Zatanna movie in talks

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Again, not my fault. I voted for Kodos.

Did... did you just make a Star Trek reference?

[Leo656]

............Sure.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

Did... did you just make a Star Trek reference?

[Leo656]

Shhh, I want Cylons to think I'm hip. Don't ruin it.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Shhh, I want Cylons to think I'm hip. Don't ruin it.

I'm the one thinking that was a Star Trek reference. Pretty sure I'm the one who needs people to think I'm hip.

Hells yeah, Kodos the Executioner. That was for Andrew, I guess. Or maybe Duckie.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's true, but here's the thing: It's all your fault.

No, seriously. It's all because they're stuck in a spot where they can't do a single thing "RIGHT". No matter what they announce, or when, the feedback is always the same: Either "That's gonna be terrible" or "That's never gonna happen."

So they listen to that feedback, put a pin in it, wait for a new trend to arrive that they can cash in on, and try again. Same cycle. Maybe if we collectively stopped sh*tting on things literally 5 years before they're even close to existing, they'd have better confidence as a company. As it is, they're sitting there going, "F*ck, what DO these people want?"

They committed early on to an approach that would, essentially, do everything in a different fashion than what Marvel had already done, which is actually fairly smart if you're a business owner looking to create your own identity for your brand, but not if you're a mark. The marks all said, "No, it HAS to be exactly like Marvel, we won't tolerate anything else." So they now have shifted gears to have every future DC movie be an exact clone of the MCU formula, and as I predicted forever ago, they're getting roasted for that, too, despite the fact that they're only doing what you people told them to.

In between, they have shareholders to answer to, so they HAVE to at least have a few ideas on paper about what projects are coming next, so they can start assigning budgets and whatnot. And every time they try and get a plan going, people yell at them for it. SO, they have to do it AGAIN. "Well, we said we'd give them a _____ movie, and they called us assholes, so maybe we need to do something else?"

I can't remember if it was someone I read from Forbes a while ago, or somewhere else, but it wasn't an "entertainment" media source, it was a business source, and he made a point that makes a ton of sense. It was essentially, that in the big question of, "What do people - and the film industry - actually WANT from WB/DC?", the REAL answer is, "To go away completely", because the marketplace can't sustain TWO huge Comic Book Movie Universes with a hundred movies each, and Marvel got there first so fans and critics were already committed and emotionally invested in it. DC/WB are now "trespassing" on their already-claimed territory, so anything they do is going to be treated with suspicion and hostility. One HAS to live and one HAS to die, because the marketplace (and people's limited attention spans and entertainment dollars) can't equally sustain both, and people really like Downey as Iron Man, so DC/WB has become the big clumsy ox that can't get out of its own way, in people's minds.

Once more, the proof of this is how openly hostile we are to even the IDEA of these movies, anymore, before they're anything more than an idea. This whole "We're gonna yell at and punish them until they finally start doing things RIGHT" approach is proven not to work as a motivator. It doesn't work with professional athletes, and it doesn't work when trying to put a huge film project together, regardless of subject matter.

So no, this movie won't happen, and most of their announced projects won't happen. But it's not as simple as, "They're incompetent"; it's that they have an audience that's impossible to please and also actively rooting for them to fail (even subconsciously). They HAVE to announce new film projects because that's their job; being constantly told "We don't want these movies! We don't want ANY of your movies!" is NOT going to help them pull it together any better or faster, it's actually the entire reason things are so screwed up. They WANT to make a plan; you people don't let them.

Moral of the story: Maybe wait until something's more than a few words on paper before publicly and loudly deciding it's terrible. I know that's the exact opposite of how the internet works, but it's really the way people are supposed to act in general. Even I generally wait until I see a trailer for a film before I allow myself to have any opinion at all.

We've all seen things we loved and things we hated from DC long before "Man of Steel" came out, so this is nothing new or DCEU-related, and everybody has an opinion. But let's be real: They're not the audience for these things, they're just making them, and you folks give them NOTHING to work with so that they can get their finger on a pulse. All anyone in the audience offers is, "Copy Marvel" or "Copy childrens' cartoon shows from 25 years ago," which absolutely shouldn't happen either way. A lot of people who have never had a hand in a billion-dollar franchise, sure have very loud opinions on how it should be done, let's put it that way.

