114 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr.House]

MerinTB wrote...

3 - Man of Steel was a HUGE success.  Tons of people are already ready to go to the sequel.  It is, perhaps, the best way to introduce the new Batman - in the context of the world that Man of Steel set up.  Easier to not continually compare a new Batman film to the last few Batman films if Batman is instead in a Superman film.

I wanted a real Man of steel 2, not a half baked team/vs movie where Batman will be the star and don't tell me Batman will not be the star. He will as he is much popular then Superman to the mainstream and more peopel like him.

DC is simply moving to fast so they can push their JL out asap to compete with Marvel, and don't tell me they are not rushing. They are. They are doing another team up movie with two other JL characters and Green Lantern is not even getting a reboot at all. Unlike Marvel that took it's time and the reward(Avengers) was worth it, DC is not and this will blow up in their face.

Modifié par Mr.House, 21 juillet 2013 - 10:06 .

[MerinTB]

Mr.House wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
3 - Man of Steel was a HUGE success.  Tons of people are already ready to go to the sequel.  It is, perhaps, the best way to introduce the new Batman - in the context of the world that Man of Steel set up.  Easier to not continually compare a new Batman film to the last few Batman films if Batman is instead in a Superman film.

I wanted a real Man of steel 2, not a half baked team/vs movie where Batman will be the star and don't tell me Batman will not be the star. He will as he is much popular then Superman to the mainstream and more peopel like him.

It's fair that you wanted a Superman sequel, and not a Batman/Superman film.  Absolutely fair.

I don't think it HAS TO BE Batman as the star.  Co-star, probably.

They know Batman is their cash-cow.  Like flipping Wolverine is for the mutant Marvel films.  We kind of have to accept that a major motion picture studio spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a film are going to bring their A properties to the game.  I'm not a fan of Batman, I'm meh on Batman, but I'm excited at this concept.  Instead of Batman getting another film, he's playing second fiddle to Superman and Superman is the basis of the new, expanded DC film universe.

Mr.House wrote...
DC is simply moving to fast so they can push their JL out asap to compete with Marvel, and don't tell me they are not rushing. They are. They are doing another team up movie with two other JL characters and Green Lantern is not even getting a reboot at all. Unlike Marvel that took it's time and the reward(Avengers) was worth it, DC is not and this will blow up in their face.

They are trying to get it out while the super-hero film is still the hot ticket, sure, but RUSHING it?  Do you know how long WB/DC have been trying to get this motor started on a Justice League film? 

2006.

When did Iron Man, the first of the expanded Marvel film universe hit theaters?  2008.

Rush?  They've been actively trying for at least 6 years.  Had Superman Returns done just a little better at the box office ($500 million instead of $400 million) it was setting up for a sequel, a tie-in with Batman, and paving the way for what they are doing, now, in 2013.

When Superman Returns "underperformed" they went with a different idea in 2007, of a younger cast and disconnected from SR and Nolan's Batman.  They had director, script, casting... but thanks to the script needing some work and the writer's strike, they let the whole project collapse.

Rush.  The idea had been well set that if Man of Steel did well enough it would be the springboard.  That had been the rumor out of WB for over a year before MoS was released.

I guess you could see that as still a rush.  But actors age - if you give about three years between film releases, you could, at best, squeeze maybe 7 films for a character in a roll before you start having the cast too old for the world you are portraying.

[xNYROx]

Remember how horrible the batman+superman cartoons were?

[MerinTB]

xNYROx wrote...
Remember how horrible the batman+superman cartoons were?

The Bruce Timm stuff, between Superman TAS and Batman TAS and the Justice League cartoon?

Those were great.

[xNYROx]

MerinTB wrote...

xNYROx wrote...
Remember how horrible the batman+superman cartoons were?

The Bruce Timm stuff, between Superman TAS and Batman TAS and the Justice League cartoon?

Those were great.

 I hated them all but the one that made me literally barf was....Superman/Batman: Public Enemies.

[MerinTB]

xNYROx wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

xNYROx wrote...
Remember how horrible the batman+superman cartoons were?

The Bruce Timm stuff, between Superman TAS and Batman TAS and the Justice League cartoon?

Those were great.

 I hated them all but the one that made me literally barf was....Superman/Batman: Public Enemies.

1. Public Enemies wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.
2. That's long after the Justice League cartoon ended.  Not the ones I'm talking about.  Public Enemies was like 2009, the Batman/Superman team-up around the two TAS's but before JL/JLU was in 1997 or so.

