CBT

DC Comics needs to do the actual important things Marvel did to succeed:

1.) Cast young upcoming stars based on their acting ability (not just looks like in the US, the more British/Aussie, etc, the better)

2.) Stick to the comics, ie Superman doesnt kill, have affairs, babies out of wedlock, etc....

3.) Tell a good STORY from popular arcs.  ie Stephenwolf and the bug army is not is not a famous DC story loved by fans

4.) People have to care about the characters, dont rush them on to the screen, take time, build hype, get audience buy in. Nobody cried for a dead superman, and nobody cared when he returned.  I can tell you right now, when they kill Ironman, Vision, Captain America, etc in Avengers, a lot of people are going to care a lot.  Anyone 16-19, essentially grew up with MCU characters as their heros, toys, halloween costumes, etc.

4 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

300 channels and 22 sports networks?  WHAT?  Which ones?  All I remember hearing about was FX, and that Fox Sports was staying with Fox.

isnt all of that in England and India, etc.  Not the US, where Anti-Trust would be an issue.

12 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

When has ANY studio merger been blocked by the Department of Justice?  Big merges have happened plenty of times over the past century, but I can't recall any of them being blocked.  We're talking about entertainment here, not something functional like phone or Internet services that causes them to watch mergers in that arena far more closely.

If any of the major networks tried to buy another major network, it would be blocked because there are already so few and it is seen as monopolistic.  This is why Disney would never have been allowed to buy the Fox Sports and Fox News portions of Fox, as they already own ABC.

Also, that is why the AT&T/Time Warner deal was told to either sell DirectTV or TurnerBroadcasting, aka AT&T can't end up owning both.  (Often mis-reported in the bias'd press as, having to "sell CNN", Turner owns CNN), Because the satellite and cable networks are viewed as "overlapping" directly with each other.

1 hour ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

Wasn’t it you talking about the “loonie left” 

I forgot big brother is watching,  no more politics. 

my reference was about not wanting politics injected into entertainment like Star Wars, which is a little different than where the discussion started to head.

but fair point nonetheless, and agreed.

1 minute ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

I was thinking of Murdoch, Trump called to congratulate on his big deal. Imagine if Disney controlled Fox News, the internet would explode. 

politics is not allowed on this board, you are going to get this thread shut down. 

And, as I already said, there was never an attempt to include News and Sports in the US, as Disney already owns ABC, and such a deal would immediately be blocked on anti-trust laws.

5 minutes ago, Quicksilver Signs said:

Funny how Trump has nothing bad to say about this merger considering how it’s his pal Ailes making the dough. 

yah, this thread is accelerating to forbidden territory of politics quickly.  You do know Ailes can't make money cause he is DEAD right?

The reason Disney/Fox isnt an anti-trust issue, is because they are leaving news and sports out of the deal, (Disney owns ABC), otherwise it would get blocked for sure. 

2 hours ago, Chip Cataldo said:

Her job is to make money for Disney, and she's doing that. She's doing just fine. 

If you think having another star wars movie with the original cast reappearing, "making money", is due to her you are sadly mistaken.

Star Wars will always make lots of money.  But letting people with agendas run properties will always lead to quality and success limitations.  Anyone who thinks its important to check off a gender and race checklist, rather than make the best movie possible, is not someone who should be in charge.  The end result, regardless of the audience drawing power of the product (Star Wars), will always be less than it could have been. 

One of the reasons MCU has done so well is they have resisted the loonie left's pressures, and stuck to the original material for the most part, succumbing only on a few supporting characters.  Now, having successfully recreated the comics on the big screen, REAL diverse characters, true to their source material (black panther, captain marvel), can also succeed spectacularly.  While forced fake diversity attempts elsewhere continue to fail royally.

If Star Wars' relaunch of movies, solo films, and live action TV, does ever start to stagnate or falter, it will with certainty be because people like Kathleen Kennedy were focusing on agendas and politics, and not making the best product possible for the fans.

6 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Why?

She's done a masterful job with the Star Wars franchise so far.

3 movies. 3 wins.

Han Solo might falter, given the director musical chairs, but I've got faith in her vision and Ron Howard's ability to execute.

Dangerous priorities, anyone pushing identity politics into entertainment needs to be perma-banned from life.

8 minutes ago, CBT said:

Do something like have Fassbender show up as Wanda's Father in a after credits stinger, etc.

Just imagine after credits of A4, wanda back at home, looking sad cause Vision is gone, and turns to see Fassbender standing in the doorway.

"Dad?"

cut to black

1 hour ago, jsilverjanet said:

I thought Fox’s Wolverine was tamed a bit more than the comics so I can imagine Disney’s will be even tamer but we may at least see him in yellow and blue costume

@Logan510

I think they convince Jackman to play a multi-verse displaced Old Man Logan, (grab at the log scene from Logan), concurrent with a new young actor to play wolverine.  He can be a mentor, get the audience hyped, but not have to get in such shape, nor have to make such big time commitments to just do supporting cameo type roles.

22 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

They could always do a reverse house of M

”No More Mutants”

I believe they were already planning to do this, as "No More Superheroes" at some point.  Wanda is definitely going to be big in phase 4.

With A4 having to rebuild the destroyed universe, it wont be hard to have x-men and FF be part of it.

I think they add them in slowly.  Do something like have Fassbender show up as Wanda's Father in a after credits stinger, etc.

Do the illuminati and have Charles and Reed meeting with them, etc

2 minutes ago, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

Serious question because I've heard this brought up several times.  What exactly is the concern?

- Monopoly?...there's enough competition still out there to make is false

- Quality?...I trust Disney, more than most, to give us quality content (their image is their bread and butter)

- Content?...I have no idea this was brought up but I saw it a couple of times

 

Besides the crazy ticket prices to enter Disney World/Land I really have no issues with the Mouse.

Disney has shown with Marvel and Star Wars they won't ruin properties, but allow them significant autonomy to continue producing quality material, but obviously within certain overall rules/goals.

20 years ago I would have been concerned, but Disney of today has shown, EXCEPTIONALLY good oversight in not wrecking or changing the high-end IP that they acquire.

Marvel purchase and results alone should assuage anyone with such fears.

My thread on this subject was actual first and before this one everyone is posting in, but at 12 pages, no point in re-bumping my old one...

Glad to see they have managed to make it happen.

Hopefully Marvel will stop the intentional sabotage of FF and X-Men comics, so not only do we get MCU X-men and FF, we get great X-Men comics again.

Combined with the new and improved SJW-fixing moves in the comic space(legacy, firing alonso, etc), I think the next year or two  for Marvel comics is going to be amazing.

5 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

So untrue.  Stick Robert Downey, Jr. into a Zack Snyder film and it's not going to change the fact that it's a Zack Snyder film.  It'll be a little bit better, but it'll still have a bunch of problems.

Mark Ruffalo does well as Hulk because Hulk is dead-simple to play.  He screwed up on Bill Maher's show back in 2012 and openly admitted that he hates superhero movies.  I'm somewhat surprised Feige didn't fire him, but he already had a contract at that point, so I'm not sure it was an option.  Probably doesn't matter anyway since it doesn't take much to play a CGI character.

Wrong.

A badly written film cant be saved by Snyder.

Further, It's not RDJ in a movie that makes it good, its RDJ as Tony Stark that is brilliant.  If Dwayne Johnson was Tony Stark, neither good writing nor directing could save it.

A director can only make lemonade from lemons.  Casting and writing are the lemons, if you start with turnips, your lemonade is going to end up as turnip juice, no matter how good the juice maker is...

5 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

From reading multiple Feige interviews, including his presentation at the Richard Donner recognition, it sounds like part of the Marvel secret sauce is a director indoctrination program. When he talked about one movie everyone is required to watch is 'Superman: The Movie', it sounded like they drive home the point what works and why with story content, character development and audience expectations. It's a smart move when trying to remain consistent and linked throughout all these films.

If you look at what happened with Ant-man its a good overview of the limits.

They are willing to let a director do his things, but they still have final oversite and say, and will pull you if you dont work within the rules.

On 11/19/2017 at 4:43 PM, STORMSHADOW_80 said:

6 episodes in. Pretty good so far

  Hide contents

But why is he without the skull!!!

