|
|
Post by medjay on Mar 22, 2017 23:39:29 GMT
Profound stories? Like what? But characters can't really die even if it would be a good story...cause toys... Thank you for proving you were lying when you said you watched these films. If you had, you'd at least recognize the 2nd and 3rd Captain America films, if nothing else. I liked the second one. Why should Magnold bow down before Marvel's greatness? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 23:41:56 GMT
Thank you for proving you were lying when you said you watched these films. If you had, you'd at least recognize the 2nd and 3rd Captain America films, if nothing else. I liked the second one. Why should Magnold bow down before Marvel's greatness? Show me where I said that. He's painting everything in broad strokes without actually having seen any of what's out there, and people like you are dumb enough to his word as gospel truth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 23:52:01 GMT
His general point about movies being 2 hour trailers is spot on. The movies exist to sell tickets and merchandise. Anything else is secondary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 23:54:34 GMT
Then he may as well quit being a filmmaker if all he makes is two hour advertisements. By the way, his Logan film was a two hour advertisement for the new girl Wolverine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 1:06:03 GMT
And yet DC's darker approach has been lambasted for the lack of ironic human during the mass slaughter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 1:43:23 GMT
And yet DC's darker approach has been lambasted for the lack of ironic human during the mass slaughter. Basically. Honestly, the only reason topics like this even exist is because it's popular to mock the current winner of any given competition. Plus, apparently the Disney company is The Devil while other companies are good and pure. |
|
|
|
Post by medjay on Mar 23, 2017 7:57:52 GMT
I liked the second one. Why should Magnold bow down before Marvel's greatness? Show me where I said that. He's painting everything in broad strokes without actually having seen any of what's out there, and people like you are dumb enough to his word as gospel truth. You sure as hell acting like Marvel movies are the greatest thing ever. |
|
|
|
Post by medjay on Mar 23, 2017 7:58:32 GMT
Then he may as well quit being a filmmaker if all he makes is two hour advertisements. By the way, his Logan film was a two hour advertisement for the new girl Wolverine. Unlike Marvel movies there were stakes and 2 important characters are dead. |
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Mar 23, 2017 8:26:46 GMT
Then he may as well quit being a filmmaker if all he makes is two hour advertisements. By the way, his Logan film was a two hour advertisement for the new girl Wolverine. Unlike Marvel movies there were stakes and 2 important characters are dead. Logan was a better movie than most super-hero movies and would have been even if he wasn't rated R. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlos_Tigro on Mar 23, 2017 10:20:58 GMT
Unlike Marvel movies there were stakes and 2 important characters are dead. Logan was a better movie than most super-hero movies and would have been even if he wasn't rated R. I agree. Logan was terrific |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 23, 2017 13:15:02 GMT
Logan is just a "The Last of Us" ripoff. Logan is nothing like The Last of Us. The only thing they have in common is that a guy with a beard and a little girl go on a journey together. It's really hard to give any merit to anything you say when you say something that is so clearly wrong and poorly constructed. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 23, 2017 13:37:06 GMT
Mangold is an insider, and he knows what he's talking about. Don't forget, he's made one such film himself (The Wolverine), and although he certainly tried hard not to make it as formulaic as so many of today's tentpoles are, he did realise that the studios basically design those tentpoles to move merchandise. Sure, thanks to lots of talented filmmakers and actors and amazing special effects most of those films are still entertaining enough, (hell: sometimes they're even good) but to the corporations who finance them they are basically nothing but gigantic multi-media platforms to launch a wide array of ancillary products which is where the real money comes from.
That's also why it doesn't really matter whether or not these tentpoles break even or make a profit during their theatrical runs: all they have to do is reach a critical mass of viewers and guarantee x-amount of market share to fulfill their function as "ads" for all the things the corporations want to sell you later. And they need these crazy expensive, gigantic marketing efforts to make sure their tentpole opens as big as possible to reach that critical mass of viewers during the small window of time before the NEXT blockbuster comes along or word of mouth kills it (a window which is getting smaller every year, as 2016 is living proof).
The real money all those tentpoles generate then comes in through an endless stream of ancillary revenue; TV rights, DVD and Bluray sales, sequels, toys, spin-offs, TV-shows and tie-ins, video games, books and comic books, soundtracks and (in the case of Disney) even theme park rides and muscials. So when studios talk about franchises, they don't just talk about a series of films; to them the franchise consists of all those ancillary products, and it doesn't matter in the least what part of the franchise the money comes from. It doesn't have to be from the box office performance of the films - as long as it comes.But, and this is important, those companies are now also increasingly oversaturating the market with their ancillary products: because the franchise market as a whole is getting more and more crowded, and that could lead to those corporations starting to eat into each other's ancillary revenue. And they absolutely need to put better movies out there, because it's still the films who have the biggest effect on the performance of all ancillary products.
