Comic Books on Film

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
bdsweeney
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#551 Post by bdsweeney » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:20 am

Clark's apartment has really gone to shit.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#552 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:52 am

It's Wayne Manor, actually.

Really not buying Eisenberg as Luthor yet.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#553 Post by dx23 » Fri Aug 07, 2015 12:07 am

Josh Trank is disowning the Fantastic Four movie that came out today. Apparently (and not surprising), there was a lot of studio intervention which ruined the final product.

To me the product was ruined from the beginning as Fox only wanted to make this movie to keep the rights to the FF and all the derived characters from that book like Silver Surfer and Galactus. I wonder if the poor reaction will finally bring FF back to Marvel or if Fox is so stubborn to try to reboot the franchise once again.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Comic Books on Film

#554 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Aug 10, 2015 4:42 pm

Image

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#555 Post by dx23 » Tue Aug 11, 2015 12:13 am

It appears that Fox is moving forward with a sequel for Fantastic Four. This must be just to spite Marvel/Disney, or simply they love throwing away money. I'll believe it when I see but the best for all parties would be for Fox to quit this shit and give the rights back to Marvel.

One thing I read around but can't find any source was that Paul Dini of Batman: The Animated Series fame and co-creator of Harley Quinn, had a pitch meeting over 10 years ago with Fox to make a Fantastic Four film. Dini said that he couldn't believe the contempt the executives at Fox had for the characters, superheroes movies in general and comic books themselves. They kept asking Dini as to why these characters needed to wear the costumes. Fox now has 7 years to work in another film in order to prevent the rights to revert to Marvel. I imagine Marvel would try to purchase the rights back or try to work a deal similar to what they did with Sony and Spider-Man.

User avatar
The Fanciful Norwegian
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Teegeeack

Re: Comic Books on Film

#556 Post by The Fanciful Norwegian » Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:52 pm

THR on the F4 blame game

One minor but interesting bit is a follow-up to a rumor discussed in another thread a few months ago:
As THR reported in May, Trank and his dogs allegedly caused more than $100,000 worth of damage to a rented house in Baton Rouge that he and his wife occupied while the film was shooting there. Sources say now that after landlord Martin Padial moved to evict Trank, photographs of the landlord's family that were in the house were defaced. Padial made a complaint to the local sheriff's department and filed a civil suit in Louisiana that is sealed. Padial's attorney, Michael Bienvenu, declined to comment on the matter. The sheriff's department says the case was "closed as a civil matter between landlord and tenant."

User avatar
dad1153
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:32 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: Comic Books on Film

#557 Post by dad1153 » Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:19 pm

The Fanciful Norwegian wrote:THR on the F4 blame game
This is the part of the article I found interesting:
As filming wound toward an unhappy close, the studio and producers Simon Kinberg and Hutch Parker engaged in a last-minute scramble to come up with an ending. With some of the cast not fully available at that point and Kinberg juggling X-Men: Apocalypse and Star Wars, a lot of material was shot with doubles and the production moved to Los Angeles to film scenes with Teller against a green screen. "It was chaos," says a crewmember, adding that Trank was still in attendance "but was neutralized by a committee." Another source says the studio pulled together "a dream team," including writer and World War Z veteran Drew Goddard, to rescue the movie. Whether the final version of the film is better or worse than what Trank put together is a matter of opinion, of course, but the consensus, clearly, is that neither was good.
Sounds like 2007's "The Invasion" and/or 2005's "Dominion: The Exorcist" all over again, except they wouldn't even let the director finish the movie before they ordered reshoots.

Having seen "Fantastic Four" myself though (for what that's worth), the movie isn't the horrendous and unwatchable piece of crap the critics are making it out to be. It's a severely compromised movie, alright, the imperfect union of a director whose vision didn't quite match the source material (which doesn't mean Josh Trank pissed all over "F4," as the reasonably-coherent first hour he directed bears out) and a movie studio trying to retain an intellectual property by throwing money at this production's multiple problems. I'm amazed that what ended up being released is as entertaining as it is, action-deficient origin story flaws notwithstanding. Not entertaining in a jokey Marvel way (the few times humor is attempted it lands with a thud) but in a dark, moody sci-fi morality tale vibe (like 1986's "The Fly," whose influence on "F4" is felt at key moments) that 2012's "Chronicle" showed to be Trank's wheelhouse. It's not a good movie, but I've seen much, much worse movies this summer alone.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#558 Post by dx23 » Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:30 pm

I think that the behind the scenes drama will someday make a better documentary than the film itself.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Comic Books on Film

#559 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:18 pm

From a Michael Mann interview that I've posted in two threads now, but felt this passage was relevant enough to put here
DEADLINE: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu lamented to Deadline the studio preoccupation on superhero movies. He felt they were not good for storytelling because there were not grounded dilemmas that human beings struggled through. Instead, they rely on an institutionalized higher power to save the day. Do you feel good about the way the studio business is going?

MANN: I don’t agree with that analysis, at all. Whether it’s a movie, or great literature like Henry James, or great religious art, quality makes for something resonant and lasting, that has compelling power where you look at it and it hooks you. It’s like when you’re walking into La Chapelle, which is around the corner from Notre Dame, for the tenth time. It catches you the same way, each time. It can happen when you’re watching a movie. I disagree with what he said. Take The Avengers, the movie Joss Whedon directed. That movie works, because the story is good. It’s wry, it has sarcastic humor. Those can be really powerful.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#560 Post by dx23 » Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:12 am

The elitism that some (or many) directors and actors have against superhero movies is very similar to the one that has existed towards the comic book industry by authors, book critics, etc. These people treat comic books as if they were a medium exclusively for kids and like if they didn't have the depth or value as a regular book because the majority of the characters wear colorful skin tights and fight injustice with superpowers (except Batman, of course). To me, they are simply obtuse, close-minded and/or outdated people, that sadly won't change their ways because of their elitist views. I wonder if Inarritu has the same opinion of characters like Zorro, Robin Hood, the Three Musketeers, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings or any other classic series of books and films.

By the way, I'm glad Mann stepped up and defended the comic book genre in films.

User avatar
Gregory
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:07 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#561 Post by Gregory » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:50 am

It is possible to dislike the superhero genre without it being due to an elitist attitude toward comics, though.

User avatar
Feiereisel
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#562 Post by Feiereisel » Thu Oct 01, 2015 1:00 pm

Gregory wrote:It is possible to dislike the superhero genre without it being due to an elitist attitude toward comics, though.
True, and I think the assertion that actors are contemptuous of comic book roles is a bit of a stretch--they seem to be doing superhero blockbusters in addition to less commercial roles. Oscar Isaac and Michael Fassbender show up in all kinds of things; claiming elitism when folks like Robert Redford, Benicio Del Toro, and Michael Douglas regularly appear in superhero films doesn't wash regardless of how shallow their knowledge of the source material may be.

On the funnybook end, let's remember that superhero comics dominate the market to an arguably unfair degree. As such, the backlash against them may be closer to a standalone burger joint resenting the fast food megachain driving them out of business than close-minded elitism. (I'm thinking of the small-press vs. Marvel and DC market-share breakdown, here.)

And comics is also a niche market that, with regard to both consumers and creators, skews toward adult males. Based on that, one could argue that one of the most glaring problems with the medium at the moment (though far from the only one) isn't the perception that comics are for children, but there are very few mainstream comics intended for younger readers. The movies, especially Marvel's, seem to be picking up some of this slack...though not to the print-medium's benefit.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#563 Post by dx23 » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:31 pm

Gregory wrote:It is possible to dislike the superhero genre without it being due to an elitist attitude toward comics, though.
I agree, but it seems Inarritu was being completely dismissive because of the genre and themes, not the actual execution of the films.
Feiereisel wrote:
True, and I think the assertion that actors are contemptuous of comic book roles is a bit of a stretch--they seem to be doing superhero blockbusters in addition to less commercial roles. Oscar Isaac and Michael Fassbender show up in all kinds of things; claiming elitism when folks like Robert Redford, Benicio Del Toro, and Michael Douglas regularly appear in superhero films doesn't wash regardless of how shallow their knowledge of the source material may be.

