Post by judgejosephdredd on Sept 16, 2018 15:58:54 GMT
As mcu movies are pixar toy commercials, they will always make money but as real movies like xmen 2000 or spiderman 2002 or blade? people are sick of it. the dumb masses that disney appeals to will always give them money but real people are always in for something new, fresh, daring, grown up and serious.
this is why a psychological horror movie like new mutants is important for the comic genre
this is why we need the Spielberg Blackhaawk movie.
we cannot depend on comedy cgi mcu disney movies.
As always said, it is not as if TDK, Spiderman 2 or Logan were flawless masterpieces for DC, Spiderman or X-Men, it is because mcu movies are so horrible and brainless they make tdk , spiderman 2 and logan look like flawless masterpieces.
Also, do you remember when spiderman and xmen were the face of marvel, marvel was far more respected and liked by everyone, they barely got hate and their critical acclaim was never questioned? now mcu are the face, marvel is seen as the transformers of comics hate by mostly everyone but kids, the dumb masses and their fans. people flee the mcu brand for quality reasons.
Here is the deal. if you think mcu is so a list, then I dare you to reject and remove spiderman and xmen from going to disney. let them contunue separately.
Let fox make new mutants, xforce and multiple man and do ask disney to sell the game and cartoon rights of xmen to WB or even Sony, I mean what is the point of disney banning xmen games and cartoons when disney can sell the rights off and make money of it.
Let Venon be its thing and let the great Spike Lee makes his Spiderman spin off movie, Let Into The Spiderverse be. As said, true a listers can survive independently and stand alone. They dont need disney buying them flawless pr, brainless cinematic cross overs movies or paid Oscars recognitions. sorry.
"Real movies"? Define what is and what isn't a "real movie". Last I checked a movie is( as Wikipedia sums it up nicely) "a film, also called a movie, motion picture, moving picture, theatrical film, or photoplay, is a series of still images that, when shown on a screen, create the illusion of moving images. So really anything, including a montage of still photographs played to music, is a "real" movie. Are you also trying to suggest that the Fox produced X-Mens, Sony produced Spider-Mans, and Warner produced Blades are some kind of artistic treasures of the highest order? Maybe in terms of McMovies there's an argument to be made with one or two but trying to suggest they're possibly on the level of a Herzog, Malick, Kubrick, or Kurosawa or even Scorsese is just plain moronic and shows how less "advanced" your preferences in entertainment are.
"Real people"? Define what constitutes as "real people"? Last I checked entertainment preferences don't make a person any less "real" then another. What kind of world do you occupy?
New Mutants isn't testing very well, that's why it was pushed back a whole year and undergone extensive reshoots. The idea of it being a psychological thriller isn't a bad one but testing has been nothing short of disastrous.
Blackhawk isn't in active development, we haven't heard a peep since some months ago when it was announced. This is also Steven Spieberg we're talking about - he's *always* busy, and not every production he's been attached to has gotten made.
No, Marvel wasn't respected when we only had Sony's Spider-Man 1 and 2 or the original Fox produced X-Mens, they were just a comics company that made the source material they had little to no way what was going on the real superstars were their distribution companies and filmmakers. Back then we also saw more bad Marvel adaptations than good, X-Men and Spider-Man and Blade were basically the only three worth giving a crap because of how dull Daredevil, Elektra, Hulk, Ghost Rider, and Punisher were.