Pretty much puts to bed the notion that this is somehow a sequel to Man of Steel. This is a cash grab all the way. The fact that this is all Snyder and Goyer should make fans pretty skittish. Nolan knew this sort of thing would be tricky business. WB is doing what WB does. Doing things the cheap and easy way. Snyder got Man of Steel because he had a track record of making films fairly cheaply and quickly. They could have picked a director with some level of storytelling talent, like Aronofsky or Duncan Jones or Matt Reeves.
The sad part about this is that this could be one of the coolest movies ever made. As of right now, the only good thing I see about this is the Frank Miller inspired batsuit.
(05-22-2014 08:29 AM)TigerNK Wrote: Pretty much puts to bed the notion that this is somehow a sequel to Man of Steel. This is a cash grab all the way. The fact that this is all Snyder and Goyer should make fans pretty skittish. Nolan knew this sort of thing would be tricky business. WB is doing what WB does. Doing things the cheap and easy way. Snyder got Man of Steel because he had a track record of making films fairly cheaply and quickly. They could have picked a director with some level of storytelling talent, like Aronofsky or Duncan Jones or Matt Reeves.
The sad part about this is that this could be one of the coolest movies ever made. As of right now, the only good thing I see about this is the Frank Miller inspired batsuit.
Two things:
All tentpoles are cash grabs by the studios.
Snyder got Man of Steel because of 300 and Watchmen. Both were immaculate films visually, as was Man of steel.
(05-22-2014 08:29 AM)TigerNK Wrote: Pretty much puts to bed the notion that this is somehow a sequel to Man of Steel. This is a cash grab all the way. The fact that this is all Snyder and Goyer should make fans pretty skittish. Nolan knew this sort of thing would be tricky business. WB is doing what WB does. Doing things the cheap and easy way. Snyder got Man of Steel because he had a track record of making films fairly cheaply and quickly. They could have picked a director with some level of storytelling talent, like Aronofsky or Duncan Jones or Matt Reeves.
The sad part about this is that this could be one of the coolest movies ever made. As of right now, the only good thing I see about this is the Frank Miller inspired batsuit.
Two things:
All tentpoles are cash grabs by the studios.
Snyder got Man of Steel because of 300 and Watchmen. Both were immaculate films visually, as was Man of steel.
The "vs." part is curious, but the "dawn of justice" is obviously a nod to the future JLA movies. Most people don't really focus on the FULL title (ie Star Wars: "A New Hope" is casually termed Star Wars).
I think the "Vs." part will make people more interested. I thought Batman and Superman were both "good guys" so why would they be "versus" one another?
It takes a lot more than visuals to make a great movie. It's about telling a story. That's why MOS feels hollow compared to movies like The Dark Knight or Iron Man.
I dont think Affleck is a terrible choice for Batman. Uninspired and safe? That's another story.
(05-22-2014 12:14 PM)TigerNK Wrote: It takes a lot more than visuals to make a great movie. It's about telling a story. That's why MOS feels hollow compared to movies like The Dark Knight or Iron Man.
I dont think Affleck is a terrible choice for Batman. Uninspired and safe? That's another story.
I never understand the hollow thoughts on Man of Steel.
I watched it again last week. The beginning and middle is all M. Night Shyamalan style exposition about Clark's two dads and how he was loved and taught. The end was destruction porn, but it fit the narrative of Kryptonians fighting on Earth.
(05-22-2014 12:34 PM)Latilleon Wrote: I never understand the hollow thoughts on Man of Steel.
I watched it again last week. The beginning and middle is all M. Night Shyamalan style exposition about Clark's two dads and how he was loved and taught. The end was destruction porn, but it fit the narrative of Kryptonians fighting on Earth.
Haha. The bolded part about sums it up.
I think the issue is that the small amount of character development and exposition isn't really tied into the action that takes up the last 45 minutes of the movie. In that way it was more like a Transformers movie. Granted, I enjoy a good Transformers movie. It's just that Superman has so much mythos and cultural iconography that you should be able to make a movie at least as good as Batman Begins. They purposefully went with a "visual" director and they got a "visual" movie.
Marvel has shown a propensity to select filmmakers who are gifted storytellers with backgrounds in solid character work. WB/DC did that with Nolan and the Batman films. They did it with Godzilla. Fox did it with Planet of the Apes. Why did WB abandon that strategy with Superman?
If you hire gifted visual directors and hope they can tell a story, you get movies like Transformers and Man of Steel.
(This post was last modified: 05-23-2014 07:56 AM by TigerNK.)
Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, and Joe Johnston are not auteurs. LL & JJ are known for action/popcorn movies and Favreau had Made, Elf, and Zathura.
They directed four of the first five Marvel movies.
