned, I liked the Garfield movies, but I'm well aware of what they represented in terms of movie politics...
But do theatrical companies really think that? Do they really think that they can contribute something in the way of a new twist, or do they just think "What shows do folks like...?" to get bums on seats?
I can think of a couple of films I'd like to see re-made, Fahrenheit 451 and La Dolce Vita, but that would still be considerably different to the recent batch of remakes...
I guess it boils down to money. For the movie arcs I'd like to see realized, a production company would need a budget on par with LotR. And they'd have to be planned many years in advance, with the funding secured. And that doesnt happen often in the industry. So, admittedly, my expectations are probably way too high on these types of things.
As for the television iterations, honestly they all look pretty decent, I just haven't gotten around to watching them. But Id say those are easier projects, with far less expectation, and less at stake then say a feature film or LotR style trilogy. So I think its a good avenue for DC or Marvel.
I do have plans to catchup on flash and supergirl though. Just getting through DS9 first. Which is taking a while lol.
Sure, I can understand that, but I honestly believe such persons don't really exist in sufficient measures to worry about them.
Apply that mindset to KKK members, and it's still enough to be worrying There are lots of reboots/remakes being needlessly made, rather than simply making an original film, which, given they are 'revising' is essentially what they want to do, but use the trappings of the existing franchise to lure viewers, and IMHO, that's just weak...
Maybe some exec really does the job in a media company only because that was the job he could get with the money he wanted. But there are so many other people there that do it because they love producing the type of stuff a media company produces, and they have "artistic" ambitions that go beyond $ bills. I would even go so far and argue that the "just for the sake of money" complaint is a strawman. Even if someone in the upper echelon only makes hard numerical calculations, somewhere below is going to be asked to do creative things and he will have goals. Even someone that has produced notoriously bad sh*t like Uwe Boll has those.
Not really, because as I said, if they wanted to be creative, they would create their own thing, ie Defiance... It's the use of another IP and then 'making it fit but calling it a reboot' which shows their mindset...
No, it doesn't. You can be creative in a lot of ways, you don't need to create completely new story and characters for it. Creativity can be expressed in many ways.
And if you love, say, the Fantastic Four, you might just want your creativity to tell a story about those characters, in a manner that you think is the best way, with your own creative inputs - costume design, the specific plot of the movie, camera work, cuts, atmosphere.
Just because there is a bean counter somewhere that also makes sure you will earn money in the rest doesn't take away that creative aspect of the work.
Creativity is just no guarantee for quality.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Sure, I can understand that, but I honestly believe such persons don't really exist in sufficient measures to worry about them.
Apply that mindset to KKK members, and it's still enough to be worrying There are lots of reboots/remakes being needlessly made, rather than simply making an original film, which, given they are 'revising' is essentially what they want to do, but use the trappings of the existing franchise to lure viewers, and IMHO, that's just weak...
Maybe some exec really does the job in a media company only because that was the job he could get with the money he wanted. But there are so many other people there that do it because they love producing the type of stuff a media company produces, and they have "artistic" ambitions that go beyond $ bills. I would even go so far and argue that the "just for the sake of money" complaint is a strawman. Even if someone in the upper echelon only makes hard numerical calculations, somewhere below is going to be asked to do creative things and he will have goals. Even someone that has produced notoriously bad sh*t like Uwe Boll has those.
Not really, because as I said, if they wanted to be creative, they would create their own thing, ie Defiance... It's the use of another IP and then 'making it fit but calling it a reboot' which shows their mindset...
No, it doesn't. You can be creative in a lot of ways, you don't need to create completely new story and characters for it. Creativity can be expressed in many ways.
And if you love, say, the Fantastic Four, you might just want your creativity to tell a story about those characters, in a manner that you think is the best way, with your own creative inputs - costume design, the specific plot of the movie, camera work, cuts, atmosphere.
Just because there is a bean counter somewhere that also makes sure you will earn money in the rest doesn't take away that creative aspect of the work.
Creativity is just no guarantee for quality.
Absolutely, creativity can be expressed in many ways, but there is a definite difference between someone's Original Work, and their work within an Existing IP...
And yes, someone may indeed have 'something to bring to the table' in terms of idea, but that doesn't mean they have to be implemented... That doesn't mean that a re-boot/re-make has to be made... As I said with regards Spiderman, which was done simply to retain rights, not because they really wanted to put out a new/good film... I don't know if Fantastic Four was done due to rights, or because the creative team thought they 'had something to bring to the table', but look at the reactions to it... There was a lot of criticism of the concepts, because it was unnecessarily modifying the core origins 'just because', which the SJWs tried to handwave away with accusations of racism (when it actually, just sounded like 'making changes because', rather than any truly outstanding idea) and the reaction to the finished film, has been almost universally negative... It was a story which didn't need presenting as a Fantastic Four remake, and could quite easily have been done as a unique piece of work, and probably could have been done in such a way as to avoid being compared to Fantastic Four... Had it been done as an original idea, while I doubt the actual quality of the film would have been any better in terms of pacing, there certainly wouldn't've been the furore over the Storm Family dynamics...
