DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Folks are more willing to admit that Superman II had problems, and everyone's feelings on SM3, 4, Returns and MOS have been very clear. There's only one movie we all agree was truly good.
Nah, the modern DC films are the death rattle of the outdated methods that need to be discarded.
But they don't act like no prior stories ever happened to him. Especially the more serialized Craig movies.
And so are modern movies.
Neither did MCU.
They developed their individual components as necessary, while not ignoring the larger framework. Something the DCEU and most other Cinematic "Universes" have failed at consistently.
Very very close, actually. Inf act, you've never once given an example of a "thin" plot in MCU.
Heck, the plots of Batman Begins and Dark Knight are fairly thin.
Not bitter, just a little embarrassed that there are those who still chose to abuse the CBM genre because they know the story they wanted to tell would fail without the artificial boosters.
It's hardly just me.
Not an assumption.
You really need reading comprehension. I'm saying they wanted to give it to him, but back in 2005 there was still enough rampant homophobia around that the Academy knew they wouldn't get away with it. So they held off, having decided to use his next biggest role as an excuse.
It did, actually.
Their pretentious nature.
No, not really.
Only a subset, almost all confined to a few genres, are “designed” to be “serialized.” The majority of films are conceived as stand alone stories and rightfully so.
Sky Atlantic gets first showing of most HBO shows now.
"Rightfully"? Get off the high horse man, there's no Cinema law that states film must be composed of standalones.
Not “rightfully” as in “all must be” but “rightfully” as in most films are self contained stories that are not designed with a sequel in mind and therefore are in zero need of a continuation—thus they don’t get sequels. In other words, Kramer vs Kramer, North by Northwest, Witness, Three Days of the Condor, Shutter Island, Pulp Fiction, Une Heure de Tranquilité, The Breakfast Club, Never Let Me Go (films of various genres and across multiple decades—the list could go on with tens of thousands of titles) did not require, nor did they set up, sequels. They are stand alone stories that rightfully stand alone.
There is nothing wrong with serialized films (nor have I ever said otherwise). But to suggest that “modern movies” are, as a default, designed to be serialized (as you did above), is factually incorrect.
And there is no cinema law that states standalones "lack ambition" as asserted above.
In my opinion, standalones are more enjoyable, and I am far more likely to revisit them than the serialized narratives ones. Largely because I don't want to need to watch a film to just set up the next film and have to watch the next one to understand the last one.
Films, even serialized ones, should be able to stand on their own as part of storytelling. Insisting that only serialized films should be made is unnecessarily restrictive. Some times a story makes sense to continue on and have a sequel-Star Wars is definitely one. But, sometimes a franchise is just not needed and the result is a rather unenjoyable outing, i.e. Jurassic Park or Pirates of the Caribbean. So, when it comes to films, I prefer more standalone(which is different than my preference in TV shows).
tl:dr Not everything needs to be a franchise and insisting it must is causing more harm than good to filmmaking in my opinion.
Then you don't knpw Cinema history because serialized storytelling has been a part of it going back to the beginning in the 1920ies - and feature films (as well as outright Cinema serials) were a big part of worldwide film-making and have been through the 1930ies, 40ies, 50ies, 60ies, 70ies, 80ies on to today. It's NOTHING NEW.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with preferring standalone films at all - but to somehow imply the current form of Cinema serial storytelling today is somehow different just shows you really don't know much about the history of Cinema worldwide.
That was not my implication. I am quite aware that there is both styles. My argument is that insisting one vs. the other is somehow preferred is not beneficial to filmmaking.
I'm with fireproof78. It makes no sense to say there should only be one style of filmmaking or storytelling allowed to exist. That's like insisting that all food should be pizza. Pizza is great, but other foods are great too. It's completely arbitrary and self-defeating to pick only one when there are so many worthwhile options.
Not “rightfully” as in “all must be” but “rightfully” as in most films are self contained stories
An outdated viewpoint.
Your use of "Rightfully" says otherwise.
They're much more open to it than prior eras of filmmaking. In fact, more serialization is a return to form to the earliest stages of film than ever.
But not a requirement for a film to be "ambitious."
Personally, I'd say that standalone films are more ambitious since they are trying to do everything in one go, rather than spreading things out through multiple movies.
You can't simplify ambition to a single variable, though. Some standalone films are very creatively or artistically ambitious, while others are slapped together on an assembly line to make a fast buck. Some shared-universe film series are very ambitious in reach and innovation, while others are just churned-out attempts to cash in on a successful formula. Category does not determine quality.
I vote Kelvin.
Of course you are correct, but he will say anything to protect the MCU in his usual, obsessive, wrongheaded manner.
In American cinema, there were serials and series. Serials were typically low grade pablum, who's target audiences tended to be children. The first Flash Gordon serial was the first to get an evening showing because it was considered a step above the rest of the stuff. The average joe today is unaware of what a serial is. Among genre fans, they may know of serials like Batman, Captain Marvel, Superman, Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, beyond that, they know jack shit. And why would they? Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers are the top tier of serials and they're largely forgotten and most genre fans have never seen these two characters film debuts.
There were also a plethora of series like Andy Hardy, Ma and Pa Kettle or the Dead End Kids / East Side Kids / Bowery Boys, and some like the latter had both film series and serials. The Thin Man, Sherlock Holmes, Charlie Chan...these were series, not serials and they did not require viewing of any of the previous films to enjoy. And these particular series are also largely forgotten.
Contrast that with a list too long to list of stand alone films.
There is no "we". As with so many subjects, you only speak for yourself.
Barely referencing the events of other films is not the format or hallmark of serialized drama. It is selective referencing that rarely has any impact on the film its referenced in. Bond visits Tracy's grave in the prologue of For Your Eyes Only, but it has no bearing on the rest of the film at all, or the last two Moore films to follow.
Of course they do. Most MCU films are paper thin and cannot stand alone--there are endless Easter eggs and teases for other films t the point that there is no rue single film for most of the MCU. Remove one, and it threatens to cause it fall apart..
Suuure.
Heck, the plots of Batman Begins and Dark Knight are fairly thin.[/quote]
Translation: two of the greatest superhero films ever made must be torn down (well, a failed attempt) because they took the superhero film to a rare height not matched by the majority of the cartoonish MCU.
No sale. Your every post abuot DC movies are filled with bitter screamng about them as their existence of doing it another way (often better) burns you up. This is a regular "feature" with you.
Yes, its just you. Your clear-as-day homophobia and hatred of DC movies led you to concoct a completely false story of how the Academy wanted to give Ledger the Oscar for Brokeback Mountain. The only reason you are saying this is your accusation that the Academy has a gay agenda it wanted to push by doing exactly what you're saying. You cannot hide from your own disgusting beliefs & words. Try as you will (and that goes nowhere) you will use that to attempt to rob Ledger of his legitimately awarded performance as that DC character, the Joker--again, something the MCU will never match, even if it cranks out another 200 films.
No, it did not. The Winter Soldier was a tight, serious film that was free of the constant "Stark-ism" jokes anywhere he appeared, or anything seen in the GOTG films, Ragnarok, Endgame and other MCU films. You are never going to rewrite that film and why its the far and away greatest MCU film. Its the only truly great MCU film.
Hardly me. Problems are pointed out with every Superman movie, big ones. Except the first (and it had them too).
They don't "Barely" reference past events. The TOS movies didn't, the Bond movies don't, Star Wars doesn't, Indiana Jones doesn't.
It certainly brings to mind why Blofeld was there to try and kill him one last time.
You haven't given any examples. And never will.
So like if you removed Dark Knight from the Nolan movies. That's what happens with continuing stories.
It's why you never gave examples.
Nah, they're fairly thin. One is "Batman must stop Ra's Al Ghul from unleashing a weapon of doom!" and the other is "Batman must stop Joker from causing chaos."
Naturally, the Nolan movies fell apart towards the end too.
Pretty thin. And they didn't take anything to new heights, they just convinced DC that being ashamed of their source material was the right attitude. It wasn't.
Nah, I just don't have a problem pointing out their flaws. Which thin skinned fans like you can't stand.
Nope.
They did.
You got it backwards. They didn't because they realized it would be too controversial with the general public to give him the award for that controversial movie.
The only legitimacy is that he got it for dying.
Er, no.
"On your left", Steve's Barbershop Quartet, Steve's list of things to catch up on including "I Love Lucy", Thai Food and Disco, Widow continually trying to set up Steve with a date, their hipsters disguises, Fury arguing with his car, most of Sam's dialog, "Was he wearing a parachute?!", Danny Pudi as the SHIELD tech, most of the scene with computer Zola, Maria Hill's first scene, Pierce asking Bucky if he wants milk, etc.
If you're ashamed of comics, maybe. Fortunately, the directors and writers and stars weren't and weren't afraid to throw MCU quips into it.
Ray Fisher has accused Joss Whedon of “abusive and unprofessional behaviour” on the set of JL, “enabled by Geoff Johns.” https://variety.com/2020/film/news/ray-fisher-joss-whedon-justice-league-1234695831/