I believe that unlike WB, a studio like Fox has finally realised that. A couple of bad films in a row can very effectively kill a whole franchise, so minimizing the risk by reducing the cost while trying to make actual quality movies the fans love and which are made by artists might not seem to be such a bad approach after all (which is basically what Mangold is saying). I'd say 'Deadpool', 'Kingsman' and 'Logan' proved that
If you're interested in the subject, I tried to write a comprehensive analysis of the "Superhero Formula" in this blog:www.the-fanboy-perspective.com/a-rant-against-modern-tentpole-film-making.htmlNeither Wolverine nor the X-Men movies exist to sell merchandise – there are almost no toys/collectibles based on the characters. It's nothing like that MCU or DCU. A couple of bad films in a row? First Class and DOFP were both very well received. Only Apocalypse wasn't. And prior to that, there were two well respected X-Men movies before the failure (X3) came out. You're not even right. And there is so much about his statements that are only about a fraction of the truth. Ant-Man did not have multiple main characters, nor did Dr. Strange. You want to say they were formulaic? Along with Thor 1 or even Ironman 1? I wouldn't object to that. But none of these movies have multiple main characters. None of these movies have so many characters that it takes away from the focus on the main one. Civil War, The Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, GOTG – none of these are what you could call stereo typical or cliché. One is a comedy and two of them create some great political, ethical, and moral debate. Formulaic? I think not. Do some of them have an ensemble cast? Sure, but insinuating that alone is a weakness is a flawed argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 23, 2017 14:20:37 GMT
Some of Marvels movies feel this way but not all, and certainly not the superhero movies by other production companies. Definitely not most.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 23, 2017 15:02:29 GMT
Logan was fantastic, but James Mangold needs to be taken down a notch. Get over yourself you pompous ass. Ant-Man did not have multiple main characters, nor did Dr. Strange. Some of the best work in the genre has come just in the last few years. Civil War, The Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, GOTG are some of the best received superhero movies to date. And none of these are exactly formulaic. The man also seems to not understand what an ensemble cast is. This. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Profit from the superhero movie boom but still act like he's too good for the genre. It's no better than when the Birdman director called the whole thing "cultural genocide". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 16:03:58 GMT
Then he may as well quit being a filmmaker if all he makes is two hour advertisements. By the way, his Logan film was a two hour advertisement for the new girl Wolverine. Unlike Marvel movies there were stakes and 2 important characters are dead. Whether there were more stakes is a subjective thing. Yes, and now they can never use those two important characters ever again, showing how short-sighted they are. Excuse Marvel for playing the long game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 16:04:48 GMT
Show me where I said that. He's painting everything in broad strokes without actually having seen any of what's out there, and people like you are dumb enough to his word as gospel truth. You sure as hell acting like Marvel movies are the greatest thing ever. No, I'm just tired of people acting like the very existence of a cinematic universe is an affront to nature. If you don't like the Marvel films, just stop watching them. You'll save money and your time. |
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 23, 2017 18:38:51 GMT
Oh for Pete's sake can't anybody enjoy superhero movies without getting caught in a pie fight over them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 19:06:38 GMT
Oh for Pete's sake can't anybody enjoy superhero movies without getting caught in a pie fight over them. I would gladly do so if everybody else would just let me. But no, here on IMDbv2, Disney-Marvel is The Devil while WB/DC and Fox-Men are good and pure. |
|
|
|
Post by Jerk on Mar 23, 2017 19:24:50 GMT
Thats really just his preference. It's not gospel. He has a point but it doesnt apply to evey story.
|
|
|
|
Post by skribb on Mar 23, 2017 22:45:13 GMT
Logan was fantastic, but James Mangold needs to be taken down a notch. Get over yourself you pompous ass. Ant-Man did not have multiple main characters, nor did Dr. Strange. Some of the best work in the genre has come just in the last few years. Civil War, The Winter Soldier, Days of Future Past, GOTG are some of the best received superhero movies to date. And none of these are exactly formulaic. The man also seems to not understand what an ensemble cast is. This. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Profit from the superhero movie boom but still act like he's too good for the genre. It's no better than when the Birdman director called the whole thing "cultural genocide". This is outright deplorable. What exactly did Inarrityu refer to? And yes Mangold is throwing pebbles in a glass house with those statements. |
|
