Warner bros announce superhero films through 2020
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Posted that before. Hamada has had a successful year, especially with "It", and he's been working on the Shazam movie for a while, so WB probably likes the direction that project is taking, as well.
Wow, I think I'm starting to disagree with you as often and as strongly as I do @kirk55555.
The yellow guy here at the board can be taken just as seriously as the orange guy in the White House.
Yeah, my apologies, I missed that while I was digging around for that hilariously sad Cap costume comparison photo.
I figure Hamada's a good get for WB. Berg, by many accounts, is still really rough around the edges and probably wasn't up to the task of running an entire division, and moving Johns to an advisory role might mean that DC could embrace a Green Lantern that isn't Hal Jordan. Hamada seems like much more of a "movie" guy, especially with his shepherding of the rather troubled production of It, which resulted in a fantastic product.
Oh, boo hoo, I don't like the majority of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Truly, such a crime.
Oh, boo hoo, I don't like the majority of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Truly, such a crime.
No crimes here, but being all smug and petty about it is an annoyance.
They did, 17 times. They just didn't feel like taking that lazy "grounded" way out and acting like the heroes existed in separate worlds with absolutely no connection to each other. Nor did they feel like making the villains the stars of the show instead of the heroes being the main characters of their own movies or having Thor stand around giving random monologues on the state of the Economy.
Hey, I explain what I dislike about the movies. I love Iron Man, Iron Man 3, most of the first Guardians (the second is garbo, though), 2/3 of The First Avenger, the first act of Thor, almost all of The Incredible Hulk (which is incredibly underrated, and one of the few parts of Civil War I like is that they brought back William Hurt), and ... eh, yeah, I can take or leave the rest. The Russo Brothers seem to be regressing badly based on Civil War and what we've seen of Infinity War, but then again, you give a huge action movie to sitcom directors, what do you expect?
There's no redeeming the two Avengers movies thus far, though. Avengers is terrible, but Age of Ultron is one of the most miserable times I've ever had in a theater, up there with Terminator Salvation, Men in Black II and Extract.
The first Iron Man is just a great film, and different from the way other comic book stuff was being done at that time. A damn good American James Bond movie. Downey elevated it.
First Avenger is probably my favorite Marvel movie. After seeing it a couple of times, then seeing the first Avengers movie, and then hearing people online complain that First Avenger was nothing but set-up for other Marvel movies to come I could see what they were saying...but none of that was evident to me when I first saw it, and I think it works nearly flawlessly as a story and in engaging audience identification and empathy for Steve Rogers. And so Cap remains my favorite character in every movie he's in.
GoTG may take place in the "Marvel Universe," but they're not all about pompous glowering superheroes and I like them a lot as skiffy fun and humor. Love the characters. This makes them the opposite of the Thor movies, which are just awful. Awful, awful, unrelievedly awful - and yet somehow contribute the only first-rate villain in all the Marvel movies, Hiddleston's Loki.
First Avenger is probably my favorite Marvel movie. After seeing it a couple of times, then seeing the first Avengers movie, and then hearing people online complain that First Avenger was nothing but set-up for other Marvel movies to come I could see what they were saying...but none of that was evident to me when I first saw it, and I think it works nearly flawlessly as a story and in engaging audience identification and empathy for Steve Rogers. And so Cap remains my favorite character in every movie he's in.
GoTG may take place in the "Marvel Universe," but they're not all about pompous glowering superheroes and I like them a lot as skiffy fun and humor. Love the characters. This makes them the opposite of the Thor movies, which are just awful. Awful, awful, unrelievedly awful - and yet somehow contribute the only first-rate villain in all the Marvel movies, Hiddleston's Loki.
Yeah, The First Avenger is pretty great, but it falls off the rails--no pun intended--hard with that train sequence (one of the movie's few major flaws is that we don't ever get to really care about Bucky, so his loss and Rogers' grief doesn't feel genuine) and I don't think it ever quite fully recovers because the last 25 minutes or so just fly at a breakneck pace with absolutely no room to breathe. But everything else about it is pretty much pitch-perfect.
