|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:01:21 GMT
The DCEU should seriously consider doubling down on its more esoteric side. I just saw the trailer for Batman Ninja, and it felt like the most exciting and fresh thing that DC has done in a while. The stories I've enjoyed the most from DC in past decades have been Elseworld stories or some variation on that theme (All-Star Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman: Red Son, Gotham by Gaslight, Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman: Amazonia, etc.). Elseworld stories have the flexibility of breaking out of the traditional character molds and continuity that has stifled creativity. You can't change a DC character. What they are has been engraved in stone since time immemorial. All DC characters, with the notable exception of (Nolan's) Batman, resists all attempts at deconstruction or more in-depth exploration without the risk of alienating a large segment of the fanbase. Complex and unwieldy continuity mixed with greedy, thoughtless executives and egotistical creatives are a death sentence for the DCEU - a shared universe which can't even decide on an official name. The boldest move they could make is to abandon the path of a shared universe altogether. DC fans have already spoken loud and clear on this issue. They don't care about having a single continuous story that is split into discrete phases. All they want is faithful and credible recreations of the characters and iconic story beats that come from the comic books - Justice League's acceptance amongst hardcore fans proves they are a cheap date. Why not make a Deadman film or a Gotham by Gaslight film? They'd be cheaper, faster and less complicated to make. They'd also satisfy the more high-minded DC fans' inexplicable thirst for novel deconstructions of their favorite characters. The one thing Marvel has going against it is its mainstream, mass appeal. Marvel is in comfortable space which invites less risk taking and more complacency. DC should try to operate outside of that margin. As it is right now, I don't see any reason for the DCEU to continue to operate as is. I have no interest in seeing Bro-Man of the Sea or another preachy Wonder Woman movie. I honestly don't think elsewhere stories are a long term plan. You can get strong results from a few, but that's not something you do for 20 films.
And Marvel has been anything but complacent. They have shown they are interested in creatively and mixing it up. They certainly respond and are sensitive to the feedback they receive, and most importantly, they are absolutely 100% committed to the quality of their product.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:02:46 GMT
Focus on characters outside of the Big Guns, see how that works. They've never done it before. I don't know why DC has always been scared to do it, but just look at the amount of films and movies from the marvel brand, even before the MCU, from daredevil to punisher to ghost rider and you have just never ever seen DC attempt that. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:04:48 GMT
Just follow Wonder Woman’s example and make better movies? I don't think it's that simple at this point honestly. They've just wasted their first impression |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 18:05:16 GMT
Focus on characters outside of the Big Guns, see how that works. They've never done it before. I don't know why DC has always been scared to do it, but just look at the amount of films and movies from the marvel brand, even before the MCU, from daredevil to punisher to ghost rider and you have just never ever seen DC attempt that. They aren't scared, they're just lazy.
Admittedly, the MCU only did it out of necessity as they didn't have their own Big Guns but it paid off. So DC knows it can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:08:08 GMT
The first two won't matter at all, and the last one won't be enough. I'm not convinced it will even be particularly good. It needs to majorly step up from the first one. Why wouldn’t the first two matter? Aquaman and Shazam aren't saving them from anything. I mean just consider that Aquaman wrapped filming, and Captain Marvel hasn't started, and yet it's Captain Marvel that is generating conversation about what Skrulls mean, about Jude Law as Mar-Vell, about Nick Fury's eye, about the early 90's setting, etc etc. And Aquaman is, just crickets. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 18:11:51 GMT
It's still an inaccurate and misleading term that sets men apart as the destructive 'other' that pure Amazons must be leery of even if that wasn't its intention. But, okay, let's assume that I'm wrong and that the film is not the unwitting vehicle for ill-conceived feminist posturing. What do we have left? A good superhero film that doesn't accomplish much more than all of the other good superhero films that have proceeded it. It has a good first act, an exceptional second act and a lackluster third act that deteriorates into CGI spectacle - like a lot of other films in the marketplace today. So what are we supposed to be celebrating with Wonder Woman exactly? The movie itself never went with this idea that only men were responsible for all the problems in the world. Again, Ares’ motivation