[xNYROx]

MerinTB wrote...

xNYROx wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

xNYROx wrote...
Remember how horrible the batman+superman cartoons were?

The Bruce Timm stuff, between Superman TAS and Batman TAS and the Justice League cartoon?

Those were great.

 I hated them all but the one that made me literally barf was....Superman/Batman: Public Enemies.

1. Public Enemies wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.
2. That's long after the Justice League cartoon ended.  Not the ones I'm talking about.  Public Enemies was like 2009, the Batman/Superman team-up around the two TAS's but before JL/JLU was in 1997 or so.

I may not have seen them...the Bruce Timm stuff I have seen has been within the last 7-8 years.

[TheChris92]

Fantastic - Another superhero-flick from Mr. Mediocrity himself Zack Snyder - The man has only directed one movie, which struck me as something more than just a CGI-fest with pretty visuals -- Namely, Watchmen. Man of Steel spent too much time showing off its pretty visuals, and less on actual dialogue or character development. It felt as if every important scene that involved some actual plot development would inevitably be interrupted by the action pulling Superman's attention way. A film with both Superman & Batman is bold due to how it sets the stage for a fight between Superman and Batman, before they start to work together and although it works in the comics, I have a hard time seeing how it can affect the semi-realistic tone that "Man of Steel" clinged itself to - Especially given how they have to introduce an entirely new Batman as well. Props should be given to Snyder though for sticking to the source material - Although sticking too close would only result in a mess of a movie and thus lose focus.
The thing with DC is that it is usually their animated feature films that manages to capture the essence of the said source material - The Dark Knight Returns is an example of how well DC manages to craft a perfect transition from comic to film.

What I personally would want DC to do is to make an awesome animated adaption of The Killing Joke already, with Mark Hamill as the Joker. Make it happen!

Modifié par TheChris92, 22 juillet 2013 - 09:38 .

[The Love Runner]

Ok, the thing is, when the Batman/Superman film comes out in 2015, it'll only be three years since we last saw Bale-Batman in The Dark Knight Rises. In another Batman-related thread, I said that Batman has pretty much been DC's poster boy for the last 25 (more or less) years. From 1989 (with the release of the original Batman film) to 2012 (with the release of Dark Knight Rises), he was the only member of the Justice League that we saw on a constant basis.

Within that time period (and including 2013), regarding DC superheroes, there have been 7 Batman films, but only 2 Superman films and 1 Green Lantern film. What Marvel superhero films have been released in that time period? 4 Spider-Man films, 2 Fantastic Four films, 2 Ghost Rider films, 5 X-Men films (with The Wolverine coming out in a few days, so it will change to 6), 1 Thor film (with the second one coming out in November), 3 Blade films, 3 Punisher films, 1 Daredevil film, 1 Elektra film, 2 Hulk films, 3 Iron Man films, 1 Captain America film, and 1 Avengers film.

It says a lot that Batman has been DC's consistent, money-making superhero over the years. If they were truly safe with starting a new franchise for Superman, I feel that there should have been at least one proper sequel, THEN a team-up film with Batman. The only other DC superhero film (as of this moment) that we will get before Justice League in 2017 is The Flash in 2016. I hope Flash gets his own successful franchise, so that the fans of the other Justice League superheroes will get to see their respective icons on the big screen in their own franchises for the first time.

Modifié par Galactic Runner, 22 juillet 2013 - 06:26 .

[The Love Runner]

Ben Affleck is the new Batman:

http://www.hollywood...tman-man-612907

[AresKeith]

Galactic Runner wrote...

Ben Affleck is the new Batman:

http://www.hollywood...tman-man-612907

BOOOOO

[KENNY4753]

Ben Affleck isnt even worthy of being Aqua Man...who the hell would let him be Batman

[Zanallen]

Hey, Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms.

[RedArmyShogun]

It will be very good. Or very bad.

[BouncyFrag]

I saw the story link and was like:

I read it and I am this:

Now I don't know what to do...

[In Exile]

Galactic Runner wrote...

Ben Affleck is the new Batman:

http://www.hollywood...tman-man-612907

A bunch of Disney executives must be having an amazing time right about now. 

[MerinTB]

TheChris92 wrote...
Fantastic - Another superhero-flick from Mr. Mediocrity himself Zack Snyder - The man has only directed one movie, which struck me as something more than just a CGI-fest with pretty visuals -- Namely, Watchmen.