On the funnybook end, let's remember that superhero comics dominate the market to an arguably unfair degree. As such, the backlash against them may be closer to a standalone burger joint resenting the fast food megachain driving them out of business than close-minded elitism. (I'm thinking of the small-press vs. Marvel and DC market-share breakdown, here.)

And comics is also a niche market that, with regard to both consumers and creators, skews toward adult males. Based on that, one could argue that one of the most glaring problems with the medium at the moment (though far from the only one) isn't the perception that comics are for children, but there are very few mainstream comics intended for younger readers. The movies, especially Marvel's, seem to be picking up some of this slack...though not to the print-medium's benefit.
Well, of course not all actors or even the majority of them are contemptuous about the superhero genre, but some are, like Jon Hamm. I'm extremely glad that many others have embrace this genre (of course, they get well paid for their roles).

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Comic Books on Film

#564 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:25 am

I didn't see any particular criticism of the genre that he made in his comments, just that he was wary of signing into the kind of commitment these films require, knowing it would prevent him from doing more varied work which he says he's in the business for.

User avatar
Feiereisel
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:41 am

Re: Comic Books on Film

#565 Post by Feiereisel » Fri Oct 02, 2015 11:15 am

I have a hard time viewing Hamm's remarks as contemptuous, too. It seems to me like a guy who just finished playing the same character for ten years is wary of doing so again--fine by me. In fairness, though, if that is Hamm's primary concern, he would probably do well to look at the work actors are doing in addition to their superhero roles...there seems to be more latitude than he's implying. Things seem to be structured in ways that allow people to work within the superhero cinematic universes for longer than originally intended, and at their own pace.

Inarritu is another matter. His comments, though (intentionally?) hyperbolic, seem genuine, but it could also be said he owes his statuettes to the current superhero-saturated pop-culture, especially if his disdain for it contributed to the film that won him his awards. So, yes, he dislikes superhero films, but I don't know if that satisfies the "elitist" label, especially in an industry-wide context. The guy who directed a previous Best Picture winner is now Batman and the cast of 12 Years A Slave features Magneto and Dr. Strange as monsters; artistic concerns can be balanced with the commercial ones, much in the way that the term "TV actor" is no longer a pejorative in the post-Sopranos cable landscape. Inarritu's Academy approval doesn't give words extra weight.

Even so, directors who seem to have the most legitimate complaint against the superhero system--the profitability of the films occasionally seems leveraged against their unique artistic visions. Peyton Reed did a great job with Ant-Man, but the falling-out with Edgar Wright seemed grounded in a discrepancy of artistry. (Maybe--the loaded language on the official record is tricky to pick apart in a definitive way, and I'm sure Wright is NDA'd up to his eyeballs.) Superhero films (and the entities that produce them) seem to favor directors who are used to working within clearly defined parameters to meet a predetermined air-date, which may explain Marvel's use of TV veterans and folks like Reed, Favreau, and Johnston, who aren't household names despite having made popular--or at least recognizable--films. (Bring it On, Elf, and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, respectively. Sidebar: Joe Johnston has a fascinatingly eclectic filmography.)

This isn't a bad thing--I don't think Taylor handled things as well as Branagh, but the Russos did a fine job with Winter Soldier.

(Worth mentioning: I'm not a Marvel or DC partisan--Marvel is my go-to for scenarios like this because they have a substantially larger body of work to pull from.)

At any rate, it's clear that these are demanding films, with regard to meeting the desires of both the parent companies and the fans. Whedon looked like a scooped out baked potato coming off of Ultron ; my sense is that the grueling editing process was only partially to blame for that. The trade-off is that directing a superhero film can boost a director's profile enough to make them a household name, or close enough to it. It's perhaps unfair and certainly to Marvel's benefit, but the game can be played both ways.

And even the disgruntled director theory I've just floated is somewhat creaky--Mendes, though tired, seems to be having a fine time with the Bond franchise, and Nolan made his Batman trilogy at his own pace and seems to bear it no ill-will.

Spielberg also famously disdained the superhero-blockbuster system, which dovetails with my next point: the fallacy that "comic book" films are equivalent to "superhero" films. Spielberg directed Tintin, based on a comic. Maybe it's not so much elitism as it is just pretentiousness--or personal preference.

Inarritu is entitled to his opinion, and he seems to have little pull when it comes to stopping people from signing on to make superhero films. Nor is it stopping Inarritu from making the films he wants to make. Perhaps it's elitism--I'm still unconvinced, leaning more toward convenience--but it's harmless. He may just be cherry-picking the easy targets. Again, I think the real problem is that the massive success of comic book films doesn't benefit the medium in a demonstrably substantive way.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Comic Books on Film

#566 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:53 pm

Feiereisel wrote:And even the disgruntled director theory I've just floated is somewhat creaky--Mendes, though tired, seems to be having a fine time with the Bond franchise, and Nolan made his Batman trilogy at his own pace and seems to bear it no ill-will.
On this end particularly, I think a more perfect example of this is what Soderbergh did with the Ocean's movies. They were filled with names yes, but they were no less part and parcel of what he did so brilliantly with his smaller films. From what I've gathered he never had to compromise too much in making them either.

User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Comic Books on Film

#567 Post by dx23 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:34 am

You forger that Mendes did also Road To Perdition, based on the graphic novel of the same name.


User avatar
bainbridgezu
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 10:54 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#569 Post by bainbridgezu » Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:37 pm


User avatar
dx23
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:52 pm
Location: Puerto Rico

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#570 Post by dx23 » Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:19 am

First trailer is up. It's hard to be optimistic about this film when it seems that Snyder is repeating the same mistakes of the first one with the over the top destruction. Even more, Doomsday (if that was him, could have been Parasite or Bizarro for all I know) looks horrible and Lex Luthor is being portrayed as a clownish, fas talking business man, with no presence at all instead of the modern comic book and animated version of Luthor, who is a genius business man, smarter that even Batman and that has a physical presence to intimidates people around him, even superheroes.

Again, Warner Bros is playing catch up and from everything I've read and heard from DC Comics insiders, these executives don't know what the shit they are doing. They simply want to do what Marvel is doing because of the huge money is bringing for Marvel/Disney and they want have it as fast as possible, since they see all this superhero genre as a fad instead of a long term commitment. By the way, I don't see any bulk that Gal Gadot was supposed to gain to play Wonder Woman and portray an Amazon.

User avatar
Altair
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:56 pm
Location: England

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#571 Post by Altair » Thu Dec 03, 2015 5:17 am

The trailer alone has more bad CGI for a whole film - they'd better improve on it as otherwise it's going to look like a ridiculous cartoon; and the mass destruction of cities seems to point to Snyder repeating himself.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#572 Post by captveg » Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:55 am

Love Man of Steel, and this looks great. Haters gonna hate.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#573 Post by domino harvey » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:26 pm

You are literally the first positive take I've seen. Seems like the majority of the internet's eating this alive for (apparently) spoiling the entire film

User avatar
swo17
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#574 Post by swo17 » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:47 pm

Rational people gonna be rational.

User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (Zack Snyder, 2016)

#575 Post by captveg » Thu Dec 03, 2015 12:51 pm

Anyone who thinks this is spoiling anything, beyond Doomsday specifically, never read the full title of the movie...

I don't do groupthink. Man of Steel is a fantastic film in my book, and this to me looks like a great continuation/expansion of that world. It's rooted in comic tropes that have been around for decades but have yet to be explored in films.

And I quite like the Marvel films, but they are not the only way to go. DC has always appealed to me more because of its more conflicted characters, so I'm excited to be getting it.

Locked