So if we're not gonna come clean and say, "Yeah, I just want them to stop making movies," then maybe let's wait for stuff to become reality before deciding it's worthless or whatever. Then, maybe a few of these things MIGHT even get made and released. It's certainly not an approach that's been tried so far.

Nah, the reason for this reaction is that DC/WB were incompetent with their movies first and foremost, than it had snowballed into pile of hatred.

Even MOS was questionable, Batman v Superman was a pile of grimdark **** and Justice League was not much better it seems.

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by Sumac

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

This x1000 Snyder was a cancer on the DC Properties. I mean look how much better Wonder Woman was and how decent Aquaman looks. No Snyder means better movie.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

If the raging nerds could even agree among themselves what "proper" interpretations of those two characters even are, doubtless we would be. Sadly, "Reeve and Batman: TAS" are all they'll accept, while anything else gets ripped apart for not merely being exactly that. The majority of the caterwauling coming from people who don't even read comic books, no less. Always a fun exercise.

Nerds don't decide anything, when it comes to those movies. And they don't decide whether it will succeed or not.

Originally Posted by Leo656

But they CAN'T stick to a plan, or even create one, because the audience yells at them for EVERYTHING. I already went into all that.

It's their fault for starting their "cinematic universe" from the mediocre movies with questionable interpretations of the character.
Not everyone can offer their own version of the character and make it good. Snyder certainly had failed in that regard and DC rips what he had sowed.

Originally Posted by Leo656

There's an entire book's worth of Real World Reasons why they had to do things exactly the way they did with BvS, though. People aren't exactly looking at the big picture.

Sorry, I call ******** on this one.
They had all freedom in the world to do whatever they wanted. They decided to stick with Snyder's vision, because, they didn't want to be like Marvel.

If your main ideology "not to be like something else" - than the result usually sucks ass, because, you should not operate from position "not to be like something", you should offer something of a substance beside it and DC had spectacularly failed to do so.

Originally Posted by Leo656

- Anything is dumb is you refuse to play along; I personally find it poignant.

Sorry, I won't "dumb myself" down to play along with idiotic story and inept style of the director.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

This x1000 Snyder was a cancer on the DC Properties. I mean look how much better Wonder Woman was and how decent Aquaman looks. No Snyder means better movie.

Okay, sure, Aquaman looks great... but that's all following on from Snyder's original vision for the character in film, remember? Aqua Drogo?

I hope Wan knocks it out of the park, but he's building on Snyder's foundation. Same as Wonder Woman.

Hate on Snyder all you want; I sure don't agree with a lot of his choices. But you gotta thank him for some baller casting choices, too.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I know a lot of people hate the movie for "ruining" the Dark Knight Returns storyline, "So they can't actually do a whole movie of it now,"

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

I'm not a fan of "Dark Knight Returns" at all. Don't like that old grumpy Bruce, don't like the Superman/Batman stuff, don't like Alfred dying, fvcking HATE Carrie Goshdamn Kelly.

What I DO love is all of the Joker stuff. Especially Joker breaking his own neck to frame Batman and to win their eternal contest. Give me THAT in a fvcking Batman movie, man.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

I don't recall her. Was she in any of the Superfriends or Justice League cartoons?

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

This is what happens when you put future of your biggest properties in the hands of questionably talented person like Snyder, who has "his own vision", which borderlines on the teenage grimdark edge.

After that naturally people will have doubts.

That "vision" was simply to make movies that resembled the COMICS they were based on, rather than cartoon shows. It was the right approach, people who don't read comics simply didn't care for it, because they're wedded to things like Super-Friends and Batman: TAS.

I know I'm not gonna win with this crowd, but that's in fact what happened. The DCU is an R-Rated universe and has been since 1986, maybe even a little earlier. A director isn't "wrong" for trying to mimic the style, tone, and stories from the medium they're supposedly adapting. The absolute fiercest criticism I've seen/heard doesn't come from comic book readers, it in fact comes from people who, sometimes boastfully, proclaim they've never read a comic book. Or, sometimes, people who read comics in the 70s when they were for young children, but not since. Yet they proclaim, "I know these characters. I know those stories." No, not from cartoons or films from the 1970s, you don't.