One movie?

Did you take 5 seconds to even IMDB the guy?

Here's a list to save you the 30 seconds:

Dawn of the Dead
300
Watchmen
Legend of the Guardians
Sucker Punch
Man of Steel

Even discounting Man of Steel, that would be five movies.  I've not seen the animated owls movie (LotG) but I loved all the others.

So opinions vary.

As for Affleck as Batman -

Not in my top 3-5 choices, but I think it's a solid choice.  The Affleck hate is old.  Whether you personally like him or not, he is a talented actor and director, and a known name and safe bet.

Not who I'd pick, but I think it's a steady, dependable choice.

[MerinTB]

Galactic Runner wrote...
Within that time period (and including 2013), regarding DC superheroes, there have been 7 Batman films, but only 2 Superman films and 1 Green Lantern film. What Marvel superhero films have been released in that time period? 4 Spider-Man films, 2 Fantastic Four films, 2 Ghost Rider films, 5 X-Men films (with The Wolverine coming out in a few days, so it will change to 6), 1 Thor film (with the second one coming out in November), 3 Blade films, 3 Punisher films, 1 Daredevil film, 1 Elektra film, 2 Hulk films, 3 Iron Man films, 1 Captain America film, and 1 Avengers film.

Warner Bros. is one studio, a studio that makes movies other than super-hero movies, other than DC comics franchises.  Like, you know, the Harry Potter films and the Matrix films, to name a couple high-cost, high-profit film series.

Those Marvel movies you list?  That's (at least) FIVE separate studios making those films (technically eight.)  So, you know, five (really eight) times the resources. 

Fox has X-Men properties, Daredevil and Fantastic Four (and their related stuff, like Elektra, Deadpool, Silver Surfer, etc.)
Sony (Columbia) has Ghost Rider and Spider-Man (and the related properties)
New Line Cinema had the rights to Blade and all the Marvel vampire stuff (until recently, now Marvel has the rights again, but all the films were New Line)
Lions Gate had the rights to Punisher and all the related stuff (until recently, now Marvel has the rights again, but all the films were Lions Gate)

That's four.

The Hulk film (Ang Lee) was Universal with Marvel Enterprises (meaning mostly Universal.)

Universal is five.

Now the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the Avengers stuff, which Marvel Entertainment started Marvel Studios for.

Marvel Studios is the sixth

But Marvel Studios partnered with other companies.

The Iron Man films had Marvel Studios team up with Paramount.  Same deal with Thor and Captain America.  AND Avengers.  That's the seventh studio.

The Incredible Hulk was Marvel Studios and Universal.

Technically, Disney BOUGHT Marvel, so even though Disney isn't the producers on Avengers and forward, they own the company that is doing it and therefore can through their resources behind the projects.

So Disney is technically eight.

All the DC films, from Batman 1989 forward?  All Warner Bros., with the occasional partnership with Legendary.

Er, at least the ones you listed.

You missed 10 more (live action from 1989 forward) : Return of Swamp Thing, Steel, Catwoman, Watchmen, Jonah Hex, Constantine, V for Vendetta (if you count Punisher, I count V), The Losers, The League of Extraoridnary Gentlemen, and, technically due to owning the rights, The Spirit.  Now, you drag those films in, you get one done by Fox and one done by Lion's Gate, and one done Millimiter Films, but the other seven are WB.

And, even more technically (I know you said super-heroes) but from DC properties we've also had Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, Red and Red 2.

So, yeah.  You might want to try and get more of your facts straight, and understand the movie making business a bit more, before you start comparing apples (all the WB films making DC films) to oranges (all the numerous studios making Marvel films.)

[AresKeith]

MerinTB wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...
Fantastic - Another superhero-flick from Mr. Mediocrity himself Zack Snyder - The man has only directed one movie, which struck me as something more than just a CGI-fest with pretty visuals -- Namely, Watchmen.

One movie?

He's not saying Snyder only directed one movie, he was talking about only one movie

Reading comprehension

[MerinTB]

AresKeith wrote...
He's not saying Snyder only directed one movie, he was talking about only one movie

Reading comprehension

Rereading the sentence, I can see the other meaning.  I took it for him saying that the man directed one movie only, and that he saw it as mostly pretty CGI visuals.