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
And, is this the kind of garbage we can all look forward to, when Beyond comes out?
My thoughts/opinions (spoilers abound):
Ben Affleck is a pretty good Batman, and a pretty good Bruce Wayne. Michael Keaton and Christian Bale are probably ahead in my book, still... but, he's better than Val Kilmer and George Clooney. I won't bend over backwards to overhype him, but I'll also admit that I was wrong about his casting.
Gal Gadot is fine as Wonder Woman, at least for now. She honestly doesn't do much in the film, but she's fine in the parts she's in. The smile she gives during the final fight (which was an ad-lib by Gadot, who did that after researching WW) gives me hope, but let's see what she can do in her solo film.
This movie is disjointed. People online are claiming that this movie is divisive... that's true. People are also saying that you'll either love it, or hate it... totally untrue. (Don't buy other people's opinions blindly.) There's nuance in my feelings towards the movie. There were parts I really liked. There were parts I was disappointed in. There were parts I hated. This is not the worst movie ever, though.
I want to see the Ultimate Edition. if you read this, and you're one of the ones who refuse to see this in the theaters... I would quietly say to wait for the Ultimate unrated/extended cut of this film, and judge it on that. There's apparently going to be another 30 minutes to the film... and that could be huge, from a narrative flow perspective.
The trailers ruined the movie. WB, you morons. Don't put Doomsday in the trailer. Period. Shoot, I'd almost wouldn't put Wonder Woman in the trailer. I hope people lost their jobs over that.
This is, but also is not, Man of Steel 2. I did like how they weaved Bruce Wayne into the events of the first film, but I was thinking about halfway through the movie, "wow, this feels like a Batman movie, not a Superman sequel..." That feeling dissipated towards the end, but the criticism of "too much going on" in this film is valid. It's not "bad," not all of it, but it is too much.
I wanted more of Lois & Clark's relationship to develop. This was probably my biggest problem with the last film, and this film did not do much to fix that issue. They go from not knowing each other at all in the first film, to Lois holding a wedding ring at the end of this film. Very lacking... had there been more of L&C in this film, it would have felt more like a true Superman sequel.
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor is my biggest problem in this movie. He's terrible. I hope the fact that he's "Lex Luthor Jr." in the film is a trap door for future films, and I hope they use it. I kept thinking during the film that Michael Rosenbaum from Smallville would have been 1000% better.
I would have not done the Doomsday/Death of Superman ending. This felt rushed. It wasn't terribly done, but it felt rushed. This could have been it's own movie. I think the movie should have focused on Lois & Clark, Bruce/Batman & Clark/Superman, and Lex pulling the strings. You could even have Luthor create Doomsday, but have Superman shove him into space to return later (which they almost did).
The introduction of the Justice League was okay, so minor that it's easily dismissible. Given the ending, they needed to do this... but short of Wonder Woman, who was important to the film, it really doesn't matter about the rest of them. Take it or leave it, didn't matter to me. (Also, LexCorp does great logo work, LOL.)
So, in summary, I actually think the movie was pretty close to what it needed to be... which is probably the most frustrating thing about it. A little bit better dialogue, a little more character development, and a little bit better editing job... and you have a great movie. (And that's not even cutting the ending, or recasting Eisenberg.)
Again, though, if you're so stubborn as to not see the movie in theaters... I'd wait for the Ultimate Edition, and judge the movie on that.
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
Actually, I was meaning the film I won't be watching I couldn't give a rat's TRIBBLE if you enjoyed the thread or not
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally is a huge sign of maturity IMO.
Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally in a huge sign of maturity IMO.
That was my stance all along... I never said that it was a bad film, or that folks shouldn't watch it, I merely said that I knew I didn't want to watch it 'for reasons', and that the reviews were not doing anything to overcome said reasons
I'm actually pretty tolerant of stuff I don't like, what I don't like, is folks telling me that I don't know my own tastes, and that I should give stuff a try just because they like it
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
Actually, I was meaning the film I won't be watching I couldn't give a rat's TRIBBLE if you enjoyed the thread or not
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
*A fairly informed guess...
And that's fine.
Back in high school, I had to read The Scarlet Letter... but, I was a lazy high schooler, and the story/genre didn't appeal to me... so, I just read the SparkNotes to pass the tests. Did I "miss out" on the book, or the point of its assignment? Perhaps, but as I said, it didn't appeal to me... and it still doesn't. Am I wrong to think that? No.
Would I be foolish, however, to declare the book terrible? Stupid? The worst book ever written? Given that I didn't even read it... possibly, yes. I'd be treading on shaky ground, there.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
Actually, I was meaning the film I won't be watching I couldn't give a rat's TRIBBLE if you enjoyed the thread or not
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
*A fairly informed guess...
And that's fine.
Back in high school, I had to read The Scarlet Letter... but, I was a lazy high schooler, and the story/genre didn't appeal to me... so, I just read the SparkNotes to pass the tests. Did I "miss out" on the book, or the point of its assignment? Perhaps, but as I said, it didn't appeal to me... and it still doesn't. Am I wrong to think that? No.
Would I be foolish, however, to declare the book terrible? Stupid? The worst book ever written? Given that I didn't even read it... possibly, yes. I'd be treading on shaky ground, there.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
I will admit I'm not really a fan of Jesse Eisenberg. That said, I think the problem was not *necessarily* his acting, but the way they choose to "interpret" the character of Luthor. What I saw as not Luthor, it was the Joker without the makeup. I guess it is somewhat fitting to have a "joker" character in a "Batman" movie, but either way you cut it that was not "Luthor" IMO.
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
Actually, I was meaning the film I won't be watching I couldn't give a rat's TRIBBLE if you enjoyed the thread or not
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
*A fairly informed guess...
And that's fine.
Back in high school, I had to read The Scarlet Letter... but, I was a lazy high schooler, and the story/genre didn't appeal to me... so, I just read the SparkNotes to pass the tests. Did I "miss out" on the book, or the point of its assignment? Perhaps, but as I said, it didn't appeal to me... and it still doesn't. Am I wrong to think that? No.
Would I be foolish, however, to declare the book terrible? Stupid? The worst book ever written? Given that I didn't even read it... possibly, yes. I'd be treading on shaky ground, there.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
Let's be clear: a few pages ago you did liken this movie to a meal that was prepared using a dirty baseball bat. You did imply something was wrong with the movie ITSELF, just like something would be wrong with a meal prepared with something DIRTY. So, let's not act like that never happened.
Again though, being able to acknowledge that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because you are not personally interested in it is a huge sign of maturity, and that is what you did in your most recent post above. So hopefully we can stay on that level without denying what was said previously.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
I will admit I'm not really a fan of Jesse Eisenberg. That said, I think the problem was not *necessarily* his acting, but the way they choose to "interpret" the character of Luthor. What I saw as not Luthor, it was the Joker without the makeup. I guess it is somewhat fitting to have a "joker" character in a "Batman" movie, but either way you cut it that was not "Luthor" IMO.
Right, I can see that... there was a rumor floating around that Eisenberg actually tried out to be The Riddler, but that changed in the story, so he chose to play Luthor like that. I don't know if I buy that, mind you... and I would have hated that characterization as The Riddler, too.
I blame Snyder, ultimately... he should have been the one to tell him to tone it down. That's what directors are supposed to do.
It almost worked, though... he was hitting more "sinister" notes on the helipad with Superman, when he's blackmailing him... but, even then, I was still thinking Michael Rosenbaum (and his Luthor) would have been better.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
I will admit I'm not really a fan of Jesse Eisenberg. That said, I think the problem was not *necessarily* his acting, but the way they choose to "interpret" the character of Luthor. What I saw as not Luthor, it was the Joker without the makeup. I guess it is somewhat fitting to have a "joker" character in a "Batman" movie, but either way you cut it that was not "Luthor" IMO.
Right, I can see that... there was a rumor floating around that Eisenberg actually tried out to be The Riddler, but that changed in the story, so he chose to play Luthor like that. I don't know if I buy that, mind you... and I would have hated that characterization as The Riddler, too.
I blame Snyder, ultimately... he should have been the one to tell him to tone it down. That's what directors are supposed to do.
It almost worked, though... he was hitting more "sinister" notes on the helipad with Superman, when he's blackmailing him... but, even then, I was still thinking Michael Rosenbaum (and his Luthor) would have been better.
If we're dreaming, my perfect Batman for *this* story, which was about an older Batman, would have been Josh Brolin:
My perfect Luthor would have been either Bryan Cranston or Peter Weller. Coincidentally, Peter Weller voiced Batman in TDKR animated movie.
I would have not done the Doomsday/Death of Superman ending. This felt rushed. It wasn't terribly done, but it felt rushed. This could have been it's own movie. I think the movie should have focused on Lois & Clark, Bruce/Batman & Clark/Superman, and Lex pulling the strings. You could even have Luthor create Doomsday, but have Superman shove him into space to return later (which they almost did).
This is actually something which concerned me about the movie ever since they announced Luthor as an antagonist. For the record, I loved The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - I thought it could even challenge Spider-Man 2 as the best Spidey film so far - but I had the same problem with it as you mention above with regards to Doomsday: (WARNING: Spoilers!) the fight with Green Goblin at the end was completely unnecessary, as was killing off Gwen Stacey. I have no problem with introducing him in that film, but it seemed as though the battle and Gwen's death were there just for the sake of it. It takes up 10 minutes of film which could have been used for, say, the deleted scene with Richard Parker. And, ultimately, it added very little to the film.
It feels like Sony did it so they could cast a Mary Jane for TASM 3 without 'fans' being able to backlash because the actress wasn't 'pretty enough'. There was no reason MJ couldn't have been in the film with Gwen as a supporting character, with the third film giving full attention to Green Goblin and Gwen's death (which appears to have been the original plan).
Anyway, back on topic, I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge it. I'll probably pick it up on DVD at some point, since I usually only do one summer film and one winter film a year, and CA: Civil War has taken my summer slot this year. Still, I'll reserve judgement on BvS until I've watched it.
