WONDER WOMAN 2 directed by Patty Jenkins (11/1/19) 3 3

[the blob]

5 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Absolutely not. I love the Watchmen comic book. But Alan Moore was right. It's written to be a comic book, not a movie. Terry Gilliam dropped the project saying it is unfilmable. I was ready to give Snyder's Watchmen a shot as I liked 300. What I got was a slick dumbed down big budget summer action movie that got the costumes right but was the polar opposite of what Alan Moore was doing with the book. It was obvious to me that Zack Snyder lacked the intellectual capacity to properly adapt Watchmen.

The HBO Watchmen has so much better timing as it came on the heels of the trend of super-hero movies and the Black Lives Matter movement, that even as grim as it is, serves that sort of mirror to super-hero pop culture and the times that Alan Moore's work did in the 80's.

I'd like to get back into the HBO watchmen. I watched the first few episodes, but it was a bit slow. i liked it, but i needed a lot of coffee.

 

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Absolutely not. I love the Watchmen comic book. But Alan Moore was right. It's written to be a comic book, not a movie. Terry Gilliam dropped the project saying it is unfilmable. I was ready to give Snyder's Watchmen a shot as I liked 300. What I got was a slick dumbed down big budget summer action movie that got the costumes right but was the polar opposite of what Alan Moore was doing with the book. It was obvious to me that Zack Snyder lacked the intellectual capacity to properly adapt Watchmen.

The HBO Watchmen has so much better timing as it came on the heels of the trend of super-hero movies and the Black Lives Matter movement, that even as grim as it is, serves that sort of mirror to super-hero pop culture and the times that Alan Moore's work did in the 80's.

Well, the beauty of the timing with the HBO Watchmen is years upon years of superhero films and TV shows to make it more impactful conveying an alternate to the traditional hero tradition. But for me, I very much enjoy the Snyder production honoring a favorite story.

I've watched all three versions. The Director's Cut and Ultimate Cut are the better portrayal.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, the blob said:

I'd like to get back into the HBO watchmen. I watched the first few episodes, but it was a bit slow. i liked it, but i needed a lot of coffee.

 

It's is fantastic. Especially the later episodes when they delve into the origin or Hooded Justice and then Looking Glass. Well worth the wait.

[B2D327]

My favorite movie reviewer; saves me a lot of time:

 

[bpc3qh]

23 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Because of the nature of the MCU, they can't get too artsy or metaphoric with their stories.

I reject the idea that the nature of the MCU limits what installments can do. There are plenty of experimental MCU films, only loosely resembling their siblings. Guardians of the Galaxy, for example, was very different from anything that had been done before, and was arguably the best movie made; ditto Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Similarly, the D.C. films could absolutely adopt a connected universe, working towards a singular end, without sacrificing much of anything on the story by story basis. It would, in fact, be particularly fun if D.C. did it by working towards Crisis on Infinite Earths, because you could have exactly that loose connectivity while still having lots of creativity. But that's just my pitch--I'll never get to oversee ~15 D.C. pictures culminating in Crisis on the big screen.

[Bosco685]

 

[▫️]

Here’s my review that no one asked for. WW84 was a little better than Captain Marvel. WW84 was not a good movie.

Honest opinion from a Marvel and DC fan.

The first flight scene was good. But the score helped, just like it did for Sunshine.

[▫️]

Here’s the scene from Sunshine which is what I was thinking of as the score played for WW’s flight scene. Now I have to go watch this underrated gem again.

 

[@therealsilvermane]

12 hours ago, bpc3qh said:

I reject the idea that the nature of the MCU limits what installments can do. There are plenty of experimental MCU films, only loosely resembling their siblings. Guardians of the Galaxy, for example, was very different from anything that had been done before, and was arguably the best movie made; ditto Captain America: Winter Soldier.

Similarly, the D.C. films could absolutely adopt a connected universe, working towards a singular end, without sacrificing much of anything on the story by story basis. It would, in fact, be particularly fun if D.C. did it by working towards Crisis on Infinite Earths, because you could have exactly that loose connectivity while still having lots of creativity. But that's just my pitch--I'll never get to oversee ~15 D.C. pictures culminating in Crisis on the big screen.

Well, the MCU itself started off as a kind of experiment after the success of Iron Man. And beginning with GOTG2, Marvel Studios disbanded the Creative Committee and gave filmmakers more freedom in the creative process. But still, in the MCU, as with Marvel Comics since their true beginning in 1962, once the character is established, there was and is no deviating from the nature of that character (unless they power up or die obviously), and their progression is one continuous story. This wasn't the case in DC Comics, where there have been numerous iterations and versions of Batman (with the same origin and stuff, yes) and not really a continuous single story. This has allowed for a little more experimentation with the types of stories told. Basically, the reader following Peter Parker from high school to college to marriage to a job has been more the nature of Marvel. Pocket stories of Batman like the Neal Adams stories to Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke etc is a little more the nature of DC. It's kind of the DNA of both.

So it follows suit in the movies, Marvel Studios doesn't experiment with the nature of its characters (once established in the MCU). The movies may be edgy like Ragnarok, but the character is still Thor from the first movie. Like the comics it came from, this continuity is in the DNA of the property. And it's proven successful for Marvel.

On the other hand, when has DC found real financial and critical success? Pocket stories where they can deviate a bit. Nolan's Batman Trilogy. The Joker. HBO's Watchmen. This kind of thing is in the DNA of the property. I think DC should go with this direction rather than try to give the world another MCU. We don't need another MCU. We've already got one and it's great. Give us something different.

For instance, I'd love to see an All-Star Superman inspired movie (not an outright adaptation) that does real justice to the character and isn't made by Zack Snyder and doesn't push a Justice League movie.

 

 

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Well, the MCU itself started off as a kind of experiment after the success of Iron Man. And beginning with GOTG2, Marvel Studios disbanded the Creative Committee and gave filmmakers more freedom in the creative process. But still, in the MCU, as with Marvel Comics since their true beginning in 1962, once the character is established, there was and is no deviating from the nature of that character (unless they power up or die obviously), and their progression is one continuous story. This wasn't the case in DC Comics, where there have been numerous iterations and versions of Batman (with the same origin and stuff, yes) and not really a continuous single story. This has allowed for a little more experimentation with the types of stories told. Basically, the reader following Peter Parker from high school to college to marriage to a job has been more the nature of Marvel. Pocket stories of Batman like the Neal Adams stories to Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke etc is a little more the nature of DC. It's kind of the DNA of both.

So it follows suit in the movies, Marvel Studios doesn't experiment with the nature of its characters (once established in the MCU). The movies may be edgy like Ragnarok, but the character is still Thor from the first movie. Like the comics it came from, this continuity is in the DNA of the property. And it's proven successful for Marvel.

On the other hand, when has DC found real financial and critical success? Pocket stories where they can deviate a bit. Nolan's Batman Trilogy. The Joker. HBO's Watchmen. This kind of thing is in the DNA of the property. I think DC should go with this direction rather than try to give the world another MCU. We don't need another MCU. We've already got one and it's great. Give us something different.

For instance, I'd love to see an All-Star Superman inspired movie (not an outright adaptation) that does real justice to the character and isn't made by Zack Snyder and doesn't push a Justice League movie.

Actually, that is not an accurate statement concerning the history of the MCU. It was a very well laid out plan with the full backing of the Marvel Entertainment executive team after the massive success of the Blade, X-Men and Spider-Man movies. The gamble was going it alone rather than splitting the profits with studios that captured the bulk of the benefits.

Quote

The year was 2003. In a compact office on Santa Monica Boulevard, a small group of staffers were writing -script notes to studios who were making films about some pretty popular comic book characters—characters which were technically owned by their employer. This was Marvel Studios then, a tiny operation whose biggest products were the agreements that said other studios now had the rights to bring their characters to life on the big screen.

 

A majority of these films went on to become box office hits. Marvel, however, only earned a pittance from them. In 1998, Blade became a sleeper hit, grossing over $131 million worldwide. Marvel’s yield? A mere $25,000. The first two Spider-Man movies made a staggering $1.6 billion globally, and yet Marvel only took home $62 million. And the studio barely profited off of the X-Men movies because it negotiated a flat fee from 21st Century Fox.

 

This peeved Ike Perlmutter, who had gained control over Marvel Entertainment in 1997. Why wasn’t his company making money off of their own properties? Why did they have to be subjected to the whimsy of temperamental studio heads? Perlmutter, who is notorious for being a cheapskate, was becoming more and more impatient with this arrangement. So when Creative Artists Agency alum David Maisel pitched Perlmutter a plan for Marvel to own 100 percent of the movies made about its characters, the stingy businessman let Maisel roll with it.

 

Maisel’s main thesis was simple: Marvel had to start making its own movies. And in order for them to do that, Maisel had to figure out how to finance this new direction. Filmmaking isn’t cheap, and he had to be creative—he had to figure out how to get Marvel the money without putting the financial health of the company on the line. An impossible feat, some would say, but not for Maisel.

 

After some clever maneuvering, that’s exactly what he did. Maisel managed to negotiate a $525 million financing deal with investment firm Merrill Lynch for Marvel to make movies over the course of seven years, granted that the movies were PG-13 and did not cost more than $165 million each. But what was impressive about this deal was what Maisel managed to put down as collateral: the rights to make the movies of whatever characters Marvel had not licensed out to other studios yet.

 

The logic to this arrangement was incredibly simple. If Marvel produced consecutive flops, this would severely affect the viability of the superhero genre. Therefore, if the company would not be able to repay its debt, what it would have to give up would essentially be worthless: an unprofitable set of film rights to the rest of their character portfolio. Marvel did not have to put up any valuable assets on the line, and this pleased Perlmutter immensely.

 

With the financing secure, Marvel’s top brass now had to choose which among its second-tier characters would be the first to be shown on the big screen. A series of lucky breaks softened the ground for what was now a funded movie studio—first, New Line Cinema’s option with Iron Man ran out, and Marvel opted not to renew the contract; and second, Universal agreed to return the Hulk to Marvel after the disappointing critical and box office performance of Ang Lee’s Hulk in 2003. Compelled by the potential profitability of Iron Man toys, Perlmutter agreed to make Tony Stark the world’s introduction to the next generation of superhero movies.

 

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Oddball said:

Here’s my review that no one asked for. WW84 was a little better than Captain Marvel. WW84 was not a good movie.

Honest opinion from a Marvel and DC fan.

The first flight scene was good. But the score helped, just like it did for Sunshine.

Your "review" that WW84 is somehow a better movie than Captain Marvel is laughable at best. "Honest opnion" from a Brie Larson hater, maybe?

Edited December 31, 2020 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Your "review" that WW84 is somehow a worse movie than Captain Marvel is laughable at best. "Honest opnion" from a Brie Larson hater, maybe?

[NoMan]

Can someone please tell me how WW gets to 1984. No, I'm not gonna watch it.

[▫️]

Just now, NoMan said:

Can someone please tell me how WW gets to 1984. No, I'm not gonna watch it.

At the end of the first WW movie, she didn’t die.

[I like pie]

You silly nerds get so upset about other nerds opinions. It always make me think about this scene.

 

[@therealsilvermane]

15 minutes ago, Oddball said:

I’m a Larson hater now? You’ll say anything about someone you don’t know. Shall I link my past comments where I praised her in three different films that I really enjoyed?

You mean like Scott Pilgrim and King Kong before Ms. Larson dared to open her mouth about having more diverse film critics judge movies? I guess the other movie is Hoot?

Captain Marvel is actually funny and didn't even need one of the funniest ladies in show business, Kristin Wiig, in a starring role before diminishing her more and more as the movie goes on. Captain Marvel doesn't rape an innocent human being throughout her movie. Captain Marvel doesn't waste time telling us the needless personal stories of its villains that do nothing but bore the audience. Captain Marvel is actually a movie that features woman empowerment, as opposed to being a movie about two ladies that either want to be prettier and more appealing to men or the other who longs for her dead boyfriend. Captain Marvel actually has a 3 act structure and follows a logical plot line. Captain Marvel has a cat.

Edited December 31, 2020 by @therealsilvermane

[▫️]

18 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Your "review" that WW84 is somehow a worse movie than Captain Marvel is laughable at best. "Honest opnion" from a Brie Larson hater, maybe?

You’re absolutely correct. Captain Marvel is a worse movie than WW84. Your words.

[▫️]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

You mean like Scott Pilgrim and King Kong before Ms. Larson dared to open her mouth about having more diverse film critics judge movies? I guess the other movie is Hoot?

Nice back-peddle but no, those are not movies I praised her in. Don’t try to make this into something it’s not. It’s quite ok, I assure you.

[@therealsilvermane]

11 minutes ago, Oddball said:

Also don’t you mean that my “review” of WW84 is somehow a better movie than Captain Marvel is laughable?

Yes.

[Bosco685]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

Yes.

Glad we are getting ready to go into a new year. 2021 - 2022. Whatever it takes.