Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

I think retroactively you can assume Thanos wanted Earth invaded so he could wipe out half the population manually like he did with Gamora's planet. If the Avengers had lost, Loki would be king and Thanos would let him be so long as Loki was happy to arrange the mass executions of half of the humans of Earth. I'm not sure it is clear when Thanos really started going after the stones proper but my head canon is that he probably considered it perhaps never happening, so was happy to do the culling with executions as much as possible on certain planets. My read on Thanos is that he's a psychopath who gets off on murder but likes to wrap it up in philosophical justifications, bit like Jigsaw in Saw.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

This is gonna get very messy before this is all over.
https://news.avclub.com/warner-bros-issues-statement-pushing-back-against-ray-1844962515

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Yeah, they seem to have slipped up bad here, they can't save face at all now that they've been caught out like this.

Also, another company can get easy points by making a big show of hiring Fisher for a project, a bit like when WB hired Gunn after Disney hosed it with the GOTG 3 situation. And I hope they do.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Sep 5, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Geraldine Viswanathan would be a great choice, Blockers was hilarious and she was probably mvp.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

I've seen many films prior to release, and it is extremely rare to have complete vfx six months before - as in, I've never seen it ever. I understand JL had a different kind of production, but I am very suprised to hear that it was mostly complete.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

The Dark Knight Rises took the idea of Batman being less physically capable than he was and coming out of retirement etc, BvS took some of the surface aesthetics of it (the bulk, suit, fighting Superman) but jettisoned the whole physically broken down aspects.

But that's still two in a row that took inspiration from the book.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

The Question IRL posted:

Agreed.

Rises has a lot of problems. The one I hate the most is as follows.

The Joker: See the mob thinks if I kill you everything would go back to normal. But you and I know that is not how it works. The world has changed and it won't ever go back.
The crazies are out and we will never stop. You are the only chance of holding back the madness and you will have to do it forever.

Christopher Nolan: Actually no. By suspending civil liberties and making Batman go away the police were able to handle all crime in Gotham. No more super villains showed up. Thus making a Superhero movie where the moral is the world would be better without Superheroes. You know, like the real world.

That was the weirdest thing. I like DKR more than some but it's weird how much The Dark Knight seemed to be establishing the Modern Batman status quo. With the arc for Bruce being that he was looking for a way out of Batman, who he felt was temporary, but with everything that happened, the loss of Harvey (his hoped for replacement) and the death of Rachel (his last connection to a human world) that he was then locked into it forever. That's how I read it at least so to see that he retired straight after was a real surprise. I still enjoy DKR for what it's going for though.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Plus, in the first fight Batman tries to beat Bane with pure ferocity "You fight like a young man..." partially because he doesn't give a poo poo if he dies and even kind of wants to, but in the second he is more measured, defensive and strategic, as he has a higher purpose this time.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Garfield is probably the best actor to play the role, but gave the worst performance in the worst films which is just how it works sometimes.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

I thought Holland was perfect when he got introduced in Civil War, but my estimation goes down in each subsequent film. It is not his fault, the way he's written is a big factor, at this point he's playing Iron Man Jr. more than he is Spider-man.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

To be honest, I think nothing comes close to those first two Raimi films, they're still the only live action Spider-man films that treat the character with complex philosophical weight, and the way Raimi just understands how to make the character come alive on screen is incredible. They deserve every bit of praise heaped upon them.

For example, in terms of action does anything in MCU Spider-man come close to this sequence https://youtu.be/HFyRe0fnI8s.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Oct 7, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

As Snyder Batman kills it's weird that the Joker, of all people, is still alive and seemingly at large so it will be funny if the Leto Joker is on screen for thirty seconds just so Batman can headshot him in a sort of "always meant to tie that knot" kind of way.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

McCloud posted:

Snyder himself has said he isn't getting a paycheck out of this. And the point is that even if you didn't happen to like his films there's plenty of others who do. Saying he mishandled the DC franchise because you're not fond of his version of Superman or whatever is nonsense, saying WB mishandled it by butchering the third installment of it and then immediately canceling all other superhero films that hadn't already started production is not.

I feel this is a little short sighted, especially for a subjective medium. Saying Snyder objectively didn't mishandle things and WB did is tenuous. Both Batman v Superman and Justice League failed to meet Warner Bros. expectations, so from at least their perspective both were mishandled. But believe it or not there is plenty of people who like both, or just BvS, or just Justice League. To any individual observer they will inevitably consider the ones they don't like as mishandled, as you display here. But it's not objective.