So, I've gotten through Page 4 of this thread, and it's at least 50% full of people's opinions who didn't even see the movie (at the time of the posts through Page 4, at least... benefit of the doubt). I'll read through the next 3 pages once I'm done, but I'll get my thoughts out now... since, you know, I actually saw the movie...
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
Actually, I was meaning the film I won't be watching I couldn't give a rat's TRIBBLE if you enjoyed the thread or not
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
*A fairly informed guess...
And that's fine.
Back in high school, I had to read The Scarlet Letter... but, I was a lazy high schooler, and the story/genre didn't appeal to me... so, I just read the SparkNotes to pass the tests. Did I "miss out" on the book, or the point of its assignment? Perhaps, but as I said, it didn't appeal to me... and it still doesn't. Am I wrong to think that? No.
Would I be foolish, however, to declare the book terrible? Stupid? The worst book ever written? Given that I didn't even read it... possibly, yes. I'd be treading on shaky ground, there.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
Let's be clear: a few pages ago you did liken this movie to a meal that was prepared using a dirty baseball bat. You did imply something was wrong with the movie ITSELF, just like something would be wrong with a meal prepared with something DIRTY. So, let's not act like that never happened.
Again though, being able to acknowledge that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because you are not personally interested in it is a huge sign of maturity, and that is what you did in your most recent post above. So hopefully we can stay on that level without denying what was said previously.
Noo, I believe I said that the reviews had said that there were some significant issues on a technical level of how the film was paced and put together, which I did indeed equate with a dirty baseball bat, ie using the wrong tool for the wrong job and making a complete pig's ear of it... So no, I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself... And as I said with regard the tenderisation of a steak with a dirty baseball bat and then taking a blowtorch to it, some folks may indeed still want to eat it (arguably, the flame would sterilize the surface, and the result would probably be a fairly rare steak with a charred exterior... Not to everyone's taste, but still edible, and still something someone may choose to eat) That is the impression I get of BvS from the reviews: That Snyder went on a mad ego-trip, and wound up making a badly plotted movie (but which some folks are still willing to watch)
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself...
Here is the thing though. You seem to be wavering back and forth between saying you are *NOT* judging the movie...
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
...and making extremely judgemental comments, like all of this:
Noo, I believe I said that the reviews had said that there were some significant issues on a technical level of how the film was paced and put together, which I did indeed equate with a dirty baseball bat, ie using the wrong tool for the wrong job and making a complete pig's ear of it... So no, I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself... And as I said with regard the tenderisation of a steak with a dirty baseball bat and then taking a blowtorch to it, some folks may indeed still want to eat it (arguably, the flame would sterilize the surface, and the result would probably be a fairly rare steak with a charred exterior... Not to everyone's taste, but still edible, and still something someone may choose to eat) That is the impression I get of BvS from the reviews: That Snyder went on a mad ego-trip, and wound up making a badly plotted movie (but which some folks are still willing to watch)
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
The impression I am getting is that you want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, and you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own, since you didn't see the movie. And at the same time, you are suggesting that you aren't really judging the movie.
The point I'm making is that you seem to be trying to have it both ways, which results in a contradictory message. Either you CAN'T judge it because you haven't seen it, or you are TRYING to judge it based on the reviews you have read. But it can't be both ways.
I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself...
Here is the thing though. You seem to be wavering back and forth between saying you are *NOT* judging the movie...
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
...and making extremely judgemental comments, like all of this:
Noo, I believe I said that the reviews had said that there were some significant issues on a technical level of how the film was paced and put together, which I did indeed equate with a dirty baseball bat, ie using the wrong tool for the wrong job and making a complete pig's ear of it... So no, I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself... And as I said with regard the tenderisation of a steak with a dirty baseball bat and then taking a blowtorch to it, some folks may indeed still want to eat it (arguably, the flame would sterilize the surface, and the result would probably be a fairly rare steak with a charred exterior... Not to everyone's taste, but still edible, and still something someone may choose to eat) That is the impression I get of BvS from the reviews: That Snyder went on a mad ego-trip, and wound up making a badly plotted movie (but which some folks are still willing to watch)
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
And then, after all of your judgemental comments, you just suggest "but that's not what I'M saying, that's just what OTHER people saying".
You seem to be trying to have it both ways, which results in contradictory message. Either you CAN'T judge it because you haven't seen it, or you are TRYING to judge it based on what you have read. But it can't be both ways.
Oh dear, I daresay that you find my 'judgemental' comments 'problematic'... Sounds like you might be an SJW...
Let me phrase it another way... The opinion I have formed after reading several reviews, is that those who have seen the film found fault with it on several levels, and that does not sound like something I would want to watch, because I don't enjoy watching films which are poorly executed on a technical level (because when I studied film-making in the 90s, there were certain criteria which we, as students, had to attain, so I find it frustrating to see films which fail on technical levels...) Those who have seen the film and reviewed it, did not think that Snyder understood the source material or crafted a good film, but made the film his ego dictated... And apparently, the film is experiencing something some kind of 'fall off' in interest...