was specifically that humans as a whole were evil creatures that needed to be wiped out, and Diana’s character arc was her coming to realize that while humanity may not be as pure and good as she thought, they are still worth saving. As for what we’re supposed to be celebrating with the film, it’s that it’s considered a good film with a lot of heart and sincerity to it. That’s all. Regardless of whether the film or Diana or the Amazons is being judgmental of men or humanity it is still very judgmental. I couldn't sign on for the idea that we needed a savior from another world to fight a battle which someone of her own kind helped to orchestrate in the first place. Her realization that we are worth saving feels patronizing to me but, that's a frequent theme in the DCEU and the topic of another discussion. That's great but, a lot of other films accomplish the same and don't have near the pomp and circumstance associated with this particular outing right? Or should every film that manages to accomplish what you've stated be seriously considered for Oscars and have their Directors put on the short list for person of the year? |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:12:19 GMT
They've never done it before. I don't know why DC has always been scared to do it, but just look at the amount of films and movies from the marvel brand, even before the MCU, from daredevil to punisher to ghost rider and you have just never ever seen DC attempt that. They aren't scared, they're just lazy.
Admittedly, the MCU only did it out of necessity as they didn't have their own Big Guns but it paid off. So DC knows it can be done.
It's not comparable though. You can't just say Marvel did it out of necessity, because you have to acknowledge they had the tools to do so.
Without using Batman & Superman, what does a DC universe even look like? What would they do? I mean they aren't accomplishing what Marvel has with Aquaman, Flash, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman. Where does a series like that even go? What else do they have beyond those 4?
I mean Marvel had far more to offer than just the original, and that's before they thought about getting the massive reinforcements of the Fox characters. And it's also without using all of their Netflix characters. Just imagine if they ever brought those in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2017 18:16:31 GMT
It's not complicated. Make a good Aquaman movie, make a good Flash movie, make a good Superman movie, make a good Green Lantern movie, make another good WW movie. Then try making a good JL movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Dec 7, 2017 18:16:49 GMT
Regardless of whether the film or Diana or the Amazons is being judgmental of men or humanity it is still very judgmental. So no one is being judgemental but it is still very judgemental? WTF are you talking about? Aren't all stories about good and evil judgemental? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 18:17:46 GMT
The DCEU should seriously consider doubling down on its more esoteric side. I just saw the trailer for Batman Ninja, and it felt like the most exciting and fresh thing that DC has done in a while. The stories I've enjoyed the most from DC in past decades have been Elseworld stories or some variation on that theme (All-Star Superman, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman: Red Son, Gotham by Gaslight, Kingdom Come, Wonder Woman: Amazonia, etc.). Elseworld stories have the flexibility of breaking out of the traditional character molds and continuity that has stifled creativity. You can't change a DC character. What they are has been engraved in stone since time immemorial. All DC characters, with the notable exception of (Nolan's) Batman, resists all attempts at deconstruction or more in-depth exploration without the risk of alienating a large segment of the fanbase. Complex and unwieldy continuity mixed with greedy, thoughtless executives and egotistical creatives are a death sentence for the DCEU - a shared universe which can't even decide on an official name. The boldest move they could make is to abandon the path of a shared universe altogether. DC fans have already spoken loud and clear on this issue. They don't care about having a single continuous story that is split into discrete phases. All they want is faithful and credible recreations of the characters and iconic story beats that come from the comic books - Justice League's acceptance amongst hardcore fans proves they are a cheap date. Why not make a Deadman film or a Gotham by Gaslight film? They'd be cheaper, faster and less complicated to make. They'd also satisfy the more high-minded DC fans' inexplicable thirst for novel deconstructions of their favorite characters. The one thing Marvel has going against it is its mainstream, mass appeal. Marvel is in comfortable space which invites less risk taking and more complacency. DC should try to operate outside of that margin. As it is right now, I don't see any reason for the DCEU to continue to operate as is. I have no interest in seeing Bro-Man of the Sea or another preachy Wonder Woman movie. I honestly don't think elsewhere stories are a long term plan. You can get strong results from a few, but that's not something you do for 20 films.