I personally think both were mishandled.

Basically it's almost impossible to work out how well liked a film really is as there is no reliable metric for doing so. Box office isn't reliable as that is dictated by brand awareness, marketing and screen estate as much as genuine positive word of mouth, the same goes for DVD sales and streaming (how many Grandma's would have bought little Jimmy BvS or Justice League because it had Batman and Superman on the cover). Critics are obviously not a good representative for the average viewer, and even sites like letterboxed and imdb will have a user base infinitesimal in comparison to the amount of people who saw the film.

Test of time is maybe the only way. If these films are watched and beloved in twenty years time and passed on through generations then maybe that will prove something. I don't think they will be though.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

BrianWilly posted:

Well, I did it.

Due to the unspeakable popular demand that totally exists, I made a video essay about everyone's favorite movie, Man of Steel. Specifically about Pa Kent, my favorite character! I mean there's a bunch of stuff dissecting superhero mentor tropes but we all know what the people really want. Yes, it's 45 minutes. Yes, it's all downhill from there.

I would like to sincerely thank everyone here, because this is absolutely all your fault. Special shout-out to A loving Pandemic, which gave me the free time to do anything like this. <3

Hopefully there will be more, everyone said! In fact, next one will probably be about Doctor Strange.

I enjoyed this, and thought it was interesting. My only bit of advice is in regards to audio quality, but that might just require a new mic etc, but otherwise very good.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Seemlar posted:

It's not "Superman should smile more" it's "Superman shouldn't look like he can barely stand performing even the most minor acts of heroism"

It does not help that the theatrical cut removed all content that even slightly humanized him and showed his motivations in the movie, leaving him not only looking miserable and unheroic, but also over the top belligerent for no reason at all. He's the villain of the theatrical cut despite Batman being borderline unhinged.

It's interesting. A lot of people found Superman in BVS came off as sociopathic. From what Zack Snyder has said in interviews and such, that was certainly not his intention. But if I was him I would investigate why it is so many people came away with that impression. Obviously the film is undeniably very poorly written, and doesn't really invite the audience into Superman's head space or give him a strong point of view/perspective at all really. It seemed like there was a great opportunity to examine Clark's relationship to the end of Man of Steel, and examine his feelings of guilt. Except the MOS events don't even seem to bother him that much, nor does the disaster in the desert, he's very dismissive to the fact people died when Lois brings it up. He really only seems distressed that people are giving him a hard time on the television about it. That I think is distancing to the audience.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 24, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Vince MechMahon posted:

Tell me why Hitler being kept alive on tax payer dollars, much of which would have surely been provided by his direct victims, would be a good thing. We're never going to agree on this.

For me it's just one of those core principles that must remain inviolate. In my opinion it is fundamentally wrong to kill someone who is not a threat (as in they're in jail), no matter how evil or monstrous they are. I oppose the cold blooded murder of fascists in the same way I oppose the cold blooded murder of serial killers who wear people's skin. To execute them is an act of pure revenge and has no real function other than blood lust, which is not an inclination that should be fostered in a just society. I fully understand killing a fascist in conflict, or in defence, but not after the fact as punishment.

In terms of costs, I think in a lot of systems it actually costs more to execute them than to keep them in jail. The reason it costs more is to absolutely guarantee the guilt of the executed with various checks/balances etc. It would be cheaper if those checks and balances were removed of course, but that's a very dark path to go down....

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

The Batman murders are weird. There seems to be significant debate, even among fans of the film, about whether Batman being a murderer is indicative of his fall from the light, or just something this Batman has always done because it is "more realistic". After all, the Robin suit is holding an axe. That is not a sign of coherent characterization.

The weird thing about the Superman killings is the only congruent lesson we can see that he got from Zod's death is that it was cool, seeming as at the start of BvS Superman is wasting terrorists with a smile. Guess he figured killing was actually awesome in between films.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Yeah, it all depends on the context of the work. All action films take a bit of a break from reality in terms of fights etc. We are told that Daredevil doesn't kill in his series and Batman doesn't kill in the Arkham games and within the context of that work it somewhat bears it out. The Arkham games are set in a heightened, cartoonish albeit still dangerous and menacing world, in the real world what Batman does would certainly result in lethal result but in that world it doesn't because the text of the work tell us so, the fact that "Batman doesn't kill" frequently comes up. It's the same break from reality that allows Batman to climb building after building and suffer getting thrown through a brick wall by Bane and not receive any actual injury or muscular fatigue.

Daredevil is less heightened but still has a pulpy air, and clearly states within the text that Daredevil doesn't kill and has not killed and therefore we accept his brutal punches don't translate into lethal results. Is that realistic? No. But neither is a blind man being able to fight crime with kung fu. It's an acceptable break from reality.

MOS/Batman v Superman is also heightened (all super-hero stuff is). It still features a Batman who can take down armed militias with rope, boomerangs and fighting skills and embraces many pulpy elements, but what it does do and does a very good job at is showing how lethal that Kryptonians are, there are many very well staged scenes in MOS showing Faora just tearing through people and that big dude whose name I don't know ripping a pilot in half. I've been critical of Snyder of course, but it's clear his intent here is to make them terrifying and he achieves that very well - he shows that human bodies are weak tissue paper to a Kryptonian. So when he opens BvS showing Superman smashing the the terrorist leader in the manner that he does there's no other way to take it other than it's lethal, because that's what old Zack has so competently communicated to us previously, if he wants us to take that as non-lethal than he is working against himself, and moving in stark contrast to how he's portrayed those powers previously. Which is his prerogative, but it's no surprise people got a different impression.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

It's a meme because it highlights the silliness of the games, like the whole non-lethally running people over in the Batmobile. If we're meant to take it as part of the narrative that those criminals are dead because in the real world people would actually die then we must also take it as part of the narrative that Batman died when Bane threw him through a brick wall as no human could have survived that. So, I guess Batman died a third of the way through Arkham Asylum and the rest of the game and its sequels were just his...I dunno... his death dream maybe.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

site posted:

i think it actually highlights how dumb an idea it was to let you watch batman shatter someones bones in x-ray like its loving mortal kombat and run over people in a jet powered car, and "you pointed out this dumb thing but what about this other dumb thing" is not the winning argument you think it is. They can in fact, both be dumb

I don't recall saying it was necessarily a good approach by the creators, or not worthy of criticism, or that it's not dumb. It absolutely should be criticised, and the aforementioned memes are one way of doing it. BUT what I am saying is that in the context of the text as presented Batman did not kill them, and saying he did because in the real world they would be dead is dumb when the games clearly do not take place in anything approaching the real world, as is clear by almost everything that happens in them. Different fictional worlds create different standards for reality depending on what they establish, the Arkham games established many times over that Batman can beat people up viciously and they survive it. Is that realistic? No. Is it dumb? In many cases, yes. But it's what is presented. BvS/MOS presented a fictional world where humans are absolutely and easily decimated by Kryptonians, breaking from that establishment for one scene therefore is confusing to the audience.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

site posted:

Except...the whole reason the "Batman is killing people in the arkham games" is a thing is because the way it is presented belies the idea that he is not killing them

Fair, though I'd argue if there's a spectrum of on-screen violence with for example Looney Tunes at one end where having an anvil dropping on your head causes no lasting ill effects, and The Wire or something at the other end where getting beat up is horrific and real and lethal, then the Arkham games lie somewhere in the middle, people still get killed, but seem to be more resistant to physical trauma, and can get beat up but not suffer too many ill effects. It becomes a problem when the rules established don't remain consistent, which I think the Arkham games did begin to suffer from when Arkham Knight rolled around.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Raimi's first two Spider-Man films are so loving good that it's ridiculous. Every single Spider-Man film, with the exception of Spider-Verse, absolutely looks embarrassing in comparison. The MCU films are enjoyable within their own terms, but they have a very tenuous grasp of the core philosophies that power the character and make him emotionally resonant, they are so intent on being light and fluffy that utterly jettison any depth and complexity and yes, I think it's bad how they remove any working class aspect to the character and valorise a man, who let's be honest, kills casually and cavalierly, which would go against every single moral and idea the character of Spider-Man is meant to represent.

The Raimi films pretty much nailed how to make the character move and appear in a cinematic space better than any other film. There is nothing, nothing, in the MCU films that even comes close to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFyRe0fnI8s in terms of depicting those powers in screen, because Raimi understood that to make those sequences breathtaking you actually have to swing with Spider-Man. Check out the moment at 01:00, it's incredible, and they did it by literally getting a camera and putting it on a wire and swinging it down the city streets.

And contrast it with this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is4ZtB0U7Vo which feels so weightless and formless in comparison, starved of the same imagination, wit and spectacle. The closest thing to capturing that same feeling is the shot at 01:40. But even that comes of as very synthetic, with no real sense of speed or tension.

Raimi's films understood that the core of the character is guilt and responsibility, that the webs and the powers were cool and needed to be nailed properly, but the most important part was that the character imbued the ever present truth that doing the right thing is difficult, but always worth doing, and that there are more important things than you're own happiness. The MCU films think that's too much of a downer, Spider-Man doesn't seem to have any feelings of guilt at all, Uncle Ben may as well not have existed (and no, Tony Stark is an awful replacement, Peter was not responsible for his death, and Stark's death could not have been avoided), and any actual emotional content is sheared away. When Aunt May find out Peter was Spider-Man, Homecoming set up that she would be distraught, that it would be a source of tension. Far from Home rolls around, and no, she doesn't give a poo poo, because having an intense or emotional scene would undermine the fun. Tony Stark gifts Spider-Man a lethal drone technology, maybe that will be a source of tension, maybe Peter will have to realize that his "hero" had some serious negative aspects, no they wave it away in a gag, and it just becomes a story about how that technology "shouldn't be in the wrong hands", instead of "that technology shouldn't exists at all". They've made a miscalculation with those films, they think that to include the actually interesting aspects of Spider-Man would stop the films being fun to watch, but Spiderverse is maybe the most fun film on earth and it manages to actually include proper solid emotional content and themes so I don't buy it.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Killing villains isn't really a problem unless you're planning to use them again, which I don't think they were. Maybe Venom I guess as he was only in it for a short while, but it wouldn't have been hard to bring him back from the dead.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

site posted:

Well to 1, if raimi wanted to have ock die that's fine but again I don't think a story about him necessitates him dying just because well it's a movie

For 2 I don't really buy that at all because I find the notion that if a guy survives then end of a movie and had his story completed them he must appear in the next film kinda ridiculous. He could just be in jail or whatever. Civil war had Zemo survive, although he wasn't redeemed, and no one was clamoring for him to show up in iw. No one complains vulture isn't in Holland Spidey 2. And ngl in a movie with Harry osborn goblin, sandman, AND venom if ock showed up in a bit part that would be the least of 3s problems lol

Doc Ock was really, really, well received at the time though. He was (and probably still is) one of the greatest page to screen translations of a villain. Zemo and Vulture were no where near as well received though they are good villains. Plus, they are part of a shared universe which Spider-Man 2 was not, in a shared universe you know you're getting many more films and TV shows down the line so it's okay to have a few on the bench.

A point of comparison would be Ledger's Joker, he would have certainly been back in some form had Ledger not have died, and if he wasn't, people would have been furious.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Madkal posted:

Things I have forgotten about Spiderman 1:

How dark the robbers death was

Green Goblin turning people into vaporizing skeletons.

Yeah, I reckon Spider-Man (2002) is the darkest and most violent of the Spider-Man films. Even moreso than the first Amazing which held itself as dark but wasn't really. When Spider-Man (2002) was released in the UK it caused minor controversy because it was rated a 12 which at the time meant younger kids could not go see it. The BBFC defended their decision saying they considered it for a 15 and that it was one of the most violent films they had seen that was aimed at a child audience. Their particular point of concern was the final fight between the Goblin and Spider-Man. There's a lot of nasty details in it; when Spider-Man is trying to hold up the cable car you can see his blood on the cable as it slips out of his hands because he's squeezing it so hard. The Goblin truly beats the poo poo out of Spider-Man in a way that comes off as pretty sadistic, and the Goblin's death is quite grim, being impaled through the groin and all.

Shortly after the 12 rating was disbanded for cinemas (remained on home video) and the 12A rating was introduced specifically for cinema and Spider-Man was swiftly rereleased, that meant that younger kids could get taken in as long as they had an adult with them. But it also meant foolish parents would take their very young kids in to any 12A assuming that it was "for children". I worked at a cinema when The Woman in Black came out, and there were loads of angry parents shouting at underpaid cinema workers because their kid got scared by the movie with Harry Potter in.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

He doesn't have to die, but that's the choice they went with, I just personally dispute that it was bad one. Having villains die is no more or less a cliche than having them go to jail, they both seem to happen an equal amount. Magneto didn't die in the X-Men films of the same era, nor did Kingpin in the Daredevil film from the same era, nor did Dr. Doom from The Fantastic Four films, nor did Lex Luthor in Superman Returns. If anything them going to jail was more of a cliche at that point.

