Jump to content

Plain Old Tele

Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Barnack said:

Except casting, colour palette, camera, product placement, many product design/costume choice already made, and a long list of obligation of that genre no ? A lot of a director way is in pre-post production, the hired team, the cast, etc.. their is a lot of variable that will not be under your control if you go direct a universe movie (even in the context of a fixed script). Not many case when you watch a Marvel movie that you would be able to name the director if they would have not said is name, just by watching a segment with is recognisable visual style, is usual theme, etc..

That works the same for DC movies.   You can't change who plays Superman and Batman and you can't change their costumes either.  Matt Reeves will use Affleck unless WB decides he won't.   A lot of that stuff isn't the director's job anyway so again there is a mixing up of job titles.   If a director chooses the cast he's not technically "directing" the movie when he does that.

 

12 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

Not always for big name with final cut director doing their vision.

"Their vision" means you are a writer.   True that some directors do both jobs, but that doesn't mean they are being a director when they are being a writer.   Some people have mashed those two jobs into one thing just because some "big name directors" do two jobs.

 

I thought Matt Reeves put it best when he pointed out that the studio has every right to make the movie they want to make.   They are putting up the money.   He said if he had a different "vision" then obviously they should hire someone else.

 

Some directors probably have a high opinion of themselves and think the studio should put up millions to finance their "vision".

 

7 hours ago, AndyK said:

The point is, you can do it the Marvel way or you can do it the DC way.

 

The Marvel way, de-risks every movie by turning them into comedies, the DC way lets every movie live or die on its directors vision.

 

...and DC has had some spectacular failures.

 

There is nothing wrong with the Marvel way, it makes enjoyable movies

 

But at the end of the day, this meme pretty much sums it up

 

Avengers-money-vs-Joker-oscar.jpg?auto=f

 

Have we rewritten history to make it seem like Iron Man, Ant Man, Thor, Capt America, Guardians of the Galaxy and the shared universe idea were not risky moves?   Marvel has changed the way super hero movies are made...because they took huge risks.

 

Interesting to watch one fan say that critical acclaim is more important than box office :D ......

 

4 hours ago, Napoleon said:

dRyxsbi.png

 

The other studios would love this level of incompetence.

...but then another fan says box office is more important than critical acclaim.   :D 

 

I guess it's a fluid thing according to the situation.

 

Fox may think they were killing it at the box office with the Xmen movies too...but they never got one of them over 250 million so they left a lot of money on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Correct me if I'm wrong , but wasn't the shared universe thing in existence way before Marvel did it? Even TV had that since long ago. I am just confused on why people treat it as if it was never attempted before. Star Wars did it on film , Buffy the Vampire slayer did it on TV. 

Edited by Emerald kikyou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emerald kikyou said:

Correct me if I'm wrong , but wasn't the shared universe thing in existence way before Marvel did it? Even TV had that since long ago. I am just confused on why people treat it as if it was never attempted before. Star Wars did it on film , Buffy the Vampire slayer did it on TV. 

A shared universe within movies and creating an universe out of these films? Well, Kevin Smith films supposedly happen in the same universe, same for Tarantino's. But not acknowledging that Marvel Studios changed the way superhero films are made and introduced the very idea of blockbuster cinematic universes is completely silly. Hell, these days even Star Wars is trying to follow suit and building up their world. You won't lose your DC fanboy only badge if you admit that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm using broadly that definition of Director (from wiki):

 

A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects and visualizes the screenplay (or script) while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. The director has a key role in choosing the cast members, production design, and the creative aspects of filmmaking.[1] Under European Union law, the director is viewed as the author of the film

 

It is not a clearly defined role and it change from director to director, but often a director on a movie do what he want to do and the producer jobs is to do what he does not want to do (when things go really well)

 

20 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

That works the same for DC movies.   You can't change who plays Superman and Batman and you can't change their costumes either.  Matt Reeves will use Affleck unless WB decides he won't.   A lot of that stuff isn't the director's job anyway so again there is a mixing up of job titles.   If a director chooses the cast he's not technically "directing" the movie when he does that.

