DC Comics on Film

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
captveg
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:28 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#226 Post by captveg » Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:05 pm

Reeves officially signed for The Batman. The last little spat was essentially using the press to get a better deal (and good for him in doing so - it's freaking Batman. With the pressure of such a project he should be strongly compensated).

User avatar
Ribs
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#227 Post by Ribs » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:58 pm

The director of the LEGO Batman movie to direct a Nightwing Live-action film from the writer of the Accountant

Seriously starting to think this whole thing is just going to be completely collapsed six months from now- they seem to have just absolutely no idea what they're doing.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#228 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:05 am

I actually think the post-Justice League revised plan by Johns/Berg (and now Emmerich) is pretty clear: they are gonna try to establish 3-4 "mini-series" within the connected universe, though obviously there will be character crossovers.

- Batman related series: Batman, Suicide Squad, Gotham City Sirens, Nightwing, etc.

- New Gods/Monsters related series: Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Dark Universe, Lobo, etc.

- Alien/Intergalactic/Supermen related series: Superman, Black Adam, Shazam, Green Lanterns, etc.

- Younger Tech Heroes/Teen Titans related series: Flash, Cyborg, etc. Nightwing crosses over here, too, for example.

Justice League 2 is on the back burner so in 2018-22 or so they get 7-11 of these films out on these various paths before bringing (mostly the main) heroes back for the Darkseid showdown in 2022-23 or so.

User avatar
pzadvance
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 7:24 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Comic Books on Film

#229 Post by pzadvance » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:50 am

captveg wrote:I actually think the post-Justice League revised plan by Johns/Berg (and now Emmerich) is pretty clear: they are gonna try to establish 3-4 "mini-series" within the connected universe, though obviously there will be character crossovers.

- Batman related series: Batman, Suicide Squad, Gotham City Sirens, Nightwing, etc.

- New Gods/Monsters related series: Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Dark Universe, Lobo, etc.

- Alien/Intergalactic/Supermen related series: Superman, Black Adam, Shazam, Green Lanterns, etc.

- Younger Tech Heroes/Teen Titans related series: Flash, Cyborg, etc. Nightwing crosses over here, too, for example.

Justice League 2 is on the back burner so in 2018-22 or so they get 7-11 of these films out on these various paths before bringing (mostly the main) heroes back for the Darkseid showdown in 2022-23 or so.
Hate to expose my inner DC nerd here, but this is a bafflingly arbitrary rundown that (I'm assuming) you've come up with. What does Aquaman have to do with the New Gods or "Monsters"? Lobo is an intergalactic character if anything. Black Adam and Shazam are more tied to magical god myths a la Wonder Woman than certainly anything else you've lumped in with her film, but even then, none of those characters has anything to do with Jack Kirby's "New Gods" (Darkseid, Orion, Mister Miracle, etc.).

In other words, I disagree with the premise that this "mini-series" idea is in any way part of the plan, but if you have a source that says otherwise and backs up these bizarre categorizations, then I'm inclined to agree with Ribs that these guys have no idea what the hell they're doing.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#230 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:23 am

My thinking on the Wonder Woman / Aquaman connection to the New Gods will be the motherboxes (entrusted to the Amazonians and the Atlanteans while Man buried theirs) as well as the Earthbound "ancient myth" similarities. I threw "Monsters" in their because of the DU being Earth-sourced beings. (Lobo was a typo that should have been in the Superman group).

But, yes, this was somewhat arbitrary on my part in the categorizations. Perhaps a more succinct split would have been Batman / Earth Myth / Earth Tech / Intergalactic.

In any case, my point is primarily that WB is going to want to "lump together" different "pockets" of their post-JL films. Bat-family aside there's a few ways to mix/match them. The Superman/Black Adam/Shazam one seems very likely to be one "pocket" with the New Year's Day pic of Johnson and Cavill, for example.

I just think this makes reasonable sense knowing:

1. All indications are that the original post-JL plans set up with Snyder in 2013-14 have been wholly sidestepped, with Justice League being the capstone to that and the doorway to the "soft reboot" of the DC equivalent of Phase 2.

2. The pushing back of JL2 to the back end of the schedule freeing up more room to spend time in these various DC characters.

3. The few times Johns has spoken publicly since his new role has indicated taking a step back from the larger JL-type stories in favor of a more split-up slate for the main heroes and their corners of the universe.

4. I don't see Johns developing a Bat-family sub-series within the universe and ignoring the other non-Batman areas. Not with his history with nearly all areas of DC stories. So, if you have one sub-series, having 2-3 more makes more sense than having totally random films as a compliment.

Do I think all of the paths/films they are developing will actually get made? No. Fluid situation. And how WW and JL are received will dictate some things, of course.

But more than anything, I'm inclined to think that Johns/Berg have a particular approach they've worked out since May, because they wouldn't have got the job otherwise, and there's been too many movements on too many projects to not have some general layout of where they could go. I mean, even Snyder had a Big Board for their original path through Green Lantern Corps. I don't see how Johns/Berg could be at this for nine months now without mapping things out their own way.

Even if my specific theory is wrong, I don't buy the idea that they just sit in a room mashing beetles all day without any plan whatsoever.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#231 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:50 am

captveg wrote:Even if my specific theory is wrong, I don't buy the idea that they just sit in a room mashing beetles all day without any plan whatsoever.
And yet, the standalone film for their most important character just fell apart and had to be reconstituted on the fly.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#232 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:55 pm

It's not like they restarted from scratch on it every day during the shifts in the process. Johns/Affleck worked on a script for months, then had Terrio rewrite it, then brought in a new director. It'll continue to be reshaped as they move forward in towards production.

Having an overall plan and continually tweaking individual films are not mutually exclusive.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#233 Post by domino harvey » Fri Feb 24, 2017 12:58 pm

What would be signs for you that this franchise is in trouble? You have more faith in these films than anyone not on DC's payroll, I am legit curious

Werewolf by Night

Re: Comic Books on Film

#234 Post by Werewolf by Night » Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:25 pm

If any of this somehow results in a Batman Family film by Edgar Wright that includes Fatman, Mogo, and Bat-Mite, sign me up.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#235 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:18 pm

domino harvey wrote:What would be signs for you that this franchise is in trouble? You have more faith in these films than anyone not on DC's payroll, I am legit curious
I have faith they will continue to get made because that's what movie studios do when they have two films bring in $1.5b in theaters and when the property overall brings in another $3b in tie-in merchandise/markets in 2016 (inclusive of the TV shows, so of course it's not all because of the two films).

Did the critical reception to BvS and SS cause them to alter their plans? Yes. But even with that critical panning those two films still brought in $1.5b at the box office. So they're going to keep producing these films regardless as long as people pay to see them. See: Transformers.

Now, from a creative standpoint I want them to do better, and while it's no skin off my back if I'm the only one that likes any of the films, that's not a sustainable business model, so they will need to be more popular on the whole. But I think it's silly to think that Johns/Berg haven't mapped out what they want to do in the 2018-20 post-JL time frame. They're getting paid huge $$ by WB to shift the pathway of the franchise creatively, and if I can come up with a basic outline of how to approach the post-JL films for free, they can certainly do so for the 7-figure salaries their position affords them. People wanted change, that change was made in May, and now people are concerned when dominoes fall from that and projects get adjusted (Batman) or started over from the beginning (Flash). Gotta give the new producers time to actually implement changes. If the concept of what the Flash movie from 2014 was no longer gonna fit in the new post-JL direction, then starting over on it before it's produced is a better choice than to try to fix it in the editing room (Suicide Squad). One can define that as "trouble" if they like, but people were already defining the original idea for the film as "trouble" because it was matched to the Snyder version of the film universe outline, so all I see is people calling *any* decision they make as "trouble". Forgive me for being an optimist.

That's no guarantee that whatever plan they have will be any good and/or received well by critics or fans, but I think the idea that they have no general road map of where they now want to go whatsoever is incredibly illogical thinking. The very thing they're being paid to do is to set things up. If they were truly just staring into the far off distance every day and not doing anything they wouldn't be making decisions about developing future projects or sending other projects that aren't coming together to their liking back to the start. (And I suspect whatever Johns/Berg had shifted towards in the May-Dec period was re-evaluated all over again when Emmerich was hired).

