• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020

Christopher said:
The point is, each of those characters individually was seen by many people as lame and unsuitable for a movie. And each one was proven otherwise when the right way of telling the story was found.

If any random schmo could see in advance how to make a movie work, it wouldn't be as valuable a talent. It's the job of storytellers to find ways to surprise us, to find the answers we couldn't see and tell stories in ways we never could've imagined. That's why so very many great stories have been built around ideas that nobody believed could ever work. The ability to see how it could work when nobody else could was what made those stories' creators great.


Which is really the point. A great character can be done badly, and thus it follows that a "lame" character can be done well, in principle. If the Aquaman movie bombs, it won't be because of the character, it will be because of the choices made by the studio and the director and the writers.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your passion for creativity. I am having trouble seeing the same passion existing at WB about Aquaman, I get the feeling they are just throwing stuff at a wall right now. We'll see if any directors jump on that movie with enthusiasm or not. Lacking that, we are left with the Aquaman I think is lame and nothing else.

Crow T. Robot said:
You say that like it's the character's fault. It's not. The fault is with the studio and the direction they take the characters. Superman is a cashcow just waiting to be milked; the problem is WB refuses to milk it, and instead demands that the people they hire instead start a soy farm and process the beans from that farm into disgusting soy milk that's nothing like the actual milk that would be given by the cash cow. (I kind of lost where I was going with that analogy, but hopefully you get the drift.)
Click to expand...
I agree, and I didn't mean that Superman is to blame as a character. WB could do something as whimsical and powerful as All Star Superman if they gave a rats ass, which they do not.
 
I think there's plenty of potential in an underwater superhero, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I don't have any real experience with the character, but he sounds like he's got a lot of potential to be really cool. As for people who think talking to fish is lame, I just want to remind you that sharks are fish. So if you piss this guy off, he can sick Jaws on your ass. That is actually one of his special attacks in Injustice.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
He also throws polar bears at people.
 
davejames said:
It seems pretty undeniable that Snyder's style and direction was the biggest reason for that.
Click to expand...

Not really. Most of the complaining I've heard on the internet centers around things which are ultimately derived from the writing, not the direction. Snyder's signature style is a known thing, and people should expect that going into one of his movies. The depressed box office is mostly a result of the hit job done by the critics.
 
And of course it's not just fish; Aquaman can communicate with all sea creatures, including the largest whales and giant squids.
 
Set Harth said:
Not really. Most of the complaining I've heard on the internet centers around things which are ultimately derived from the writing, not the direction. Snyder's signature style is a known thing, and people should expect that going into one of his movies. The depressed box office is mostly a result of the hit job done by the critics.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't a 'Batman V Superman' movie I wouldn't be going to see a movie directed by Snyder. A film with these iconic characters against each other is a must see event for people interested in the characters and comic book movies. The box office is because it's not a good film and the more casual viewers and second time viewers stayed away. The critics did their job which was to say if the movie was any good or not.
 
Saul said:
If it wasn't a 'Batman V Superman' movie I wouldn't be going to see a movie directed by Snyder.
Click to expand...

Well, that doesn't sound very objective. I wonder if the infallible critics are the same way...

The "common" people rated this film significantly higher than the critics. On a not unrelated note, as is often the case, some of the most prominent talking points against the film are built on reductive thinking and entitled nonsense.

And let's be honest, that's what they are: talking points. As seen in the political realm. You've got people spinning like crazy to make a case against the other team because they want their team to win. The end result? Yet another film attains a reputation it does not deserve.
 
Tosk said:
Movies reviews aren't objective.

I think that's the case for pretty much every movie that's ever been buried under bad reviews. "The People" will always like it more than the critics.
Click to expand...

I think that's because critics are trained to analyze the technique and construction of a film, while laypeople are just concerned with whether it's enjoyable. A film can be badly made but still moderately satisfying. I noticed that about the Batman v Superman reviews -- despite the hype, there wasn't really that much difference between what the critics and the audiencegoers thought of the film. They both largely agreed that the film had massive flaws but also had a number of satisfying aspects, and they largely agreed on what worked and what didn't. The difference was just that the critics gave more weight to the flaws in storytelling and execution, because it's their job to address those factors, while the laypeople gave more weight to the enjoyment factor, because that's all that matters to them. So they really saw much the same positives and negatives in the film, they just prioritized them differently.
 
Set Harth said:
Well, that doesn't sound very objective. I wonder if the infallible critics are the same way...
Click to expand...
It may not be objective, but who views movies because they are trying to be objective? I see movies because I think I will enjoy them. I don't particularly like Michael Bay movies, so I don't go see them. I know I have to surrender a bit of my geek card for this, but I don't like Tarantino movies, so I don't watch them. I honestly don't understand why someone would go see a movie by someone whose work they don't enjoy. That seems to be both a waste of your time, and setting yourself up for failure. Life's too short.
 
EnderAKH said:
I honestly don't understand why someone would go see a movie by someone whose work they don't enjoy. That seems to be both a waste of your time, and setting yourself up for failure. Life's too short.
Click to expand...

The only reason I'm willing to see Batman v Superman even on home video (no way was I going to see it in the theater) is because I want to see Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. Otherwise, I'd be happy never to watch another Zack Snyder film.
 
The AV Club weighs in on the fractious national Aquaman debate:

Harriet Tubman has finally been deemed worthy of getting her own movie

Almost two years after Warner Bros. officially announced that it was making an Aquaman movie, Harriet Tubman—an actual American hero who did cooler stuff than Aquaman ever did—is finally getting a movie of her own as well.

[...] Though this will apparently somehow be the first Harriet Tubman movie, HBO is currently developing a TV biopic about her with Viola Davis set to star, and there was a Drunk History segment where Tubman was played by Octavia Spencer.
​
.
 
Set Harth said:
The "common" people rated this film significantly higher than the critics.
Click to expand...
But did they? I felt it there was a rather mixed reaction. The polls here for BVS were not overwhelmingly positive.

I don't consider myself a film critic and I didn't like it. I think WB jumped on the whole "The box office is good so the fans enjoyed it" in order to cast doubt on the critics and blame people not liking it because they were looking for faults which is not true.
 
I probably would have seen BvS regardless of the critics panning, (because BvS) but it was the percentage of audience scoring on RT that I felt it probably had enough of a heartbeat to justify the investment. And it did, imo. I don't resent seeing it at the theater nor shelling out to do so.

If I were looking for something to be pissed at the project for, it would be with the pre-release marketing spoiling most all of the scenes with B and S together.
 
EnderAKH said:
It may not be objective, but who views movies because they are trying to be objective? I see movies because I think I will enjoy them. I don't particularly like Michael Bay movies, so I don't go see them. I know I have to surrender a bit of my geek card for this, but I don't like Tarantino movies, so I don't watch them. I honestly don't understand why someone would go see a movie by someone whose work they don't enjoy. That seems to be both a waste of your time, and setting yourself up for failure. Life's too short.
Click to expand...

You must not have been around this board when there were a few people who would actively hate watch every episode of Enterprise and Battlestar Galactica from episode 1 until the very end just so they could complain about them and demand their cancellations on a daily basis. And I do mean daily.
 
Aragorn said:
You must not have been around this board when there were a few people who would actively hate watch every episode of Enterprise and Battlestar Galactica from episode 1 until the very end just so they could complain about them and demand their cancellations on a daily basis. And I do mean daily.
Click to expand...

And then there are the "fans" who continue to denounce things even years after the fact. I was on a local BBS in the '90s, and there was one poster who so vehemently hated the '96 Doctor Who revival movie that I half-expected him to be plotting to hunt down every copy in existence and burn it. The board closed down in '99, and in its final hours, this guy posted just to say, as a complete non sequitur, how much he loathed the Doctor Who movie. He just couldn't let go of his fanatical rage and hate and wanted to make sure that he forced it into people's awareness at every opportunity. It's so sad to see people so obsessed with anger and negativity instead of finding some positive way to focus their energies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top