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

[excel1]

DC will always have Christopher Nolan's master piece work of art, THE DARK KNIGHT, which adjusts to well over $700m with 3D and is the most influential film of the milleniun.

 

A TDK rerelease for one weekend would do $20 million plus, I have no doubt

[CJohn]

TDK trilogy aka The only time WB got shit right with DC in the last two decades. Hail Nolan.

[excel1]

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

How about CBMs that should've been Oscar-bait dramas? I'll lead: The Dark Knight should have won Best Picture. 

 

Except that's actually true. Any one theme from TDK was more fleshed out than Marvels entire series 

[MovieMan89]

1 minute ago, CJohn said:

TDK grossed almost 500M OS in that year when Iron Man did what? 250M? Lol.

 

And if we go by that the DOM market also changed a lot since 2008.

And TDK was huge OS for that time period. Just because we had the OS grosses of Potter, LOTR, and Titanic that already existed back then doesn't for a second mean that was close to the norm. Hitting 300m+ OS was still a big success. Hitting 500m+ was still massive. IM1 wasn't a big OS success by any stretch, but neither were BvS or MoS. And what's their excuse "in context." They had a far wider expanded market to work with and the two most well known comic book characters ever across the globe. Iron Man was literally a non-entity outside of DOM audiences as a character when the film hit. So let's really talk context here and try to tell me how they were more successful? 

 

As for that last statement, so then are you telling me it's harder for the big event blockbusters to get to 300m+ DOM these days than last decade?  

[UrosepsisFace]

Ok, let's review...

 

Marvel is both critically and financially a success. Any studio would want that franchise. Yay!

 

DC is financially successful (unless the rumors that each movie costs 2B dollars is true) but has been critically panned. Any studio would still want that franchise. Yay!

 

Sausage Party is very offensive, but its target audience loves that. It over performed. Any studio would've wanted that movie, except for Disney, for reasons. Yay!

 

Pete's Dragon under performed. It supposedly has good WOM and high RT. At least it has a lower budget than BFG, so maybe an okay win for Disney. Yay!

 

Jason Bourne, STB, and SLOP had good holds. Most studios would want franchises like these. Yay!

 

Hell or High Water is a pretty good movie and is doing very well for such small release. Yay!

 

Florence Foster Jenkins has no audience on these boards apparently. Boooo!!!!!

 

Now we can all get along and play nice with each other. Everybody is succeeding!!!

 

 

 

 

[cannastop]

3 minutes ago, excel1 said:

DC will always have Christopher Nolan's master piece work of art, THE DARK KNIGHT, which adjusts to well over $700m with 3D and is the most influential film of the milleniun.

 

A TDK rerelease for one weekend would do $20 million plus, I have no doubt

[CJohn]

3 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

And TDK was huge OS for that time period. Just because we had the OS grosses of Potter, LOTR, and Titanic that already existed back then doesn't for a second mean that was close to the norm. Hitting 300m+ OS was still a big success. Hitting 500m+ was still massive. IM1 wasn't a big OS success by any stretch, but neither were BvS or MoS. And what's their excuse "in context." They had a far wider expanded market to work with and the two most well known comic book characters ever across the globe. Iron Man was literally a non-entity outside of DOM audiences as a character when the film hit. So let's really talk context here and try to tell me how they were more successful? 

 

As for that last statement, so then are you telling me it's harder for the big event blockbusters to get to 300m+ DOM these days than last decade?  

It is not an excuse. GotG did almost 500M and the characters were non-entities too. Also, the movie had no connections to the MCU and the majority of the GA probably didnt realized it was connected at all. Iron Man underperformed OS. Thor did more lol.

 

Do you realize the drastic changes the DOM market has suffered? We barely have movies in the 200-299M range anymore. It is either feast or famine. Because of 3D and IMAX one could say it is easier. But it just seems nowadays attentions seem to focus on a movie at the time and everything else doesnt exist.

[excel1]

Nolan, Bale, Eckhart, Oldman, and Zimmer all deserved nominations too.

 

one of the most commercially and culturally successful films ever bar none, beyond any other film this millenium

[The Futurist]

MCU>DCEU

MCU>DCEU

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by The Futurist

[excel1]

Just now, The Futurist said:

MCU>DCEU

 

TDK >>>>> ALL

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, excel1 said:

Nolan, Bale, Eckhart, Oldman, and Zimmer all deserved nominations too.

 

one of the most commercially and culturally successful films ever bar none, beyond any other film this millenium

 

[excel1]

2 minutes ago, ThatOneSausage said:

 

 

"nevah"

[CJohn]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

MCU>DCEU

MCU>DCEU

 

In quality, sure.

 

In money? Too hard to judge, one has 3 movies the other has 13. We need to wait a few more years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jk, the DCEU wont exist in a few years lol.

[Lordmandeep]

23 hours ago, CJohn said:

In quality, sure.

 

In money? Too hard to judge, one has 3 movies the other has 13. We need to wait a few more years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jk, the DCEU wont exist in a few years lol.

 

 

[Kalo]

On 8/15/2016 at 0:10 AM, CJohn said:

TDK trilogy aka The only time WB got shit right with DC in the last two decades. Hail Nolan.

 

Superman Returns was too, more so than TDK trilogy because it felt like a superhero movie. audiences were just too set on an action fest to see it.

[jb007]

These SH franchise peaks are cyclical.

 

Superman introduced us the SH world and the first 2 were very successful critically and financially. With 3 and 4, the franchise declined. Rebooted in 2006 with modest success. Rebooted again in 2013 as part of the DCEU. While financially successful, it was not fans of Superman from my age group who had grown with Christopher Reeve had hoped for. BvS seriously damaged the most famous SH of all time (IMHO)

 

89 gave the world, the uber successful Batman. He ruled over till the eventual collapse in 1997 with Batman and Robin. Due to Nolan's fantastic Batman Begins, Batman was resurrected with a trilogy that was not only financially but critically very successful. BvS was awful and I'm not sold on Affleck as Batman. But he is a very talented director. Hopefully, he can revive the Batman to his glory.

 

Spiderman in 2002 hit spectacular heights made even more special by its performance against AOTC (from the biggest franchise in movie history). The sequel was almost just as successful. The third entry while the most successful WRT Worldwide gross left a bad taste in the audiences mouth. The TASM reboot may have been too fast further hurt by the lack of quality. Now there is the second reboot where in the intro. has been successful in Civil War. Homecoming at best may raise well above TASM but not come anywhere close to Raimi's Spiderman.

 

Iron Man, an obscure & unknown SH has succeeded spectacularly. RDJ was like a godsend to Marvel. His personal charm and capabilities has made Iron Man the second biggest, if not the biggest superhero today. 

 

Captain America is another second tier superhero that has reached the top tier. Chris Evans persona and the quality of the 3 movies along with the 2 Avengers has elevated CA.

 

Thor is ok. Hulk was never a powerhouse solo SH. 

 

Wolverine is almost a top tier SH due to Hugh Jackman but seems to have a glass ceiling. 

 

Then there are the ensembles. Very successful ones like X Men and GOTG along with others like SS.

 

In other words, the all-time top 3 i.e. Superman, Batman and Spiderman are all down from their peaks.

 

Iron Man and Captain America are household names today owing to competent management of a studio and their slate of movies. Kevin Feige obviously is the person who has made it happen and deserves the credit for the same It is the time of Iron man and Captain America now till the next successful reboot of the top 3. They are just too popular to stay down very long. Just need some talented people behind their movies to bring them back to glory.

 

P.S.: These are all based on the movie universe not the actual comic book sales about which I have very little knowledge. 

[Nova]

@BKB IS CAPTAIN AMERICAyour gifs give me life 

[Water Bottle]

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/12/11654248/captain-america-civil-war-batman-v-superman-marvel-tv

 

I think this is a great article that explores the three different superhero universes (FOX's X-Men, MCU, and DCEU).

 

As to why MCU remains king:

 

Singer is perhaps the best director of superpowered action on Earth, but when it comes time to have

Apocalypse dovetail with story threads from the earlier X-Men: First Class (which was directed by someone else entirely), both Singer's direction and Simon Kinberg's script rely on hackneyed devices and clumsy storytelling, usually involving poorly inserted flashbacks.

 

and

 

Snyder's Warner Bros. films, meanwhile, seemingly start from the assumption that people have come not to see an individual story but a long series of teases for other ones. It's like he knows what he needs to do but can't focus on the task at hand.

 

I know we all talk about how Kevin Feige is a genius but really why the MCU would survive without him is Marvel Studios doesn't work like other studios whereas WB and 20th Century Fox are still traditionally making the DCEU and X-Men films.

 

But the MCU isn't perfect:

 

The storytelling is much more TV-like, in terms of how individual films are structured like "episodes" of a TV show (with roughly similar stories, even — for a long time, you could accurately describe every Marvel film as "a fight at the beginning, a fight in the middle, a fight at the end, all linked together with snark"), and in terms of how they assume your past knowledge of the characters' exploits. Again, that's true of comics, but it's much more true of modern cable television.

 

 

(Paging @CJohn since I think he'd be interested in the article even if he likely avoids this thread like the plaque.)

[CJohn]

1 hour ago, Water Bottle said:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/12/11654248/captain-america-civil-war-batman-v-superman-marvel-tv

 

I think this is a great article that explores the three different superhero universes (FOX's X-Men, MCU, and DCEU).

 

As to why MCU remains king:

 

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

 

I know we all talk about how Kevin Feige is a genius but really why the MCU would survive without him is Marvel Studios doesn't work like other studios whereas WB and 20th Century Fox are still traditionally making the DCEU and X-Men films.

 

But the MCU isn't perfect:

 

 

 

 

 

(Paging @CJohn since I think he'd be interested in the article even if he likely avoids this thread like the plaque.)

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP MARKING ME HERE WHYYYYYYYYYYY

 

Thanks

 

[dashrendar44]

I thought "modern cable TV" was hailed as brilliant nowadays. How can people still use that hackneyed argument that MCU movie sucks because it looks like modern cable TV?

 

Don't people suck modern cable TV's and Netflix's dick raving about GOT, House Of Cards, True Detective, Stranger Things and so on like the best things since sliced bread, do they? Because they "look cinematic" on a superficial level?

 

Then what's wrong anymore to emulate a long-winded serial structure in movies? Things that were done back in the forties anyway.

 

Edited August 18, 2016 by dashrendar44