Comic Book Films & TV

[Maxx]

Saw someone say it feels like one of those 2003-2007 superhero movies, pre-TDK, I think that's pretty spot on.

[Lint]

On 8/3/2016 at 08:55, zero said:

Just getting ahead of myself before someone else digs this up. 

I mean you could still be right.  From what I've read from reviews, as well as @Maxx, while he's not in it a lot, Leto does seemingly do a decent job as The Joker.  It was the one thing I was hopeful for in the movie, since while the look was ridiculous, and maybe Maxx could explain why he looks like a rebelling yuppie kid, Leto does have the acting chops to pull it off

[DFF]

I'm off to see it with the better half tonight in IMAX 3D. Will pass on my thoughts later.

[Benji]

1 hour ago, Maxx said:

Saw someone say it feels like one of those 2003-2007 superhero movies, pre-TDK, I think that's pretty spot on.

I have no issue with that, I found that period pretty fun. TDK was great and changed what superhero movies can be, but I don't need them all, or even most of them, to be that.

Unless we're talking Elektra or Catwoman levels of bad, then I'm out.

[DFF]

2 hours ago, Benji said:

I have no issue with that, I found that period pretty fun. TDK was great and changed what superhero movies can be, but I don't need them all, or even most of them, to be that.

Unless we're talking Elektra or Catwoman levels of bad, then I'm out.

The boring and the most awful superhero movies, respectively.

[JasonM]

03-07 superhero film isn't exactly something you want to be shooting for. Sure, it's not Bat-nipple level of cringe, but you're still talking about an era where directors had no fucking clue what to give both casuals and fans.

Which from all reports seems to be the problem with SS too. Where the film takes too much effort trying to make it overly appealing to both DC fans and Casual fans, and doing it in such a way that it never really works for neither.

It's a hard task to do, to really make a film that can really satisfy both demographics, but Marvel has been doing it for the past 8 years and even FOX has seemingly picked up the slack (If you completely forget about the abomination that was Fant4stic) and started delivering films that work for both sides. DC (or WB, really) are still grasping at straws and it's just a symptom of the people tossing the money around having a rigid idea of what makes money, and not allowing people with actual knowledge take the wheel. Whilst Marvel has firmly proven that all you need is good people who know what they're doing.

And right now Marvel's got such a huge advantage, having already swallowed up the market of good directors, writers, producers, and of course actors... The others are just doggy-paddling behind it hoping they can even get close to their level of dedication and ability.

At this point i'd rather see Marvel create DC films... 

[Benji]

18 minutes ago, Jasonmufc said:

03-07 superhero film isn't exactly something you want to be shooting for. Sure, it's not Bat-nipple level of cringe, but you're still talking about an era where directors had no fucking clue what to give both casuals and fans.

DC need to walk before they can run, they might not want to aim there, but landing in that ball park isn't a bad thing.

[MalaCloudy Black]

@Maxx. David Ayer wrote and directed it. Unless you're talking about rewrites or something.

[Maxx]

3 hours ago, Cloudy said:

@Maxx. David Ayer wrote and directed it. Unless you're talking about rewrites or something.

Which part of my wacky rant is this referencing? 
 

@Lint I cannot explain his look.  I can say he isn't better than Ledger's Joker, but he also had a fraction of the screen time.
 

[MalaCloudy Black]

Quote

This could have been so much better, and maybe Ayer's version would have been. 

That part. I don't know if you meant someone else or if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying there.

[Maxx]

Oh, Warner wanted a different cut, hired a company that cuts trailers to make one then started test screening it against Ayer's version.  Then they compromised between the two of them.  And you can absolutely see it.

[ThrillhouseMAX]

Yeah, after watching the movie I get the feeling that maybe once it comes time for home release, we'll get something like a Director's Cut or an "Ultimate Edition" like we did with BvS. Personally, I kind of hope this is the case, since there was a lot that seemed rushed in the theatrical release that could be improved upon. 

[Kaney]

So if someone wanted to watch BvS would the "ultimate edition" be recommended? I'm not going in with high hopes either way but just curious if there's if it's a better cut or what.

[Maxx]

I can't recommend any version of the movie, let alone one that is 30 minutes longer than the theatrical release, no matter how many story problems if allegedly fixes.

Basically the theatrical cut sucks, and the ultimate edition may be slightly better, but its even longer, which doesn't seem like a good trade off.

[Gabriel]

32 minutes ago, Executive Kaney said:

So if someone wanted to watch BvS would the "ultimate edition" be recommended? I'm not going in with high hopes either way but just curious if there's if it's a better cut or what.

If you didn't see it at the theatre, watch the ultimate edition. If you saw it already, it won't change anything for you really.

My problem with BVS was that I actually really enjoyed it... except for anything to do with Superman. Which is a huge problem, when half the movie is about him.

Someone mentioned DC not understanding how to appease their different audiences, and that's exactly the problem. It's the same issue that most corporations have, in that the people at the head of the table have no understanding of their customer-base. They just see dollar figures, merchandising and more, and think that if they throw enough shit at the wall, that we will just tuck our heads and hand them our cash. When you're so disconnected from your fanbase, it creates issues. I see it with retail outlets, sports franchises, musical acts and films all of the time. Anything corporate can easily suffer from this, but it doesn't mean that it has to. Everyone keeps pointing to what Marvel is doing, but that's because it's the most relevant example. Marvel put people in charge of their film division, who have a reverence and love for the source material. So they understand the needs of the nerds, but they're also professionals who understand the needs of the business. When you have people in charge who can see both sides of that, you're going to wind up with a much better product.

[TKz]

I kind of adored Suicide Squad. It was a weird little film and it had it's problems, but the performances brought it through for me in the end. I didn't mind the main story either - I think if this was Marvel film people would've been a lot more forgiving. The main villain and their plan was no less developed than Malekith or Ronan for example.

I dunno, I liked it, I'd love to see more. Boomerang kind of stole the show, which is not something I thought I'd say about Jai Courtney performance. 

[Lint]

1 hour ago, TKz said:

I kind of adored Suicide Squad. It was a weird little film and it had it's problems, but the performances brought it through for me in the end. I didn't mind the main story either - I think if this was Marvel film people would've been a lot more forgiving. The main villain and their plan was no less developed than Malekith or Ronan for example.

I dunno, I liked it, I'd love to see more. Boomerang kind of stole the show, which is not something I thought I'd say about Jai Courtney performance. 

One of those of looked at as the weakest MCU villain, the other was used more to build up Thanos.

[brenchill]

So, it really wasn't that bad.  In fact, I actually liked it...

Suicide Squad spoilers

 

Sure, the story wasn't great but when has it ever been great in the comics?  Every Suicide Squad comic I have read has followed a similar plot.  Sure, The Enchantresses "brother" was a bit of a weak final boss, given that he didn't even have a name, but still, it wasn't that bad.  My only real complaint was The Joker.  I have hated the look of this Joker since I first saw the images of him released, I hate the tattoos, the teeth, etc, but I was willing to give it a try.  But nah, this Joker just doesn't do it for me. I don't think you should ever stray too far from the source material for a character like The Joker, and this version strays way off.  I didn't like the way his relationship with Harley was sold, I know Harley loves The Joker but... not like that?  If that makes any sense?  My only other gripe was how the film seemed to go from the beginning... to the end, with no real middle.

Captain Boomerang was my favourite character, I never thought I would be saying that after watching a DC Movie...

 

Edited August 6, 2016 by brenchill

[Noah]

@DFF knows some interesting people.

Following on from my mentioning of his best ever pal Mr #foreverfree in the Brexit poll thread, I now see him consorting with people who think BatmanVSuperman was better than Civil War and it was the best Superman movie ever and the best non-Nolan Batman movie ever.

The fact that I have nothing better to do on a Saturday Night than cyber-stalk @DFF is rather depressing.

 

[TKz]

8 hours ago, Lint said:

One of those of looked at as the weakest MCU villain, the other was used more to build up Thanos.

Basically every Marvel villain outside of Loki is about the same level of writing. I'm really not interested in getting into an argument about this, but it's pretty universally agreed upon the Marvel films have villains with barely any focus. My point isn't that Enchantress was better than any of those, just that if you took that exact same villain and chucked her in a Marvel film as the villain, it'd be pretty par the course.

I think the only thing that did bore me about the film was the sheer amount of Rick Flagg. Dude was super boring and the focus was on him way too much. I think the film would have been better served with him being kidnapped and taken out of action early on and just going all in on Deadshot being the lead.