I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself...
Here is the thing though. You seem to be wavering back and forth between saying you are *NOT* judging the movie...
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
...and making extremely judgemental comments, like all of this:
Noo, I believe I said that the reviews had said that there were some significant issues on a technical level of how the film was paced and put together, which I did indeed equate with a dirty baseball bat, ie using the wrong tool for the wrong job and making a complete pig's ear of it... So no, I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself... And as I said with regard the tenderisation of a steak with a dirty baseball bat and then taking a blowtorch to it, some folks may indeed still want to eat it (arguably, the flame would sterilize the surface, and the result would probably be a fairly rare steak with a charred exterior... Not to everyone's taste, but still edible, and still something someone may choose to eat) That is the impression I get of BvS from the reviews: That Snyder went on a mad ego-trip, and wound up making a badly plotted movie (but which some folks are still willing to watch)
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
And then, after all of your judgemental comments, you just suggest "but that's not what I'M saying, that's just what OTHER people saying".
You seem to be trying to have it both ways, which results in contradictory message. Either you CAN'T judge it because you haven't seen it, or you are TRYING to judge it based on what you have read. But it can't be both ways.
Oh dear, I daresay that you find my 'judgemental' comments 'problematic'... Sounds like you might be an SJW...
You misunderstand. I'm *NOT* saying there is anything wrong with being judgmental about a movie. That, in itself, is not "problematic". However, there *is* something wrong with trying to judge something while simultaneously saying you aren't judging it.
The impression I am getting is that you REALLY want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, but you have a big problem with any argument you would make: you haven't actually seen the movie. Therefore, you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own. And the issue I am highlighting is that while you are using other people's judgments about the movie to make your point, you are also claiming you aren't really judging the movie.
Again, there is *NOTHING* wrong with judging the movie, you just seem to be trying to both do it and claim you aren't doing it at the same time.
I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself...
Here is the thing though. You seem to be wavering back and forth between saying you are *NOT* judging the movie...
But I haven't done those things... All I've done, is said that I didn't want to watch the film, and don't intend to...
...and making extremely judgemental comments, like all of this:
Noo, I believe I said that the reviews had said that there were some significant issues on a technical level of how the film was paced and put together, which I did indeed equate with a dirty baseball bat, ie using the wrong tool for the wrong job and making a complete pig's ear of it... So no, I'm not denying what I said, but I think either you didn't understand what I was trying to say, or I didn't properly explain myself... And as I said with regard the tenderisation of a steak with a dirty baseball bat and then taking a blowtorch to it, some folks may indeed still want to eat it (arguably, the flame would sterilize the surface, and the result would probably be a fairly rare steak with a charred exterior... Not to everyone's taste, but still edible, and still something someone may choose to eat) That is the impression I get of BvS from the reviews: That Snyder went on a mad ego-trip, and wound up making a badly plotted movie (but which some folks are still willing to watch)
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
And then, after all of your judgemental comments, you just suggest "but that's not what I'M saying, that's just what OTHER people saying".
You seem to be trying to have it both ways, which results in contradictory message. Either you CAN'T judge it because you haven't seen it, or you are TRYING to judge it based on what you have read. But it can't be both ways.
Oh dear, I daresay that you find my 'judgemental' comments 'problematic'... Sounds like you might be an SJW...
You misunderstand. I'm *NOT* saying there is anything wrong with being judgmental about a movie. That, in itself, is not "problematic". However, there *is* something wrong with trying to judge something while simultaneously saying you aren't judging it.
That's a relief, because I openly admit, I have very little time for SJW's, and find them and their attitudes somewhat #triggering...
The impression I am getting is that you REALLY want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, but you have a big problem with any argument you would make: you haven't actually seen the movie. Therefore, you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own. And the issue I am highlighting is that while you are using other people's judgments about the movie to make your point, you are also claiming you aren't really judging the movie.
Again, there is *NOTHING* wrong with judging the movie, you just seem to be trying to both do it and claim you aren't doing it at the same time.
I guess that would be because I both am, and am not doing that... I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it) However, I am not judging the movie itself, because I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it's good, nor am I saying it's bad, because I don't have the experience to say (and even, it would be purely subjective) The critics, however, have seen it, and are judging it, and are consistently criticising the same areas of the film, so I feel it reasonable to concede that there is likely some truth in what they are saying, and the faults they're finding, so I find their reviews believable. My original view holds that I don't want to see the movie, because of (at the very least) the aforementioned reasons. My view also holds that the critics who have reviewed the movie have been pretty scathing in said reviews, and I have read that apparently the movie is now not doing so well, which, based on said reviews, doesn't surprize me... But I'm quite happy to accept that some people are going to enjoy it...
I'm a libra... I can and do frequently hold opinion that, to the untrained eye, can appear contradictory. The example of the two points we discussed the other day: You saw two statements which contradicted each other -- I saw two seperate statements which didn't impact or influence each other... You may see a contradiction which I either do not see, or do not intend as contradictory...
Comments
I like the idea of one consistent universe.
But I can also see the appeal of not having to do that, and telling the kind of stories you want to tell in your show/movie that you want to tell, without needing to worry about some other show or movie. There is nothing inherently "money-grabby" about that - it's just about the kind of creative freedom and limitations you want to accept. DC has decided that the movie verse will be one continuity, and the TV shows will be seperate from that. That's okay, it's not inherently troublesome.
That they try to fast-forward the whole DC setting in their movie continuity - that might prove troublesome. Batman v Superman was not very approachable to people that don't know the setting that well. An "old" Batman without an origin story can work, IMO, the character is familiar enough. But all the weirdo darkseid knightmare related stuff and sudden time jump flashes and what not - that's too much. I didn't understand any of that during the movie, and overall the movies plot was a mess of sequences that didn't all seem to fit together to a real story.
Pretty much all the Marvel movies manage to tell their story better, without requiring me to recognize all that exotic stuff. The Sony Marvel-based stuff managed to do that better most of the time.
Then they should tell their own stories, but with their own Verse and characters, rather than relying on the goodwill of existing fans or love of a character/franchise to simply get 'bums on seats'... Defiance, for example, I found significantly more enjoyable than Enterprise, for the very reason that it was something new... Or the amount of Spiderman movies being made... I quite enjoyed the Tobey Maguire ones, but I never really bought him in the role. IMHO, Andrew Garfield captured the character better, to how I thought of Spiderman, but how many times do they need to re-tell the same story just to get $$s? Same with Flash, hence why I call it a cash-grab. If they were to use the cast from the series, they could just get on with telling a story which they might not have the scope to tell in a 45 minute episode. By using a new cast, that's not only giving the finger to the existing cast, effectively saying that they aren't good enough, it's also pointlessly bogging the film down with the need to explain who's who and any relevent origin. That can take up at least a third of the film, if not the whole film, with the character 'taking up the mantle' just as the credits run, meaning a second film is needed, just to tell the story they wanted to tell in the first place... Two movies = more $$s than one movie...
It would be like them doing a Star Trek movie, and re-casting each known character, and introducing them to the audience for the... Oh wait, they already did that...
Maybe some exec really does the job in a media company only because that was the job he could get with the money he wanted. But there are so many other people there that do it because they love producing the type of stuff a media company produces, and they have "artistic" ambitions that go beyond $ bills.
I would even go so far and argue that the "just for the sake of money" complaint is a strawman. Even if someone in the upper echelon only makes hard numerical calculations, somewhere below is going to be asked to do creative things and he will have goals. Even someone that has produced notoriously bad sh*t like Uwe Boll has those.
How often do you need to retell an origin story? How often you can make money with it, and how often you come with a take that you feel is unique and worth telling. That is obviously quite subjective. But you shouldn't believe that they retold the Spiderman story again just because they thought it would make more money than a new movie. They also did it because some felt they had something to tell there, that there was something they could contribute, just like every Shakespeare production thinks they can provide something that makes it worth producing another MacBeth (and if it's just bringing something awesome to a local audience).
Personally, I didn't bother with the Garfield Spiderman movies. I didn't care for a new origin story of Spiderman. I wanted a continuation of the old, or something that felt genuinely knew.
Ironically, Spiderman might have been the one Superhero movie that even got interested me in the whole shebang of Superhero movies. Before that, I considered the whole concept to be "just for kids". I was heavily into Science Fiction of course, but Superheroes just seemed too silly and didn't feel like they had an actual story to tell. Spiderman showed me that I was wrong on the last part.
Not really, because as I said, if they wanted to be creative, they would create their own thing, ie Defiance... It's the use of another IP and then 'making it fit but calling it a reboot' which shows their mindset... The most recent Fantastic Four, for example... If you're going to tweak that much, why bother? Why not just make their own unique movie (like Watchmen, for example) For the simple reason that they know it'll get bums on seats, and $$s in their bank...
My point precisely, and which I would say their attitude is; "As long as it makes money..."
Equally, the Spiderman fiasco was to do with retention of rights, so ultimately, more about money then artistic expression. As mentioned, I liked the Garfield movies, but I'm well aware of what they represented in terms of movie politics...
But do theatrical companies really think that? Do they really think that they can contribute something in the way of a new twist, or do they just think "What shows do folks like...?" to get bums on seats?
I can think of a couple of films I'd like to see re-made, Fahrenheit 451 and La Dolce Vita, but that would still be considerably different to the recent batch of remakes...
For the movie arcs I'd like to see realized, a production company would need a budget on par with LotR.
And they'd have to be planned many years in advance, with the funding secured.
And that doesnt happen often in the industry. So, admittedly, my expectations are probably way too high on these types of things.
As for the television iterations, honestly they all look pretty decent, I just haven't gotten around to watching them.
But Id say those are easier projects, with far less expectation, and less at stake then say a feature film or LotR style trilogy.
So I think its a good avenue for DC or Marvel.
I do have plans to catchup on flash and supergirl though. Just getting through DS9 first. Which is taking a while lol.
And if you love, say, the Fantastic Four, you might just want your creativity to tell a story about those characters, in a manner that you think is the best way, with your own creative inputs - costume design, the specific plot of the movie, camera work, cuts, atmosphere.
