|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 2:32:08 GMT
What nonsense. The MCU has taken more risks than dceu and xcu combined. Except they haven't. Same goofy but forgettable formula for every movie. How is that taking a risk in any way at all? Ah yes, this ever-present formula no one can ever define beyond "success".
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 2:33:05 GMT
What, like DC and the XCU have? Yes. Then demonstrate. So far they've done nothing but stick to the same old and not have the courage to follow through.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 2:34:10 GMT
I know mcu sycophants keep pretending that a movie not about cap or iron man is somehow a risk but it's not. Even making movies about Cap and Iron Man was risky. Take a look at the XCU and DCEU, they don't have the balls to do risky projects. Nothing about MOS, BvS, WW or JL was risky.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 8, 2018 2:46:21 GMT
Except they have. Utiling B-D grade heroes in multimillion dollar movies and changing character personalities over multiple movies and changing up stereotypical superhero tropes. Remind me again how you think the DCEU and XCU have taken more risks? I know mcu sycophants keep pretending that a movie not about cap or iron man is somehow a risk but it's not. The average movie goer has NO IDEA who is or isn't a popular comic book character. It's only comic reading types that think of characters as a or b or whatever grade. So making a movie about Ant man was not a risk but it was a shitty movie. Lucky for the mcu they used that same tired cotton candy formula I mentioned and it was a hit. So how come DC and Fox are so afraid of making movies about other characters outside their flagship characters?
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jan 8, 2018 3:00:23 GMT
I know mcu sycophants keep pretending that a movie not about cap or iron man is somehow a risk but it's not. Even making movies about Cap and Iron Man was risky. Take a look at the XCU and DCEU, they don't have the balls to do risky projects. Nothing about MOS, BvS, WW or JL was risky. How was it risky? Spider man and the X Men movies had shown audiences would go see super hero movies other than Batman or Superman. There was already a built in audience of marvel comic book fans and little kids so there was no way the movies wouldn't at the very least make a small profit. There was nothing at all in any way risky about ANY of the mcu movies and saying so makes you either disingenuous or incrediblydirt stupid. Which is it? Now see if you can explain how the mcu took risks and also try and not do that petulant childish thing where you change what your betters have posted.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jan 8, 2018 3:03:09 GMT
I know mcu sycophants keep pretending that a movie not about cap or iron man is somehow a risk but it's not. The average movie goer has NO IDEA who is or isn't a popular comic book character. It's only comic reading types that think of characters as a or b or whatever grade. So making a movie about Ant man was not a risk but it was a shitty movie. Lucky for the mcu they used that same tired cotton candy formula I mentioned and it was a hit. So how come DC and Fox are so afraid of making movies about other characters outside their flagship characters? You must be an insider. Show me a quote from anyone involved with DC or FOX saying they are afraid to make movies outside their flagship characters. Choosing to and being afraid not to are totally different things.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Jan 8, 2018 3:26:07 GMT
Speaking about taking risk. How about a movie where the villain wins and kills everyone? No hero saving the day or time travel bullshit, straight up evil conquers the world.
No happy ending. No "symbols of hope" or any of the bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 8, 2018 7:56:23 GMT
So how come DC and Fox are so afraid of making movies about other characters outside their flagship characters? You must be an insider. Show me a quote from anyone involved with DC or FOX saying they are afraid to make movies outside their flagship characters. Choosing to and being afraid not to are totally different things. In the end, they still seldom make movies outside their flagship charactets, which pretty much means they didn't take the risk. Doesn't matter if they were afraid to or chose not to, bottom line is they didn't take the risk.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 8, 2018 10:28:21 GMT
Except they haven't. Same goofy but forgettable formula for every movie. How is that taking a risk in any way at all? Ah yes, this ever-present formula no one can ever define beyond "success". The formula has been stated so many times on this board yet MCU fanatics like you keep developing amnesia once its brought up. So as a reminder; Make the hero a comedic goofball with lots of quips and slapstick humour to seem alpha and charismatic (through fake means) Make the whole film lighthearted with no stakes or tension. Have lots of CGI effects to mask any real plot and substitute for drama. Make the villain one note and easily forgetable and make sure they dont interact with the hero much Have an extra one or 2 comedy relief side characters for added precaution. Thats the formula more or less, and it applies to Ant man, Guardian's x2, Dr Strange, Spiderman Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Iron man 3. Its safe because it attracts children and thus marketable on different fronts. Its also not challenging so critics can give it a pass. Tell me im wrong.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 10:37:31 GMT
Even making movies about Cap and Iron Man was risky. Take a look at the XCU and DCEU, they don't have the balls to do risky projects. Nothing about MOS, BvS, WW or JL was risky. How was it risky? Spidey and the X-Men were seen as Marvel's A-Listers where the common audience goer knew who they were before there were movies. They had cartoons and media coverage beyond other Marvel characters. Iron Man and co were seen as B-Listers (and by fanatical Spider-Man and X-Men fans, they always will be B-Listers because they hate all Marvel characters who aren't Spidey or the X-Men). DC is even worse, for the most part all they've done is Superman and Batman movies for 40 years and Superman/Batman related movies. It was only when the MCU came out they got the guts to try something new.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 10:41:27 GMT
The formula has been stated so many times on this board No, vague nonsense has been stated many times on this board. Having any levity whatsoever is bad, got it. This whole "There's no stakes" thing is only because the MCU is nice enough to let us know about future movies, it's not something present within the actual movies. So using FX for superpowers, any FX, is bad. No, this doesn't apply to most MCU villains. They just refuse to make them the stars of the show. You have any idea how many movies you're bringing up with this? It's ancient storytelling method. Lots of movies. So does Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Dr Who, etc.[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 8, 2018 13:17:24 GMT
No, vague nonsense has been stated many times on this board. Its clearly definable and every point that I made hits consistently with the MCU therefore its a repeating formula. Its not bad characteristic in itself, but using it for all you're main heros with the exception of Cap makes it formulaic by definition and also lazy. The base stock template of any MCU hero is easily identifiable. When you look at Bales Batman, Afflecks Batman, Maguires/Garfields Parker, Fassbenders/Mckellans Magneto, Wolverine, etc they are written differently in their persona. But Strange, Quill, Stark, Lang, Thor (now), Banner (now) all act the same and have the same base personality. Cocky, arrogant quip machines who make the same style of jokes during serious moments ad nauseum. The original Avengers had the mix right. Cap was the strict boy scout leader. Stark was the hotshot loose cannon. Thor was the otherworldly god with a authoritative demeanour. Banner was the on edge, withdrawn genius scientist. Its pretty obvious what they've done. Since audiences loved RDJs portrayal of IM, Feige has tried to turn every new hero into a Tony Stark-lite character. Watch they will do the same thing to Cyclops and Reed Richards. And thats a problem in itself, announcing future movies 2/3 years down the line. Raimis Spidey, Nolans Batman and XCU never did this so each film felt meaningful and tense. Nope. In films like Antman, Strange and GotG1, the CGI effects made the movie seem better even though the plot of each was weak. If the main hero is a quippy, alpha wannabe then theres no need for comedic side characters never mind multiple. Theres no other films like this that do it like the MCU.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Jan 8, 2018 13:29:01 GMT
DC and Star Wars has taught us something really important. Fanboys get butthurt when you try something new with their "favorite" characters. Superman, Batman, and Luke Skywalker were all very well established characters in our culture. And recently, directors have tried to do something new with each of them, only to be met with EXTREME backlash from the fanboy community. A more grounded Superman is "not muh Superman." A more brutal Batman is "not muh Batman." A more broken Luke Skywalker is "not muh Luke Skywalker." But luckily for Marvel, they haven't allowed their characters to grow or change in any significant ways. Tony Stark is always a cocky asshole who'll do the right thing in the end. Steve Rogers is always a boyscout who'll never compromise his ideals. Great. But does it HAVE to be that way FOREVER? Would Marvel have testicular fortitude to ever try something new with their characters, or will they leave them "as is" so they can continue to enjoy heaps of praise from their cult followers? Wouldn't that get boring after a while? As for me, I like it when directors have the nuts to try something new. Hey, everyone. No risks? Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't a risk? They make any movie, no matter what, and it is successful because they know hoe to make good movies. People did not hate BvS or Justice League because they got Batman wrong. They hated them because they are not good movies.
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Jan 8, 2018 13:33:50 GMT
Ah yes, this ever-present formula no one can ever define beyond "success". The formula has been stated so many times on this board yet MCU fanatics like you keep developing amnesia once its brought up. So as a reminder; Make the hero a comedic goofball with lots of quips and slapstick humour to seem alpha and charismatic (through fake means) Make the whole film lighthearted with no stakes or tension. Have lots of CGI effects to mask any real plot and substitute for drama. Make the villain one note and easily forgetable and make sure they dont interact with the hero much Have an extra one or 2 comedy relief side characters for added precaution. Thats the formula more or less, and it applies to Ant man, Guardian's x2, Dr Strange, Spiderman Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok, Iron man 3. Its safe because it attracts children and thus marketable on different fronts. Its also not challenging so critics can give it a pass. Tell me im wrong. The DCEU has a formula too. Make terrible movie. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Jan 8, 2018 13:48:02 GMT
The DCEU has a formula too. Make terrible movie. Rinse and repeat. Lazy argument again and incorrect given that WW broke that cycle. The DCEU, whilst gaining mixed responses, have individual movies that dont feel the same either through similar lead heros or movie tone. Batman, Superman, Flash, Aquaman, WW in all their iterations, however limited, are all individualised characters which leads to great team chemistry, like in the first Avengers, one of the positives from JL. Each film has a distinct tone which is different from the other. Theres not many similar tropes that carry over from film to film either with exception of perhaps the big CGI destruction porn in the finales.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jan 8, 2018 17:23:32 GMT
I'm still waiting for people to specify exactly what risks DCEU and Fox have taken that elevate them over the risks MCU has done.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jan 8, 2018 18:34:04 GMT
I'm still waiting for people to specify exactly what risks DCEU and Fox have taken that elevate them over the risks MCU has done. I'm still waiting to see if anyone can understand that risk, c. the 21st century, is largely a cold and calculated thing. Or are we forever going to fetishize risk as being somehow intrinsically linked to danger, adrenaline, gambling and aggression. Risk-taking isn’t about doing dangerous, scary stuff. It’s about managing choices to get the best possible outcome.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 8, 2018 21:14:03 GMT
Its clearly definable and every point that I made Could easily apply to lots of movies. So just like DC and Fox then. Predictable. Unlike the typical pristine do-gooder. And you expect them to all stay exactly 100% the same no matter what? That's not how character development works. Even if you were right, anything is better than how they've been treated at Fox. Because the idea of the larger Universe didn't exist back then, put those films out now and the studios would definitely do it to them too. You must hate Star Wars, they had a quippy Alpha with Han Solo and comedic side characters.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jan 8, 2018 21:30:24 GMT
Its not bad characteristic in itself, but using it for all you're main heros with the exception of Cap makes it formulaic by definition and also lazy. The base stock template of any MCU hero is easily identifiable. When you look at Bales Batman, Afflecks Batman, Maguires/Garfields Parker, Fassbenders/Mckellans Magneto, Wolverine, etc they are written differently in their persona. But Strange, Quill, Stark, Lang, Thor (now), Banner (now) all act the same and have the same base personality. Cocky, arrogant quip machines who make the same style of jokes during serious moments ad nauseum. The original Avengers had the mix right. Cap was the strict boy scout leader. Stark was the hotshot loose cannon. Thor was the otherworldly god with a authoritative demeanour. Banner was the on edge, withdrawn genius scientist. Its pretty obvious what they've done. Since audiences loved RDJs portrayal of IM, Feige has tried to turn every new hero into a Tony Stark-lite character. Watch they will do the same thing to Cyclops and Reed Richards. Thor, Strange and Stark's characters are arrogant and cocky. That is their problem to begin with. Strange and Stark see themselves as the smartest and richest men in the world. Lang has always been an asshole of a character. Banner is not arrogant or quippy. The things he says just comes off as funny in the situation. He's more afraid than anything. Quill isn't really arrogant, but he is kinda cocky. He's more like Spider-man in using humor as a defense mechanism. Quill is the same type of character as Han Solo. Have you not seen the 1st Thor movie? He's the same character in Thor Ragnarok as he is in that movie. He subtly changed a bit at the end of that movie and they kept it going in Avengers. But he was still that arrogant character. The only difference in Thor is Loki. He hated Loki from the end of the 1st Thor all the way up to the mid point of The Dark World where he came to terms with who Loki is. Notice he treats him in Ragnarok like he did at the beginning of the 1st Thor movie. Hopefully they make Cyclops more like Steve Rogers. Cyclops is not that reserved a character as they make him in the OT. Reed Richards should be more like how Harrison Ford plays Indiana Jones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 0:59:52 GMT
So how come DC and Fox are so afraid of making movies about other characters outside their flagship characters? You must be an insider. Show me a quote from anyone involved with DC or FOX saying they are afraid to make movies outside their flagship characters. Choosing to and being afraid not to are totally different things. WHo needs to say when the writing's on the wall?
|
|