 

That is such a low bar to use, DC franchise movie, but still I have the feeling Snyder did cast people, Snyder did choose is color palette and a lot of the production design, was the one choosing is film and camera (35-65mm, etc...) option was deeply involved in the script and theme, and I'm not sure Reeves have no say into who Batman will be.

 

Same for Nolan trilogy.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

I thought Matt Reeves put it best when he pointed out that the studio has every right to make the movie they want to make.   They are putting up the money.   He said if he had a different "vision" then obviously they should hire someone else.

That is absolutely obvious and I would not argue about this, financier do what they want to do with their money and directors that want control can always say no to project if they do not have final cut and control, free choice here. I am not talking morality, good/bad here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Community Manager
4 minutes ago, Emerald kikyou said:

Correct me if I'm wrong , but wasn't the shared universe thing in existence way before Marvel did it? Even TV had that since long ago. I am just confused on why people treat it as if it was never attempted before. Star Wars did it on film , Buffy the Vampire slayer did it on TV. 

 

While there were shows and films that shared a continuity, sure, the way they did it and the scale is what was risky.

 

Before Marvel they would have had Captain America appear in Iron Man 2 then spin him off into his own movie (kinda like what BvS did with WW and Batman). 

 

But he first appeared in his own standalone movie and since then had his own trilogy as well as his appearances in the Avengers movies.  The idea of taking otherwise largely unrelated movies /tv shows and bringing them together is pretty unigue. And that it's gotten so large, the sheer scale of it with multiple film franchises and TV shows on multiple networks on at the same time, that is unprecedented.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

A shared universe within movies and creating an universe out of these films? Well, Kevin Smith films supposedly happen in the same universe, same for Tarantino's. But not acknowledging that Marvel Studios changed the way superhero films are made and introduced the very idea of blockbuster cinematic universes is completely silly. Hell, these days even Star Wars is trying to follow suit and building up their world. You won't lose your DC fanboy only badge if you admit that.)

Defensive much? I have never dissed on Marvel , I am just saying shared universes were made long ago and on more than one medium (Films , TV , Novels). I don't see myself as someone that carries a badge. I am a DC fan no question about that, but that doesn't mean everything I say is to dis on Marvel.

 

Before you get your panties in a twist , I can see what you mean in the sense that the other universes started as a group and then spin offs of some of it's character were created. Marvel did the opposite , started with  solo characters and then put them in a group.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emerald kikyou said:

Defensive much? I have never dissed on Marvel , I am just saying shared universes were made long ago and on more than one medium (Films , TV , Novels). I don't see myself as someone that carries a badge. I am a DC fan no question about that, but that doesn't mean everything I say is to dis on Marvel.

 

Before you get your panties in a twist , I can see what you mean in the sense that the other universes started as a group and then spin offs of some of it's character were created. Marvel did the opposite , started with  solo characters and then put them in a group.  

Defensive? Nah, sarcastic, maybe. Maybe that's lost in translation for you, and for that I apologize. I'm also a DC fanboy, but I don't wear panties. At least not today, I guess. @Water Bottle explained way better than I could, look at the post above. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

 

 

 

 

Not even sure what this means, but it sounds a way less worse. I still stand with Rocha's saying on this word by word. 

I think it means it will focus completely on Batman without creating scenes specifically for the shared universe. Something like Wonder Woman where the only reference to the universe was the picture.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

 

 

 

 

Not even sure what this means, but it sounds a way less worse. I still stand with Rocha's saying on this word by word. 

You really find that hard to understand? 

This is what comics do pretty much all the time (except when they specifically have Crisis-On-Infinite-Whatever crossovers): all the comics are set in the same universe and we all know it, but you buy a Batman or a Wonder Woman comic to read a Batman or a Wonder Woman story, not to see a whole lot of other characters hanging out and referencing other comics.

That has been a normal part of comics and nobody complains. Why is it so horrible then for Reeves to do a standalone Batman film?