Everyone gets an opinion, but a lot of those opinions are simply ignorant. People judging something not for what it is, but for not being something it wasn't even trying to be, which is silly.

It's like the parents who ignorantly railed against the 1990 TMNT film, for being "too dark" and "nothing like the cartoon show." Well, it wasn't trying to be, it was rather almost trying to be the opposite. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this crowd, especially, can't recognize that same effect in action, because it's the exact same phenomenon. "That's not like the cartoons!" "RIGHT, because it's based on the COMICS, and the comics look like THIS."

Same sh*t, different day/property.
------------

As far as what kind of "freedom" they had, I've been closely following the production of Superman films my entire life, including reading several books on the subject. I know what decisions were made, and why, and what This Guy and That Guy were thinking. It's all been explored and extrapolated on ad nauseum. WB was never going to move past the "Death Of" and "Vs. Batman" stories until they finally filmed them, and they saw a chance to do it all in one shot. They already put it aside twice, for "Returns" and "MoS", and the "Just Okay" returns on each one only gave the studio more confidence that they HAD to film these ideas that they'd been kicking around since 1994.

WB is not a "creative freedom" company, and never has been. WB is a, "We paid a lot of money for this script, and it's been sitting in a drawer for __ years; might as well squeeze a buck out of it because we paid for it" company. Especially when "new" ideas like Superman Returns don't do as well as expected. They don't go "back to the drawing board", they start pulling old stuff out of that drawer because it's cheaper. That's the business.

If anything, the fact that they finally scratched that particular itch means they can finally get something else going. But trust me, what we actually got was light years ahead of ANY of the previous BvS or Doomsday film ideas. I've seen scripts and script excerpts; people have no idea how bad we would have had it if they made those movies in 1998, 2003, or whenever.

Tone is subjective. The fact that the movies they ALMOST made instead of this one would have been terrible is NOT subjective. You'd still be complaining; not because they were "dark" movies, but because they were stupid ones, in the "Batman and Robin" vein, which is far worse.
--------

You can have an opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I feel like "The Dark Knight Rises" was as much of "The Dark Knight Returns" as I'd ever like to see. Hits a lot of the same notes.

I still need to see Batman riding a horse in live action before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Otherwise yeah, close enough.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

That "vision" was simply to make movies that resembled the COMICS they were based on, rather than cartoon shows. It was the right approach, people who don't read comics simply didn't care for it, because they're wedded to things like Super-Friends and Batman: TAS.

I don't think at the time of MOS release, anyone cared about Super-Friends or used it as a point of reference.
Also, I don't think that Superman comic books are about gloomy guy who looks like he really pissed off and wants to break your neck just for looking at him wrong way.
Of course, a lot of it has to do with director's vision. Which brings us back to the main wrench in this gear.

Originally Posted by Leo656

I know I'm not gonna win with this crowd, but that's in fact what happened. The DCU is an R-Rated universe and has been since 1986, maybe even a little earlier. A director isn't "wrong" for trying to mimic the style, tone, and stories from the medium they're supposedly adapting. The absolute fiercest criticism I've seen/heard doesn't come from comic book readers, it in fact comes from people who, sometimes boastfully, proclaim they've never read a comic book. Or, sometimes, people who read comics in the 70s when they were for young children, but not since. Yet they proclaim, "I know these characters. I know those stories." No, not from cartoons or films from the 1970s, you don't.

Being "R" rated doesn't automatically mean "full of desaturated colors and depression".
You can make a mature movie, with colors and interesting, heck, even fun characters. The problem is that Snyder was not interested in doing so and people can take only so much bleakness. When paired with questionable casting choices (Luthor) and stupid plot shenanigans (Martha!!) it all becomes a shitshow of an epic proportions.
Also, adaptations shouldn't be judged on the merit of how close they are to the source material. They should judged on their execution.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's like the parents who ignorantly railed against the 1990 TMNT film, for being "too dark" and "nothing like the cartoon show." Well, it wasn't trying to be, it was rather almost trying to be the opposite. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this crowd, especially, can't recognize that same effect in action, because it's the exact same phenomenon. "That's not like the cartoons!" "RIGHT, because it's based on the COMICS, and the comics look like THIS."

