The Warner Bros. Thread | Will NOT merge with Paramount...capitalism is still terrible

[Macleod]

11 hours ago, DlAMONDZ said:

Just the impression I get after hearing her talk about getting "closure" in WW3

Early negotiation tactics...  it's "the final chapter of a trilogy"... until it isn't.  Her initial contract "options" were probably for three films.  It is funny that she's using those words, while Jenkins has already mentioned that she has a fourth movie in her head...  It really will simply depend on how Film #3 turns out, and how the audience responds!  

[excel1]

The "trilogy" is dead. Modern audiences need way, way more development ala the MCU. Star Wars episodes 7-9 needed to be...episodes 7-10 or 11/

[WittyUsername]

1 hour ago, excel1 said:

The "trilogy" is dead. Modern audiences need way, way more development ala the MCU. Star Wars episodes 7-9 needed to be...episodes 7-10 or 11/

The problem with the Star Wars sequels wasn’t that it was a trilogy. It was that it was sloppily put together, with no real plan in mind. Regardless of whether you love or hate TLJ, allowing Rian Johnson to do whatever the hell he wanted for the middle chapter of a trilogy may not have been the best idea in hindsight.

[Eric Duncan]

Moderation

 

Not the Star Wars thread. Thank you.

[Legion Again]

Yeah, not touching this SW stuff. I do think the topic of “are trilogies dead because audiences want more than 3 movies of development” is an interesting one though.   
 

I would say no. Or... not exactly. Even the MCU stuck to trilogies for Iron Man and Cap the two most pivotal characters in the Infinity Saga. But you do probably want either:  

a tightly plotted self-contained trilogy

or

a trilogy where the character also appears in other movies/shows before, in between, and possibly after 

[charlie Jatinder]

4 minutes ago, WandaLegion said:

Even the MCU stuck to trilogies for Iron Man and Cap the two most pivotal characters in the Infinity Saga.

But Thor got the fourth one, but may be we will have a Trilogy by Taika, so still all good and fine. 😊

[Legion Again]

4 minutes ago, jatvision said:

But Thor got the fourth one, but may be we will have a Trilogy by Taika, so still all good and fine. 😊

But the real headscratcher — if we get a sequel to Quantumania, is it breaking trilogy limit for Ant-Man... or completing the Ant-Man and the Wasp trikogy  

[charlie Jatinder]

3 minutes ago, WandaLegion said:

completing the Ant-Man and the Wasp trilogy

well that's what it is.

 

but the real headscratcher is Spider-man 4, or may be we will have 3-5 as the trilogy of Disney and Sony having equal rights.

Edited January 24, 2021 by jatvision

[WittyUsername]

Yeesh, I know I’m guilty of contributing to the Star Wars discussion in a WB thread, but why are we now talking about Marvel movies? 
 

To try and get back on topic, I seriously doubt there’s going to be a fourth Wonder Woman movie. Personally, I don’t even think they should bother with a third one, but it seems they’ve already made up their minds on that. In my ideal world, the Snyder Cut would’ve been the swan song for this universe of movies. Either that or one more Henry Cavill Superman movie. 

[excel1]

2 hours ago, WandaLegion said:

I would say no. Or... not exactly. Even the MCU stuck to trilogies for Iron Man and Cap the two most pivotal characters in the Infinity Saga.

 

This is nonsense, respectfully. IRON MAN and CAP got 3 solo films but obviously had their character development happen in other films, too. Iron Man especially who was the star of all 4 primary Avengers AND Civil War.

 

2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

The problem with the Star Wars sequels wasn’t that it was a trilogy. It was that it was sloppily put together, with no real plan in mind. Regardless of whether you love or hate TLJ, allowing Rian Johnson to do whatever the hell he wanted for the middle chapter of a trilogy may not have been the best idea in hindsight.

 

Disagree totally and this is not Star Wars talk per say. 

 

The original Star Wars trilogy, for example, has basically zero character development compared to the respected modern "trilogies". Different eras of course, but the point remains none the less. The new trilogy, on the other hand, had a lot of boxes to check outside of developing the main new slew of stars. As a result, it felt really rushed after just 3 films in stark contrast to the MCU which developed Stark 9!! films (Iron man 1, 2, 3, Avengers 1, 2, 3, 4, Civil War AND Spidey 1). Cap and Thor all got 3 films + Avengers too. The MCU's more protected character development is audiences need.

 

Ending Gadot's take on Wonder Woman after the next film will feel like a total waste. It feels like she basically just started and there is a lot of story telling mileage left there. Go for 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WittyUsername]

5 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Ending Gadot's take on Wonder Woman after the next film will feel like a total waste. It feels like she basically just started and there is a lot of story telling mileage left there. Go for 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What mileage is there left that could sustain two more movies?

[filmlover]

8 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Ending Gadot's take on Wonder Woman after the next film will feel like a total waste. It feels like she basically just started and there is a lot of story telling mileage left there. Go for 4.

Well, she has played the character in 4 movies in less than 5 years now. The quality of the movies themselves vary but still.

 

The MCU has become so big at this point that none of the movies can exist in a vacuum anymore. The reason the trilogy franchise has seemed to become a thing of the past is because everyone's been trying to create their own universe to little success (the DCEU appears to have moved away after trying to take a short cut to success didn't work out and Universal's Dark Universe collapsed after one bomb - even Disney's attempts at milking every last ounce out of Star Wars at the multiplex ended when a movie nobody ever asked for flopped). Potential comeback for this decade, maybe.

[excel1]

Considering Diana has basically gone through zero arc through her films, I'd say there is plenty of mileage left.

 

WB left billions on the table letting Nolan's TDK Batman follow up be the final film of the series. There should have been one more big prime-Batman movie before TDKR. In hindsight all of that feels rushed too.

[Legion Again]

7 hours ago, excel1 said:

This is nonsense, respectfully. IRON MAN and CAP got 3 solo films but obviously had their character development happen in other films, too. Iron Man especially who was the star of all 4 primary Avengers AND Civil War.

You seem to have deliberately failed to quote the part of my post which.., says exactly that:

10 hours ago, WandaLegion said:

you do probably want either:  

a tightly plotted self-contained trilogy

or

a trilogy where the character also appears in other movies/shows before, in between, and possibly after 

I honestly have no idea what you hoped to gain by making the exact same point I already had but editing my statement to make it seem like a rebuttal instead.

[excel1]

1 hour ago, WandaLegion said:

You seem to have deliberately failed to quote the part of my post which.., says exactly that:

I honestly have no idea what you hoped to gain by making the exact same point I already had but editing my statement to make it seem like a rebuttal instead.

 

The point is none of them received anything close to a trilogy. Stark was in 9 films, Cap in 7 and Thor will be in 8. Even a tightly woven trilogy just is not enough in todays age to develop get all possible dollars out of a character before they go stale. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by excel1

[Legion Again]

9 minutes ago, excel1 said:

 

The point is none of them received anything close to a trilogy. Stark was in 9 films, Cap in 7 and Thor will be in 8. Even a tightly woven trilogy just is not enough in todays age to develop get all possible dollars out of a character before they go stale. 

They literally each got 1 solo trilogy. 3 solo films. They were also in other movies, as I said, so we are back to you agreeing with my post whil misrepresenting it to seem like a big disagreement 🤷‍♂️

[Eric Duncan]

Moderation

 

Alright, we're getting too off-topic here. I think we can end things right now.

[excel1]

WB would be dumb - criticality, creatively, commercially - to end Gadot's WW run at 3 solo films. WW84 doesn't even count. There is so much mileage left in there. 

[lorddemaxus]

Just now, excel1 said:

WB would be dumb - criticality, creatively, commercially - to end Gadot's WW run at 3 solo films. WW84 doesn't even count. There is so much mileage left in there. 

Nah, Gal Gadot's a bad actress and WB made a dumb decision letting Snyder cast her in the first place.

[WittyUsername]

Gal Gadot is perfectly fine as Wonder Woman.