But, just because something is a "cliche" doesn't mean it's bad. Nothing can be 100% original. It's how those tropes are used and combined which matters. As such, Ock's death is justified thematically and dramatically. He's a tragic villain, and he achieved redemption in his last moments by giving his life to save the city that he endangered. He finally did what he couldn't do before, and took responsibility for his actions. Why would having him go to jail - like most of the other villains of the super-hero films of the early 2000s - be the better choice?

site posted:


Tbh Im not following the he was popular therefore he has to show up or the "well it's a shared universe" what does it matter if one is a shared universe. I think I'm missing what the actual argument there is


Because in a shared universe the audience implicitly understands there's gonna be reams more content down the road; multiple films, crossovers and Disney + shows. Back when the original Spider-Man trilogy was made that's not really how sequels worked, you made a few until the audience lost interest - that's what happened with the previous Batman and Superman films. Because of that there may have been more pressure to bring back an acclaimed villain, because the audience would be aware that there's a limited amount of time to see those villains. And they were right to think that, Raimi's films lasted for one more film. In comparison, the Vulture is part of an interconnected web of films that lean on cameos and guest appearances as part of their appeal, the audience won't be expecting him back immediately but instead down the line. And once again they're right to think that, Vulture wasn't in Infinity War or Far From Home, but he is in Morbius (we think).

Karloff fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 10, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

site posted:

^^^ Tbh none of the shared universe edit is a convincing argument, to me

Well, I think it is. So we are at an impasse.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

It gets into pedantic territory but you can argue that Zola lived a full life before getting a second one, but to be clean, he survived in one movie and died in the next.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

One of my favourite film journalists Siddhant Adlakha wrote this https://www.slashfilm.com/iron-man-revisited-road-to-endgame/ which goes into the aspects of Iron Man that are in fact military propaganda, considering it was part funded by the Pentagon, and required a military approved script.

That's not to harp on Iron Man, loads of films do that, from multiple Marvel entries to Man of Steel, Transformers etc and it's bad in all cases. Iron Man at least does layer on context that allows it to be more thoughtful than some of those. But come on, the calls itt the thread to "not read anything into it", are absurd, it's clearly presenting analogues to real world conflict. They could have had Iron Man get kidnapped by aliens and fight a giant Octopus if they wanted something apolitical, but they didn't, they had him kidnapped by terrorists in the middle east and then return there later to blow them up. The film does provide a context for that that softens it, but the imagery is absolutely worthy of criticism, and dismissing it as just a setting with no implications is frankly a preposterous position. Get mad at the filmmakers for setting sequences there and alluding to actual military conflicts if you don't like politics in your superhero films, not at people discussing the ramifications of the portrayal.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

This exchange in the linked article in my above post does imply there is level of hands on tampering from the DOD over seemingly minor elements, and also implies they are present on set.

"Siddhant Adlakha" posted:

A pertinent example of the military’s role in Iron Man comes courtesy of a deleted scene, in which one U.S. soldier tells another that “people would walk over hot coals for the opportunities he has.” This line never made it to the finished film, but its original incarnation was “people would kill themselves for the opportunities he has.” This phrasing was strongly objected to by Phil Strub, the D.O.D.’s chief Hollywood liaison since 1989, in an apparently heated on-set confrontation with the film’s director. On one hand, it’s a minor occurrence. The line didn’t matter in the long run since it was cut from the film, but it’s also emblematic of a larger problem. The mere notion of a U.S. military member mentioning suicide, even in a joking context, was enough for Strub to call for censorship — in the literal government censorship use of the word — presumably, due to the barely-addressed epidemic of veteran suicides.

It depends on how one defines propaganda of course. But clearly such relationships with film studios are considered fruitful. Helping recruitment such as with Man of Steel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz75IWt8YuA or Captain Marvel, or just avoiding negative implications of the Military such as in Iron Man, to me both qualify as propaganda.

Also I should clarify, when I say something is propaganda I do not mean to say that it is solely that, or that it's the primary purpose of its existence. But that it forms part of an deliberately crafted ideological point of view that is meant to stoke support for and lack of criticism of military action. Most film makers on these productions I'm sure would rather not have to deal with it, as the above conflict seems to suggest, but they do have to work within those constraints.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Dec 15, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Is that in regards to the boob gag? I don't know what's to get. What were people "missing" in AOU that it needed to be revisited in Justice League.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Dec 21, 2020

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

As far as I have read future WB film Batman projects are:

The Batman (Matt Reeves and Battinson, not a part of the DCEU, new continuity)

The Batman spin-off TV show (will follow a corrupt cop in the GCPD during Batman's first year, will be the same Batman as Battinson so not in the DCEU, but I guess it might not actually feature Pattinson in the role as I imagine Batman will be rarely seen)

The Flash film (will feature Keaton Batman and Affleck Batman thanks to multi-verse stuff)

Neither Keaton nor Affleck will have any solo films as far as I know, but if the Snydercut injects new enthusiasm into the DCEU (somewhat debateable at this point due to the polarization of Snyder's work) then perhaps they might court Affleck to come back for future DCEU projects. Walter Hamada said in an interview recently that there is going to be two Batman series running at the same time. What he means by that is unclear, certainly Battinson is one, but the other...?

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Birdman is pretentious imo. Though there are some formal mechanics to it that are interesting, it's largely shallow with the illusion of depth and Ińárritu strikes me as a filmmaker who can't transcend gimmickry.

As for the Keaton news, I think a lot of people are running with it a little far. The main source is this:

https://twitter.com/brooksbarnesNYT/status/1345195656780996608

Which is as reliable a source as one can get, but, says incredibly little and doesn't seem to confirm that Keaton is going to be the Batman of the DCEU, It only seems to confirm that he will have his own Batman project outside of the Flash film. Up thread there is the idea that Battinson's film will be a one off with Keaton being the mainline Batman, but I'd put money on the opposite being true. Battinson's project is one that is tied into a TV series already, and has a younger star who could conceivably play the character for years to come. Keaton's will be a one-off I reckon and will be a Dark Knight Returns style thing. Or alternately a Batman Beyond film which, granted, could be multiple entries, but in that case Keaton wouldn't be Batman so much as the mentor figure and there'd be a new younger actor playing Future Batman.

As for a Batman in the DCEU continuity, I think that will remain Affleck. Not that there will be any more Affleck films, but more likely the DCEU as a cohesive unit will be slowly shuffled off with the multi-verse stuff taking over. Flash will be his goodbye and I wouldn't even be surprised if he dies in it.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Ugly In The Morning posted:

This all assumes that the “somehow more troubled than the average DC production” Flash movie actually happens. And that production is like, “setting fires and the neighbors keep asking where their pets went” level troubled.

I reckon it will despite that, they've really talked it up, and Hamada sounds all in in that interview.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

It's getting really messy. There's no doubt Fisher's complaints are genuine. Warner Media have taken action, at least against Joss Whedon, and the stories have been corroborated by enough people to remove any doubt. Anyway you cut it it's sadly gonna have deleterious effects on his career, so there's no way he would push this unless he's got a real need for justice to be done. He has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose.

That said, I think some of this tweets are tactically unwise. It asks a lot from people to condemn without any sort of clear allegation as to what happened, other than drips and drabs that have come through. The Hamada stuff I think is causing people to drop away from him because Hamada wasn't present during Justice League. And though Fisher's complaint is that Hamada interfered with the investigation as opposed to take part in the abuse, that fact has been obscured in all the shuffle. I think he needs to join up with someone who can write an expose article of the entire situation, because at the moment, the tweets aren't helping I think. Reading the response there's a lot more scepticism then there was with a lot people saying sentiments to the effect of "I was with you before but now...."

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

If there's anything that can reverse that it's if Ray Fisher's performance in the ZSJL gets huge plaudits and love from people. That would put the pressure on WB - in the end the average viewer neither knows nor cares who runs the film division, they do care about the actors they see on screen.

That is predicated on ZSJL being a big success that infiltrates meme culture etc which remains to be seen.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Don't get me wrong, I have very little faith that ZSJL will be a big hit (if such a thing is reliably recorded for a streaming exclusive). If it is as mindlessly convoluted, shallow and boring as BvS I do not see people sitting through 4 hours of it.

That said. It is the final WB project with Ray Fisher, he is in a leading role which has been described as the "heart of the film". A lot of discussion around release will I reckon be focused on this drama. If Fisher is excellent in the film, which he may well be, WB will be in a difficult position, especially if they're trying to recast the character. They might just have to abandon the character of Cyborg for a good long while.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Funnily enough it reminds me of one of the first released images of Ledger's Joker, it also had him out of focus causing the smile to be one of the more dominant things to cut through.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

ZSJL has been rated R. Which I don't think really means anything, the BvS extended was a very soft R.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Yeah that is really unfair and uncalled for. Just put them on ignore if you hate them so much, no one here wants to know or cares how much you hate someone.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply