NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Sept 30, 2018 19:56:21 GMT
.......Feige decided he was bored with being at the helm of the runaway success that is the MCU and decided he wanted more of a challenge? What if he went to WB and said, - "Offer me enough money and I will turn the DCEU into an unequivocal success, just like I did with the MCU."? Would hardcore DCU fans turn their back on their beloved franchise or hypocritically hail their new savior?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 30, 2018 20:01:02 GMT
Three threads in a single day? Must be a slow day for you, I take it?
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Sept 30, 2018 20:14:32 GMT
Wouldn't they just go watch the movies, to see if they are any good?
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Sept 30, 2018 20:16:46 GMT
Three threads in a single day? Must be a slow day for you, I take it? I like to take some time out to spoil my fans every once in a while.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Sept 30, 2018 20:18:21 GMT
Wouldn't they just go watch the movies, to see if they are any good? Many hardcore DCU fans claim to hate Feige and everything he stands for.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 30, 2018 20:24:28 GMT
This is an interesting thought experiment. The Faustian deal --- trade your soul for vast riches and notoriety. Would die-hard DC fans be content to have the DCEU toil away in obscurity with so-called masterpieces that are loved by a select few but, make no money and are derided by the mainstream press and general audiences?
I couldn't say...
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Sept 30, 2018 20:25:19 GMT
Wouldn't they just go watch the movies, to see if they are any good? Many hardcore DCU fans claim to hate Feige and everything he stands for. I would definitely pay to see his version of "SUPERFRIENDS"
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Sept 30, 2018 20:27:08 GMT
Many hardcore DCU fans claim to hate Feige and everything he stands for. I would definitely pay to see his version of "SUPERFRIENDS" You aren't a hardcore hater of the MCU.
|
|
NormanClature
Junior Member
"Anyone would think tin-pot-dictatorship is a bad thing???!?"
@armyofone
Posts: 2,108
Likes: 1,196
|
Post by NormanClature on Sept 30, 2018 20:57:54 GMT
This is an interesting thought experiment. The Faustian deal --- trade your soul for vast riches and notoriety. Would die-hard DC fans be content to have the DCEU toil away in obscurity with so-called masterpieces that are loved by a select few but, make no money and are derided by the mainstream press and general audiences? I couldn't say... I fear the DCU hardcore would try to claim that under the guidance of WB, Feige would be producing much darker and more thoughtful material than he had ever done before.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 30, 2018 21:04:40 GMT
Indeed... I suppose if anyone could beat the devil it would be a hardcore DCEU fan.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 30, 2018 21:20:45 GMT
geez, is that OP a masturbation exercise in self aggrandizing fanboy praise or a serious question..? If the latter, it's a fallacious, loaded question unable to distinguish between form and substance.
Meaning it will depend what substance Feige brings onto the table. If Feige would only push DC IPs into the formal straight jacket of his MCU formula he would fare no better than Josh Whedon did.
However, if he went for a different, artist approach enabling real filmmakers to produce varied and unique stuff such as Watchmen, TDK, Superman, WW - or even films like the new Joker movie, then who in the right mind would oppose him, even when a few failures are included.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 30, 2018 22:11:58 GMT
geez, it that OP a masturbation exercise in self aggrandizing fanboy praise or a serious question..? If the latter, it's a fallacious, loaded question unable to distinguish between form and substance. Meaning it will depend what substance Feige brings onto the table. If Feige would only push DC IPs into the formal straight jacket of his MCU formula he would fare no better than Josh Whedon did. However, if he went for a different, artist approach enabling real filmmakers to produce varied and unique stuff such as Watchmen, TDK, Superman, WW - or even films like the new Joker movie, then who in the right mind would oppose him, even when a few failures are included. So yes?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 30, 2018 23:00:53 GMT
geez, it that OP a masturbation exercise in self aggrandizing fanboy praise or a serious question..? If the latter, it's a fallacious, loaded question unable to distinguish between form and substance. Meaning it will depend what substance Feige brings onto the table. If Feige would only push DC IPs into the formal straight jacket of his MCU formula he would fare no better than Josh Whedon did. However, if he went for a different, artist approach enabling real filmmakers to produce varied and unique stuff such as Watchmen, TDK, Superman, WW - or even films like the new Joker movie, then who in the right mind would oppose him, even when a few failures are included. So yes? he is on my list of favorite Play-It-Safe Maestros right behind JJ Abrams and Michael Bay.