Just because there is a bean counter somewhere that also makes sure you will earn money in the rest doesn't take away that creative aspect of the work.
Creativity is just no guarantee for quality.
And yes, someone may indeed have 'something to bring to the table' in terms of idea, but that doesn't mean they have to be implemented... That doesn't mean that a re-boot/re-make has to be made... As I said with regards Spiderman, which was done simply to retain rights, not because they really wanted to put out a new/good film... I don't know if Fantastic Four was done due to rights, or because the creative team thought they 'had something to bring to the table', but look at the reactions to it... There was a lot of criticism of the concepts, because it was unnecessarily modifying the core origins 'just because', which the SJWs tried to handwave away with accusations of racism (when it actually, just sounded like 'making changes because', rather than any truly outstanding idea) and the reaction to the finished film, has been almost universally negative... It was a story which didn't need presenting as a Fantastic Four remake, and could quite easily have been done as a unique piece of work, and probably could have been done in such a way as to avoid being compared to Fantastic Four... Had it been done as an original idea, while I doubt the actual quality of the film would have been any better in terms of pacing, there certainly wouldn't've been the furore over the Storm Family dynamics...
And, is this the kind of garbage we can all look forward to, when Beyond comes out?
My thoughts/opinions (spoilers abound):
So, in summary, I actually think the movie was pretty close to what it needed to be... which is probably the most frustrating thing about it. A little bit better dialogue, a little more character development, and a little bit better editing job... and you have a great movie. (And that's not even cutting the ending, or recasting Eisenberg.)
Again, though, if you're so stubborn as to not see the movie in theaters... I'd wait for the Ultimate Edition, and judge the movie on that.
Correction/clarification: I don't want to see the movie... Nothing to do with being stubborn, or not going to the cinema, just a case of I don't want to...
Glad that you enjoyed it though
If by "enjoyed," you mean "skipping over comments that began with 'I haven't seen the film...'", then, sure.
It's just been my experience that basing a belief on something so strongly, without doing the due diligence of actually researching or testing that belief, is... specious.
But since this is a spoiler thread................ And there's a warning!
SUPERMAN DIES! XD
I mean it was totally forseen, and it was a cheesy death, but I liked it....
YMMV, but I tend to trust my instincts... Didn't enjoy MoS, Not really a fan of Ben Affleck, Wouldn't've cast Gal Gadot in the role, and definitely wouldn't've cast Jesse Eisenberg (or crammed in the Doomsday nonsense...) No reason for me to second-guess myself... Sure, others might enjoy the film, and I'm glad for them, I just know* that it's not going to be my cup of tea.
*A fairly informed guess...
I'm really glad to hear you say that. Recognizing that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because it does not appeal to you personally is a huge sign of maturity IMO.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm actually pretty tolerant of stuff I don't like, what I don't like, is folks telling me that I don't know my own tastes, and that I should give stuff a try just because they like it
And that's fine.
Back in high school, I had to read The Scarlet Letter... but, I was a lazy high schooler, and the story/genre didn't appeal to me... so, I just read the SparkNotes to pass the tests. Did I "miss out" on the book, or the point of its assignment? Perhaps, but as I said, it didn't appeal to me... and it still doesn't. Am I wrong to think that? No.
Would I be foolish, however, to declare the book terrible? Stupid? The worst book ever written? Given that I didn't even read it... possibly, yes. I'd be treading on shaky ground, there.
And as for me "liking" the film... I honestly don't know if I do like it, LOL. I liked parts of it, and I think the DCU is off and running... all of that is exciting to me. I was dead wrong about Ben Affleck being a terrible Batman. I was not dead wrong about Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. The reverse could have been true, however, had Affleck played the role like he did Daredevil, and had Eisenberg played the role like he did Zuckerberg.
I wouldn't have been sure, however, without seeing the movie.
I will admit I'm not really a fan of Jesse Eisenberg. That said, I think the problem was not *necessarily* his acting, but the way they choose to "interpret" the character of Luthor. What I saw as not Luthor, it was the Joker without the makeup. I guess it is somewhat fitting to have a "joker" character in a "Batman" movie, but either way you cut it that was not "Luthor" IMO.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Let's be clear: a few pages ago you did liken this movie to a meal that was prepared using a dirty baseball bat. You did imply something was wrong with the movie ITSELF, just like something would be wrong with a meal prepared with something DIRTY. So, let's not act like that never happened.
Again though, being able to acknowledge that there is not necessarily something "wrong" with something just because you are not personally interested in it is a huge sign of maturity, and that is what you did in your most recent post above. So hopefully we can stay on that level without denying what was said previously.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes, I know, and I acknowledge that.
I'm just stating that for the record... it's not directed at you, LOL.
Right, I can see that... there was a rumor floating around that Eisenberg actually tried out to be The Riddler, but that changed in the story, so he chose to play Luthor like that. I don't know if I buy that, mind you... and I would have hated that characterization as The Riddler, too.
