This does not concern me in the least, because. in spite of the unmitigated success of Wonder Woman, I still have little to no interest in seeing this movie in the theaters.
Aside from (the brilliant) Man of Steel & Wonder Woman (at least after next weekend), I've been skipping these in the theatre & waiting for Netflix releases. The extra long reshoots weren't going to change that.
And here's the thing what drives those sweet sweet clicks for the geek sites saying a movie is in trouble.
Possible. Were the reshoots for Rogue One (reportedly about 1/2 the movie) signal the movie was in trouble?
Were the re-edits of Trank's version of the Fantastic Four a sign of trouble?
Were the re-edits & reshoots of Ayer's Suicide Squad a sign of trouble?
I think merely stating the "unusual length of time for reshoots spells trouble" is as foolish as not acknowledging these examples as part of each movie's story. Just like when lead actors feud or original endings are leaked.
And here's the thing what drives those sweet sweet clicks for the geek sites saying a movie is in trouble.
Possible. Were the reshoots for Rogue One (reportedly about 1/2 the movie) signal the movie was in trouble?
Were the re-edits of Trank's version of the Fantastic Four a sign of trouble?
Were the re-edits & reshoots of Ayer's Suicide Squad a sign of trouble?
I think merely stating the "unusual length of time for reshoots spells trouble" is as foolish as not acknowledging these examples as part of each movie's story. Just like when lead actors feud or original endings are leaked.
I think with R1 the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think Fan4stic was a disaster regardless. And I'm not a fan of Ayer's work in general so my judgement is admittedly clouded
This has nothing to do with my lukewarm feeling about Justice League, but does anyone think the look of Cyborg sucks? He looks like a T800 with an inflated torso.
This has nothing to do with my lukewarm feeling about Justice League, but does anyone think the look of Cyborg sucks? He looks like a T800 with an inflated torso.
According to several news outlets, 'The Batman' director Matt Reeves has confirmed that the film will be starting from scratch. He will NOT use Ben Affleck’s script for the film.
While promoting his latest film War for the Planet of the Apes, Reeves confirmed that The Batman will head back to the drawing board; that is to say, he will not use the script that Affleck previously worked on with Chris Terrio and DC Entertainment CCO Geoff Johns. Reeves revealed the news on an episode of MTV’s Happy Sad Confused podcast.
This has nothing to do with my lukewarm feeling about Justice League, but does anyone think the look of Cyborg sucks? He looks like a T800 with an inflated torso.
He looks like a "where did the bad man touch you" doll from the world of Michael Bay's Transformers.
This thread may be the wrong place for this, seeing as how a lot of you are really jazzed up for the DCU movies, but I find Man of Steel to be an unforgivable piece of crap. A lot of the cinematography and imagery is really beautiful, but all for naught. It is as far from the SPIRIT of Superman as it could get.
It is dour, sad, illogical, and betrays the central conceit that makes Kal-El "SUPERMAN".
No, I'm not talking about the neck snap (which IS terrible). I'm talking about what makes this GOD on earth want to be a part of and the protector of humanity. What makes him special is that his great powers are kept in check by his human upbringing, by his midwestern-morality parents. He is taught to LOVE everyone, to share his gift, to put others before himself, to always do what is right, knowing that is not always an easy decision.
Costner Pa Kent tells him to hide his gifts. Essentially to FEAR humanity. The fact that he essentially ignores him in order to be Superman means Pa Kent's teachings are something he had to UNLEARN in order to become a hero. So, in essence, Kal-El, left to his own devices would have eventually been a hero, regardless. That misses the whole point.
Costner Pa Kent tells him to hide his gifts. Essentially to FEAR humanity. The fact that he essentially ignores him in order to be Superman means Pa Kent's teachings are something he had to UNLEARN in order to become a hero. So, in essence, Kal-El, left to his own devices would have eventually been a hero, regardless. That misses the whole point.
Yeah, I have to say, that's completely not what I got from this:
I got that Jonathan wanted Clark to be aware that he won't be embraced by everyone. That he'll have a burden to shoulder with who he is. And when the day comes that he steps out and reveals himself to the world, that Clark needs to be sure of himself to carry that burden. Basically, he was stating the exact same reason why I would never want to be Superman.
Basically, he was stating the exact same reason why I would never want to be Superman.
It'd be a lot more fun if they would apply some focus on why everyone would wish to be Superman. The DCEU hasn't really pulled that off yet.
That's probably why I find this interpretation the best & find the character boring from the other angle. The burdens, the self-sacrifices are what makes these characters the most interesting for me.
No wonder I grew up more interested in Parker & Batman instead of Kent.
Basically, he was stating the exact same reason why I would never want to be Superman.
It'd be a lot more fun if they would apply some focus on why everyone would wish to be Superman. The DCEU hasn't really pulled that off yet.
That's probably why I find this interpretation the best & find the character boring from the other angle. The burdens, the self-sacrifices are what makes these characters the most interesting for me.
No wonder I grew up more interested in Parker & Batman instead of Kent.
Man of Steel was competent, just utterly joyless. There was no optimism whatsoever, in either MoS or BvS, just loads and loads of consequence-free violence. It's a cynical, gritty, and hyper-realistic affair, and that's before you get to the homicide scene at the end.
But I understand you're boredom of the other approaches. While MoS is a thoroughly ugly, bleak, and needlessly violent film, it also encompasses more of the Superman mythos and tells a complete story in a way far better than nearly all the other Superman films have done to date, except for the original Donner-Reeves version.
Basically, he was stating the exact same reason why I would never want to be Superman.
It'd be a lot more fun if they would apply some focus on why everyone would wish to be Superman. The DCEU hasn't really pulled that off yet.
That's probably why I find this interpretation the best & find the character boring from the other angle. The burdens, the self-sacrifices are what makes these characters the most interesting for me.
No wonder I grew up more interested in Parker & Batman instead of Kent.
Man of Steel was competent, just utterly joyless. There was no optimism whatsoever, in either MoS or BvS, just loads and loads of consequence-free violence. It's a cynical, gritty, and hyper-realistic affair, and that's before you get to the homicide scene at the end.
But I understand you're boredom of the other approaches. While MoS is a thoroughly ugly, bleak, and needlessly violent film, it also encompasses more of the Superman mythos and tells a complete story in a way far better than nearly all the other Superman films have done to date, except for the original Donner-Reeves version.
I don't believe MoS was to be light-hearted. Kent was both a figurative & literal alien trying to find his place in the world. Since I've never known Kent to be quick witted like Parker, it'd seem quite out of place for him to be yucking it when he's as lost in the world. The first 2/3rds are amazing at presenting Kent's loneliness & burden. The 1/3rd act is ridiculous disaster porn that's indefensible. Lois welcoming Kent to "the Planet" was optimism.
BvS had a shit load of problems. The only interesting parts were what should've been the starting points for a MoS sequel instead of a spring board for the Justice League movie. That's where the ripple of consequences are seen.
It's not for everyone, but I still argue (2/3rds) MoS was the most interesting take on the character yet.
This thread may be the wrong place for this, seeing as how a lot of you are really jazzed up for the DCU movies, but I find Man of Steel to be an unforgivable piece of crap. A lot of the cinematography and imagery is really beautiful, but all for naught. It is as far from the SPIRIT of Superman as it could get.
It is dour, sad, illogical, and betrays the central conceit that makes Kal-El "SUPERMAN".
No, I'm not talking about the neck snap (which IS terrible). I'm talking about what makes this GOD on earth want to be a part of and the protector of humanity. What makes him special is that his great powers are kept in check by his human upbringing, by his midwestern-morality parents. He is taught to LOVE everyone, to share his gift, to put others before himself, to always do what is right, knowing that is not always an easy decision.
Costner Pa Kent tells him to hide his gifts. Essentially to FEAR humanity. The fact that he essentially ignores him in order to be Superman means Pa Kent's teachings are something he had to UNLEARN in order to become a hero. So, in essence, Kal-El, left to his own devices would have eventually been a hero, regardless. That misses the whole point.
Agreed. Also, later in the film, when Clark is deciding whether or not to surrender to Zod, we get a totally unhelpful scene with his mother, which felt like a disservice to her character (a contrast to the really strong scene of her helping Clark calm down as a child when his powers are coming at school, if I remember right). And so instead of having a conversation with his living parent be something that gets him to where he needs to be, we instead get a scene with him talking to a priest that looks half his age, and who it seems he has no personal relationship with (nor is there any indication I can remember of the place of faith in the Kent family, or how a relationship with their church might have helped them with the secret they were keeping all those years, or how their faith might enter the moral question of what Clark should risk doing or not doing for humanity) and one pat line from the priest about taking a leap of faith gets him to where he needs to be.