Snyder had a big hit out of a comic book movie and a well-received comic book movie. If Warner is handing their most important franchise (DC) now that Harry Potter & LOR is up to anyone, it's going to be someone they know gets them results.
They tried a character development director with superman returns. Many (including myself) thought SR sucked. The big criticism of the film was that there was no action. MoS was an obvious pushback on that.
DC movies have to be different than the Marvel movies. Green Lantern was an attempt to do a Marvel studio style movie and it flopped. DC has to find its own voice. MoS was obviously different than the Marvel movies. It that tone is what is to come from DC films, I'm fine with that. It won't be as profitable as Marvel because the appeal won't be as great for kids.
That title scares me of course. Affleck scares me of course. Snyder doesn't really scare me.
My guess is that Affleck is going to get the Batman series. How would you feel about that NK? Do you think his hits have given you the development you'd like to see?
(05-23-2014 09:07 AM)Latilleon Wrote: Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, and Joe Johnston are not auteurs. LL & JJ are known for action/popcorn movies and Favreau had Made, Elf, and Zathura.
They directed four of the first five Marvel movies.
Snyder had a big hit out of a comic book movie and a well-received comic book movie. If Warner is handing their most important franchise (DC) now that Harry Potter & LOR is up to anyone, it's going to be someone they know gets them results.
They tried a character development director with superman returns. Many (including myself) thought SR sucked. The big criticism of the film was that there was no action. MoS was an obvious pushback on that.
DC movies have to be different than the Marvel movies. Green Lantern was an attempt to do a Marvel studio style movie and it flopped. DC has to find its own voice. MoS was obviously different than the Marvel movies. It that tone is what is to come from DC films, I'm fine with that. It won't be as profitable as Marvel because the appeal won't be as great for kids.
That title scares me of course. Affleck scares me of course. Snyder doesn't really scare me.
My guess is that Affleck is going to get the Batman series. How would you feel about that NK? Do you think his hits have given you the development you'd like to see?
Favreau was chosen because he wanted to do a comic book movie and Marvel wanted someone they could control. Don't forget that he has a background in comedy and screenwriting. Johnston fit the source material like a glove. Interesting that you mentioned Leterrier. He was chosen for his experience in action. This was coming off the boring original Hulk movie. Any of that sound familiar? I think Incredible Hulk and MOS are similar in that they are good action movies, but don't come close to capturing the true essence of the title character.
Bryan Singer was coming off the first two, wildly successful, X-Men movies. He's hardly known for pure character studies. He made a good movie. He just didn't make a very exciting movie. Somewhere between Superman Returns and Man of Steel lies a great Superman movie.
The worry with this film should be that it spends more time setting up a future story than telling it's own story. That was the problem with Iron Man 2.
(05-23-2014 09:07 AM)Latilleon Wrote: Jon Favreau, Louis Leterrier, and Joe Johnston are not auteurs. LL & JJ are known for action/popcorn movies and Favreau had Made, Elf, and Zathura.
They directed four of the first five Marvel movies.
Snyder had a big hit out of a comic book movie and a well-received comic book movie. If Warner is handing their most important franchise (DC) now that Harry Potter & LOR is up to anyone, it's going to be someone they know gets them results.
They tried a character development director with superman returns. Many (including myself) thought SR sucked. The big criticism of the film was that there was no action. MoS was an obvious pushback on that.
DC movies have to be different than the Marvel movies. Green Lantern was an attempt to do a Marvel studio style movie and it flopped. DC has to find its own voice. MoS was obviously different than the Marvel movies. It that tone is what is to come from DC films, I'm fine with that. It won't be as profitable as Marvel because the appeal won't be as great for kids.
That title scares me of course. Affleck scares me of course. Snyder doesn't really scare me.
My guess is that Affleck is going to get the Batman series. How would you feel about that NK? Do you think his hits have given you the development you'd like to see?
Favreau was chosen because he wanted to do a comic book movie and Marvel wanted someone they could control. Don't forget that he has a background in comedy and screenwriting. Johnston fit the source material like a glove. Interesting that you mentioned Leterrier. He was chosen for his experience in action. This was coming off the boring original Hulk movie. Any of that sound familiar? I think Incredible Hulk and MOS are similar in that they are good action movies, but don't come close to capturing the true essence of the title character.
Bryan Singer was coming off the first two, wildly successful, X-Men movies. He's hardly known for pure character studies. He made a good movie. He just didn't make a very exciting movie. Somewhere between Superman Returns and Man of Steel lies a great Superman movie.
The worry with this film should be that it spends more time setting up a future story than telling it's own story. That was the problem with Iron Man 2.
You don't think The Usual Suspects was character driven and about development?
/
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice