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#236 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:41 pm

I mean, is there any doubt that (tv shows aside) nearly all the grosses DC's movies have brought in were on intellectual property and marketing power? If, as you're saying, they're making a hard turn in their long term planning, it would certainly suggest that they're also pretty unsatisfied with the creative direction the movies have taken- but are choosing to address it with a soft change akin to what marvel did with the Ed Norton Hulk, rather than putting out what they can't stop (Wonder Woman and Justice League) and then just severing continuity altogether. Really, they could even play down the inter connectedness for WW, since that's iirc a period piece and not strongly tied in except by casting.

As is, it seems like they're going to be carrying a millstone of bad will, even if they start making more well liked movies.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#237 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:09 pm

I would say that's a fair assessment of what I'm saying: Post-JL turn because of how the Snyder vision was received (and that includes a reframing of how JL itself will play out), and addressing it with a "soft" change that stays in continuity but doesn't build from too many specific of the MoS-JL films era.

When you think about it, at the end of JL they'll have all the JL characters pretty much in their default state: Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman all with their normal idealism/codes, and Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg at start points to go into their own specific areas as they wish. Aside from a vague future threat of Darkseid they can kinda go any direction with all six of those characters.

And if Wonder Woman is received well you better bet they will move forward on her sequel sooner rather than later.

There is indeed a millstone of bad public will right now, but it's not a pit they can't eventually dig out of. Star Wars was in a far bigger pit and now it's on the top of the world. Batman has been in a deeper pit before. X-Men has bottomed out before. Spider-Man. The list goes on, but one thing stays consistent - these properties get made into movies pretty regularly.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#238 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:25 pm

I guess I don't see having a list of movies you want to make as a "plan". That's more like a "goal". A plan would describe how those movies are going to get made, what kind of content is going to be in them and how they all tie together, etc.

The feeling that I get - and that captveg is not even trying to dispel - is that the actual plan is pretty much day-to-day over there. Sure, there's a general idea of what movies they want to make in the future, but that's a really, really low bar to set. After all, captveg did that in ten minutes for free with a forum comment.

But what's the plan to get there? One gets the feeling with Marvel that they have a pretty rigid timeline set - everything's mapped out for years in terms of what movies get made, and release dates, and when development deadlines are gonna be, and how these characters are going to interact within the universe. I'm sure adjustments need to be made from time to time, but still, it seems like they have a lot more going on than just a wishlist of stuff they want to make.

Also, "$1.5 billion" is not a very impressive combined total given the iconic nature and worldwide appeal of the characters, and given that the first Avengers movie made that much by itself, and that Nolan's last two Dark Knight films made over a billion each. I think Suicide Squad's total is somewhat more impressive, given what it was - although even that had more marketing appeal with the Joker and Batman (and to a lesser extent Harley Quinn) than, say, Guardians of the Galaxy, which made just as much and consisted entirely of characters that no one outside of hardcore comics fans had ever heard of.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#239 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:06 pm

While Marvel (and Star Wars) are in the stratosphere, the DC box office is nothing to sneeze at. Paramount would love to have a Star Trek film bring in the DC numbers, so it's all relative. But yes, it's the potential for a Batman or Justice League film to make $2billion/each down the road that keeps them coming back and looking to raise the bar creatively and in regards to revenue. Guardians was also their 10th film of a brand. If it had been film #2 it may have been anticipated and received similarly to The Incredible Hulk. In other words, while one can't compare the current DC films to the first wave of Marvel films' box office 1-1 (because the MCU does exist and has altered the landscape), comparing the box office of Guardians as the 10th film in a series to Suicide Squad as the 3rd film in a series isn't a fair 1-1 comparison, either.

While I don't think DC will ever be as rigid as Marvel in terms of dates/deadlines/etc. as you listed out, that doesn't exactly equate to being day-to-day or just coming up with wish-lists. There's a lot of middle ground between those extremes. If Marvel tells their directors their sandbox is only 2x2 feet and their creative choices are limited to strict producer oversight, DC not being exactly that doesn't mean they have *no* restrictions on sandbox size or *no* producer oversight. And since Johns/Berg are being paid to do that producer oversight job I'd wager that they have far more details in their current plan than what I described, even if it's not the super strict Marvel planning. So, DC directors/writers with a 10x10 sandbox to work within rather than a 2x2 one.

(Made a few edits to simplify my statements - I was getting circular/redundant).

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#240 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:25 pm

captveg wrote:While Marvel (and Star Wars) are in the stratosphere, the DC box office is nothing to sneeze at. Paramount would love to have a Star Trek film bring in the DC numbers, so it's all relative. But yes, it's the potential for a Batman or Justice League film to make $2billion/each down the road that keeps them coming back and looking to raise the bar creatively and in regards to revenue.

While I don't think DC will ever be as rigid as Marvel in terms of dates/deadlines/etc. as you listed out, that doesn't exactly equate to being day-to-day or just coming up with wish-lists. There's a lot of middle ground between those extremes. If Marvel tells their directors their sandbox is only 2x2 feet and their creative choices are limited to strict producer oversight, DC not being exactly that doesn't mean they have *no* restrictions on sandbox size or *no* producer oversight. And since Johns/Berg are being paid to do that producer oversight job I'd wager that they have far more details in their current plan than what I described, even if it's not the super strict Marvel planning. So, DC directors/writers with a 10x10 sandbox to work within rather than a 2x2 one.
Let's be real, though - Star Trek doesn't have anywhere near the same box office history as Batman. It's just not a fair comparison. I'm sure Lionsgate would have loved those kinds of numbers for Divergent too, but what does that have to do with it? Frankly, while I'm on the subject, none of the Marvel characters had Batman's history, either.

If we're going to talk about it being "relative" that's fine - so let's look at BvS's numbers relative to Nolan's Dark Knight movies. Can't get more apples-to-apples than that, can you?

To matrix's point above, it's really hard not to think that the sheer value of the IP is doing almost all of the heavy lifting here. And it's hard to imagine a big-budget studio Batman movie these days doing less than the numbers BvS did, especially coming off of all the audience goodwill that the Nolan movies generated towards the character - and the work Marvel's done to make this kind of shared universe exciting to audiences in the first place. It's possible, I guess, but what kind of awful disaster would it have to be?

What other studios would really love isn't to have the DC box office, but to have access to the DC IP in the first place. There's hardly a bigger golden goose than that other than Star Wars, and if WB can't get themselves into the stratosphere from that, that's a prima facie sign of dysfunction right there.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#241 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:30 pm

I don't think you're wrong in that assessment that the IP of Batman is raising the tide more than anything else. I'm just saying that unless things sink to Batman and Robin levels - and they have not really got anywhere close to that - they're gonna keep hammering the nail until they get it right. Maybe that's Reeves' film. Maybe that's in 2050, 75 Batman movies from now. Who knows? Either way the DC IP is gonna get developed, produced, and released. Therefore, I choose to be an optimist.

Especially when the public says "don't do that (Snyder-verse) anymore" and they listen. Now the public should have some degree of patience to see what the new direction actually is before getting so panicked. If they come out at comic con in July and just say "We are doing whatever movie you vote for today next!" then, yeah, that would be a concern over the new direction. I don't see that happening.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Comic Books on Film

#242 Post by Brian C » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:41 pm

captveg wrote:I don't think you're wrong in that assessment that the IP of Batman is raising the tide more than anything else. I'm just saying that unless things sink to Batman and Robin levels - and they have not really got anywhere close to that - they're gonna keep hammering the nail until they get it right. Maybe that's Reeves' film. Maybe that's in 2050, 75 Batman movies from now. Who knows? Either way the DC IP is gonna get developed, produced, and released. Therefore, I choose to be an optimist.

Especially when the public says "don't do that (Snyder-verse) anymore" and they listen. Now the public should have some degree of patience to see what the new direction actually is before getting so panicked. If they come out at comic con in July and just say "We are doing whatever movie you vote for today next!" then, yeah, that would be a concern over the new direction. I don't see that happening.
Oh, well then. If your only criteria for optimism is that the movies are getting made in the first place, then ... well, I guess that's hard to argue with. I mean, you're right - the ceiling is high enough that they'll keep plugging away. No one's gonna argue with that.

I thought you were trying to say that there's a reason to think they actually know what they're doing. My bad.

(No, "choosing to be an optimist" doesn't count.)

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#243 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:53 pm

Where's your evidence that Johns/Berg as producers don't know what they're doing? There hasn't been a film developed or produced under their guidance yet, and there won't be until Aquaman.

My optimism is based in when people are hired I expect them to do their jobs until I see evidence to the contrary, re: actual finished films under their production influence. We're still 18 months away from that.

And again, even if one wants to point at revamping the Snyder-planned films like Flash and Batman in pre-production... isn't them rejecting a part of a plan that the public already rejected a positive? So, even if you don't like the product they eventually bring about, right now you know that they aborted the products you already knew you wouldn't like. By default that should be a plus in their favor, no?

If the same exact production teams that brought BvS and SS were still in charge I could see the concerns. But they aren't. And with each film their influence has been reduced. JL was reshaped during production so it's kind of a hybrid film in regards to overall series direction, so even if it's really good that can't be the means to judge what Johns/Berg are going to end up doing in total. It's the 2018-19 films that will truly define that.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#244 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:38 pm

I mean, at this point, I feel like WB needs to prove that it can handle a franchise, rather than others proving that they can't- I bu feel like they're as badly clustered into a few lumps of IP as Disney is, and the biggest success they've ever had was the instantly forgettable Harry Potter movies (which absolutely made them a shit ton of money, but never really seemed to exist except as adjuncts of the books.) More than anything, this feels like another signal that Disney was remarkable in getting the Marvel (and now Star Wars) engines moving along so well, as every other shared universe non-linear franchise seems to have fallen apart out of the gate.
Last edited by matrixschmatrix on Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Comic Books on Film

#245 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Feb 24, 2017 8:52 pm

captveg wrote:My optimism is based in when people are hired I expect them to do their jobs until I see evidence to the contrary, re: actual finished films under their production influence. We're still 18 months away from that.
Well your actual argument seems to be that they have plans because they were hired, and they were hired because they have plans. The two seem to prove each other, which I guess is appealing if you're really into circles.

As it is, being optimistic that any movie will be successful is to put yourself against the odds; to be so about a whole franchise even moreso; and to be so for a franchise burdened with internal division and fear-based overhaul is, well, optimism to make a millennialist blush.

Marvel is lucky: it is only ever compared to itself, and it spends most of its time mimicking itself, so the comparison is in its favour--when you don't like it, you still like it. DC is only ever compared to Marvel (or hard-to-duplicate past success like Nolan's Batmans), so it's always stuck either failing to imitate another company's successes, or alienating the audience by breaking another company's mold too strongly. It's dancing around someone else's standard. A salvage job is far harder to do right than simply planning things out properly from the start. So, yeah, we'll see.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#246 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:10 pm

No, I'm arguing that just because we aren't privileged to know Johns/Berg plans are right now doesn't mean they don't have one. And there's nothing circular or illogical about hiring someone to producer roles because they pitch a plan and then expecting them to do that very job. How many people have you hired to do a job and then said it was circular logic for them to go about doing that job?

So which scenario to believe?:

A. Johns/Berg pitched a plan and are currently making moves to impliment those plans.

B. Johns/Berg pitched a plan then proceeded to do make no plans once hired.

C. Johns/Berg didn't pitch anything but have now come up with a plan.

D. Johns/Berg didn't pitch anything and haven't come up with anything.

I'm obviously in camp A, as B/C make no sense to me in a real world, gotta show a product at the end of the business day sense. And D is so negligent as to be termination worthy after just a few months.

I do think your comparison of Marvel only being compared to itself while DC gets compared to Marvel is indeed a tough truth that they have to deal with. But that's the road ahead, so let's see where it leads.

As for optimism vs. pessimism about movies in general - life is too short to hate everything out of the gate, IMO. What benefit was it to those who were pessimistic about Marvel's plans back in 2007? All that fretting turned out for naught. And even if they had been proved right, I find the "I knew you would suck, look how smart I am" attitude of the pessimist rather repugnant, personally. That's not a reward enough for me to always look down on everything.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Comic Books on Film

#247 Post by matrixschmatrix » Fri Feb 24, 2017 9:59 pm

I don't think 'they must have SOME kind of idea of what they're doing or why would they have been hired' is an inherently compelling argument, particularly given that the studio heads at WB who hired them don't have a particularly impressive track record in that respect- like, sure, maybe they had a plan, and the Warner people keep changing it ever five minutes. Or maybe they had a plan and it was shitty. Or maybe they didn't really have a plan but saw organizational chaos and figured they could usefull wedge themselves in. Or maybe Warner, flailing, turned to the first people who said yes when asked and had industry expertise. Who knows- I just don't think 'it's someone's job to make it good' is prima facie evidence of anything, really.

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#248 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:38 pm

None of that makes any sense from a business perspective. (Except that the plan may fail; that's always a possibility). Reports are sent, meetings are had, contracts are signed. A product has to be moving towards completion. They're not gonna just let them dick around for close to a year without having outlines, drafts of screenplays, etc.

I can't believe I have to explain that people hired to do something have to show results in their jobs. This forum is like the twilight zone sometimes.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Comic Books on Film

#249 Post by Mr Sausage » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:40 pm

captveg wrote:No, I'm arguing that just because we aren't privileged to know Johns/Berg plans are right now doesn't mean they don't have one. And there's nothing circular or illogical about hiring someone to producer roles because they pitch a plan and then expecting them to do that very job. How many people have you hired to do a job and then said it was circular logic for them to go about doing that job?
The circular reasoning would be yours, not theirs. That is, you're deducing plans from hiring practises, and then deducing hiring practises from plans. It's self reinforcing.

The reality is, you have no evidence of anything and are assuming everything based on wishful thinking. People are hired for lots of reasons, including being able to give the impression of having vast, profitable, tightly controlled plans, even if they don't. If you think being hired to a top position is evidence of competence and foresight, well, don't know what to tell you. And if you think using well-laid-out plans to get a job is the equivalent of executing them properly, well, again, I don't know what to tell you.
captveg wrote:So which scenario to believe?:
It doesn't matter. Like BrianC said, whether they have or had a plan is perfectly irrelevant (anyone can have one, as this thread shows). What's relevant is: is the plan good, can it be done, are these the people who can do it, are these people even being allowed to do it, do they have the control they need, do they have too much control, etc., etc. You talk as though planning to make a good movie were synonymous with making one. There's that old T.S. Eliot line: Between the idea and the reality...falls the shadow.
captveg wrote:As for optimism vs. pessimism about movies in general - life is too short to hate everything out of the gate, IMO. What benefit was it to those who were pessimistic about Marvel's plans back in 2007? All that fretting turned out for naught. And even if they had been proved right, I find the "I knew you would suck, look how smart I am" attitude of the pessimist rather repugnant, personally. That's not a reward enough for me to always look down on everything.
You know what they say about low expectations, tho', can't ever be disappointed!

More seriously: your optimism is a little, well, insistent. I would counsel a more cautious optimism given how little we know and how impossible the situation is (an overbearing, money-worried company scrambling to recover from some bad stumbles). It's easier to make this situation worse than it is to turn it around. You can certainly hope for the best--by all means, do--but at least keep the reality of the situation in mind. We don't know anything right now, and there's still a long way to go.

Personally, I maintain my usual skepticism. I don't know how things will play out and I won't be making predictions. But I would rather get good movies than bad, so...go DC?

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

Re: Comic Books on Film

#250 Post by captveg » Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:58 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:The reality is, you have no evidence of anything and are assuming everything based on wishful thinking.
Is hiring writers for several projects as well as directors not evidence of plans being implimented?
Mr Sausage wrote:If you think being hired to a top position is evidence of competence and foresight, well, don't know what to tell you.
I don't know why I have to repeat this so many times...

I'm not saying whatever Johns/Berg cook up will actually be any good. (And at this point I'm past discussing whether the scenario I outlined before based on how I'm reading the current eeking of info is accurate or not - we answered what our different opinions on that are already).

Take the *quality* out of the equation:

Are you telling me you think that Johns and Berg have made no plans, no hirings, have provided their bosses with no reports, have made no claims about ANYTHING in any meeting for the last nine months?

Yes or no?

That's ALL I'm trying to get you to answer.

It's a simple question.

All I did was propose a possibility to counter this idea that they've literally done nothing for months. All you guys can seem to focus on is poking holes in arguments for the sake of poking holes.

Again - the question above, Yes or No? Straight answer. No caveats, ifs, buts, diversions into what the definition of "Yes" or "No" mean, or whether the plan is just telling their bosses what they want to hear, or if it's the greatest plan, or the worst plan, or an evolving plan, or a plan that is for direct-to-video instead, on and on and on.

Are Johns and Berg making plans?

Yes or No?

Post Reply