Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still think WB has made a huge error in judgment in keeping their movie and TV universes separate.
Yet another example of Marvel having a plan and thinking long term and WB making it up as they go along.
That would have been a terrible idea. It would mean that CW-caliber writers would set the tone and character of the DC cinematic universe. And most of the actors on those shows(Supergirl included) are really terrible, so putting them in the movies would be a bad move. Besides, look at how terrible Marvel has integrated Agents of SHIELD into their cinematic universe. And that's a group that knows what they're doing.
And I'm not convinced that the DC movies need to be as fun as the Marvel movies and DC TV series. They just need to be less grimdark and joyless than BvS. Even Marvel is shifting to a more serious tone with Civil War and (apparently)Doctor Strange.
Large parts of that article are spot on. Many of Marvel's movies are a bit too comfortable with the formula, and the constant wink-wink-nudge-nudge snarkiness has already passed its sell by date. (Although I blame Joss Whedon for that more than anything.)
But the article's opening line ...
"Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a success because it isn’t funny."
... is absurd. It only makes sense if you define "success" as "not successful at all." The movie has been a box office disappointment for the studio. It has been savaged by critics. How is that a "success" in any sense of the word?
BvS succeeds in not being a Marvel movie. Okay. That must be like how THE LONE RANGER succeeded in not being a PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN movie.
It's an op-ed piece. He makes some really good points. You have to take in that whole paragraph, not just the opening line:
Quote:
—The film contains funny moments: Batman intoning a robotic “****” before scrambling around like the biggest possible goof definitely caused a roar of laughter in the theatre when I watched the film. However, it’s not a movie that depends on being funny, and that’s the strength of Zack Snyder’s interpretation of the iconic DC Comics characters.
His point is that isn't built on a foundation of buffoonery and unnecessary humor. You won't get Superman peering down into a pool of water going "Lois! I see you through this rock! You forgot your bathing suit?"
That would have been a terrible idea. It would mean that CW-caliber writers would set the tone and character of the DC cinematic universe. And most of the actors on those shows(Supergirl included) are really terrible, so putting them in the movies would be a bad move. Besides, look at how terrible Marvel has integrated Agents of SHIELD into their cinematic universe. And that's a group that knows what they're doing.
And I'm not convinced that the DC movies need to be as fun as the Marvel movies and DC TV series. They just need to be less grimdark and joyless than BvS. Even Marvel is shifting to a more serious tone with Civil War and (apparently)Doctor Strange.
Don't knock the Flash writers, they are doing the best they can with a character who can time travel and a network that is very female based (going so far back to the days of the WB and to an extent UPN (its parent networks.) Arrow, sure because it isn't always the best but Flash is.
The main issue between what DC would need vs Agents of Shield in the MCU is that Flash and Arrow would need to be handled in DC movies the same way as they are on the shows. It's easy enough to do so on say Supergirl but the movies, not so much. Malcolm Merlyn would need to be R'as al Gaul for any Court of Owls in Batman movies for instance and Mark Ryan would need to be Constantine for Justice League Dark.
Don't knock the Flash writers, they are doing the best they can with a character who can time travel and a network that is very female based (going so far back to the days of the WB and to an extent UPN (its parent networks.) Arrow, sure because it isn't always the best but Flash is.
Having to say "They're doing their best" is an admission that it isn't great. It's a fun show to be sure, but it won't be winning any awards.
And Supernatural has a giant female audience so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Quote:
The main issue between what DC would need vs Agents of Shield in the MCU is that Flash and Arrow would need to be handled in DC movies the same way as they are on the shows. It's easy enough to do so on say Supergirl but the movies, not so much. Malcolm Merlyn would need to be R'as al Gaul for any Court of Owls in Batman movies for instance and Mark Ryan would need to be Constantine for Justice League Dark.
And that's a huge issue. You have these low-grade talents that are fine for fan-driven TV shows but would stink up the silver screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
It's an op-ed piece. He makes some really good points. You have to take in that whole paragraph, not just the opening line:
His point is that isn't built on a foundation of buffoonery and unnecessary humor. You won't get Superman peering down into a pool of water going "Lois! I see you through this rock! You forgot your bathing suit?"
It's just built on buffoonery. Every hero is Jesus. Every villain is the devil. Lex Luthor is an irrational madman with no motivations. Batman is a murderer and an idiot. Superman is apathetic. Slow-mo apparently comes at a steep discount. The audience needs it's 237th reminder that Batman's parents died. Doomsday has to be the size of King Kong because big monster. Etc.
Having to say "They're doing their best" is an admission that it isn't great. It's a fun show to be sure, but it won't be winning any awards.
And Supernatural has a giant female audience so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
It's a limiting factor that forces a hand just as does the existing rules of say an Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk movie means what you can and can't do with Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man, Spider-Man, Black Panther and Avenger movies. It's not like doing Batman and Superman movies that have no barring on other movies like say Batman Begins and Man of Steel were.
Quote:
And that's a huge issue. You have these low-grade talents that are fine for fan-driven TV shows but would stink up the silver screen.
Steven Amell is Casey Jones in the new Turtles movies (his first major feature film role) so I'll wait on judgement but that said, should he and Grant Gustin have their roles in the DCEU, they would also be rather comfortable in their roles.
[QUPTE]It's just built on buffoonery. Every hero is Jesus. Every villain is the devil. Lex Luthor is an irrational madman with no motivations. Batman is a murderer and an idiot. Superman is apathetic. Slow-mo apparently comes at a steep discount. The audience needs it's 237th reminder that Batman's parents died. Doomsday has to be the size of King Kong because big monster. Etc.[/quote]
You have these low-grade talents that are fine for fan-driven TV shows but would stink up the silver screen.
Grant Gustin's a newcomer, but he's pretty darned good. He's basically Peter Parker in a Flash suit. And if you're knocking Stephen Amell and David Ramsey (John Diggle), that tells me you haven't watched the shows. They could put these guys in the big films, no prob.
That also applies, of course, to Wentworth Miller, Caity Lotz and your second favorite Superman, Brandon Routh as Ray Palmer/Atom. Lotz (White Canary) can act just fine and looks like she could kick her costars' asses, even Amell's. She's got moves!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
