Film writer Jeff Sneider, discussing SUICIDE SQUAD on Twitter, said, in essence, that the DC Comics movies released by Warner Bros. are "too big to fail."
TOO BIG TO FAIL (sorry about all caps) is the mantra for both the DC Extended Universe (which, with the presumably more user-friendly WONDER WOMAN and JUSTICE LEAGUE being the next in a series of films to be released in the next 3 years) and NBC/IOC's determination to ensure the Summer Olympics stay on schedule in economically/environmentally blighted Rio.
Once the money has been pledged and/or spent, it will happen because money cannot be lost and egos cannot be bruised by the act of pulling the plug before further disasters occur.
Showing posts with label DC Comics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DC Comics. Show all posts
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Why I'm not seeing BATMAN VS SUPERMAN
Warner Bros. and DC Comics made the conscious choice--after the mixed bag of MAN OF STEEL--to double down on the Zack Snyder jackhammer-punch approach.
In 12 minutes, I talk about DC past and recent and explain towards the end why I'm not consuming this Event kicking off the DC Expanded Universe:
http://youtu.be/VghPBAUiQx0
Hoping for better results with the upcoming SUICIDE SQUAD and WONDER WOMAN.
In 12 minutes, I talk about DC past and recent and explain towards the end why I'm not consuming this Event kicking off the DC Expanded Universe:
http://youtu.be/VghPBAUiQx0
Hoping for better results with the upcoming SUICIDE SQUAD and WONDER WOMAN.
Monday, November 30, 2015
BATMAN V SUPERMAN: the film of the decade?
http://www.movingpictureblog.com/2015/11/batman-v-superman-teaser-trailer.html
The 1989 Tim Burton BATMAN was tagged with the blurb THE FILM OF THE DECADE.
And certainly, there was a must-see factor due to its trailer showcasing the stunt casting of Jack Nicholson (in his only superhero outing to date) as The Joker.
But there wasn't the enormous burden of artistic/financial expectations as there are for Zack Snyder's BATMAN V SUPERMAN.
Warner Brothers and DC have managed to devalue the DC Comics brand on-screen for more than twenty years--starting with the decision to dropkick Burton after the blend of genuine subversiveness (the Penguin and Catwoman scenes) and going-through-motions that was BATMAN RETURNS; the studio chose to hand off to the more pliant Joel Schumacher (it should be noted that parents weren't complaining about disturbing content the way they did during the original release of BATMAN RETURNS) for two films that tried to fuse 90s camp (nipples on the Batsuit) with the more obvious burlesque humor of the 60s Adam West/Burt Ward ABC series.
There's no need to discuss at length Bryan Singer's heartfelt but too leisurely attempt to provide a coda to the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve era of SUPERMAN.
But it's still a mystery to me why WB/DC decided to double down on Zack "punch through three layers of concrete" Snyder (who admittedly made a mostly effective film of WATCHMEN) after he too gave the world an uneven SUPERMAN reboot with a way-overdone climax. And Snyder/WB/DC tripled down on retaining Henry Cavill as Superman (during the making of B V S, the Guy Ritchie MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. co-starring Cavill underperformed due in part to young audience unfamiliarity with the old TV series that birthed it).
Some people I follow on Twitter are beginning to salivate over BATMAN V SUPERMAN--perhaps in hopes the "adult comic book" ethos and fresh-for-the-time feel of the Burton BATMAN duo will again be realized (within the limits of the PG-13 rating as it's now enforced).
Maybe the miracle will happen. But I'm not so sure we'll see a franchise rejuvenation like, say, the good-but-not-great CREED or the so-far-wonderful trailers/clips for JJ Abrams' STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS.
The 1989 Tim Burton BATMAN was tagged with the blurb THE FILM OF THE DECADE.
And certainly, there was a must-see factor due to its trailer showcasing the stunt casting of Jack Nicholson (in his only superhero outing to date) as The Joker.
But there wasn't the enormous burden of artistic/financial expectations as there are for Zack Snyder's BATMAN V SUPERMAN.
Warner Brothers and DC have managed to devalue the DC Comics brand on-screen for more than twenty years--starting with the decision to dropkick Burton after the blend of genuine subversiveness (the Penguin and Catwoman scenes) and going-through-motions that was BATMAN RETURNS; the studio chose to hand off to the more pliant Joel Schumacher (it should be noted that parents weren't complaining about disturbing content the way they did during the original release of BATMAN RETURNS) for two films that tried to fuse 90s camp (nipples on the Batsuit) with the more obvious burlesque humor of the 60s Adam West/Burt Ward ABC series.
There's no need to discuss at length Bryan Singer's heartfelt but too leisurely attempt to provide a coda to the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve era of SUPERMAN.
But it's still a mystery to me why WB/DC decided to double down on Zack "punch through three layers of concrete" Snyder (who admittedly made a mostly effective film of WATCHMEN) after he too gave the world an uneven SUPERMAN reboot with a way-overdone climax. And Snyder/WB/DC tripled down on retaining Henry Cavill as Superman (during the making of B V S, the Guy Ritchie MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. co-starring Cavill underperformed due in part to young audience unfamiliarity with the old TV series that birthed it).
Some people I follow on Twitter are beginning to salivate over BATMAN V SUPERMAN--perhaps in hopes the "adult comic book" ethos and fresh-for-the-time feel of the Burton BATMAN duo will again be realized (within the limits of the PG-13 rating as it's now enforced).
Maybe the miracle will happen. But I'm not so sure we'll see a franchise rejuvenation like, say, the good-but-not-great CREED or the so-far-wonderful trailers/clips for JJ Abrams' STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS.
Friday, June 14, 2013
HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE commenter on superhero comics vs. their movie adaptations.
Turning the floor over to Jay Shooke--context is a HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE website commenter discussion re Joe Queenan's dismissal of the superhero film genre in THE GUARDIAN:
This is the kind of whining that comes from having no awareness of the comics industry at all. Like its already been mentioned, comics haven't been "cheap" or disposable for 25 years, or since they changed the distribution model to the direct market. Comics are now niche collectibles, printed on extremely high quality paper, cost 3 to 4 bucks a pop, and only available at small specialty stores. But that's besides the point...
The problem with superhero movies (and I want to make this distinguished, comics are a vast medium that tell many, very disparate types of stories) is not the source material being vapid or inferior, but in the poor adaptation of them. Comics, even superhero comics, have been home for some of the most out-there, cerebral and and almost inaccessibly dense genre stories being published. Writers like Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, and Jonathan Hickman are pushing incredibly daring and literary ideas, they just happen to be illustrated by some intensely eye-popping illustrative and graphic design work. Its the studios dumbing down the source material to hit all four quadrants [meaning every age level of moviegoer], and that's when you get repetitive narratives and senseless violence.
I get the complaints against the assault of cape movies every summer, but there's a reason they keep getting made. People love em, and its certainly not just geeks keeping them afloat. The most popular comic books are lucky if they sell 90k copies every month. Man of Steel is going to make around 300 million dollars domestic, so obviously its not just the basement dweller set making them happen. Average people want to see grand spectacle and larger than life characters when they plop down 12 bucks, and this is the type of movie that delivers that.
This is the kind of whining that comes from having no awareness of the comics industry at all. Like its already been mentioned, comics haven't been "cheap" or disposable for 25 years, or since they changed the distribution model to the direct market. Comics are now niche collectibles, printed on extremely high quality paper, cost 3 to 4 bucks a pop, and only available at small specialty stores. But that's besides the point...
The problem with superhero movies (and I want to make this distinguished, comics are a vast medium that tell many, very disparate types of stories) is not the source material being vapid or inferior, but in the poor adaptation of them. Comics, even superhero comics, have been home for some of the most out-there, cerebral and and almost inaccessibly dense genre stories being published. Writers like Grant Morrison, Warren Ellis, and Jonathan Hickman are pushing incredibly daring and literary ideas, they just happen to be illustrated by some intensely eye-popping illustrative and graphic design work. Its the studios dumbing down the source material to hit all four quadrants [meaning every age level of moviegoer], and that's when you get repetitive narratives and senseless violence.
I get the complaints against the assault of cape movies every summer, but there's a reason they keep getting made. People love em, and its certainly not just geeks keeping them afloat. The most popular comic books are lucky if they sell 90k copies every month. Man of Steel is going to make around 300 million dollars domestic, so obviously its not just the basement dweller set making them happen. Average people want to see grand spectacle and larger than life characters when they plop down 12 bucks, and this is the type of movie that delivers that.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
On seeing GREEN LANTERN in 2-D in a mostly empty theater.
Random thoughts on GREEN LANTERN 2-D (I try to avoid movies where 3-D is only added in post-production) in no specific order:
1. Blake Lively should be campaigining to be part of Warren Beatty's just-announced Howard Hughes project; believe me, she needs the career boost.
2. Ryan Reynolds tries for a fusion of his old frat-boy persona, his newer twinkly/bemused romantic leading man persona and a bit of the old Tom Cruise-circa-TOP GUN schtick. Bradley Cooper could have given a better performance with one hand tied behind his back and dragging around an anvil chained to his left foot.
3. No, GREEN LANTERN's not as terrible as some reviews indicate But for an alleged $200 million superhero franchise-starter apparently shot in Louisiana to Save Money, it's pretty underwhelming--particularly so when you consider that Martin Campbell (who revived James Bond with both Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig) directed it.
4. Some quick shoutouts to Peter Sarsgaard (doing a fusion of John Waters and John Malkovich), Tim Robbins, Mark Strong and Geoffrey Rush (imitating Alec Guinness-as-Obi-Wan) for doing professional, keep-the-ship-sailing work.
1. Blake Lively should be campaigining to be part of Warren Beatty's just-announced Howard Hughes project; believe me, she needs the career boost.
2. Ryan Reynolds tries for a fusion of his old frat-boy persona, his newer twinkly/bemused romantic leading man persona and a bit of the old Tom Cruise-circa-TOP GUN schtick. Bradley Cooper could have given a better performance with one hand tied behind his back and dragging around an anvil chained to his left foot.
3. No, GREEN LANTERN's not as terrible as some reviews indicate But for an alleged $200 million superhero franchise-starter apparently shot in Louisiana to Save Money, it's pretty underwhelming--particularly so when you consider that Martin Campbell (who revived James Bond with both Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig) directed it.
4. Some quick shoutouts to Peter Sarsgaard (doing a fusion of John Waters and John Malkovich), Tim Robbins, Mark Strong and Geoffrey Rush (imitating Alec Guinness-as-Obi-Wan) for doing professional, keep-the-ship-sailing work.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Screenwriter talks about wanting to screw up SUPERMAN.
http://www.cinematical.com/2009/03/24/discuss-how-do-you-reboot-superman/
I found the above link by wandering on to the fanboy-friendly Rotten Tomatoes site. I fear that the screenwriter I won't mention by name (he helped give the world last year's supersilly WANTED), probably thinks the SUPERMAN franchise needs a big shot of "dark" and "edgy."
(Certainly the Cinematical writer buys into the idea that, because of the success of THE DARK KNIGHT, the public wants all superhero fare to be similar in approach.)
In my opinion, Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN reboot from a couple of years back was a sound concept (continuing the Richard Donner reverence-laced-with-humor approach and pretending the latter two Christopher Reeve entries didn't happen); it just erred in being overlong and, at times, oversomber.
Rather than opting for "dark", it wouldn't hurt for Warner Brothers to refine the Singer approach--with, say, Jon Hamm as Clark Kent/Superman.
Trust me, the audience will be there.
I found the above link by wandering on to the fanboy-friendly Rotten Tomatoes site. I fear that the screenwriter I won't mention by name (he helped give the world last year's supersilly WANTED), probably thinks the SUPERMAN franchise needs a big shot of "dark" and "edgy."
(Certainly the Cinematical writer buys into the idea that, because of the success of THE DARK KNIGHT, the public wants all superhero fare to be similar in approach.)
In my opinion, Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN reboot from a couple of years back was a sound concept (continuing the Richard Donner reverence-laced-with-humor approach and pretending the latter two Christopher Reeve entries didn't happen); it just erred in being overlong and, at times, oversomber.
Rather than opting for "dark", it wouldn't hurt for Warner Brothers to refine the Singer approach--with, say, Jon Hamm as Clark Kent/Superman.
Trust me, the audience will be there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)