After Batman vs. Superman Letdown, Warner Bros. Will Reportedly Release Fewer Films
- Thread starter Samtemdo8_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really dont understand the hate for frank miller around here. Dark knight returns, 300, sin city. Guys got chops far as im concerned.
If that's muted colors than either I am colorblind or you are?mduncan50 said:
Super Serious Faces, Wonder Woman and the Amazons were never full of "levity" and why is that a bad thing the freakin Marvel movies has more or less the same faces in their covers:
http://www.hdwallpapers.in/walls/iron_man_3_movie-wide.jpg
https://demiandproud.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/steve_1.jpg
I'm sorry to hear of your colorblindness. It's actually pretty impressive that you've made it so far into life without noticing it. lolSamtemdo8 said:
And yes, I agree that in those pictures the Marvel boys are looking very serious. And I also agree that in the comics the Amazons are very often depicted as being serious. However, you were the one using that specific photo to counter someone's argument of the movie looking drab and joyless, so I'm not sure why the comics or Marvel movies matter.
But so far his good stuff out numbers his bad:BuildsLegos said:
Dark Knight Returns, his run of Daredevil, Sin City, 300, and I heard the 3rd Dark Knight Comic Book is doing well.
The main reason why I am not as much an anti Frank Miller guy is because the man is suffering the most sevear case of Cancer I have ever seen I mean he's almost in his 60s yet he looks like he's in his 90s:
Pretty sure that's not from the cancer, but from his overuse of his dark side force-powers.Samtemdo8 said:But so far his good stuff out numbers his bad:BuildsLegos said:
Dark Knight Returns, his run of Daredevil, Sin City, 300, and I heard the 3rd Dark Knight Comic Book is doing well.
The main reason why I am not as much an anti Frank Miller guy is because the man is suffering the most sevear case of Cancer I have ever seen I mean he's almost in his 60s yet he looks like he's in his 90s:
I get it. My dad died of cancer, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But I highly disagree. You named 5 successful things that he has been a part of, I disagree with Dark Knight III: The Master Race (way to distance yourself from the racism accusations) as it seems to have received middling reviews at best, but I will trade you Ronin, to keep the positives with a strong 5. That is out of the 40 years that he has been writing comics. He has way more mediocre and downright terrible output than good. You could claim that the importance of his good stuff is a net benefit to the industry, but his actual success percentage is pretty low.
Oh yes, 2019 we will see the Inhuman's movie now you could look at the current set up in Agents Of Shield as being just that nothing more than a set up but if the movie does happen to have nothing to do with any of the core AOS stuff, I doubt it though, you can sure as bet that if Daisy (Tremors / Quake) will be in there somewhere and she will be played by the actress who plays her on the TV show, no doubt Colson will be there and we have seen him already move from movie to TV to put it bluntly Marvel have done it right, they try to keep things consistent and that results in a world that feels consistent.
I am a big fan of the TV DC shows, I've heard that they are trying to build an expanded Universe similar to what fans of Marvel are getting. I go to see their premier DCCU launch movie and have heard that one of my favourite characters The Flash is to be in this movie. I sit and watch the movie to find that The Flash is being played by someone completely different, not only am I now a bit pissed but what does that show me about the level of effort that the guys behind the scenes are actually putting in their their DCCU, they can;t even get the same guy to play the same role in the movie.
I mean you can say what you want about how good Marvel's movie actually really are but their is clearly a lot of behind the scenes world build effort being put in, where as DCs just come across as utterly half arsed.
I have watched Linkara's videos on Miller's infamous works long ago.BuildsLegos said:
When I first initially saw them I agree and to this day I still agree with how bad the 3 books were. With Holy Terror coming out on top. I would go as far as to say I was a blind follower to Linkara.
But then my opinions changed when I actually read the Dark Knight Returns and 300 sort of grew on me again. And why should I give a shit about this man's political leanings and beliefs?
Also Franky's work on cover art for Manga led me to my absolute favorite Manga of all time (Lone Wolf and Cub)
As for Linkara he makes good content, especially when he showed me how bad a Comic Book story can be (Justice League Act of God and Superman At Earth's End) but as of late I sort of loss interest in him. He can be a bit too pretentious at times.
Hmm...
Y'know, I'm sure people can educate me on this, but I'm not sure how I could really 'define' WB in the same way I could for, say, Disney, Pixar (still count it as separate from Disney as far as motifs/style goes), DreamWorks (or at least the animation side) or, for better or worse, Marvel Studios. Genuine question, when it comes to movie studios, is it mroe common for them to get the idea for a movie and hand it off for production (e.g. hire a director, producer, etc.), or is it more common to pick up scripts/concepts? I ask because while the DCEU seems to be mostly, if not entirely WB's initiative, but looking at the other films mentioned in the article (Pan, Jupiter Ascending, and In the Heart of the Sea), JA was a Wachowski project, ItHotS was based on a novel/true story, and while Pan left itself open for a sequel (sidenote - actually liked Pan, even though I can admit its flaws), none of those films struck me as being 'off the product line' so to speak (as opposed to the DCEU or stuff like Fantastic Beasts, with it being based on the Harry Potter setting
Guess what I'm asking (and please leave hyperbole aside), is WB unlucky in regards to what films they've picked up, or would its current woes be more chalked up to production?
Y'know, I'm sure people can educate me on this, but I'm not sure how I could really 'define' WB in the same way I could for, say, Disney, Pixar (still count it as separate from Disney as far as motifs/style goes), DreamWorks (or at least the animation side) or, for better or worse, Marvel Studios. Genuine question, when it comes to movie studios, is it mroe common for them to get the idea for a movie and hand it off for production (e.g. hire a director, producer, etc.), or is it more common to pick up scripts/concepts? I ask because while the DCEU seems to be mostly, if not entirely WB's initiative, but looking at the other films mentioned in the article (Pan, Jupiter Ascending, and In the Heart of the Sea), JA was a Wachowski project, ItHotS was based on a novel/true story, and while Pan left itself open for a sequel (sidenote - actually liked Pan, even though I can admit its flaws), none of those films struck me as being 'off the product line' so to speak (as opposed to the DCEU or stuff like Fantastic Beasts, with it being based on the Harry Potter setting
Guess what I'm asking (and please leave hyperbole aside), is WB unlucky in regards to what films they've picked up, or would its current woes be more chalked up to production?
Yeah that was the Flash using the Cosmic Treadmill (can't wait to see how they gritty that up) to go back in time to bring Batman a warning and a vision of the future. Like I said, I think the vast majority didn't know who that was, either because they're not familiar with the Flash enough to know he can time travel, or because they expected that he would have been played by the same guy as the TV series.Jute88 said:
WB is definitely one of the harder to define studios, because they don't really have a specialty, and they just make whatever kinds of movies they want to make. The DCEU is something of an anomaly for them, as they are both owned by the same parent company and so Warner can pretty much pick the direction they want to choose for the franchise since they don't need to listen to anyone else's input (for good or ill).Hawki said:
The normal chain of events for movies going into production for just about any studio is that they are sold a script that they like, then hire on the director and producers to bring that script to the screen, although usually adding their own personal touches. The three major deviations that I see are as follows.
1. Adaptations. Buying the rights to adapt a book/game/etc and then hiring a writer to come up with the adaptation, though this isn't too big of a difference since you already have the basic story outline from the source material, you just need to make it work for a two hour movie.
2. Sequels/reboots/remakes. Studios will often either solicit ideas from writers based on the existing characters or will have people already involved (writers/producers/directors from the previous film(s)) come to them with specific ideas to continue the previous narrative. Less common (unless it's Die Hard for some reason) studios will come across a script through the normal course of events and will decide that with some tweaking it would be great as a sequel to an existing movie. Remakes may belong more up with adaptations in point one, but that depends on how closely they plan to stay to the original.
3. Shared persistent universes. Hardest to get a bead on since it is so new, but generally you have someone that comes up with the basic long term ideas/plans and then individual movies are farmed out to writers and directors that are given the guidelines as to how it needs to fit into the greater narrative, but are generally allowed to put some of their own personality into it. Since at the moment this is largely confined to the comic book genre there's a large amount of the adaptation style influencing this as well, though more often with characters and lore than actual full plots.