The first Thor has some really good stuff in it, notably the first act in Asgard, and Branagh is doing his best with a garbage script, but holy shit does it go off a cliff when Thor is banished to Earth.[/QUOTE]
Well, Thor's character arc is pretty lame: This immortal, eons-old being who's a thoughtless and responsible lout, as a result of being banished to a dirt town in the American southwest for three or four days where he eats bad diner food and meets a girl, becomes a Hero.
Personally, CGI Asgard was a place that I did not give two shits about. And I didn't think Branagh brought a thing distinctive to the film. It could just as well have been directed by Uwe Boll.
Ouch!
Both quoted for relevance. Perhaps Crookeddy should be the administrator? He certainly seems to be to have the better temperament for it.
One expects the likes of irrelevant hipsters with borderline genre credit who desperately are trying to cling to some sort of relevancy such as S*******x to deliver such petty snark while believing himself to be clever, but one would not expect the administrator of the site to engage in rubbish behavior that is obviously just intended to rile up other posters. One of the reasons I've always liked this board is because of the civil tone, but with administrators like this, who needs trolls?
As for my yellow / orange comparison, I can totally imagine Old 45 beginning tweets to people who disagree with him with "oh boo hoo", so the comparison stands.
So, go ahead and "destroy me with your power (trip)". I don't know how in the first world I'll ever get over such a problem.
I fail to see the difference.
You have my vote sir.
Last edited by a moderator:
As opposed to WW's "Naive Woman-Child falls in love with a guy she barely knew and ends up a slightly less naive woman-child...despite the fact she was already thousands of years old."?
Well, yes.
Thor, a warrior god who spend millennia fighting in Asgards wars all over the nine realms, spend a few days in a small US town in peace time, only going up against SHIELD until the final conflict.
Diana, having been sheltered on an island of a few hundreds (maybe a thousand) other women and knowing combat only from training, on the other hand, travels to a world that is unknown to her, dominated by a whole gender that she'd previously only heard of in stories, goes from the high ruling class of England through the horrors of war to a small French town celebrating its liberation only to find it destroyed completely. She meets men from all over the world, telling her their stories, she finds out that the current good guys were the bad guys for other people, she falls in love, and loses the man she loves, kills a man to find out he was not what she expected him to be, and finally confronts the God of War she'd also only known from stories previously to this. That's a whole lot of arc there.
Cap/Rogers is the only relatable character in the MCU; he's not the "oh, I'm a self absorbed, manipulative ass, then I back away in a 5-second attempt to reevaluate my life, only to be a self-absorbed, manipulative ass again" Stark, the barely developed (and often directionless) Banner, the only slightly less asshole-ish Strange (with a character origin that was almost a point-by-point remake of Iron Man), and anyone else they've managed to stuff in the MCU movies. Cap being a genuine moral center has natural appeal in a continuing era where filmmakers are obsessed with morally ambiguous characters, where every end--no matter how despicable--justifies the means.
Pretty sad that its all going away once Evans wraps Avengers 4.
The First Avenger's Red Skull was a solid villain, and one where his purpose (as in his comic sources over the years) was a logical next step in surpassing his allegiance to the Third Reich and seeking true domination, but that real world background is what made his comic fantasy quest have a valid foundation for his actions, rather than the usual MCU villains who are there just to be there in the middle of CG and noise.
Don't think so.
Stripped of his powers for the first time ever and having to deal with stuff like Loki telling him their father died of over-exertion due to him. And it isn't like he totally changed either, he just became a bit more restrained.
Should have been less naive, being thousands of years old. You don't live to that age without questioning SOME things.
She barely knew any of those people in the team, she barely knew Steve, she didn't know Ares personally either whereas Thor knew Loki his whole damn life. A bit more of a gut punch there.
If you dislike characters who aren't perfect people. Of course, Marvel's whole thing was that they popularized the idea of their leads not being perfect caricatures like DC.
So yeah, you dislike less-than-perfect people. Everyone has to be a pristine do-gooder with the same flat characterization.
So you're still PO'ed that the villains aren't the stars of the CBMs. Burton and Singer and Nolan did more damage than I thought.
The MCU villains are no deeper than Hans Gruber, no one minds that.
Last edited: