|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 16:32:11 GMT
Making standalone films is not a sign of creative freedom. What it is, is creative laziness.
I hear the "creative freedom" bit from a lot of people, but it absolutely is not, and I'll tell you why. A major focus of several areas of architecture, a highly creative enterprise, deals specifically with working with and adding to an existing structure. Being independent isn't considered a more creative project by any means, and in fact quite the opposite in most cases. Whether it is adding a monument to the D.C. mall area, or completing a modernizing renovation of an old structure, creatively building on an existing structure is being creative. Going alone with something unrelated is nothing more than giving up.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 24, 2017 16:35:41 GMT
Bullshit. This is done in the comics all the time and gives creative freedom to writers and directors who don't want to have to conform to the vision of the DCEU.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 24, 2017 16:53:56 GMT
I know you are trolling, but that is silly even for you. Creative laziness? A multiverse with different takes on worlds and characters is just the contrary.
I am happy if not every new movie is part of an all-consuming shared universe approach, but that there are alternative universes with differnet takes on tone, worldbuilding and character development.
And the great thing is that DC has so many nuanced characters: I want to see Detective Bats, Miller-killer Bats, TDK Bats and goofy Bats too, same with all types of Jokers not just the Leto Joker for the next decade. I vote for a Bat family universe with a different tone and storyline.
Marvel characters always stay the same, there is little artistic variation and reinterpretation, so the mono-universe approach is just fine for those. DC is simply too big and varied to be stuffed in just one stale, stagnant and slow universe.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 16:56:39 GMT
Bullshit. This is done in the comics all the time and gives creative freedom to writers and directors who don't want to have to conform to the vision of the DCEU. You're just letting them off the hook for giving up and doing their own thing. By creative freedom, what you mean is that they don't have the creativity to work together collaboratively. That's not more creative, it's less creative.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 16:59:54 GMT
I know you are trolling, but that is silly even for you. Creative laziness? A multiverse with different takes on worlds and characters is just the contrary. I am happy if not every new movie is part of an all-consuming shared universe approach, but that there are alternative universes with differnet takes on tone, worldbuilding and character development. And the great thing is that DC has so many nuanced characters: I want to see Detective Bats, Miller-killer Bats, TDK Bats and goofy Bats too, same with all types of Jokers not just the Leto Joker for the next decade. I vote for a Bat family universe with a different tone and storyline. Marvel characters always stay the same, there is little artistic variation and reinterpretation, so the mono-universe approach is just fine for those. DC is simply too big and varied to be stuffed in just one stale, stagnant and slow universe. I'm actually dead serious.
The "multiverse" is just a term to get you to buy into the fact that they are too lazy to maintain continuity. It's an excuse. They don't give a shit about making an effort to creatively build on a single continuity, so they give up, do their own then, and then tell you they have "creative freedom" and it's a "multiverse", when the fact of the matter is they just aren't making an effort.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 17:05:36 GMT
So Tristan is in favor of lightening things now that WB has decided to take that route? As if we needed more evidence of your hypocrisy and idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 24, 2017 17:06:57 GMT
"Films is" ? Nice grammar.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 17:10:33 GMT
So now Tristan is in favor of lightening things now that WB has decided to take that route? As if we needed more evidence of your hypocrisy and idiocy. It's just funny to me that the idea here is they could have each of the JL members with completely unrelated films that contradict the events of the other, and these are supposed to get credit for being "creatively independent"? Why would I give them credit for that? Why didn't they make the effort to be creatively collaborative? Am I supposed to buy the idea that having no relation to one another is creatively superior? Because I don't. It's simply not working together, plain and simple. It's lazy and calling it a "multiverse" is an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 24, 2017 17:10:42 GMT
I know you are trolling, but that is silly even for you. Creative laziness? A multiverse with different takes on worlds and characters is just the contrary. I am happy if not every new movie is part of an all-consuming shared universe approach, but that there are alternative universes with differnet takes on tone, worldbuilding and character development. And the great thing is that DC has so many nuanced characters: I want to see Detective Bats, Miller-killer Bats, TDK Bats and goofy Bats too, same with all types of Jokers not just the Leto Joker for the next decade. I vote for a Bat family universe with a different tone and storyline. Marvel characters always stay the same, there is little artistic variation and reinterpretation, so the mono-universe approach is just fine for those. DC is simply too big and varied to be stuffed in just one stale, stagnant and slow universe. I'm actually dead serious.
The "multiverse" is just a term to get you to buy into the fact that they are too lazy to maintain continuity. It's an excuse. They don't give a shit about making an effort to creatively build on a single continuity, so they give up, do their own then, and then tell you they have "creative freedom" and it's a "multiverse", when the fact of the matter is they just aren't making an effort.
it's not about continuity but about creative freedom and artistic interpretation. It is pretty simple to keep continuity with only 4 DCEU movies, so that argument is moot. Reeves probably wants to establish his own design, look and tone and create the big bang for a seperate Bat family universe (which was planned since decades btw).
Now if their take on this is artistically different, sound and interesting I am more than intrigued.
But look, I do not expect you to understand this approach, you are hooked to an monoverse approach that saw the same arcs and formula repeated ad nauseam with 16+ movies and did not progress any main storyline except a few takes on the main villain grinning in post credit scenes. You just love that. I really don't. So in the end it's about individual taste.
I liked that monoverse approach in the Star Trek shows btw (IMO ST is by far the biggest shared universe, now multiverse), but it got really stale with time too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 17:12:02 GMT
So now Tristan is in favor of lightening things now that WB has decided to take that route? As if we needed more evidence of your hypocrisy and idiocy. It's just funny to me that the idea here is they could have each of the JL members with completely unrelated films that contradict the events of the other, and these are supposed to get credit for being "creatively independent"? Why would I give them credit for that? Why didn't they make the effort to be creatively collaborative? Am I supposed to buy the idea that having no relation to one another is creatively superior? Because I don't. It's simply not working together, plain and simple. It's lazy and calling it a "multiverse" is an excuse. They've just given up, is what's happened. But the likes of Tristan will be damned before they criticize anything about WB/DC's films.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 17:12:13 GMT
"Films is" ? Nice grammar. That was correctly used. Do you not know English?
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Aug 24, 2017 17:15:47 GMT
"Films is" ? Nice grammar. That was correctly used. Do you not know English? Yes, English are known. And, yes you is expert!
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 17:16:11 GMT
I'm actually dead serious.
The "multiverse" is just a term to get you to buy into the fact that they are too lazy to maintain continuity. It's an excuse. They don't give a shit about making an effort to creatively build on a single continuity, so they give up, do their own then, and then tell you they have "creative freedom" and it's a "multiverse", when the fact of the matter is they just aren't making an effort.
it's not about continuity but about creative freedom and artistic interpretation. It is pretty simple to keep continuity with only 4 DCEU movies, so that argument is moot. Reeves probably wants to establish his own design, look and tone and create the big bang for a seperate Bat family universe (which was planned since decades btw).
Now if their take on this is artistically different, sound and interesting I am more than intrigued.
But look, I do not expect you to understand this approach, you are hooked to an monoverse approach that saw the same arcs and formula repeated ad nauseam with 16+ movies and did not progress any main storyline except a few takes on the main villain grinning in post credit scenes. You just love that. I really don't. So in the end it's about individual taste.
I liked that monoverse approach in the Star Trek shows btw (IMO ST is by far the biggest shared universe, now multiverse), but it got really stale with time too.
I can tell it's not about continuity. They gave up on that and are trying to sell you on the idea that it's creative freedom, when it's just plain giving up.
"did not progress any main storyline"? Oh really. So cap and iron man's characters haven't evolved and reversed?
It's not about individual taste, it's about the clear fact, which you just stated, that they plain and simple aren't interested in making the effort maintain continuity.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 24, 2017 17:18:48 GMT
So Tristan is in favor of lightening things now that WB has decided to take that route? As if we needed more evidence of your hypocrisy and idiocy. Nobody has decided on that yet, nothing is official. These are mere interpretations of some interviews and reports. Get your facts straight for once.
Btw hypocrisy and idiocy, did you not foul mouthed-ly declare that DCEU just copies the MCU for years...? Seems not the case. And when they seem to have something different and more complex (Multiverse) in mind, you bitch and cry foul regardless.
And how can you always read my posts when you have put me on ignore...?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 17:19:57 GMT
That was correctly used. Do you not know English? Yes, English are known. And, yes you is expert! Here is the same sentence with "are" in it, instead of "is", and as you can see, you are clearly you are wrong. I mean if you want to keep making that obvious, go ahead and respond.
You version: Making standalone films are not a sign of creative freedom. My version: Making standalone films is not a sign of creative freedom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2017 20:19:40 GMT
LOL you are hilarious. Why cant they do all 3? Pre-flashpoint, After-flashpoint and outside of those previous 2 categories.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 20:30:57 GMT
LOL you are hilarious. Why cant they do all 3? Pre-flashpoint, After-flashpoint and outside of those previous 2 categories. I'm referring specifically to making a film, with your own characters, that has nothing to do with the connected universe of films you're already making.
So you have an established Batman, you have an established Joker, etc. Making a film with those characters which has nothing to do with the films you already making, is stupid. For many reasons.
I thought it was bad enough they didn't care about the TV shows they were making, but this would just be silly.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Aug 24, 2017 22:36:12 GMT
You're just letting them off the hook for giving up and doing their own thing. By creative freedom, what you mean is that they don't have the creativity to work together collaboratively. That's not more creative, it's less creative. If anything they would have to work together more to make sure that multiple universes can coexist and fit together. You also just said that they lack creativity, but yet they're still somehow "doing their own thing". They're the only ones doing it or has done it, but that's still not creative? For the record, I don't like this move at all. They should stick with one universe. Yet I know that if Marvel was doing this then you'd be all over it and saying how ambitious and creative it was.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Aug 24, 2017 23:55:50 GMT
You're just letting them off the hook for giving up and doing their own thing. By creative freedom, what you mean is that they don't have the creativity to work together collaboratively. That's not more creative, it's less creative. If anything they would have to work together more to make sure that multiple universes can coexist and fit together. You also just said that they lack creativity, but yet they're still somehow "doing their own thing". They're the only ones doing it or has done it, but that's still not creative? For the record, I don't like this move at all. They should stick with one universe. Yet I know that if Marvel was doing this then you'd be all over it and saying how ambitious and creative it was. Absolutely not, they have to work less for the very reason that it doesn't matter what's going on in the other universes. This is the problem. You're giving them credit for doing something, but just saying "it's a multiverse" is just another way of saying "ignoring continuity" and no, I wouldn't be giving Marvel credit for it either. It's lazy as shit.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Aug 25, 2017 1:11:46 GMT
You're just letting them off the hook for giving up and doing their own thing. By creative freedom, what you mean is that they don't have the creativity to work together collaboratively. That's not more creative, it's less creative. Blah, blah, blah. You want them to be shacked to the decisions of others. Smarter heads than yours have prevailed, and new artists will be free to pursue their own visions. Only an ideologically driven person invents some kind of stupid notion where the only measure of creativity is one's willingness to shape one's project to the ideas of another.
|
|