 

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

Their biggest problem is trusting directors to create quality films.  Marvel did that, too, back when Avi Arad was in charge because he had no idea himself how to create good films with comic book characters.  Some of the Avi Arad movies were good, some weren't, but it all came down to the director's vision.  Arad used Kevin Feige as his sidekick comic book expert, but he didn't always take Feige's advice and just picked good directors, not good directors willing to change their usual approach to fit comic characters, hence they had unpredictable trainwrecks like Elektra, Daredevil, Hulk, etc.  Ang Lee's Hulk is a perfect example--Ang Lee is a FANTASTIC director, he just wasn't sure how to create a great comic book film despite the fact that he really, really wanted to, and Avi Arad didn't know how to, either.  But Feige does because he knows Marvel's characters really, really well, so he only picks directors he knows are capable of adapting what they do to the superhero genre.

DC's success comes when they pick a director with a vision that ends up mapping well to superheroes.  Patty Jenkins did great with that, and so did Christopher Nolan, so we got great DC films from those two.  They need Geoff Johns to pick great directors willing to adjust what they do for the genre like Feige does, but since he keeps getting actively involved in production or writing, I'm not sure he'll ever be that guy.  Or that he and Jon Berg together can ever be that guy.  Until they have their Feige, some of these movies will be great, and others will suck.

directors are important, I agree

Casting is the most important

Writing is second

Directing third.

The day it was announced the RDJ was cast as Tony Stark, I remember spazzing at my girlfriend (now wife), about how "it was the best choice ever, he basically is Tony Stark, this movie will be great I cant wait for it to come out".  If RDJ wasnt cast as Tony Stark, there wouldnt be any Marvel Studios by now, Disney wouldnt have bought them, etc.

Marvel was willing to re-cast Hulk as Ruffalo.

They cast Chris Evans, despite having been Johnny Storm.

They cast Hemmsworth and Hiddleston and they become huge stars.

They cast Chris Pratt as an action hero, despite everyone only knowing him as a chubby goofball.

and so on.

Marvel's casting and writing (sticking to the comicbooks) allows good Directors to make good films.  Now at this point every actor,writer,director wants to be involved, and they can pick whom they like.  But they still focus on casting.

Spider-man and Black Panther are great examples of how they are still doing it. Casting is King with Writing and Directing obviously vital as well.

It's no accident that the DC stuff that does best or is received the best, are the things that involve new, young, upcoming actors (Gal Gadot, etc).  DC can right the ship, but they need to do it on the back of Aquaman and Flash, and get Ben Affleck outta there.

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

The assumption WB/DC should just do it like the MCU and plug in their characters in matching order to the MCU characters because it is a proven approach on the surface would make sense. It would give us the DC characters we love in a comfortable and familiar setting, building out close to the same pace. And we would easily say to ourselves, "I know pretty much what's happening next, and at what point they become a team and have to take on the Big Bad." And the money would come flowing in, as critics and movie-goers congratulated them on faithfully following their demands. A perfect picture of success!

Or maybe not. I think what we are seeing take place is WB/DC are trying to find its own way to be unique, and stumbling because it is overly influenced by too many sources. Those demanding they just 'follow the MCU blueprint' are so loud, along with critics making it clear no matter what Snyder is involved in there will be no gift critique or even at times a fair review, the studio is overwhelmed with roadmap correction demands that may or may not be reasonable. And let's not kid ourselves some of these critics are holding some form of grudge or dislike for Snyder. Some outright rejoice in it.

That's a real, unaltered post from the Senior Writer of Vanity Fair. When I first heard of this, I thought it was someone's attempt to tell a tall tale. Then I found her account, and there was the post.

The dislike for altering some of the history of Superman in 'Man of Steel' leading into the outright hate for the dark and crowded 'Batman v Superman' leaves little room for any positive in these films. And there are plenty of positives in these films. To include WB/DC is trying to make its path unique and new compared to the easier path. If they wanted to just make a jump for the cash, wouldn't it have just caved in and started drafting the MCU DC Infinity War Cosmic Odyssey? Call it done!

What I think we are seeing first-hand with Justice League is a studio second-guessing its abilities and direction, and trying to appease the loudest voices (not the average voices). So whatever Snyder had planned was altered to bring the funny, bright traditional world demanded even by involving the director that helped Marvel establish this more clearly and successfully with 'The Avengers'. Yet it was done so late in the process, we received an incomplete, slightly garbled production with CGI work that can be slightly distracting. Better the WB/DC executives had come to the conclusion it was either better to limit the changes, or to admit a finished product required more time and ate the humble pie by altering the release date and dealing with the backlash on that.

Yet for all the negatives that can be called out with 'Justice League', there is a large portion of the audience that appreciated this movie so much, they have taken to social media to spread the word. It's not just CGC forum members saying this. All the videos, twitter and articles calling this out is not easily ignored. Unless someone wants to because it is counter to their message.

WB/DC should craft a clear plan that may have some form of deviation with releases. Sure, there will be the Connected DC Universe films. There is a large enough market desiring this, it makes plenty of sense. But then there are the Standalone DC films that should not be forced into Easter eggs and connection scenes. It is all about that individual movie driving towards a solidly told story with well-positioned characters and plot points. This is the same studio that gave us 'Superman: The Movie', 'Batman (1989)' and even the small universe Nolan Batman films. It has a proven track record, if it only trusted in itself.

And I think this is what Geoff Johns is trying to accomplish. But with all the loud voices saying to do it like the MCU, WB/DC can't keep it together. And now the film that should have kept the momentum going opens up not as powerful as it should have because the studio allowed itself to make late changes to appease what it assumed to be the average movie-goer's demands.

For any of the negatives with 'Justice League', is it truly the studio's fault, the market's fault, or a combination of the two? I lean towards it being a joint result. WB/DC should have gone the 'Wonder Woman' route in that instead of allowing all the social media demands of doing it like Joss Whedon had planned or make it like 'Captain America: The First Avenger', it went down its own path and was a huge success. And yet even when the early trailers came out, folks called out they were copying the MCU because a woman with a shield was like a man with a shield, so this must be Captain America. What studio wants to be noted as doing an exact copy of its competitor, and selling out for the money only?

I honestly believe the executives at the top of WB/DC basically think/thought this"

1.) Our Heroes (Superman & Batman) are better and more famous than the ones Marvel is making big bucks with.

2.) Superhero movies are a fad, we need to get our team-up movie out there ASAP because we dont want to miss the boat.

The problem is, despite what so many think, Marvel isnt really producing "superhero" movies, they are producing movies, with super heroes in them.  Their goal is to ultimately be putting out movies in every genre, that happen to have comic characters in them.

Winter Solider - Spy Drama

Guardians - Space Opera

Ant-man - Heist Movie

Dr. Strange - Fantasy

Thor: Ragnarok - Road Trip/Buddy movie

If you include things like the Fox movies, you have New Mutants coming out as a Horror Flick, Deadpool is basically Action Comedy, etc etc etc

DC's biggest problem in my opinion is trying to rush things.  They need to focus on making GOOD movies first and foremost, and letting everything else develop.  It doesnt have to be the "Marvel formula", but they need to make REALLY good movies, that happen to have comic book characters in them.  Wonder Woman is probably the only one so far that meets that standard, and its universally respected, (even there they almost went off the rails pushing lefty feminist garbage, you dont need patriarchy bashing jokes and quips, when your female hero is a complete badass, just let her show it with actions).

I think with Flash and Aquaman DC has the chance to make two really good movies.  Both fit my pattern, of lead actors who arent yet Mega Stars.  Casting and Writing are what made the Marvel movies so good.  From this point forward DC needs to focus on young upcoming actors, and top tier writing.  Every movie cant be just a Transformers-like action flick.  It doesnt matter if its "dark and serious" or "light and full of one liners".  Just make it GOOD, with emotional buy in for the audience and real stakes and a relate-able villain.

Personally, I still think they need to use Flash's movie to do some reality bending ret-con of Batman to make him a young actor.

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Although I may not agree 100%, this at least someone putting a resolution with a lot of sense behind it.

As much as I like Affleck in the role, he sure hasn't helped himself with statements and reactions caught by interviewers. It opens the door to doubt and mistrust.

Very good further point on Affleck, I didnt even touch on that part of the problem with him.

One of my roomates in late 90s was a rich guy from Montreal who's older sister and her friends (models I think),  partied a ton with Ben Affleck and his buddies.  This was in Montreal in the late 90s when he was working on films there, and even at that time there were lots and lots of stories, rumors, etc. , some of which the sister witnessed herself.

I am not going to post anything specific here, but believe me, his past is not good and filled with many skeletons.  DC needs to dump him ASAP

imo Superman should have been used as the DC Nick Fury, not Batman.  Would make more sense, would have given more time between Bale and the DCEU Batman, and then HE(Batman) could have been the badass big reveal in JL.  He needs to be a young actor, about the same age as Gal Gadot, someone with oodles of acting chops and not yet Super Famous. DC/WB has tried to rush everything, and is doing disservice to their fans and characters.  Absolutely no big name actors should be used for main characters (ie Will Smith, Ben Affleck, etc)

Affleck needs to go ASAP.  I say use Flash/Flashpoint to Retcon all the weak/bad stuff out, and right the ship.  No reboots, have an aggressive alternate reality merging hard retcon, with emotional buy in for the fans.  Id' say just kill this Batman/Affleck, and bring in a young Bruce Wayne from an Alternate reality, and retcon "our" reality so Bruce Wayne is that age here too, and have Old Bruce/Batfleck make a noble sacrifice and gtfo. 

Wonder Woman is the only truly strong Film to date, and all future movies need to be strong self sufficient films like that. 

13 hours ago, AnthonyTheAbyss said:

Why would they (Disney specifically) want to do the deal anytime soon?

- Disney has a successful (very very successful) universe built with a specific outline for the next 10 years

- Making a movie like Fantastic Four into a success is nearly impossible at this point (the damage is done)

- Fox won't give up specific characters...they'll only do the deal if it's all or nothing

- Disney would benefit greater by trying to obtain the Sony and Universal character rights (that should be top priority over Fox)

 

The Marvel rights arent the reason, just an added bonus.

Disney wants to start its own major streaming service, and they want as much content for it as possible, hence buying fox.

Let's go Disney, Unite the clans, UNITE US (Braveheart quote )

FF and X-Men back in the MCU if this goes down, X-Men comics no longer being dumped on?  Let's go!

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/21st-century-fox-has-been-holding-talks-to-sell-most-of-company-to-disney-sources.html

9 hours ago, Kevin76 said:

You're right, it's not rare or hard to find in high grade. But it IS in demand. Same can also be said about Hulk 181. 

I think you are having a hard time wrapping your head around the high prices being paid for this book. People spend more on what they want, not what they need.

I am not "having a hard time" with anything.

People are free to pay whatever price they want for whatever book they want.  But just because some people will do something, doesnt make it a good decision.

Many people on these boards are willing to drink the kool-aid on books they own(or worse ones they want to pump), at the expense of giving terrible advice to inexperienced newer people to the hobby who will end up holding the bag in the end.

I am JUST as free to say, "thats too much for that book" as others are to say "oh, black cover, cant find it on ebay, great artwork, blah blah blah". 

So if you think a non-key book from a main line title of a big two series, printed this decade, is worth $500 in 9.8, go get it champ, more power to you.   I owned it the entire time it has been rising, paid sub-cover, and made a massive payday selling it, and if I had more I'd sell them all for massive profits too.  But dont think for a second if I want to warn other people asking if paying $500 for it is a good idea, that I am going to be squelched. 

Before the current bubble got really going, people used to have good debates on here from both sides of the argument (I lurked here for many many years before joining the conversation), nowadays its just cheerleading or everyone screaming REEEEEeeeeeee if you dare disagree.

On 9/15/2017 at 10:26 AM, romanheart said:

Out of curiosity I had a look at the Diamond application.

It asks for gross income, how many years in business, what you predominately sell, business license, whether you own the real estate, ....

I think they want to be sure you will be around a while. I don't think they can tolerate a situation like the boom/bust of the 90s where their clients precipitously folded by operating basement operations. That's why added conditions of storefront were likely introduced. I can see being more loose now with that restriction because actual storefront properties are under enormous retail pressure. So maybe they'll let you.

You still need to have storage space and buy around $400-450 worth of stuff to make it worth their while.

a lot of that is for if you are going to have credit with them, ie could go bankrupt and not pay up.

You also are showing that you can make the monthly minimum purchases.