And Marvel has been anything but complacent. They have shown they are interested in creatively and mixing it up. They certainly respond and are sensitive to the feedback they receive, and most importantly, they are absolutely 100% committed to the quality of their product.
I disagree, I think Elsewhere stories, or the concept of putting their heroes into foreign contexts, could work in the long term for them. Batman and Superman, to a certain degree, are over exposed cinematically. They don't need reinvention as characters but, I think they could benefit from fresher surroundings. The one thing that Marvel has done that DC should consider copying is taking lesser known characters and introducing them to mainstream audiences. I never said Marvel has become complacent. I said their current position as leaders often invites complacency. All I'm saying is that they need to be/remain vigilant moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 18:21:48 GMT
It's not complicated. Make a good Aquaman movie, make a good Flash movie, make a good Superman movie, make a good Green Lantern movie, make another good WW movie. Then try making a good JL movie. It isn't complicated but, it isn't original either. Another company has been there and done that extremely well. Doing it again with another set of characters, no matter how well executed, just means you were second. They need to stop looking at Marvel and consider a more carefully planned approach. In the end, that may mean just making a series of disconnected films or one-off team ups that are fantastic stand along entries in an anthology type series. |
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 7, 2017 18:23:11 GMT
Just follow Wonder Woman’s example and make better movies? I don't think it's that simple at this point honestly. They've just wasted their first impression As important as first impressions are, I truly think that it would make an enormous difference if the quality of their product turned around. Certainly, it wouldn't change everything, and DC would continue to be, in the opinion of critics and public, what taylorfirst1 referred to as "the number 2 CBM franchise" for the time being. Your analysis is correct in this regard. But let us look at something like Wonder Woman. Like it or not (and I found it very good indeed), it centered on a character inextricably connected with the DC brand--yet it had enormous success. Whatever reasons for that success (and we've thrown around all kind of reasons here), the public and critical establishment (would someone please let me know if there's a word for this, akin to literati? Criterati?) are willing to consider a big-budget, mainstream DC Comics flick--the same applies for Man of Steel, which I for one strongly disliked, and even Justice League (which I haven't seen), which received a few positive reviews from critics who disliked Batman v. Superman. I would argue (and I'm not the first to argue this, pace Lord Death Man's argument) that the public see superhero films as a large bloc, not separating them into DC and Marvel. Indeed, to some degree, I, a layman to these flicks compared to the many members who post here, consider them this way too--a rising tide lifts all boats. Believe it or not, fixing these pictures' tone and quality would do--er--wonders, I think. I bet you that if several more (and it has to be several, not just one) of their movies received critical and popular approval, the franchise would indeed "come back." Or, in other (less verbose) terms, what @forceghostackbar wrote. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 18:24:39 GMT
The movie itself never went with this idea that only men were responsible for all the problems in the world. Again, Ares’ motivation was specifically that humans as a whole were evil creatures that needed to be wiped out, and Diana’s character arc was her coming to realize that while humanity may not be as pure and good as she thought, they are still worth saving. As for what we’re supposed to be celebrating with the film, it’s that it’s considered a good film with a lot of heart and sincerity to it. That’s all. Regardless of whether the film or Diana or the Amazons is being judgmental of men or humanity it is still very judgmental. I couldn't sign on for the idea that we needed a savior from another world to fight a battle which someone of her own kind helped to orchestrate in the first place. Her realization that we are worth saving feels patronizing to me but, that's a frequent theme in the DCEU and the topic of another discussion. That's great but, a lot of other films accomplish the same and don't have near the pomp and circumstance associated with this particular outing right? Or should every film that manages to accomplish what you've stated be seriously considered for Oscars and have their Directors put on the short list for person of the year? The conflict of World War I wasn’t started by a member of her own kind. The film made it clear that humanity was responsible for the war, not Ares. As as for your second point, it’s not a matter of how many films “accomplish” what I mentioned earlier, but rather a matter of how well it was considered to have been done. WW is praised for the same reasons that people praise Richard Donner’s Superman movie. It’s a film that many feel managed to be heartfelt and sincere in what it was trying to convey, and had likable lead characters with good chemistry. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 18:25:48 GMT
