RRA

A perennial problem with them (apparently regardless who is in power) is that too much drama is about off-screen shenanigans and not in the movies in themselves. That's my gut feeling too. That's why I was asking why some folks think that's plausible.

I feel dumb. Why would AT&T sell off WarnerMedia? Are they really hurting that badly?

I find it fascinating that of the folks in fandom who were all for him going after Whedon and Johns, some of them are going "get over it" and aren't as enthused about him going after Hamada. It's almost like fans of a certain filmmaker who had their targets to blame for why said filmmaker's "vision" was thwarted fixate on them instead of the corporate types who might've signed the checks and made the actual decisions.

The arguments I've seen in the past for those Supes/Bats interpretations was the need to mark deep contrasts to the Reeve/previous movie Batman stuff. Not sure I necessarily agree, but that's an argument. But that goes out the window with WW. If his "vision" for WW had gone through as is, imagine the potential Internet outcry at WW only learning to have faith in humanity again because she met a guy she porked. I'm glad Jenkins didn't do that. Also unpopular Sonic fan opinion: Shadow blows.

He's been pushing/"announcing" this for years and years now. Old timers will remember Dan Aykroyd doing this during the 1990s/2000s with a 3rd Ghostbusters movie before that (ill-fated) reboot happened. You all should check out Shane Black's LW5 treatment (inspired by War on Terror/Blackwater IIRC) sometime, which could've been fodder for a fun entry. It's floating around online.

Abrams obviously has been rumored for Supes* for awhile now. Will he want Cavill or like Reeves, demand his own Supes (and basically continuity)? Certainly the next few years a multiverse planned as a way to have your cake and eat it too makes this a legit possibility. Cavill might be like Batfleck as I mentioned above, a Hulk/MCU like character who shows up in other characters' DCEU movies. *=I'm morbidly curious if that happens. Will he complete the hat trick and achieve the Nerd Trinity of Outrage with DC/Trek/SW?

I'm curious to see in 5-10 (and beyond) years what this movie's rep will be. I say that because I revisited Batman Returns over Xmas and noticing people also have that on their holiday rotations, generally it's rep is rather solid now. But I'm old enough to remember when that wasn't the case back in 1992. Highly anticipated sequel to a super popular superhero film that even casuals outside of the spandex faithful ate up (sound familiar?), and the reception was mixed, at best. Considerably grossed less than Batman '89. General consensus was it wasn't as good as Batman '89, and alot of folks (especially angry parents) were offended by the movie's sexual overtones/violence/dark tone in what essentially was a toy commercial aimed at a kiddie demo. In fact notoriously McDonalds had a Happy Meal toy tie-in which got squashed as a result of complaints. Anyway this was a major reason why Tim Burton didn't come back for the 3rd film, which aimed for a completely different tone that (1) meant to be "kid-friendly" and (2) make the toy companies less anxious. Heck I'm old enough to remember when (for a coffee break) Batman Forever was considered better than BR. True story. But time passed (Batman & Robin did BF no favors for posterity) and BR's rep grew over time. Partially because alot of the kids (which parents helicopter-worried about) grew up and liked it for it's own merits. Indeed I would argue that it benefits as something unique in that superhero cinema spectrum (guilty of being homogenized sometimes) with prime young Burton given creative carte blanche (for better or worse) to get his freak on. I'm not saying WW84 will share the same fate or that it's necessarily on par with BR. I haven't even seen it yet. But we have to keep such things in perspective, not be blinded by being in the passionate moment of time like inside the eye of a storm. Kids today might carry this with them years from now. I mean look at the Star Wars franchise where you have people who grew up with those despised Prequels in the early 2000s (more or less) go to bat for them now as grown-ups, especially Revenge of the Sith. (Them and the Sam Raimi-era Spider-Man movies from that same era are evergreen meme generators.)

I feel dumb. So we're getting the Reeves thing and Batfleck has his own franchise? Or is it just the DCEU-verse having their own Batman but not necessarily in his own movies (ala say Hulk in MCU)?

I have faith that the Lord/Miller squad are parsing him out. Screenwriters can only do so much when they're working on the whims (for good or ill) of directors/producers. They've struggled to make Superman a consistently viable franchise since what, the 80s? Unfortunately this isn't new. (I mean even Batman had his eight year vacation at one point because yanno.) It's funny bring up Supes: Having not seen WW84 (trying to be fair here), Gadot has been in 4 movies so far and only one so far (WW1) has been considered a real winner winner chicken-dinner generally speaking, in spite of people generally liking her in that gig. Christopher Reeve had that OG classic Superman, the decent #2, the bafflingly underwhelming #3, and the bad movie classic #4. Let's hope she's given better material moving forward because she might end up sharing a similar fate.

