|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 23, 2017 14:55:15 GMT
How lame considering years back, WB actually banned JLU from using several Batman and Aquaman characters. We never got to see the true original Legion of Doom due to missing Scarecrow and Black Manta. Heck, Aquaman himself disappeared in the final season because of some WB show that never took off.
Wish WB had had this mentality back then. Maybe we could've gotten the Near Apocalypse of '09.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 23, 2017 15:13:55 GMT
LOL at WB "hating" its audience. If anything, Disney does. They crap on creative vision and originality for Marvel, Star Wars, and remakes of their cartoons because they only see us as wallets. You're an idiot. ironic coming from a guy writing fanfiction for My Little Pony, Sailor Moon and Teletubbies. And who amongst others thinks:
- Schumacher Batman is a lot better than Burton/Nolan Bats; - Shakespeare has never written an original thing (not even his original plays); - Alien germ life has been proven to exist; - Marvel has invented teh Shared Universe concept
Anyone titled idiot by you should carry that like a badge of honor.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 16:23:15 GMT
No matter what DC does, idiot DC Fan will praise it. In this case, I actually like it. Leto's Joker was a complete joke. If Scorsese is really making this, which I have to see to believe, then it will probably be pretty epic and I am excited. Also, Wonder Woman should never even be close to any Best Picture award. I swear DC fans are morons. It was a good movie. That is all. I could never see The Winter Soldier even being nominated in its time and it was way better. Wonder Woman is much better than Winter Soldier. Wonder Woman is #1 on RT's list of 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time. Winter Soldier doesn't even make the top 10.
50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 23, 2017 16:32:11 GMT
www.polygon.com/2017/8/23/16189172/joker-movie-warner-bros-dc
Here's another article with some different perspectives on this. Lots of different articles are popping up now.
They do raise some interesting issues, but I still fall on the side of this not being a good idea. It smacks of gambling against their own franchise which they're still trying to set up. The DCEU is far from solidified in the minds of fans and doing this only comes off as not supporting what they're trying to build.
I also don't like the Jokers origin being told, but we'll see what they mean by that.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Aug 23, 2017 17:21:51 GMT
I just have to ask why Todd Phillips and really Marty.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 17:32:03 GMT
www.polygon.com/2017/8/23/16189172/joker-movie-warner-bros-dc
Here's another article with some different perspectives on this. Lots of different articles are popping up now.
They do raise some interesting issues, but I still fall on the side of this not being a good idea. It smacks of gambling against their own franchise which they're still trying to set up. The DCEU is far from solidified in the minds of fans and doing this only comes off as not supporting what they're trying to build.
I also don't like the Jokers origin being told, but we'll see what they mean by that. That article makes some excellent points, especially the part about:
What often times ruins a movie is the need for it to continue after the credits are finished rolling — just look at what Universal Pictures did to The Mummy and its monsters universe. Getting rid of that pressure and just focusing on creating the best movie the studio can make will be beneficial for everyone.
Most of MCU movies are ruined because all they are is an ad for the next movie. Look at Wonder Woman. Patty Jenkins was able to create the 1 of the greatest CBM ever because she was able to focus on creating the best self-contained story rather than having to create an ad for the next movie (like most of MCU's movies are) and didn't have to rely on cameos (like SMH, which had Tony Stark in the beginning, middle, and end of the movie) from characters in other movies.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 23, 2017 18:14:32 GMT
www.polygon.com/2017/8/23/16189172/joker-movie-warner-bros-dc
Here's another article with some different perspectives on this. Lots of different articles are popping up now.
They do raise some interesting issues, but I still fall on the side of this not being a good idea. It smacks of gambling against their own franchise which they're still trying to set up. The DCEU is far from solidified in the minds of fans and doing this only comes off as not supporting what they're trying to build.
I also don't like the Jokers origin being told, but we'll see what they mean by that. That article makes some excellent points, especially the part about:
What often times ruins a movie is the need for it to continue after the credits are finished rolling — just look at what Universal Pictures did to The Mummy and its monsters universe. Getting rid of that pressure and just focusing on creating the best movie the studio can make will be beneficial for everyone.