To be honest, if they said that all Wonder Woman films from now on are going to be standalone, I would be fine. I'd rather WW films be about her, not about endless cameos designed to boost the box office of all the people involved. Let the team movies involve all the players obviously, but let the solo films be solo, standalone films that don't require to have viewed thirty other movies.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, Emerald kikyou said:

I think it means it will focus completely on Batman without creating scenes specifically for the shared universe. Something like Wonder Woman where the only reference to the universe was the picture.

The first thing I thought was like Iron Man 3: VERY centered around Iron Man, but still within a shared universe. That's exactly what I want from a Batman film. The times of "there's only Batman in the world" are over, imho. The superhero genre has moved on from these takes one decade ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cochofles said:

You really find that hard to understand? 

This is what comics do pretty much all the time (except when they specifically have Crisis-On-Infinite-Whatever crossovers): all the comics are set in the same universe and we all know it, but you buy a Batman or a Wonder Woman comic to read a Batman or a Wonder Woman story, not to see a whole lot of other characters hanging out and referencing other comics.

That has been a normal part of comics and nobody complains. Why is it so horrible then for Reeves to do a standalone Batman film?

To be honest, if they said that all Wonder Woman films from now on are going to be standalone, I would be fine. I'd rather WW films be about her, not about endless cameos designed to boost the box office of all the people involved. Let the team movies involve all the players obviously, but let the solo films be solo, standalone films that don't require to have viewed thirty other movies.

 

Not hard, what I meant is... sort of vague. But what he is saying and the fact that he is actually paying attention and obviously, WB as well, since Geoff Johns retweeted this, pleases me one hell lot. I just don't want Jett to be right about the thing he is implying that the DC films from now on will be more "standalone" because I think Wonder Woman found the perfect way to mix it up, do you know what I mean? I don't need a Spider-Man film where Spidey is the ONLY SUPERHERO EVER AND THE WORLD AND THE FATE OF NY DEPENDS ALL ON HIM, or Batman is the ONLY SUPERHERO AND THERE ISN'T SUPERMAN OR WONDER WOMAN, you know what I mean? We've been that before. Watch Rocha's say on this on Collider Movie Talk. That's literally the first time ever that I've ever agreed with him: I want Reeves to SERVE Batman, just like Jenkins SERVED Wonder Woman, do you know what I mean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

The first thing I thought was like Iron Man 3: VERY centered around Iron Man, but still within a shared universe. That's exactly what I want from a Batman film. The times of "there's only Batman in the world" are over, imho. The superhero genre has moved on from these takes one decade ago. 

Of course it's in the same universe. It's just focused on Batman just like Wonder Woman was.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





1 hour ago, Emerald kikyou said:

Correct me if I'm wrong , but wasn't the shared universe thing in existence way before Marvel did it? Even TV had that since long ago. I am just confused on why people treat it as if it was never attempted before. Star Wars did it on film , Buffy the Vampire slayer did it on TV. 

I'm not aware of Star Wars ever doing it.   The closest was the Kevin Smith movies.   But his movies are low budget so it's not a risky thing to do.   And it's not like he planned a big storyline to connect everything together from the beginning.   He just kinda threw characters together in later movies as a joke.

 

If you can find examples of someone doing it before Marvel by introducing unknown characters over several movies and placing them in the same universe, I would love to see it.  It certainly never happened in comic book movies.   There is a reason everyone lost their **** when Nick Fury showed up at the end of Iron Man.   It was something new.   And Avengers benefited from being something new too.   I doubt we'll see that again because it's not unique any more.   JL is not going to make Avengers money just like Infinity War won't make Avengers money.

 

Interesting thing with the re-imagining of history with Marvel to make it look like they didn't do anything special.   Now they "play it safe" and didn't start the shared universe trend that so many other franchises are suddenly doing by mere coincidence. :D    Sure....they all planned to do this all along, right?

 

51 minutes ago, Barnack said:

I'm using broadly that definition of Director (from wiki):

 

A film director is a person who directs the making of a film. Generally, a film director controls a film's artistic and dramatic aspects and visualizes the screenplay (or script) while guiding the technical crew and actors in the fulfillment of that vision. The director has a key role in choosing the cast members, production design, and the creative aspects of filmmaking.[1] Under European Union law, the director is viewed as the author of the film

 

It is not a clearly defined role and it change from director to director, but often a director on a movie do what he want to do and the producer jobs is to do what he does not want to do (when things go really well)

 

That is such a low bar to use, DC franchise movie, but still I have the feeling Snyder did cast people, Snyder did choose is color palette and a lot of the production design, was the one choosing is film and camera (35-65mm, etc...) option was deeply involved in the script and theme, and I'm not sure Reeves have no say into who Batman will be.

 

Same for Nolan trilogy.

 

That is absolutely obvious and I would not argue about this, financier do what they want to do with their money and directors that want control can always say no to project if they do not have final cut and control, free choice here. I am not talking morality, good/bad here.

Notice that a director's job is to film the script...not write it.   How about David Ayer?   Was SS his "vision"?   Did he choose the cast, design the costumes and makeup?   SS pretty much shoots down this claim that Marvel controls everything and WB lets directors control everything.

 

I'm also getting the sense that people believe cinematographers don't do anything either.  They do get hired for a reason.  Directors might be getting overrated a bit.   There is no doubt that some directors are ALSO writers...but that doesn't mean it's the same job or the studio is "interfering" if they have a writer create the script for the director.

45 minutes ago, iJackSparrow said:

 

 

 

 

Not even sure what this means, but it sounds a way less worse. I still stand with Rocha's saying on this word by word. 

Sounds like the same movie it would be if Batman wasn't part of the DCEU.    If they don't reference it, it's not a part of the movie and won't effect the story.   That's what I'm hoping for.   Batman is better as a solo act imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

How about David Ayer?   Was SS his "vision"?   Did he choose the cast, design the costumes and makeup?   SS pretty much shoots down this claim that Marvel controls everything and WB lets directors control everything.

I don't know, I'm not sure it seem WB did propose role to cast member before Ayer was officially hired. I'm not sure why you bring WB up ? and worst a WB franchise-universe rushed movie has some example. At least look at Dunkirk, Revenant, some of the Potters/Lords of the Rings, Matrix trilogy, Dark Knight Rises, MadMax Fury Road or others like that.

 

Quote

 

I'm also getting the sense that people believe cinematographers don't do anything either

 

 

 

Usually the job of the director to choose it and collaborate with him.

 

16 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Notice that a director's job is to film the script...not write it.  

While yes did you notice that casting is considering a major director decision (and many say that it is one of the biggest decision they take) same for production design and all creative aspect.

Edited by Barnack
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, iJackSparrow said:

The first thing I thought was like Iron Man 3: VERY centered around Iron Man, but still within a shared universe. That's exactly what I want from a Batman film. The times of "there's only Batman in the world" are over, imho. The superhero genre has moved on from these takes one decade ago. 

The DC source material from the comics has been a shared universe since 1941, so I guess there has never been a DC movie character which hasn't been in that shared universe.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



56 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

If you can find examples of someone doing it before Marvel by introducing unknown characters over several movies and placing them in the same universe, I would love to see it.  It certainly never happened in comic book movies.

True , it wasn't done in comic books movies, but it was done before by starting solo characters and then crossing them over to make one universe:

http://www.cinelinx.com/movie-stuff/item/8459-the-original-shared-universe-a-look-back-at-the-universal-monsters.html

 

to a lesser extent you can also add this:

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3419348/lets-explore-shared-slasher-movie-universe-already-exists/

 

56 minutes ago, Harpospoke said:

Interesting thing with the re-imagining of history with Marvel to make it look like they didn't do anything special.   Now they "play it safe" and didn't start the shared universe trend that so many other franchises are suddenly doing by mere coincidence. :D    Sure....they all planned to do this all along, right?.

You should calm down and re-read my post. I was saying they weren't the first to do a shared universe. It was done ages ago and it was successful. But they were the first to do it comic book wise and it was hugely successful. People need to chill. :rolleyes:

 

Edited by Emerald kikyou
Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, Harpospoke said:

Interesting to watch one fan say that critical acclaim is more important than box office :D ......

 

I'm not saying that, what I am saying is that foregoing critical acclaim is the price that must be paid to go the way of Marvel.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.