The scene feels totally shoehorned in. It would be different if they established Clark's faith as a part of his family dynamic and moral equation. Set that up, and then I would see that as making sense in helping him decide what to do. That could have been a really interesting element of the central thematic question of what is required of one to whom much is given.
Instead, they have a scene that feels like a tacked on, and ends up further undercutting the place of Clark's mother (and thus the Kents overall) in the story.
I so want this to be good, but I just don't trust Zack Snyder. I think he's a good visual Director? But he just can't tell a good story.
Apparently, Joss Whedon has been handling some script work before Snyder left the film due to the death of his child. Now Whedon is handling the reshoots as well.
Well this just means Joss Whedon is going to be working on even more of it which is good. The SDCC trailer for it was really good, so I'm hopeful. And I really do hope it does good, because I love these characters way more the most of The Avengers.
So one of the brew ha's is Henry Cavill can't shave the mustache he has for MI:6
Sounds like a shitload of money could be saved by Cesar Romero-ing it.
Good grief. I thought one of the main tropes of Mission Impossible was being able to put people in disguises. They can't put a fake mustache on Henry? Gimmie a break.
Good grief. I thought one of the main tropes of Mission Impossible was being able to put people in disguises. They can't put a fake mustache on Henry? Gimmie a break.
Comments
So far they've hit a HR(WW) triple(MOS) bloop single(BvS either version) and struck out (SS)
Were the re-edits of Trank's version of the Fantastic Four a sign of trouble?
Were the re-edits & reshoots of Ayer's Suicide Squad a sign of trouble?
I think merely stating the "unusual length of time for reshoots spells trouble" is as foolish as not acknowledging these examples as part of each movie's story. Just like when lead actors feud or original endings are leaked.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/justice-league-danny-elfman-compose-score-1013319?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
It is dour, sad, illogical, and betrays the central conceit that makes Kal-El "SUPERMAN".
No, I'm not talking about the neck snap (which IS terrible). I'm talking about what makes this GOD on earth want to be a part of and the protector of humanity. What makes him special is that his great powers are kept in check by his human upbringing, by his midwestern-morality parents. He is taught to LOVE everyone, to share his gift, to put others before himself, to always do what is right, knowing that is not always an easy decision.
Costner Pa Kent tells him to hide his gifts. Essentially to FEAR humanity. The fact that he essentially ignores him in order to be Superman means Pa Kent's teachings are something he had to UNLEARN in order to become a hero. So, in essence, Kal-El, left to his own devices would have eventually been a hero, regardless. That misses the whole point.
I got that Jonathan wanted Clark to be aware that he won't be embraced by everyone. That he'll have a burden to shoulder with who he is. And when the day comes that he steps out and reveals himself to the world, that Clark needs to be sure of himself to carry that burden. Basically, he was stating the exact same reason why I would never want to be Superman.
No wonder I grew up more interested in Parker & Batman instead of Kent.
But I understand you're boredom of the other approaches. While MoS is a thoroughly ugly, bleak, and needlessly violent film, it also encompasses more of the Superman mythos and tells a complete story in a way far better than nearly all the other Superman films have done to date, except for the original Donner-Reeves version.
BvS had a shit load of problems. The only interesting parts were what should've been the starting points for a MoS sequel instead of a spring board for the Justice League movie. That's where the ripple of consequences are seen.
It's not for everyone, but I still argue (2/3rds) MoS was the most interesting take on the character yet.
The scene feels totally shoehorned in. It would be different if they established Clark's faith as a part of his family dynamic and moral equation. Set that up, and then I would see that as making sense in helping him decide what to do. That could have been a really interesting element of the central thematic question of what is required of one to whom much is given.
Instead, they have a scene that feels like a tacked on, and ends up further undercutting the place of Clark's mother (and thus the Kents overall) in the story.
Clearly leaning on their golden girl a bit more
http://variety.com/2017/film/news/justice-league-reshoots-1202502433/amp/