Why wouldn’t the first two matter? Aquaman and Shazam aren't saving them from anything. I mean just consider that Aquaman wrapped filming, and Captain Marvel hasn't started, and yet it's Captain Marvel that is generating conversation about what Skrulls mean, about Jude Law as Mar-Vell, about Nick Fury's eye, about the early 90's setting, etc etc. And Aquaman is, just crickets. I haven’t seen any real discussion about Captain Marvel just yet. People are too busy talking about IW at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Dec 7, 2017 18:27:40 GMT
Aquaman and Shazam aren't saving them from anything. I mean just consider that Aquaman wrapped filming, and Captain Marvel hasn't started, and yet it's Captain Marvel that is generating conversation about what Skrulls mean, about Jude Law as Mar-Vell, about Nick Fury's eye, about the early 90's setting, etc etc. And Aquaman is, just crickets. I haven’t seen any real discussion about Captain Marvel just yet. People are too busy talking about IW at the moment. Well, you can't blame them. IW is the next big MCU thing. Culmination of a decade of work. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:32:30 GMT
I honestly don't think elsewhere stories are a long term plan. You can get strong results from a few, but that's not something you do for 20 films.
And Marvel has been anything but complacent. They have shown they are interested in creatively and mixing it up. They certainly respond and are sensitive to the feedback they receive, and most importantly, they are absolutely 100% committed to the quality of their product.
I disagree, I think Elsewhere stories, or the concept of putting their heroes into foreign contexts, could work in the long term for them. Batman and Superman, to a certain degree, are over exposed cinematically. They don't need reinvention as characters but, I think they could benefit from fresher surroundings. The one thing that Marvel has done that DC should consider copying is taking lesser known characters and introducing them to mainstream audiences. I never said Marvel has become complacent. I said their current position as leaders often invites complacency. All I'm saying is that they need to be/remain vigilant moving forward. I just don't see how you're going to run off more than a few elseworld stories.
And the thing about what are considered lesser known characters in Marvel, is that they are far more well known than anybody below the elite core of DC characters. The MCU started with the core Avengers, but have already added quite a few more, and that's not to mention the characters on the Neflix side, and certainly not to mention the Fox characters. DC just isn't that deep.
I agree that Marvel needs to remain vigiliant but here's why I don't there is reason for concern. It's their own studio. When other series have become it's because they don't actually care about the product. Marvel does. The best comparison is James Bond, owned by one studio and it's all they do. Any time they've felt they went off the rails, they always wound up coming back stronger because they are committed to the product, and it's why it's remained a strong brand for 50 years. Marvel could easily do the same, and there's no reason to think they'll let up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Dec 7, 2017 18:34:48 GMT
Regardless of whether the film or Diana or the Amazons is being judgmental of men or humanity it is still very judgmental. I couldn't sign on for the idea that we needed a savior from another world to fight a battle which someone of her own kind helped to orchestrate in the first place. Her realization that we are worth saving feels patronizing to me but, that's a frequent theme in the DCEU and the topic of another discussion. That's great but, a lot of other films accomplish the same and don't have near the pomp and circumstance associated with this particular outing right? Or should every film that manages to accomplish what you've stated be seriously considered for Oscars and have their Directors put on the short list for person of the year? The conflict of World War I wasn’t started by a member of her own kind. The film made it clear that humanity was responsible for the war, not Ares. As as for your second point, it’s not a matter of how many films “accomplish” what I mentioned earlier, but rather a matter of how well it was considered to have been done. WW is praised for the same reasons that people praise Richard Donner’s Superman movie. It’s a film that many feel managed to be heartfelt and sincere in what it was trying to convey, and had likable lead characters with good chemistry. I did not say that the conflict was started by Ares. I said he helped to orchestrate it. That said, it might be more accurate to say he exacerbated it. Any way you say it, Diana ultimately has to police one of her own kind who helped cause the destruction she initially judges mankind to be singularly responsible for. We'll have to agree to disagree with regards to your comparisons of Wonder Woman and Superman the Movie. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Dec 7, 2017 18:37:44 GMT