So, even adjusting for him saying that the man only directed one movie that wasn't just all CGI pretty visuals, he's still really wrong.  Dawn of the Dead used little in the way of CGI, and 300 only a tad bit more.

Of course the animated owl movie was all CGI - it was animated.

Stupid comment is even more stupid than if it had been ignorant comment.

[TheChris92]

MerinTB wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...
Fantastic - Another superhero-flick from Mr. Mediocrity himself Zack Snyder - The man has only directed one movie, which struck me as something more than just a CGI-fest with pretty visuals -- Namely, Watchmen.

One movie?

Did you take 5 seconds to even IMDB the guy?

Here's a list to save you the 30 seconds:

Dawn of the Dead
300
Watchmen
Legend of the Guardians
Sucker Punch
Man of Steel

Even discounting Man of Steel, that would be five movies.  I've not seen the animated owls movie (LotG) but I loved all the others.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of the mediocrity that is Snyder's usual output - Watchmen was the only movie I found had a perfect balance of being honest to the source material and actually be a worthwhile film too - I do not know of the 300 comic that well but I do know that 300's intent, to be taken seriously, when the Spartans walk around in spandex is just funny. It's hilariously campy even though it isn't supposed to be and that's what turned me off there. I already stated what I felt was wrong with Man of Steel. I suppose some parts of my comment wasn't fair on his part - Perhaps I should have said "Zack Snyder's latest track record since Dawn of the Dead, the earliest film of his I've seen, has been nothing but mediocrity, nothing groundbreaking or amazing except for Watchmen". I can't say if his debut projects or so, before Dawn of the Dead, were 'AMAZAAA' since I admittedly have not seen them - But I can say based on what I've seen of the movies you so delightfully reminded of that he's done nothing very impressing. Ridley Scott used to spit out wonderful flicks such as Alien or a classic like Blade Runner. Today he's doing subpar action-thrillers. The times changes us all after all. He's not impressed me and Sucker Punch was dull. It's like Nicholas Cage, he was pretty good in Leaving Las Vegas, but his rather subpar & commercial performances of today has destroyed him as an actor for me. And indeed -- Opinions do vary, thank you. 

As for Affleck as Batman -

Not in my top 3-5 choices, but I think it's a solid choice.  The Affleck hate is old.  Whether you personally like him or not, he is a talented actor and director, and a known name and safe bet.

His part as Daredevil do him no justice - He has a track record of terrible acting, or at the very least nothing special, that outweighs the good - I would hope you'd understand some people's concern then. He's shown promise as a director with The Town, but not so much with his acting that the choice seems uninspired.

Modifié par TheChris92, 23 août 2013 - 10:26 .

[TheChris92]

MerinTB wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
He's not saying Snyder only directed one movie, he was talking about only one movie

Reading comprehension

Rereading the sentence, I can see the other meaning.  I took it for him saying that the man directed one movie only, and that he saw it as mostly pretty CGI visuals.

So, even adjusting for him saying that the man only directed one movie that wasn't just all CGI pretty visuals, he's still really wrong.  Dawn of the Dead used little in the way of CGI, and 300 only a tad bit more.

Of course the animated owl movie was all CGI - it was animated.

Stupid comment is even more stupid than if it had been ignorant comment.

Alright, you know what - Let me be clear here. 300 did use al ot of CGI and computer generated visuals,that much was clear from my time watching it. I like to tihnk he did this to provide an easier way, to create the epic battles of the comic it is based on instead of hiring 300 stage actors. Lord of the Rings does this too obviously - This includes mythological creatures that Butler fights throughout the movie. The problem is that the CGI is so transparent that it looks silly. Sucker Punch used it too. My consensus is that the CGI is partly what ruined some of these films for me, because that's all I really got out of Man of Steel - A pretty put-together visualfest of CGI proportions and nice set pieces. The action sequences were so many in numbers that it pulled all attention we had on character development away to Superman's next fighting scene. I did not state that every single movie he's ever made is a CGI-fest. I did, however, state that most of his track record is mediocre at best (in my opinion mind you). In most cases I found the CGI to be what was bothering me about these same films of his. I found Dawn of the Dead to another generic zombie flick which didn't really add much of anything. Satisfied with that answer? 

Modifié par TheChris92, 23 août 2013 - 09:16 .

[Cricketer15]

http://au.ign.com/ar...sounds-familiar

[mybudgee]

BEN AFFLECK!?!?
WHAT!!?
WHY??
Was Keanu busy??