|
Post by politicidal on Mar 18, 2017 1:57:27 GMT
from Jay Baruchel. TEXT: Director Zack Snyder’s 2013 Superman movie franchise reboot Man of Steel was the starting point of the DC Extended Universe, but it was last year’s Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (also directed by Snyder) that truly opened the floodgates to the larger DCEU. Snyder will return to the DCEU for a third time later this year with his Justice League movie in the fall, after Patty Jenkins releases her Wonder Woman film – headlined by Batman V Superman‘s Gal Gadot – this June. While Batman V Superman proved to be a box office success worldwide, it received mostly negative reviews from critics and has proven quite divisive within the larger comic book superhero movie-loving community. Various people have since come out both in favor of and against Snyder’s Caped Crusader/Man of Steel blockbuster – and as it turns out, actor/director Jay Baruchel now officially falls into the former of those groups. During a recent interview with JoBlo, Baruchel came out in support of both the theatrical cut, but especially the Batman V Superman “Ultimate Edition” (aka. Snyder’s preferred, extended, R-Rated cut of the film). Baruchel said that Batman V Superman is “Probably the film I’ve seen the most from last year,” adding that he prefers it to the more positively-reviewed Captain America: Civil War: “THANK YOU! This is what I said, even when I saw the theatrical one and didn’t love it. In its weakest moment, it has more choice, style and commitment to it than the best moment in CIVIL WAR. CIVIL WAR, I can’t tell you what it’s about or who made it. You watch BATMAN V SUPERMAN you know exactly what it’s about and he fucking committed to a choice and DC always does that… I think history’s going to regard [BATMAN V SUPERMAN] as the world’s most expensive indie film.” screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-jay-baruchel-review/
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 18, 2017 2:17:23 GMT
yeah I read that and it's surprisingly recent.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 20, 2017 20:42:25 GMT
Yeah, the five different Batmans are a testament to that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 23:02:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 21, 2017 0:14:08 GMT
well regarding the later part of that statement he made, I think he means he felt the directors could have been interchangeable with any other individual. but you don't have to call him a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 21, 2017 0:36:13 GMT
Well, if he's saying that BvS felt that it had more of the director's touch then yeah I agree, you can see Snyder's fingerprints all over it. Unfortunately, I think it ultimately was bad for the movie. While Civil War doesn't feel quite as "touched" by its director/s it still comes out as the much better film. And in the end, what do you care about, the uniqueness of a film or the overall quality of the film?
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 21, 2017 1:01:27 GMT
Well, if he's saying that BvS felt that it had more of the director's touch then yeah I agree, you can see Snyder's fingerprints all over it. Unfortunately, I think it ultimately was bad for the movie. While Civil War doesn't feel quite as "touched" by its director/s it still comes out as the much better film. And in the end, what do you care about, the uniqueness of a film or the overall quality of the film? I think some directors (since I believe Baruchel is entering the directing game) are extremely open to other directors who have a stamp, whether or not the films are good, great, or terrible. some like the unwavering direction a Refn or a Cronenberg, Lynch, Fincher where the director says "i'm going this way.....and that's it" and despite the reception that film is theirs......even an Alien3, because no matter how much Fincher despises it, you can see so much of him embedded into that film. others.....like a mel Gibson.....less so......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 13:32:02 GMT
well regarding the later part of that statement he made, I think he means he felt the directors could have been interchangeable with any other individual. but you don't have to call him a dumbass. Too late. He's gets triggered by comments that aren't 100% pro-Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 13:53:09 GMT
Snyder's the wrong guy to be thumb printing the DC franchise.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 21, 2017 16:22:09 GMT
Snyder's the wrong guy to be thumb printing the DC franchise. Maybe, but again, outside of whether or not he's the right guy his this stamp is present is all.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 16:33:31 GMT
I understand. But just because animals wiz on something to mark it as theirs, doesn't mean it's a necessity for humans.
