TFA seemed to largely go over pretty well with people, but TLJ was a different story ( pro critics aside ). I've seen people retroactively revise their initial high ratings for TFA, claiming they never liked it, when their old posts said otherwise.TREK_GOD_1 said:It is this same group who could not "get" why countless Star Wars fans started to hit the brakes on the sequel series after the cheap ANH remake that was TFA, or flat-out dropped it after suffering through TLJ.
Pure fucking trash. I avoid Giant Freaking Robot like the plague.And, Good Lord, those trending articles. "See Margot Robbie Pose Like A Statue In A Tiny Swimsuit", "See Jennifer Connelly Flaunt A Leopard Bikini", another about Jennifer Lawrence in lingerie and yet another about Jenna Ortega in a transparent dress. What kind of news site is this?
He also wrote and directed Super, which I admit I've never seen, and The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker, the later 2 are even part of the DCEU. I'm pretty sure it was those last two that got him his new gig, and not the Guardians movies.True, and considering Gunn's superhero credentials are the Guardians movies (...yeah...), DC fans should fear what that means for the franchise. We were already subjected to Whedon's empty-skulled, "Marvel-izing" of a DC production, and it failed, so the existing evidence suggests any other attempt to "Marvel-ize" DC content might suffer the same fate.
The characters and continuity can still be a part of the movies even without them tying into later movies that aren't happening.Oh, but we are told--by a gaggle of MCU fans--that series and continuity do not matter, so the four remaining films should be seen as standalone films. Just close your eyes when the MoS continuity or characters are referenced at all.
I'm watching the Y: The Last Man adaptation on Hulu, even though I know it's not going to continue. And there are several movies I've watched that were meant to launch a longer series that never happened.Would you watch any film deliberately designed to have a continuing storyline if the rest of the series was abruptly cancelled?
That's not a comment on the quality of the single film, but recognition that the filmmakers were--most certainly--wanting a single film to be enjoyed, but also wanted audiences to continue the journey.
That Gunn shuffled in and tossed Cavill's agreement in the trash can, is the very reason there's been so much deserved and unceasing criticism pointed at Gunn, while Cavill has received one sympathetic notice after another (e.g., the Shatner tweet copied in this thread).
His 2 best movies?"Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2", "The Suicide Squad"
He also wrote and directed Super, which I admit I've never seen, and The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker, the later 2 are even part of the DCEU. I'm pretty sure it was those last two that got him his new gig, and not the Guardians movies.
The characters and continuity can still be a part of the movies even without them tying into later movies that aren't happening.
I see everybody blaming James Gunn for what happened with Henry Cavill, but I think it's the other higher ups at WB who are to blame more than him. It was really stupid of them to make the announcement of Cavill's return when they did, a deal like the one they made with Gunn is the kind of thing that takes ages to work out, so you know it must have already been happening while they were making the announcement. They would have been a lot better off waiting until the deal with Gunn and Safran was done and seen what exactly Gunn had planned before they made any announcements.
Honestly, I'm kind of glad they're letting him do his own thing, instead of making him continue a storyline that he was not involved with. We saw how well that kind of thing worked out with Joss Whedon and Justice League.
My biggest problem with The Suicide Squad was the over the top gore and humour. To paraphrase what the guy on Honest Trailers said about Black Adam, it felt it was just there to help adult men feel they are watching more than a live action cartoon. "See hon, his face got ripped off--kids can't watch!
Worked for Deadpool.
But there was more to Deadpool than just gore and juvenile humour.
Who also worked on two productions for them, and I have a feeling that had a lot more to do with him getting the gig than his work Marvel.Think, man: WB repeatedly claimed they were looking for "Their own Kevin Feige", and of all people, they hired a man who is best known/represented by--where superhero films are concerned--for his Guardians/MCU association. That was the reason WB/Zaslav tapped Gunn.
But that doesn't have to mean that they were setting up future storylines, they could just be part of that movie's story.The problem with this line of thinking is that at least three of the four remaining MoS-continuity films were believed to have some direct or layered ties to the overall universe. Cavill and Gadot's cut scenes aside (in the Flash movie), Affleck's Batman is in The Flash and Aquaman 2, and every hint of plot points up to this time all but shout that his appearances--and thus, part of the stories--are undeniably connected in some way.
I'm not sure if this was a miscommunication on my part or a misunderstanding on yours, but don't seem to have understood what I was saying. What I meant was that WB should not have made the announcement that he was coming back as Superman, until the knew exactly what Gunn was planning on doing.Cavill's booting was Gunn's decision. He's never denied it, or the reasons why it happened. He's the content creator--the shepherd of the "new universe", and in his mind, Cavill did not fit in said "new universe". You must remember that Cavill returning dates back to the period where Johnson and his agents (who also represent Cavill) were trying to convince him to return as Superman, which has its roots in the long development of the Black Adam movie--both predating the hiring of Gunn. In other words, this implies Cavill returning was not an issue for WB/Zaslav, right up to the time Cavill took to social media and made his announcement.
Not really, since they brought Whedon on to a project that had already been started and was part of the continuing storyline, but with Gunn they appear to be letting him start over completely. So if anything, I'd say it's the opposite of what happened with Whedon....except WB run the risk of making the same mistake all over again. Gunn was hired for his MCU pedigree and no other reason (to be "Their own Kevin Feige"), so it mirrors the same, 500 car pile-up of a reason Whedon was brought in on JL. Only time will tell, but the last month of WB/DC news has been anything other than hopeful.
Did they? I'm not being sarcastic or anything but I know The Rock and Cavill went that route but did "WB" ever make any such claims?What I meant was that WB should not have made the announcement that he was coming back as Superman, until the knew exactly what Gunn was planning on doing.
Well, Cavill said WB told him to announce his return on social media. My guess is this is the same person or persons that are currently badmouthing Gunn and leak half-truths and misinformation to THR and Variety. You know, people who want to run DC films themselves. Telling Cavill, and through him the fans, that he was back as Superman was basically sabotage against Gunn and Safran.Did they? I'm not being sarcastic or anything but I know The Rock and Cavill went that route but did "WB" ever make any such claims?
I thought WB made an official announcement after Cavill's, but maybe not.Did they? I'm not being sarcastic or anything but I know The Rock and Cavill went that route but did "WB" ever make any such claims?
Good point, he does say the studio asked him to announce his return in his final message. I had been focusing on what he was saying when he first made the announcement where there was no mention. Not sure there was any public statement by WB about Cavill's future.Well, Cavill said WB told him to announce his return on social media. My guess is this is the same person or persons that are currently badmouthing Gunn and leak half-truths and misinformation to THR and Variety. You know, people who want to run DC films themselves. Telling Cavill, and through him the fans, that he was back as Superman was basically sabotage against Gunn and Safran.
Not really. They almost always accomplish the reverse. No one needs a “conspiracy theory” to practice critical thinking. Critical thinking, properly applied, should eliminate over 99% of such “theories” (and a theory is not merely speculation, in any event).having conspiracy theories are not just healthy, but help critical thinking
You shouldn’t.I do agree about conspiracy theories in general,
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.