The conflict of World War I wasn’t started by a member of her own kind. The film made it clear that humanity was responsible for the war, not Ares. As as for your second point, it’s not a matter of how many films “accomplish” what I mentioned earlier, but rather a matter of how well it was considered to have been done. WW is praised for the same reasons that people praise Richard Donner’s Superman movie. It’s a film that many feel managed to be heartfelt and sincere in what it was trying to convey, and had likable lead characters with good chemistry. I did not say that the conflict was started by Ares. I said he helped to orchestrate it. That said, it might be more accurate to say he exacerbated it. Any way you say it, Diana ultimately has to police one of her own kind who helped cause the destruction she initially judges mankind to be singularly responsible for. Well have to agree to disagree with regards to your comparisons of Wonder Woman and Superman the Movie. The point was that Diana initially assumed Ares was responsible for the war, only to realize that it was humanity’s own doing. This made her realize that things aren’t as black and white as she thought, which was a big deal for her character. |
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:40:58 GMT
I don't think it's that simple at this point honestly. They've just wasted their first impression As important as first impressions are, I truly think that it would make an enormous difference if the quality of their product turned around. Certainly, it wouldn't change everything, and DC would continue to be, in the opinion of critics and public, what taylorfirst1 referred to as "the number 2 CBM franchise" for the time being. Your analysis is correct in this regard. But let us look at something like Wonder Woman. Like it or not (and I found it very good indeed), it centered on a character inextricably connected with the DC brand--yet it had enormous success. Whatever reasons for that success (and we've thrown around all kind of reasons here), the public and critical establishment (would someone please let me know if there's a word for this, akin to literati? Criterati?) are willing to consider a big-budget, mainstream DC Comics flick--the same applies for Man of Steel, which I for one strongly disliked, and even Justice League (which I haven't seen), which received a few positive reviews from critics who disliked Batman v. Superman. I would argue (and I'm not the first to argue this, pace Lord Death Man 's argument) that the public see superhero films as a large bloc, not separating them into DC and Marvel. Indeed, to some degree, I, a layman to these flicks compared to the many members who post here, consider them this way too--a rising tide lifts all boats. Believe it or not, fixing these pictures' tone and quality would do--er--wonders, I think. I bet you that if several more (and it has to be several, not just one) of their movies received critical and popular approval, the franchise would indeed "come back." Or, in other (less verbose) terms, what @forceghostackbar wrote. Certainly if they began making good movies that would generate sustainability, but I don't see any reason to think they are committed to any sort of long term plan. At best it would resemble what the X-Men universe is, which can be ok, but there's no vision or sense of continuity, and that's just short changing the capabilities of these brands. On top of that, that won't overcome the description of them as the other comic book band. There may be some lump of comicbook films in general, but the public knows what the marvel brand means.
I do not buy into the rising tides raising all ships angle. Marvel doesn't need DC's assistance to maintain success, and the only DC can do is hurt the industry by continuing to produce poor films.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Dec 7, 2017 18:42:16 GMT
Aquaman and Shazam aren't saving them from anything. I mean just consider that Aquaman wrapped filming, and Captain Marvel hasn't started, and yet it's Captain Marvel that is generating conversation about what Skrulls mean, about Jude Law as Mar-Vell, about Nick Fury's eye, about the early 90's setting, etc etc. And Aquaman is, just crickets. I haven’t seen any real discussion about Captain Marvel just yet. People are too busy talking about IW at the moment. You haven't seen the "who's a skrull" discussions? Those came from Captain Marvel. And I'm with a quick search you can find discussions on Fury's eye and the casting of Mar-Vell |
|