Most of MCU movies are ruined because all they are is an ad for the next movie. Look at Wonder Woman. Patty Jenkins was able to create the 1 of the greatest CBM ever because she was able to focus on creating the best self-contained story rather than having to create an ad for the next movie (like most of MCU's movies are) and didn't have to rely on cameos (like SMH, which had Tony Stark in the beginning, middle, and end of the movie) from characters in other movies.
A pitfall DC has fallen into. MoS and BvS were little more than ads for Justice League. Heck, BvS even had the "Dawn of Justice" subtitle. And cameos from Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Flash, and even Parademons, which added little to nothing to the main story at hand. A closer focus on just the antagonistic relationship between Batman and Superman (without the superfluous cameos) would've yielded a tighter story with better pacing.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 18:28:35 GMT
That article makes some excellent points, especially the part about:
What often times ruins a movie is the need for it to continue after the credits are finished rolling — just look at what Universal Pictures did to The Mummy and its monsters universe. Getting rid of that pressure and just focusing on creating the best movie the studio can make will be beneficial for everyone.
Most of MCU movies are ruined because all they are is an ad for the next movie. Look at Wonder Woman. Patty Jenkins was able to create the 1 of the greatest CBM ever because she was able to focus on creating the best self-contained story rather than having to create an ad for the next movie (like most of MCU's movies are) and didn't have to rely on cameos (like SMH, which had Tony Stark in the beginning, middle, and end of the movie) from characters in other movies.
A pitfall DC has fallen into. MoS and BvS were little more than ads for Justice League. It's funny, MCU fans have been saying for years that when MoS was made, WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. Now you're saying that MoS was just an ad for JL, implying that WB did plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe and contradicting the claim that MCU fans have been saying for years that WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Aug 23, 2017 18:45:22 GMT
DC already tried this with "Catwoman," and we all know how that turned out. Not saying that this couldn't be a good stand-alone movie. If the movie takes place in its own separate universe, I don't see how revealing an origin for the character is a problem. If it's done I hope it is a hard "R," noir sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 23, 2017 18:46:28 GMT
And yet another perspective...
www.comicbookmovie.com/batman/the-joker-movie-4-major-new-details-you-need-to-know-and-4-signs-it-will-be-a-total-disaster-a153424?cp=7
From the article: "...Movies like this are going to sour people on the genre as they realise it might not be worth the effort of trying to keep up with what's going on as they struggle to follow the stories of multiple versions of one hero or villain."
and
"With the DC Extended Universe still finding its feet, the attention of execs should remain on those, so that they ultimately find the same consistent level of success as Marvel Studios but churning out a whole new wave of standalone movies stretches their resources, leads to multiple versions of the same characters being in movies at the same time, and generally just seems like they're taking on too much, too soon. Warner Bros. has not earned the trust of fans, hence why the news of a Joker movie has been met with grumbles rather than cheers."
I kinda agree.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 23, 2017 18:58:11 GMT
A pitfall DC has fallen into. MoS and BvS were little more than ads for Justice League. It's funny, MCU fans have been saying for years that when MoS was made, WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. Now you're saying that MoS was just an ad for JL, implying that WB did plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe and contradicting the claim that MCU fans have been saying for years that WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. I don't really remember fans saying that, but BvS was definitely nothing more than a giant ad for Justice League. They even created the individual logos for each hero in the film. The DCEU is kinda a mess right now. They may have had one success with Wonder Woman but even if Justice League makes money, it'll probably still get panned because it still looks messy and doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be. Now there's a possibility of a stand alone Joker film and not recasting Jared Leto. That kinda already proves Warner Bros doesn't particularly have confidence in their own cinematic universe right now. I don't doubt Scorsese as a film maker, but we've already had a grounded and gritty Joker before, just watch The Dark Knight. What can you do different from Ledger's Joker?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Aug 23, 2017 19:14:26 GMT
I just have to ask why Todd Phillips. The funniest thing about it for me. How did this partnership begin? They meet up in a bar, get drunk, and start talking about comic books?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 23, 2017 19:22:06 GMT
A pitfall DC has fallen into. MoS and BvS were little more than ads for Justice League. It's funny, MCU fans have been saying for years that when MoS was made, WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. Now you're saying that MoS was just an ad for JL, implying that WB did plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe and contradicting the claim that MCU fans have been saying for years that WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. None of that applies to me. I always thought MoS was an ad for Justice League. It was obvious DC was going to go that route. So yes, I am saying that because I've always said that. Just so you know, I'm not the spokesperson for MCU fans. Mine is not an official statement. So if I contradict them, it doesn't matter. Not everyone has the same opinion, even among MCU fans. Who told you that? Because they really got one over on you.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Aug 23, 2017 19:24:02 GMT
It's funny, MCU fans have been saying for years that when MoS was made, WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. Now you're saying that MoS was just an ad for JL, implying that WB did plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe and contradicting the claim that MCU fans have been saying for years that WB didn't plan for MoS to be the start of a shared cinematic universe. I don't really remember fans saying that, but BvS was definitely nothing more than a giant ad for Justice League. They even created the individual logos for each hero in the film. The DCEU is kinda a mess right now. They may have had one success with Wonder Woman but even if Justice League makes money, it'll probably still get panned because it still looks messy and doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be. Now there's a possibility of a stand alone Joker film and not recasting Jared Leto. That kinda already proves Warner Bros doesn't particularly have confidence in their own cinematic universe right now. I don't doubt Scorsese as a film maker, but we've already had a grounded and gritty Joker before, just watch The Dark Knight. What can you do different from Ledger's Joker?Clearly the answer was Lil' Wayne teeth grill and college emo tattoos.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 21:29:26 GMT
Now there's a possibility of a stand alone Joker film and not recasting Jared Leto. That kinda already proves Warner Bros doesn't particularly have confidence in their own cinematic universe right now. No, it proves that WB cares more about their fans than MCU does and won't restrict a movie from being made or a story from being told simply because it can't connect to a shared universe. I've said all along that WB is smart to keep their movies and TV shows separate because it allows them the creative freedom to tell different stories (just like the comics does with their many Elseworlds stories) without having to try to force-fit them into a shared universe, lik MCU, which is dumb to try to connect their movies and TV shows and failing badly at. How do you think this project started in the 1st place? Do you think WB went to Martin Scorcese and said "Mr. Scorcese, we know you're a highly-respected and acclaimed Director and an Oscar winner. We want you to direct a movie for us about a character who is the most famous villain in comic-book history."? If WB did that, then they had a lot of balls to do that. More likely, Scorcese approached WB and said "Let me pitch to you this idea for a movie that I've wanted to make for a long time." Similar to how Patty Jenkins had wanted to make a Wonder Woman movie for over a decade: Patty Jenkins Reflects On "Wonder Woman," Getting The Opportunity To Direct A Tentpole MovieWell, when Martin Scorcese says he wants to make a movie for your studio, you don't say "No". And you don't say what MCU Dictator Kevin Feige said to Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins "Only if you make the movie following our orders. If you don't follow our orders, you're fired." A Director the caliber of Martin Scorcese doesn't have to take that shit from any studio. If Scorcese says he wants to make a Joker movie and he wants Leonardo DiCaprio to play the Joker, you don't say "No, it has to be Jared Leto because it has to fit into our shared universe." we've already had a grounded and gritty Joker before, just watch The Dark Knight. What can you do different from Ledger's Joker? 1st, The Dark Knight wasn't an origin story for the Joker. 2nd, what can MCU do different? MCU movies feel like they came off an assembly line. Every MCU movie basically has the same plot.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Aug 23, 2017 21:32:47 GMT
DC already tried this with "Catwoman," and we all know how that turned out. Was Catwoman directed by a Director the caliber of Martin Scorcese?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 22:07:01 GMT
I'm on the fence about this. Oh and I really miss Heath Ledger . Just thought I'd add that.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Aug 23, 2017 22:28:18 GMT
Now there's a possibility of a stand alone Joker film and not recasting Jared Leto. That kinda already proves Warner Bros doesn't particularly have confidence in their own cinematic universe right now. No, it proves that WB cares more about their fans than MCU does and won't restrict a movie from being made or a story from being told simply because it can't connect to a shared universe. I've said all along that WB is smart to keep their movies and TV shows separate because it allows them the creative freedom to tell different stories (just like the comics does with their many Elseworlds stories) without having to try to force-fit them into a shared universe, lik MCU, which is dumb to try to connect their movies and TV shows and failing badly at. How do you think this project started in the 1st place? Do you think WB went to Martin Scorcese and said "Mr. Scorcese, we know you're a highly-respected and acclaimed Director and an Oscar winner. We want you to direct a movie for us about a character who is the most famous villain in comic-book history."? If WB did that, then they had a lot of balls to do that. More likely, Scorcese approached WB and said "Let me pitch to you this idea for a movie that I've wanted to make for a long time." Similar to how Patty Jenkins had wanted to make a Wonder Woman movie for over a decade: Patty Jenkins Reflects On "Wonder Woman," Getting The Opportunity To Direct A Tentpole MovieWell, when Martin Scorcese says he wants to make a movie for your studio, you don't say "No". And you don't say what MCU Dictator Kevin Feige said to Edgar Wright and Patty Jenkins "Only if you make the movie following our orders. If you don't follow our orders, you're fired." A Director the caliber of Martin Scorcese doesn't have to take that shit from any studio. If Scorcese says he wants to make a Joker movie and he wants Leonardo DiCaprio to play the Joker, you don't say "No, it has to be Jared Leto because it has to fit inot our shared universe." we've already had a grounded and gritty Joker before, just watch The Dark Knight. What can you do different from Ledger's Joker? 1st, The Dark Knight wasn't an origin story for the Joker. 2nd, what can MCU do different? MCU movies feel like they came off an assembly line. Every MCU movie basically has the same plot. I don't doubt Scorsese as a filmmaker, I'm sure he could deliver a good Joker film, but a few problems with that. For starters, why would you want an origin film of him? Kinda defeats the purpose of who the Joker really is. Sure Scorsese could probably come up with a good story, but it's not going to please everyone because of the Joker's popularity and the fact everyone has their own idea of who he was before becoming the Joker. But also, who's going to be the villain? And is it going to be set in Gotham? And you really can't do a Joker film without Batman. And if Batman is in it, then they'll cast another Batman. And if you think it's smart that DC is keeping their films and TV show separate, then why hasn't CW brought in Batman? They have another Superman, so why no Batman? And regardless of The Dark Knight was an origin film or not for the Joker, seriously, what else can they do for a gritty and grounded Joker that they didn't do for Ledger's Joker? You're not going to get any more grounded than that without losing what makes the Joker, the Joker. And the MCU and the Netflix series aren't exactly connected. They said it'll be a while if they ever do cross, but that's fine because it actually gives Netflix something to play off and work around what's happening in the MCU's timeline. But the MCU won't have to accommodate the Netflix series timeline and it works fine. I mean, I don't see Daredevil or Jessica Jones going up against Thanks. Luke Cage, maybe, but that's just not his character. So they're not officially connected. And I won't deny that. Sure some of them feel like they're just another episode in the MCU, but there's really nothing wrong with that and serve their purpose, especially to introduce new Avengers like Ant-Man, Doctor Strange. They also explore more of the characters mythos so you know who they are what their life is like, like Spider-Man and Black Panther when it comes out. That's the whole point of character building,ZERO something DC doesn't understand at this point and why everything is going to seem really superficial in Justice League.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 23, 2017 22:36:01 GMT
DC already tried this with "Catwoman," and we all know how that turned out. Was Catwoman directed by a Director the caliber of Martin Scorcese? Scorsese is not directing it, though. The director of The Hangover is.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Aug 24, 2017 16:05:54 GMT
|
|