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 30, 2018 23:13:46 GMT
he is on my list of favorite Play-It-Safe Maestros right behind JJ Abrams and Michael Bay. It’s not really fair to say that Kevin Feige plays it safe. The entire foundation for the MCU was itself a pretty big gamble, especially given that they couldn’t use Spider-Man or the X-Men at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2018 0:26:27 GMT
he is on my list of favorite Play-It-Safe Maestros right behind JJ Abrams and Michael Bay. It’s not really fair to say that Kevin Feige plays it safe. The entire foundation for the MCU was itself a pretty big gamble, especially given that they couldn’t use Spider-Man or the X-Men at the time. I'm starting to think that part of the frequent derision associated with Mr. Feige is owed, at least in part, to the fact that he does not cut the figure of a traditional iconoclast in filmmaking. With his good-government schoolboy looks, follicle-challenged hairline and baseball-cap favoring fashion tendencies, he must seem more like a vacuum cleaner salesman than a Svengali-like ringmaster. He doesn't have the studious glare of Kubrick or the crisp on-set presentation of Nolan and, of course, he certainly lacks the gym-jones approved physique of Zack Snyder. Perhaps if he had a producer-specific stylist he might fair better with the intelligencia? it's odd that he is so frequently compared to Directors when he himself is a Producer who has directed nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 1, 2018 6:33:22 GMT
he is on my list of favorite Play-It-Safe Maestros right behind JJ Abrams and Michael Bay. It’s not really fair to say that Kevin Feige plays it safe. The entire foundation for the MCU was itself a pretty big gamble, especially given that they couldn’t use Spider-Man or the X-Men at the time. 20-times family-friendly, formula super hero fare in the same franchise during a CBM bubble. JJ and Bay seem like daring auteur filmmakers compared to that. I think you should get out of your comic book basement and rethink your risk assessments. Thanks for the laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 1, 2018 7:09:17 GMT
It’s not really fair to say that Kevin Feige plays it safe. The entire foundation for the MCU was itself a pretty big gamble, especially given that they couldn’t use Spider-Man or the X-Men at the time. 20-times family-friendly, formula super hero fare in the same franchise during a CBM bubble. JJ and Bay seem like daring auteur filmmakers compared to that. I think you should get out of your comic book basement and rethink your risk assessments. Thanks for the laugh. He greenlit and pushed Ironman a not well known comic property outside comic book readers with a new Marvel Studios. A studio that just leveraged almost everyone of their remaining IP to a bank for a 500m loan. The bank would not let them use any of the 500m on the Ironman movie because it was not one of the IP's they put in the deal. They couldn't use the money on the sequel either. He also pushed for an Incredible Hulk. (and using the partnership with Universal just after a Hulk movie that bombed) The Boyscout Captain America with it's jolly ah shucks lead (in a world that's pretty jaded and apathetic) with an actor that has been in previously panned Comic Book movies. He pushed for the 140m Ironman with their own money against Ike Perlmetter his boss who is knwon to be cheap. They needed the 500m loan because they just became solvent from almost being bankrupt. (the cheapness of Ike just pulled them out of this) So he produced the movie with the 140m that they did have. If Ironman were to bomb they wouldn't be able to pull out of the hole for a while. And would put in jeopardy the rest of the company to pay back the 500m Loan. He also went with a fairly good Director in hind sight but who's biggest of films were Elf and Zathura that he directed. And a Lead who had recently pulled himself out of what a 15-20 year old downward spiral of drugs. 6-8 years prior RDJ was in jail and I'm pretty sure he broke into a house high AF and fell asleep on some random person's couch. RDJ was such a risk as lead that the Actor that played Ironman's friend got paid gobs more than he did. He also pushed for Ironman to be the lynch pin for the cinematic universe they wanted to build. Yeah no risks at all. Edit: Forgot about Thor. Greenlit with a slightly better known character. With a Lead who's biggest credit was a 5 minute scene in the beginning of Star Trek. With a director known for acting and directing works of Shakespeare.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 1, 2018 9:00:01 GMT
20-times family-friendly, formula super hero fare in the same franchise during a CBM bubble. JJ and Bay seem like daring auteur filmmakers compared to that. I think you should get out of your comic book basement and rethink your risk assessments. Thanks for the laugh. He greenlit and pushed Ironman a not well known comic property outside comic book readers with a new Marvel Studios. A studio that just leveraged almost everyone of their remaining IP to a bank for a 500m loan. The bank would not let them use any of the 500m on the Ironman movie because it was not one of the IP's they put in the deal. They couldn't use the money on the sequel either. He also pushed for an Incredible Hulk. (and using the partnership with Universal just after a Hulk movie that bombed) The Boyscout Captain America with it's jolly ah shucks lead (in a world that's pretty jaded and apathetic) with an actor that has been in previously panned Comic Book movies. He pushed for the 140m Ironman with their own money against Ike Perlmetter his boss who is knwon to be cheap. They needed the 500m loan because they just became solvent from almost being bankrupt. (the cheapness of Ike just pulled them out of this) So he produced the movie with the 140m that they did have. If Ironman were to bomb they wouldn't be able to pull out of the hole for a while. And would put in jeopardy the rest of the company to pay back the 500m Loan. He also went with a fairly good Director in hind sight but who's biggest of films were Elf and Zathura that he directed. And a Lead who had recently pulled himself out of what a 15-20 year old downward spiral of drugs. 6-8 years prior RDJ was in jail and I'm pretty sure he broke into a house high AF and fell asleep on some random person's couch. RDJ was such a risk as lead that the Actor that played Ironman's friend got paid gobs more than he did. He also pushed for Ironman to be the lynch pin for the cinematic universe they wanted to build. Yeah no risks at all. Edit: Forgot about Thor. Greenlit with a slightly better known character. With a Lead who's biggest credit was a 5 minute scene in the beginning of Star Trek. With a director known for acting and directing works of Shakespeare. That's the best you got? Yes, multi-million blockbuster fare are expensive and tricky to finance and there is always a risk that you cannot bring in the money, always, even with popular IP with a built-in kiddy audience during a CBM-craze.
I guess that is exactly why Feige played it so very safe for over 20 movies. And that was the only point.
Comparable play-it-save CBM franchises and producers have at least some out-of-formula, "risk-ier" movies under their belt, even M Bay has (lol), what does Feige have? And no, Logan & Co do not count as MCU now.
Hulk underperforms, Feige does not even try again: Let's play it save. Thor 1/2 do not well enough, let's reboot it a la Guardians which is the rac shit currently: Play it save. Cap 1/2 do fine, but they could do more, let's do film 3 as an Avengers movie: Play it save. Female superheroes are boxoffice risk ("disaster"), let's do it after the succsess of WW as MCU movie Nr 22 (!): Play it save, Mr Feige...do we have a pattern here.... QED
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Oct 1, 2018 9:17:22 GMT
He greenlit and pushed Ironman a not well known comic property outside comic book readers with a new Marvel Studios. A studio that just leveraged almost everyone of their remaining IP to a bank for a 500m loan. The bank would not let them use any of the 500m on the Ironman movie because it was not one of the IP's they put in the deal. They couldn't use the money on the sequel either. He also pushed for an Incredible Hulk. (and using the partnership with Universal just after a Hulk movie that bombed) The Boyscout Captain America with it's jolly ah shucks lead (in a world that's pretty jaded and apathetic) with an actor that has been in previously panned Comic Book movies. He pushed for the 140m Ironman with their own money against Ike Perlmetter his boss who is knwon to be cheap. They needed the 500m loan because they just became solvent from almost being bankrupt. (the cheapness of Ike just pulled them out of this) So he produced the movie with the 140m that they did have. If Ironman were to bomb they wouldn't be able to pull out of the hole for a while. And would put in jeopardy the rest of the company to pay back the 500m Loan. He also went with a fairly good Director in hind sight but who's biggest of films were Elf and Zathura that he directed. And a Lead who had recently pulled himself out of what a 15-20 year old downward spiral of drugs. 6-8 years prior RDJ was in jail and I'm pretty sure he broke into a house high AF and fell asleep on some random person's couch. RDJ was such a risk as lead that the Actor that played Ironman's friend got paid gobs more than he did. He also pushed for Ironman to be the lynch pin for the cinematic universe they wanted to build. Yeah no risks at all. Edit: Forgot about Thor. Greenlit with a slightly better known character. With a Lead who's biggest credit was a 5 minute scene in the beginning of Star Trek. With a director known for acting and directing works of Shakespeare. That's the best you got? Yes, multi-million blockbuster fare are expensive and tricky to finance and there is always a risk that you cannot bring in the money, always, even with popular IP with a built-in kiddy audience during a CBM-craze.
I guess that is exactly why Feige played it so very safe for over 20 movies. And that was the only point.
Comparable play-it-save CBM franchises and producers have at least some out-of-formula, "risk-ier" movies under their belt, even M Bay has (lol), what does Feige have? And no, Logan & Co do not count as MCU now.
Hulk underperforms, Feige does not even try again: Let's play it save. Thor 1/2 do not well enough, lets softly reboot it a la Guardians: Play it save. Cap 1/2 do fine, but could do more, let's do 3 as an Avengers movie: Play it save. Female superheroes are boxoffice risk ("disaster"), let's do it after the succsess of WW as movie Nr 22 (!): Play it save, Mr Feige...do we have a pattern here....
We will have to disagree here. Playing it safe would have been to take the 500m they got and start with one of those properties. Playing it safe would've been taking that 500m and get a proven Director who does blockbuster movies. Using that cash to get a bankable star without recent drug addiction that got him fired from gigs because he wasn't able to stay off of drugs. Playing it safe would be not to risk losing the rights of all the IP you have left on Ironman an IP you just got back. I know your opinion on the MCU and neither one of us are going to sway the other's basic opinion. You will never see that even with their prior successes that doing a GotG movie instead of doing another sequel in it's place was a risk. I remember even ardent MCU fanatics saying it was a mistake to do it. That's fine we have different opinions. If we all had the same ones this site would suck.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Oct 1, 2018 13:46:41 GMT
That's the best you got? Yes, multi-million blockbuster fare are expensive and tricky to finance and there is always a risk that you cannot bring in the money, always, even with popular IP with a built-in kiddy audience during a CBM-craze.
I guess that is exactly why Feige played it so very safe for over 20 movies. And that was the only point.
Comparable play-it-save CBM franchises and producers have at least some out-of-formula, "risk-ier" movies under their belt, even M Bay has (lol), what does Feige have? And no, Logan & Co do not count as MCU now.
Hulk underperforms, Feige does not even try again: Let's play it save. Thor 1/2 do not well enough, lets softly reboot it a la Guardians: Play it save. Cap 1/2 do fine, but could do more, let's do 3 as an Avengers movie: Play it save. Female superheroes are boxoffice risk ("disaster"), let's do it after the succsess of WW as movie Nr 22 (!): Play it save, Mr Feige...do we have a pattern here....
We will have to disagree here. Playing it safe would have been to take the 500m they got and start with one of those properties. Playing it safe would've been taking that 500m and get a proven Director who does blockbuster movies. Using that cash to get a bankable star without recent drug addiction that got him fired from gigs because he wasn't able to stay off of drugs. Playing it safe would be not to risk losing the rights of all the IP you have left on Ironman an IP you just got back. I know your opinion on the MCU and neither one of us are going to sway the other's basic opinion. You will never see that even with their prior successes that doing a GotG movie instead of doing another sequel in it's place was a risk. I remember even ardent MCU fanatics saying it was a mistake to do it. That's fine we have different opinions. If we all had the same ones this site would suck. Little known fact; if Iron Man had been a failure, Marvel would have lost the cinematic rights to ALL of their remaining characters - every last one of them - in perpetuity - to Meryl Lynch. That's all that was on the table. Only everything. And while Little Lord Fauntleroy here feels the MCU should toil away in genteel poverty making "risky" films, there is zero acknowledgment that a movie studio dedicated to a single genre of films is inherently risky. Detractors love to fetishize creative risk while failing to acknowledge unprecedented innovation in business and serious financial risk. It's so easy to make Marvel movies that every single detractor of the model has gone out and done it twice over in the heads.
|
|