After all, even Ed Wood had his own distinct stamp.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 21, 2017 16:50:45 GMT
Well, if he's saying that BvS felt that it had more of the director's touch then yeah I agree, you can see Snyder's fingerprints all over it. Unfortunately, I think it ultimately was bad for the movie. While Civil War doesn't feel quite as "touched" by its director/s it still comes out as the much better film. And in the end, what do you care about, the uniqueness of a film or the overall quality of the film? I think some directors (since I believe Baruchel is entering the directing game) are extremely open to other directors who have a stamp, whether or not the films are good, great, or terrible. some like the unwavering direction a Refn or a Cronenberg, Lynch, Fincher where the director says "i'm going this way.....and that's it" and despite the reception that film is theirs......even an Alien3, because no matter how much Fincher despises it, you can see so much of him embedded into that film. others.....like a mel Gibson.....less so...... I guess it boils down to which set of eyes you're viewing the movie through. I assume that for directors, they'd probably prize individual creativity as the higher metric whereas the genera audience would prefer just to have a better film.
|
|
blackhole9
New Member
@blackhole9
Posts: 41
Likes: 25
|
Post by blackhole9 on Mar 21, 2017 20:04:05 GMT
lmao... mcu kiddies are being triggered
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 21, 2017 20:06:07 GMT
That's not what triggered means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 22:44:46 GMT
well regarding the later part of that statement he made, I think he means he felt the directors could have been interchangeable with any other individual.but you don't have to call him a dumbass. He's still wrong. If he can't see what the Russos brought to the table for Winter Soldier and Civil War, then he's blind AND dumb. Captain America is an incredibly difficult character to bring to the big screen in the 2010s, and they've done so in a way that has not only been accepted, but absolutely captivated audiences and and made a character once thought to be a lost cause for a big budget adaptation into a star. They brought a real weight and helped make him relevant to today's audiences. That's not interchangeable with just any other director. They were hired specifically because of what they could do for the character. So, Baruchel is a dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 21, 2017 23:21:33 GMT
well regarding the later part of that statement he made, I think he means he felt the directors could have been interchangeable with any other individual.but you don't have to call him a dumbass. He's still wrong. If he can't see what the Russos brought to the table for Winter Soldier and Civil War, then he's blind AND dumb. Captain America is an incredibly difficult character to bring to the big screen in the 2010s, and they've done so in a way that has not only been accepted, but absolutely captivated audiences and and made a character once thought to be a lost cause for a big budget adaptation into a star. They brought a real weight and helped make him relevant to today's audiences. That's not interchangeable with just any other director. They were hired specifically because of what they could do for the character. So, Baruchel is a dumbass. well you seem to get aggressive quickly, anyways. perhaps his issues aren't with the character or the iteration, but just the film, maybe he enjoys the films but doesn't see them as amazing, but we don't know, since he didn't go into details. and even some relatively credible reviewers/critics felt the sociopolitical angles to Cap3 felt like, and I quote, "window dressing" that while the film was fun, but didn't have great depth, so opinions vary. and harkening back to the interchangeability, well you can argue you could have put Scott Derrickson on Cap2 or 3 and had something similar, or you could have stuck the Russo brothers on Doctor Strange, but of course we'll never actually know that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2017 23:30:29 GMT
He's still wrong. If he can't see what the Russos brought to the table for Winter Soldier and Civil War, then he's blind AND dumb. Captain America is an incredibly difficult character to bring to the big screen in the 2010s, and they've done so in a way that has not only been accepted, but absolutely captivated audiences and and made a character once thought to be a lost cause for a big budget adaptation into a star. They brought a real weight and helped make him relevant to today's audiences. That's not interchangeable with just any other director. They were hired specifically because of what they could do for the character. So, Baruchel is a dumbass. well you seem to get aggressive quickly, anyways. perhaps his issues aren't with the character or the iteration, but just the film, maybe he enjoys the films but doesn't see them as amazing, but we don't know, since he didn't go into details. and even some relatively credible reviewers/critics felt the sociopolitical angles to Cap3 felt like, and I quote, "window dressing" that while the film was fun, but didn't have great depth, so opinions vary. and harkening back to the interchangeability, well you can argue you could have put Scott Derrickson on Cap2 or 3 and had something similar, or you could have stuck the Russo brothers on Doctor Strange, but of course we'll never actually know that. Well, those "credible" reviewers were wrong. Sorry to have to tell you that. The sociopolitical angles in Cap3 are not window dressing. If they were mere window dressing, the film wouldn't have made them integral enough to the plot to have The Avengers at each other's throats over them. Yes, there is a very personal story underneath the political angle, but that doesn't make it window dressing. Oh, and there is a lot of depth in the film. Sorry you're unable to see it. Opinions can be wrong. Harkening back to interchangeability: no, you can't argue that, because Scott Derrickson isn't well-suited to films like Cap 2 and 3, and you'd know if you've ever seen any of his other films. He was hired because Doctor Strange is right up his visual and story-telling alley. And the Russos were hired for Caps2 and 3 because their talents lend themselves to those kinds of films. I know you absolutely refuse to give any of the filmmakers who have worked on the MCU any credit for how the films turned out, and you are wrong to take that stance.
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 0:00:46 GMT
well you seem to get aggressive quickly, anyways. perhaps his issues aren't with the character or the iteration, but just the film, maybe he enjoys the films but doesn't see them as amazing, but we don't know, since he didn't go into details. and even some relatively credible reviewers/critics felt the sociopolitical angles to Cap3 felt like, and I quote, "window dressing" that while the film was fun, but didn't have great depth, so opinions vary. and harkening back to the interchangeability, well you can argue you could have put Scott Derrickson on Cap2 or 3 and had something similar, or you could have stuck the Russo brothers on Doctor Strange, but of course we'll never actually know that. Well, those "credible" reviewers were wrong. Sorry to have to tell you that. The sociopolitical angles in Cap3 are not window dressing. If they were mere window dressing, the film wouldn't have made them integral enough to the plot to have The Avengers at each other's throats over them. Yes, there is a very personal story underneath the political angle, but that doesn't make it window dressing. Oh, and there is a lot of depth in the film. Sorry you're unable to see it. Opinions can be wrong. Harkening back to interchangeability: no, you can't argue that, because Scott Derrickson isn't well-suited to films like Cap 2 and 3, and you'd know if you've ever seen any of his other films. He was hired because Doctor Strange is right up his visual and story-telling alley. And the Russos were hired for Caps2 and 3 because their talents lend themselves to those kinds of films. I know you absolutely refuse to give any of the filmmakers who have worked on the MCU any credit for how the films turned out, and you are wrong to take that stance. I've seen his other films there's nothing very flashy about them (except for maybe his pretty bad The Day the Earth Stood Still remake) I'm also not a fan of them...so there's that. As for the Russos, they did amazing work on Community, granted that may have been more Dan Harmon, but solely judging by that series and their other film, I saw nothing that indicated they should have been able to make cap2, other than tight storytelling and characters/character interaction, but nothing tonally or on the subject matter. If anything they seemed better suited for an avengers film, which they're doing now. And please don't assume you know exactly where I stand. And an opinion on a film cannot be right or wrong, it may sway from the general consensus, but it's not wrong because it's not math, or science it's pure interpretation. I mean there must be a film the majority has "agreed" is bad, but you see it as quite good, and vice versa.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 0:06:53 GMT
Somehow, I knew you'd be completely unwilling to give the MCU's filmmakers any credit. Fine. The filmmakers behind the DCEU are brilliant and perfect and superior in every way while the MCU ones are stupid, interchangeable hacks incapable of doing anything right without Feige there to guide them. There, happy?
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Mar 22, 2017 0:31:47 GMT
Somehow, I knew you'd be completely unwilling to give the MCU's filmmakers any credit. Fine. The filmmakers behind the DCEU are brilliant and perfect and superior in every way while the MCU ones are stupid, interchangeable hacks incapable of doing anything right without Feige there to guide them. There, happy? No? All I said was if you look at what the Russos did on their past projects there is no huge signs they would be ideal for a political thriller.......I mean prior to Cap2 were you able to see how they were a match for it? Doesn't mean I don't like Cap2 or Cap3 And yeah......I don't like Scott Derrickson's work, whoops? You're putting words in my mouth. Are they interchangeable? I don't know, I was tossing you an opposing opinion, you know.....like playing devil's advocate. If you think I feel the DCEU is flawless gem.......you're wrong, if you think I hold Zack in the highest regard....you're dead wrong, I like the guy enough, but I'm not swearing an allegiance to the dude. And you didn't answer my question on opinions being right or wrong.
|
|