I blame Snyder, ultimately... he should have been the one to tell him to tone it down. That's what directors are supposed to do.
It almost worked, though... he was hitting more "sinister" notes on the helipad with Superman, when he's blackmailing him... but, even then, I was still thinking Michael Rosenbaum (and his Luthor) would have been better.
If we're dreaming, my perfect Batman for *this* story, which was about an older Batman, would have been Josh Brolin:
My perfect Luthor would have been either Bryan Cranston or Peter Weller. Coincidentally, Peter Weller voiced Batman in TDKR animated movie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
This is actually something which concerned me about the movie ever since they announced Luthor as an antagonist. For the record, I loved The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - I thought it could even challenge Spider-Man 2 as the best Spidey film so far - but I had the same problem with it as you mention above with regards to Doomsday: (WARNING: Spoilers!) the fight with Green Goblin at the end was completely unnecessary, as was killing off Gwen Stacey. I have no problem with introducing him in that film, but it seemed as though the battle and Gwen's death were there just for the sake of it. It takes up 10 minutes of film which could have been used for, say, the deleted scene with Richard Parker. And, ultimately, it added very little to the film.
It feels like Sony did it so they could cast a Mary Jane for TASM 3 without 'fans' being able to backlash because the actress wasn't 'pretty enough'. There was no reason MJ couldn't have been in the film with Gwen as a supporting character, with the third film giving full attention to Green Goblin and Gwen's death (which appears to have been the original plan).
Anyway, back on topic, I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge it. I'll probably pick it up on DVD at some point, since I usually only do one summer film and one winter film a year, and CA: Civil War has taken my summer slot this year. Still, I'll reserve judgement on BvS until I've watched it.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I read something the other day, that while BvS had a high opening-release, it is apparently suffering from a massive fall-off... I interpret that, as: There was interest in the movie, so a lot of folks went to see it. The movie wasn't all that, and not only did reviewers write that, but those disgruntled viewers presumeably told their friends, who then didn't want to go and see for themselves...
For the record, I stand by the Janeway Meme
Here is the thing though. You seem to be wavering back and forth between saying you are *NOT* judging the movie...
...and making extremely judgemental comments, like all of this:
The impression I am getting is that you want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, and you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own, since you didn't see the movie. And at the same time, you are suggesting that you aren't really judging the movie.
The point I'm making is that you seem to be trying to have it both ways, which results in a contradictory message. Either you CAN'T judge it because you haven't seen it, or you are TRYING to judge it based on the reviews you have read. But it can't be both ways.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh dear, I daresay that you find my 'judgemental' comments 'problematic'... Sounds like you might be an SJW...
Let me phrase it another way... The opinion I have formed after reading several reviews, is that those who have seen the film found fault with it on several levels, and that does not sound like something I would want to watch, because I don't enjoy watching films which are poorly executed on a technical level (because when I studied film-making in the 90s, there were certain criteria which we, as students, had to attain, so I find it frustrating to see films which fail on technical levels...) Those who have seen the film and reviewed it, did not think that Snyder understood the source material or crafted a good film, but made the film his ego dictated... And apparently, the film is experiencing something some kind of 'fall off' in interest...
Is that suitably non-judgemental enough?
You misunderstand. I'm *NOT* saying there is anything wrong with being judgmental about a movie. That, in itself, is not "problematic". However, there *is* something wrong with trying to judge something while simultaneously saying you aren't judging it.
The impression I am getting is that you REALLY want to take part in a discussion about whether this was a good movie or not, but you have a big problem with any argument you would make: you haven't actually seen the movie. Therefore, you are trying to use other people's experiences(the critics) as a substitute for your own. And the issue I am highlighting is that while you are using other people's judgments about the movie to make your point, you are also claiming you aren't really judging the movie.
Again, there is *NOTHING* wrong with judging the movie, you just seem to be trying to both do it and claim you aren't doing it at the same time.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's a relief, because I openly admit, I have very little time for SJW's, and find them and their attitudes somewhat #triggering...
I guess that would be because I both am, and am not doing that... I made a judgement about the movie from the original trailers and information released (that I thought it sounds like a load of dogshit, and that I wasn't interested in watching it) However, I am not judging the movie itself, because I haven't seen it. I'm not saying it's good, nor am I saying it's bad, because I don't have the experience to say (and even, it would be purely subjective) The critics, however, have seen it, and are judging it, and are consistently criticising the same areas of the film, so I feel it reasonable to concede that there is likely some truth in what they are saying, and the faults they're finding, so I find their reviews believable. My original view holds that I don't want to see the movie, because of (at the very least) the aforementioned reasons. My view also holds that the critics who have reviewed the movie have been pretty scathing in said reviews, and I have read that apparently the movie is now not doing so well, which, based on said reviews, doesn't surprize me... But I'm quite happy to accept that some people are going to enjoy it...
I'm a libra... I can and do frequently hold opinion that, to the untrained eye, can appear contradictory. The example of the two points we discussed the other day: You saw two statements which contradicted each other -- I saw two seperate statements which didn't impact or influence each other... You may see a contradiction which I either do not see, or do not intend as contradictory...