I mean BOP at least had decent reviews. But that and Shazam (which had really good write-ups) just under-performed, especially OS. Doesn't help that (IMO) that brand's fanbase just doesn't seem as passionate about those films as they are with other films in that universe for whatever reasons. Also I don't know if "incompetent" I would use. I mean Aquaman (despite eh reviews) made a billion bucks. Despite the controversy, Joker won Oscars and made a billion bucks. WW84 (even with these reviews) maybe would've equaled the first overall box-office, still would've been a success (in this hypothetical plague-free world.) Shazam! was a solid hit, if not a sexy one for stockholders. It's a hit/miss track record, but it's more hit than miss at this point I would argue. Patty will be busy the next few years. If they want WW3 with her badly, they'll have to wait until 2024 at the earliest. And if Cleopatra happens, might be even longer. Are they willing to wait that long?

You're right. It lost that certification, currently 67. Wow.

It's still certified. What's the number it'll have to reach before they revoke it? Old timers will remember MOS getting certified initially, before the flood of negative reviews. I watched it a chunk of it on cable (TNT I think? I don't remember) the other day. That weird thing where a movie you own (on home media and digital!) but you still watch it on TV when you come across it channel surfing. We can all relate to this sensation, right?

A friend of mine jokingly said we should get Bruce Campbell doing a cameo in his buddy Sam's movie, this time as OG white Nick Fury, 1960s-era. That would be awesome.

Fair enough! I should've said live-action.

I'll admit my inner crap-posting self relishes the idea of hyping up Marvel on boards as doing more to save theaters than the movie buffs and their vanguard creatives like Scorsese embracing the streamers. 😁

Yeah this is one thing if you're a Paramount or Sony or whoever that can't afford potential big $ losers, but I find foolish when these giants sell off assets that potentially could help boost their streaming libraries. It's like Disney sold off those Fear Street movies (a trilogy!) that were made under Fox. They may or may not have set the world on fire theatrically (and that's before the pandemic) but even if they didn't, they might potentially find a second life (or first life?) on streaming. How many times did bombs become cult films on video that became dependable evergreen titles? Look up articles about random movies that found popularity during the pandemic. Those FS flicks are the sort of teen films that could've helped on Hulu (or D+, depending on rating.) This is just short term thinking overriding long term considerations. Unfortunately that seems to define AT&T lately.

I'm one of those weirdos that enjoyed CM more than FFH (which had a much higher RT score) that year. In the end of the day, enjoy the stuff you like. I mean Dr. Strange's high RT score hasn't made me like that one (the weakest Phase 3 film) any more. Anyway 2 random thoughts, the first since you brought up CM: (1) It's crazy how Anna Boden was the first woman to direct a billion dollar hit, and with the landscape as it is evolving (perhaps accelerated by current events)....could she end up being the only one? (2) Anyway It'll be interesting if WW3 happens if/when and if Jenkins will be involved since she's got Rogue Squadron (out in 2023) and that Cleopatra movie*. Might be 2024/5 before we get it and we might end up getting a new director. *=I wouldn't be surprised if that never gets made. Paramount that's not willing to meet Pine's $ demands for Trek 4 because the economics aren't viable but willing to greenlight this? Same Paramount that just sold off Coming 2 America? Yeah ok....

Sometimes you see a movie you don't hate, its watchable but not outstanding. Sometimes there are more good scenes than bad. Sometimes a movie being "good enough" (or "fine") is more than being "good" if that makes sense. Reminds me of when I gave a (barely) passing grade to the last Hobbit movie, a film I have zero interest in rewatching. I mean I think of how when I reviewed Aquaman (a movie that aint bad, but I gave a marginal negative review) I compared its problems with Age of Ultron*...a film I gave a marginal positive review. Was it my MCU bias, my liking for characters in earlier (better) films carrying the water? Perhaps. Maybe James Spader's Ultron was more amusing than Patrick Wilson's lackluster baddie character? I don't know. I wonder, is it possible that some of the latter (pan) reviews are (even if just subconsciously) a response to the HBO Max move?

To be fair, we had a scene on that jet where we see him designing/modifying his costume right before the climax reminding us that right, Peter Parker has some brains. That's more than we got in HC (I'm a HC fan, but imagine an AU ending where Peter says no to the Avengers and gives that Stark suit back i.e. "I'll make my own way." But Peter retains that A.I. chip, or given to him by Stark for respecting that decision. Whatever. Point is, ending note is him and Ned deciding to create their own Spidey suit. Not as advanced/whiz bang as the Stark suit, but not his original pajamas. Nice middle ground, if you will. We would've seen that new suit in IW.) The only thing about the IM connection in these movies that's bugged me (har har) is being tied into Mysterio's motivation. That felt artificial, not organically inspired like it did for Vulture. What's funny is that Stark being characterized as dangerously wreckless with poor decisions at least has stayed consistent, even beyond the grave. Out of curiosity, why?

I say this as a Marvel hack: you’re giving them way too much credit. Nobody is that clever.

So is the Joaquin Phoenix Joker movie dead? Is Suicide Squad 2 going to development hell?

It’s blink and miss but you can see Cinderella pluck a leaf out of her hair

Marvel Reddit never had a bug up it’s ass about Tony vs Steve, that’s how I pulse that fandom. Now IM3 was a whole other issue...

They're slick at marketing, but GRINCH might be facing the same problem SOLO has for King Mickey: not giving a good retort to people asking "why?"

He got the weekend thread locked for repeatedly calling people morons.