|
|
Post by brownstones on Aug 5, 2017 17:58:34 GMT
So you're just trolling, as usual. Well, to be fair, trolling or not, it's still a fair assessment like you claiming Spider-Man was just Iron Man 4, because Wonder Woman is DC's current money maker like Iron Man is the MCU's main money maker. So if we go by your standards, then the Flash film is just another Wonder Woman film well.......a more accurate comparison would be Cap3 rather than Spiderman Homecoming, since Flashpoint, while very much a flash story, includes JL members and their alternate timeline counterparts. |
|
|
|
Post by primeone on Aug 5, 2017 18:14:08 GMT
I heard about this and I'm not thrilled with the idea. I honestly don't want to see WW in the Flash or whatever else they may have in mind. WB is riding high off the success of WW so they are going to add to that by giving her more exposure whenever possible. That is their mistake. Too much overexposure is a bad thing. The audience will eventually get tired of it. That’s the point. WW will most likely not be the only JL member in Flashpoint though. They are just announcing it after the success of making $400 million domestic. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 5, 2017 18:30:35 GMT
Honestly I'm not real happy about it. Keep the standalone movies as standalones. However, I do think it can be done well. If it's a simple cameo that makes sense within the story, I'm fine with it. I don’t mind it even if they’re part of the story like what we can expect in Flashpoint. Same for Shazam if Superman is actually in that film and I’d also love to see Supergirl in Man of Steel 2 in a way. If they can integrate these other heroes into the story seamlessly, then I'm fine with it. I just kinda miss the days when one movie focused on one superhero. The crossovers tend to tangle themselves a little bit. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 5, 2017 18:36:49 GMT
Honestly I'm not real happy about it. Keep the standalone movies as standalones. However, I do think it can be done well. If it's a simple cameo that makes sense within the story, I'm fine with it. I'm curious about this, because I want most of the standalone movies to be crossovers, not standalones purely. I love that Hulk is in Ragnorak, I love that Tony was in Homecoming. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for Dr. Strange to only have a couple of references elsewhere, but when it's possible for Falcon to show up in Ant Man, I love that stuff. Sometimes it's just nice to see one hero in the spotlight. The crossovers are cool, but should Thor: Ragnarok really have Thor in the title? Hulk seems to be in it just as much. It's the same thing with Civil War. It should've been called Avengers: Civil War. It's just misleading. It can be done well. It's just more crowded. |
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 5, 2017 19:03:46 GMT
I'm curious about this, because I want most of the standalone movies to be crossovers, not standalones purely. I love that Hulk is in Ragnorak, I love that Tony was in Homecoming. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for Dr. Strange to only have a couple of references elsewhere, but when it's possible for Falcon to show up in Ant Man, I love that stuff. Sometimes it's just nice to see one hero in the spotlight. The crossovers are cool, but should Thor: Ragnarok really have Thor in the title? Hulk seems to be in it just as much. It's the same thing with Civil War. It should've been called Avengers: Civil War. It's just misleading. It can be done well. It's just more crowded. Kinda hard for both universes now to do solo films because it you'll just keep asking why the other members didn't show up to help |
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Aug 5, 2017 19:46:26 GMT
Sometimes it's just nice to see one hero in the spotlight. The crossovers are cool, but should Thor: Ragnarok really have Thor in the title? Hulk seems to be in it just as much. It's the same thing with Civil War. It should've been called Avengers: Civil War. It's just misleading. It can be done well. It's just more crowded. Kinda hard for both universes now to do solo films because it you'll just keep asking why the other members didn't show up to help that's the "problem" that comics have had for a while, only difference is that now it's on a larger global scale. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 5, 2017 20:03:47 GMT
I'm curious about this, because I want most of the standalone movies to be crossovers, not standalones purely. I love that Hulk is in Ragnorak, I love that Tony was in Homecoming. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for Dr. Strange to only have a couple of references elsewhere, but when it's possible for Falcon to show up in Ant Man, I love that stuff. Sometimes it's just nice to see one hero in the spotlight. The crossovers are cool, but should Thor: Ragnarok really have Thor in the title? Hulk seems to be in it just as much. It's the same thing with Civil War. It should've been called Avengers: Civil War. It's just misleading. It can be done well. It's just more crowded. I disagree, because the story was about Cap and his arc, the story is about Thor and his arc. It doesn't matter how much other people are in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Spooky Ghost Ackbar on Aug 5, 2017 20:16:34 GMT
Honestly I'm not real happy about it. Keep the standalone movies as standalones. However, I do think it can be done well. If it's a simple cameo that makes sense within the story, I'm fine with it. I'm curious about this, because I want most of the standalone movies to be crossovers, not standalones purely. I love that Hulk is in Ragnorak, I love that Tony was in Homecoming. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for Dr. Strange to only have a couple of references elsewhere, but when it's possible for Falcon to show up in Ant Man, I love that stuff. I think it's something that must be earned though. Having Hulk as a supporting character in Thor 3 is an inspired idea, but having Hulk as a supporting character in Thor 1 would've been a big mistake. Same with Civil War- you couldn't do story that in Cap 1. I think WB should first give us a definitive Flash movie, then do a sequel that embraces the shared universe |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 5, 2017 21:05:38 GMT
Sometimes it's just nice to see one hero in the spotlight. The crossovers are cool, but should Thor: Ragnarok really have Thor in the title? Hulk seems to be in it just as much. It's the same thing with Civil War. It should've been called Avengers: Civil War. It's just misleading. It can be done well. It's just more crowded. I disagree, because the story was about Cap and his arc, the story is about Thor and his arc. It doesn't matter how much other people are in it. Civil War did it really well. Maybe actually the best ever. I just feel like we're getting 50% of what we could see when these team-up movies happen. Each character eats up time from the others. I like the team-ups. I just think that there should be some independence. Thor: Ragnarok was the perfect opportunity for this, because that could explain why he was on his own to fight his own battle. None of the Avengers could afford to travel and help him and leave Earth alone. Maybe it's just because I hate Mark Ruffalo? That might be it honestly. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 5, 2017 21:52:39 GMT
I'm curious about this, because I want most of the standalone movies to be crossovers, not standalones purely. I love that Hulk is in Ragnorak, I love that Tony was in Homecoming. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for Dr. Strange to only have a couple of references elsewhere, but when it's possible for Falcon to show up in Ant Man, I love that stuff. I think it's something that must be earned though. Having Hulk as a supporting character in Thor 3 is an inspired idea, but having Hulk as a supporting character in Thor 1 would've been a big mistake. Same with Civil War- you couldn't do story that in Cap 1. I think WB should first give us a definitive Flash movie, then do a sequel that embraces the shared universe 100% agreed. Civil War had to be earned. You couldn't have just done Civil War without having built it up, and that's why Civil War is such an epic fucking experience. But you are completely right, that any crossover has to make sense and be earned. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 5, 2017 21:57:20 GMT
I disagree, because the story was about Cap and his arc, the story is about Thor and his arc. It doesn't matter how much other people are in it. Civil War did it really well. Maybe actually the best ever. I just feel like we're getting 50% of what we could see when these team-up movies happen. Each character eats up time from the others. I like the team-ups. I just think that there should be some independence. Thor: Ragnarok was the perfect opportunity for this, because that could explain why he was on his own to fight his own battle. None of the Avengers could afford to travel and help him and leave Earth alone. Maybe it's just because I hate Mark Ruffalo? That might be it honestly. I don't see it as eating up time for the others, I see it as a perfect counterbalance to what the other is doing. It's a perfect addition, not a subtraction. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 5, 2017 22:37:24 GMT
Civil War did it really well. Maybe actually the best ever. I just feel like we're getting 50% of what we could see when these team-up movies happen. Each character eats up time from the others. I like the team-ups. I just think that there should be some independence. Thor: Ragnarok was the perfect opportunity for this, because that could explain why he was on his own to fight his own battle. None of the Avengers could afford to travel and help him and leave Earth alone. Maybe it's just because I hate Mark Ruffalo? That might be it honestly. I don't see it as eating up time for the others, I see it as a perfect counterbalance to what the other is doing. It's a perfect addition, not a subtraction. I can see why people like team-ups. It's the logical way to go. As seahawksraawk00 said, it only makes sense that the other heroes would help each other out. I simply like the standalones because they isolate the hero. There was a feeling of dread that accompanied the first Iron Man and Captain America because they had no help. Obviously Tony had Rhodes and Pepper and Steve had Bucky and Peggy, but at the end of the day it was the hero against the villain. It was a one-on-one square off. Again, I love Civil War. The first Avengers movie is great and I like Age of Ultron more than most I think. I have no problem with the heroes teaming up. I just like some independent adventures (which is what Black Panther looks like it'll be). |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 5, 2017 23:56:10 GMT
I don't see it as eating up time for the others, I see it as a perfect counterbalance to what the other is doing. It's a perfect addition, not a subtraction. I can see why people like team-ups. It's the logical way to go. As seahawksraawk00 said, it only makes sense that the other heroes would help each other out. I simply like the standalones because they isolate the hero. There was a feeling of dread that accompanied the first Iron Man and Captain America because they had no help. Obviously Tony had Rhodes and Pepper and Steve had Bucky and Peggy, but at the end of the day it was the hero against the villain. It was a one-on-one square off. Again, I love Civil War. The first Avengers movie is great and I like Age of Ultron more than most I think. I have no problem with the heroes teaming up. I just like some independent adventures (which is what Black Panther looks like it'll be). I get it, but that's why we've had a great mix. Dr. Strange, Ant Man, Iron Man, Thor, Cap, and even the Panther and Ms. Marvel films will all be great solo films. And a lot of the sequels are too. So I don't there is any shortage. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 6, 2017 0:24:53 GMT
The days of truly "standalone" comic movies are gone, IMO. Now it's more like the actual comics where the characters would crossover lots of times without it being some big "event".
And I think the stories are better off for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 6, 2017 3:09:56 GMT
I have no problem with the heroes teaming up. I just like some independent adventures That's what Wonder Woman and Aquaman are. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Aug 6, 2017 3:27:46 GMT
I have no problem with the heroes teaming up. I just like some independent adventures That's what Wonder Woman and Aquaman are. Wonder Woman mentioned Batman, and Aquaman will likely have presence of someone else too. |
|