And despite this TMNT'90 is still a classic and, arguably on of the best adaptations of the TMNT on the big screen, while BVS is not. Maybe the problem is not with criticism about how close it was to, whatever people had perceived as a source material?

Originally Posted by Leo656

WB is not a "creative freedom" company, and never has been. WB is a, "We paid a lot of money for this script, and it's been sitting in a drawer for __ years; might as well squeeze a buck out of it because we paid for it" company. Especially when "new" ideas like Superman Returns don't do as well as expected. They don't go "back to the drawing board", they start pulling old stuff out of that drawer because it's cheaper. That's the business.

Yet, they gave Snyder full freedom to do as he pleases.
And, I think, they gave a lot of freedom to director of the Wonder Woman.

Originally Posted by Leo656

If anything, the fact that they finally scratched that particular itch means they can finally get something else going. But trust me, what we actually got was light years ahead of ANY of the previous BvS or Doomsday film ideas. I've seen scripts and script excerpts; people have no idea how bad we would have had it if they made those movies in 1998, 2003, or whenever.

Superman fighting giant spider was questionable, but some of the scripts from middle and late 90-s sound VERY intriguing. At least on paper they were much better than whatever BVS had delivered.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Tone is subjective.

No.
Any sane person can tell "fun tone" from the "bleak tone".

Originally Posted by Leo656

The fact that the movies they ALMOST made instead of this one would have been terrible is NOT subjective.

No.
Since they have never been made its impossible to say, what kind of movies they would have been.

At this point it's like comparing how thing looks in your imagination versus how thing looks in someone else's. It's pointless.

Originally Posted by Leo656

You'd still be complaining; not because they were "dark" movies, but because they were stupid ones, in the "Batman and Robin" vein, which is far worse.

If they were executed as Batman & Robin, than, yes, I, and many other people, would have complained.

Originally Posted by Leo656

You can have an opinion, but you can't have your own facts.

But this is exactly what you are doing, by stating that "movies which were never released would have been terrible". It's an opinion, not a fact.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Also, I don't think that Superman comic books are about gloomy guy who looks like he really pissed off and wants to break your neck just for looking at him wrong way.

This right here is the whole problem: You misinterpret lots of things in the movie(s) AND never read a Superman comic. The two feed into each other.

I have to go to work, so I'll keep it brief:

- At no point did Clark in either MoS or BvS "want to break anyone's neck for looking at him funny", and that kind of hyperbole is what derails these conversations. He killed one guy - Zod - who pretty much exists in the modern lore so he can die at Clark's hand. That's his ultimate role.

Killing ONE guy, after he says "I'm gonna murder your entire world, one by one" isn't equitable with everyone who disliked the movie's description of what they saw in Superman's character. They just offer fairy-tale suggestions to how it might have ended differently. Not relevant. In the comics, Superman kills Zod. Thus, in the film, he - Spoiler! - Kills Zod. That's what is supposed to happen.

Aside from that, he got mad at a truck driver. OOOOOOOHHHHH, what a whiny bitch!

- No, the comics are not about "a gloomy guy" or a "whiny emo" or whatever, and neither are the films.

People refuse to allow that both MoS and BvS are set in Year One of the Superman story. And if you DO read the comics, you know that a lot of stuff about his early years is consistent, despite several reimaginings and reboots. Such as:

- A lot of angst about why he's "different" and where he fits into the world.
- Periods of traveling the world, soul-searching, trying to figure out who he is and what his ultimate purpose is.
- Relief - and jubilation - once he finds out the answers.
- A new struggle, that being how exactly this "Superman" thing works. Because there's no blueprint and he suddenly has to do the hardest job anyone's ever done, with only his intuition to guide him.
- Several years of acting as "Superman" before anyone really figures him out or learns to trust him. To wit, in most versions of the origin story, the police, the government, and the general population are all quite concerned - and even scared - about this "Superman" guy, because he seems to do whatever he wants and is also, seemingly unstoppable.

Again, I UNDERSTAND that the Reeve films, and the cartoon shows, all skip over this stuff. They all jump right into, "He's Superman, he's got a cape, and he's gonna get all those kittens out of trees!" because it's an easier story, but that's NOT how his story has ever actually been told, outside of those very kid-centric mediums.

All the way back to 1938, a lot of the best Superman stories in the comics were about him LEARNING how to "Be Superman". And even then, growing and evolving as Superman. "Am I doing enough? Am I doing too much? Should I even do anything? I mean I have to do SOMEthing, but... I wish I knew it was really the 'right' thing." These themes have been constant in Superman stories for decades.

Zack Snyder made a deliberate choice to show that part of the story, specifically because other films ignored it. Well, you can say, "I don't like Year One Superman, I want him fully-formed, always smiling, everyone loves him just because he exists," but that's not at all true to the material. And you're not speaking to what's "Best", you're only speaking to your preference.

To that end, you talk about "Execution". Well, again, taste is subjective. You, as a non-comics fan, think MoS was lousy, based on whatever you yourself see as "correct". Meanwhile, I'm over here with over 10,000 comics, almost half of them Superman related, and from where I stand it really couldn't have done a much better job of telling Superman's origin. You sound like you mean, "It must be unanimously praised, or it's bad by default." And again, that's not how things work. Your criteria and mine about "proper execution" are going to be totally different, because we value totally different things.

It's frankly absurd to even suggest that fidelity to the source material "doesn't matter". It absolutely does matter; if you're going to call something "_______", but you're not going to honor and respect what it's based on, then you shouldn't even bother.

Obviously we differ in our values on what ANY movie should be shooting for, but it would be nice if people would say, "Movie X didn't meet my specific criteria, I didn't care for it", and leave it at that, instead of, "Movie X is worthless and the director's an idiot and everyone who likes it is a moron BECAUSE it doesn't meet MY specific criteria." It's not only the worst kind of criticism - because the speaker assumes they speak for ALL - but it's extremely arrogant.

To wit, I don't care for the Marvel flicks. Too silly. They're not "bad" movies, even the "worst" are competently made, they just don't do anything for me. I don't go around saying, as some do, "________ is the biggest piece of sh*t ever!" just because *I* don't care for it. I respect that they're competently made, I respect that other people like them, BUT, "Other people liking a thing" has never made any difference to what I think of it. So, I don't watch them, but I don't sh*t on them or the people who enjoy them, I just point out "This wasn't made for me" and move on. That takes a certain maturity that people who spend too much time on the internet talking about movies seem to lack, though. Everything has to be Best or Worst ever no matter what it is. Very silly.

In closing, if you think that Tim Burton fiasco would've been a good Superman movie, well... I wouldn't share that opinion out loud, brother. At least keep it away from me.
--------------

Part of me is slightly curious what you think is "proper" for a Superman movie, since you apparently have a very strong opinion about it, and I wouldn't mind having that conversation somewhere else, but not in a public wank-fest. Feel free to PM me, but only if you're actually interested in a dialog.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

This right here is the whole problem: You misinterpret lots of things in the movie(s) AND never read a Superman comic. The two feed into each other.

I've read some Superman comic book, but very few and I never had interest in his characters.
On the other hand, I can tell bad movie from the good one.

Originally Posted by Leo656

- At no point did Clark in either MoS or BvS "want to break anyone's neck for looking at him funny", and that kind of hyperbole is what derails these conversations. He killed one guy - Zod - who pretty much exists in the modern lore so he can die at Clark's hand. That's his ultimate role.

Yes, this is hyperbole, but it has foundation under it. At no point in the movie, I've had a feeling looking at Clark, that he is a this "good and kind-earted person, champion of justice who I can trust", so to speak. He comes of as unfriendly, de-attached and borderline psychotic.
I won't deny, that it's my personal interpretation of his character, however, I've heard a lot of people who disliked MOS / BVS made similar statements.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Killing ONE guy, after he says "I'm gonna murder your entire world, one by one" isn't equitable with everyone who disliked the movie's description of what they saw in Superman's character. They just offer fairy-tale suggestions to how it might have ended differently. Not relevant. In the comics, Superman kills Zod. Thus, in the film, he - Spoiler! - Kills Zod. That's what is supposed to happen.

The thing is, it's not just about murder of Zod. It's how it was setup and how Clark was portrayed in the whole movie.
Those factors play serious role in why people think negatively about this moment.

Originally Posted by Leo656

People refuse to allow that both MoS and BvS are set in Year One of the Superman story. And if you DO read the comics, you know that a lot of stuff about his early years is consistent, despite several reimaginings and reboots. Such as:

- A lot of angst about why he's "different" and where he fits into the world.
- Periods of traveling the world, soul-searching, trying to figure out who he is and what his ultimate purpose is.
- Relief - and jubilation - once he finds out the answers.
- A new struggle, that being how exactly this "Superman" thing works. Because there's no blueprint and he suddenly has to do the hardest job anyone's ever done, with only his intuition to guide him.
- Several years of acting as "Superman" before anyone really figures him out or learns to trust him. To wit, in most versions of the origin story, the police, the government, and the general population are all quite concerned - and even scared - about this "Superman" guy, because he seems to do whatever he wants and is also, seemingly unstoppable.

Thing is, once again, it's not about the plot itself.
It's how it all those things have been presented in the movie itself.
Quality of execution makes the difference between good and bad movie and MOS and BVS had problems when it came to the execution.

To put up a simple example: Batman'89 and Nolan's Batmans are 2 very different take on the same idea. Even though fundamentally they are about the same character.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Again, I UNDERSTAND that the Reeve films, and the cartoon shows, all skip over this stuff. They all jump right into, "He's Superman, he's got a cape, and he's gonna get all those kittens out of trees!" because it's an easier story, but that's NOT how his story has ever actually been told, outside of those very kid-centric mediums.

Yet, Nolan's take on Bruce Wayne youth was incredibly succesful. So, you can't say that movies that go deep into origin story and feelings of the character always fail.
Maybe the reason was not with the story itself, but with its execution?

Originally Posted by Leo656

All the way back to 1938, a lot of the best Superman stories in the comics were about him LEARNING how to "Be Superman". And even then, growing and evolving as Superman. "Am I doing enough? Am I doing too much? Should I even do anything? I mean I have to do SOMEthing, but... I wish I knew it was really the 'right' thing." These themes have been constant in Superman stories for decades.

Zack Snyder made a deliberate choice to show that part of the story, specifically because other films ignored it. Well, you can say, "I don't like Year One Superman, I want him fully-formed, always smiling, everyone loves him just because he exists," but that's not at all true to the material. And you're not speaking to what's "Best", you're only speaking to your preference.

I want A GOOD MOVIE about Superman, regardless of its story.
I don't care whether his portrayal alligns with my expectations or not, as long as his character and the story presented in a good and engaging way.

Originally Posted by Leo656

To that end, you talk about "Execution". Well, again, taste is subjective. You, as a non-comics fan, think MoS was lousy, based on whatever you yourself see as "correct". Meanwhile, I'm over here with over 10,000 comics, almost half of them Superman related, and from where I stand it really couldn't have done a much better job of telling Superman's origin. You sound like you mean, "It must be unanimously praised, or it's bad by default." And again, that's not how things work. Your criteria and mine about "proper execution" are going to be totally different, because we value totally different things.

For me "proper execution" depends on whether I find story and characters engaging and entertaining (not in a sense being funny, but in a sense if those characters are interesting to watch.). I don't care whether its praised or not, though, if a lot people say that they have problems with exectuion, than it might be the case.

MOS and BVS were neither engaging nor entertaining. They were both boring and self-indulging attempts of the director to cram his vision of characters and visuals over actual substance and character development, resulting in pretentious, shallow, boring and depressive experience.

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's frankly absurd to even suggest that fidelity to the source material "doesn't matter". It absolutely does matter; if you're going to call something "_______", but you're not going to honor and respect what it's based on, then you shouldn't even bother.

By this margin Batman 1989 or X-Men should be considered bad movies, however...

Originally Posted by Leo656

Obviously we differ in our values on what ANY movie should be shooting for, but it would be nice if people would say, "Movie X didn't meet my specific criteria, I didn't care for it", and leave it at that, instead of, "Movie X is worthless and the director's an idiot and everyone who likes it is a moron BECAUSE it doesn't meet MY specific criteria." It's not only the worst kind of criticism - because the speaker assumes they speak for ALL - but it's extremely arrogant.

I don't assume I am speaking for all.
I am speaking for myself, as I always do.
My criteria for a good movie...it should be a good movie.

Originally Posted by Leo656

To wit, I don't care for the Marvel flicks. Too silly. They're not "bad" movies, even the "worst" are competently made, they just don't do anything for me. I don't go around saying, as some do, "________ is the biggest piece of sh*t ever!" just because *I* don't care for it. I respect that they're competently made, I respect that other people like them, BUT, "Other people liking a thing" has never made any difference to what I think of it. So, I don't watch them, but I don't sh*t on them or the people who enjoy them, I just point out "This wasn't made for me" and move on. That takes a certain maturity that people who spend too much time on the internet talking about movies seem to lack, though. Everything has to be Best or Worst ever no matter what it is. Very silly.

I agree about Marvel movies.
They are competently made, but they are safe, shallow and ultimately sterile.

Originally Posted by Leo656

In closing, if you think that Tim Burton fiasco would've been a good Superman movie, well... I wouldn't share that opinion out loud, brother. At least keep it away from me.

I don't know whether it would have been good or not, since it has never been made.
My personal motto - there are no bad ideas, they are only bad executions. Afterall, Superman is a story about super guy in blue tights from another planet. Yet, some people managed to turn silly and basic premise into foundation of the mythology, not very disimilar to the myths of an ancient Greece.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Part of me is slightly curious what you think is "proper" for a Superman movie, since you apparently have a very strong opinion about it, and I wouldn't mind having that conversation somewhere else, but not in a public wank-fest. Feel free to PM me, but only if you're actually interested in a dialog.

It should be fun.

[Leo656]

Yeah, you're plainly one of those, "I didn't like a thing = Thing is Bad" people, which does indeed imply speaking for others besides yourself. Because you say so, over and over. I've seen you go on about MANY things, so it's less about this movie or that movie, and more about your general "Anything I don't like is crap, don't you dare argue" manner of carrying yourself. You never say, "I personally think _____", it's always, "______ is terrible, anyone who disagrees is stupid." Such as, "I can tell a good movie from a bad one". That's once again assuming you speak for everyone. You can only tell what's Good or Bad to YOU, same as anyone else. Even Siskel and Ebert got it wrong a whole bunch, which is why they later had to re-review several "classic" movies that they'd originally sh*t on.

Because taste is subjective.

I do it sometimes, rather tongue-in-cheek, but in a manner so over-the-top it's implicit that I'm at least half-kidding. And I'm legitimately befuddled when people can't tell the difference.

You had it right with "This is what I personally think/feel". The rest is pointless.
-------------------

As for MoS specifically, I make it a point not to have Superman conversations with people who don't "get" the character, period. It's no different than trying to explain wrestling to a non-wrestling fan; you either "get it" or you don't, and you're not going to convince someone who doesn't "get it" what they're not getting or why they should. It only leads to arguing, and such conversations are to be avoided, in my opinion. You didn't like a movie about a character you don't like anyway; color me shocked. We shouldn't even be talking about this, then. You shouldn't have such a strong opinion about something you don't even care about, to the point you chide people at length about their own opinions/feelings. Especially when they've got more of a connection to or are more familiar with the subject matter than you do/are. C'mon.

Example: I've seen far too many of those insipid Depp/Pirate movies, because my wife loves them and has, shall we say, "questionable" taste of her own. I have NO impulse to go around getting involved in conversations about them with other people, not even to tell them I think those movies suck. What does it accomplish? I wasn't the audience, and I didn't like the movie(s). It doesn't get me hard to go around telling people who enjoy them, "Your movie sucks, here's why." It's elitist, it's arrogant, and it takes all the fun (what little there is) out of discussing these (ultimately trivial and pointless) things. I have nothing to add to that conversation; thus, I stay out of that conversation and let those people have their space. It's Their Thing, not My Thing. I absolutely HATE Their Thing, but the fact that I don't need to sh*t on them for it, or bring it up in conversation at all, displays a certain maturity that many people lack.

Like, I get it, guy. A movie that wasn't aimed at you anyway, failed to grab you. That doesn't at all mean they made a bad movie, just that you didn't care for it. Which SHOULD be okay, but apparently it isn't.
------------------

This isn't just about you, by the way; more a problem I have with "internet people" in general, nowadays, with their bold declarations of "Only my opinion matters". So try not to take it TOO personally, but I'm definitely worn out on your act in general. You're entirely too stand-offish in situations that don't call for it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but you could stand to work on that.

Again, we can - and should - carry this on privately going forward, as I'm hearing rumblings from people about you and I as it is. SO, I suggest we leave this and the other thread(s) alone and continue whatever philosophical disagreements we have in PM. I have no problem with that, even though it's clear we disagree on a lot. That's entirely up to you. I find that most people really just want to make a big public show of things rather than have an actual conversation, which is disappointing. But I guess we'll see.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Yeah, you're plainly one of those, "I didn't like a thing = Thing is Bad" people, which does indeed imply speaking for others besides yourself. Because you say so, over and over. I've seen you go on about MANY things, so it's less about this movie or that movie, and more about your general "Anything I don't like is crap, don't you dare argue" manner of carrying yourself. You never say, "I personally think _____", it's always, "______ is terrible, anyone who disagrees is stupid." Such as, "I can tell a good movie from a bad one". That's once again assuming you speak for everyone. You can only tell what's Good or Bad to YOU, same as anyone else. Even Siskel and Ebert got it wrong a whole bunch, which is why they later had to re-review several "classic" movies that they'd originally sh*t on.

Are you trolling me?

I've said that I speak only for myself.

If you like this movie - more power to you. However, I will say why I don't think your favorite movie is a good one and you can do the same about something that I like.

Pretending that my opinion about the movie is somehow "the only truth", in my opinion, but also invalidates yours, is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Because taste is subjective.

Taste is subjective, quality is not.

Originally Posted by Leo656

As for MoS specifically, I make it a point not to have Superman conversations with people who don't "get" the character, period. It's no different than trying to explain wrestling to a non-wrestling fan; you either "get it" or you don't, and you're not going to convince someone who doesn't "get it" what they're not getting or why they should. It only leads to arguing, and such conversations are to be avoided, in my opinion. You didn't like a movie about a character you don't like anyway; color me shocked. We shouldn't even be talking about this, then. You shouldn't have such a strong opinion about something you don't even care about, to the point you chide people at length about their own opinions/feelings. Especially when they've got more of a connection to or are more familiar with the subject matter than you do/are. C'mon.

Where I have chided you for your opinion about the movie?
Also, I recommend to remember, that movies like MOS and BVS are (supposedly) made for everyone. Not only hardcore fans of characters. And as such, anyone can say something about them.

To put it simply - movies like that are not made for your personal pleasure and whether you are big fan of them or not, it doesn't mean that everyone who haven't read 10k issues of Superman should be silent about them.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Example: I've seen far too many of those insipid Depp/Pirate movies, because my wife loves them and has, shall we say, "questionable" taste of her own. I have NO impulse to go around getting involved in conversations about them with other people, not even to tell them I think those movies suck. What does it accomplish? I wasn't the audience, and I didn't like the movie(s). It doesn't get me hard to go around telling people who enjoy them, "Your movie sucks, here's why." It's elitist, it's arrogant, and it takes all the fun (what little there is) out of discussing these (ultimately trivial and pointless) things. I have nothing to add to that conversation; thus, I stay out of that conversation and let those people have their space. It's Their Thing, not My Thing. I absolutely HATE Their Thing, but the fact that I don't need to sh*t on them for it, or bring it up in conversation at all, displays a certain maturity that many people lack.

You are once again stepping on your toes: you say that ******** on POTC would have been arrogant and elitist, yet, you don't consider arrogant and elitist to **** on people who dislike your favorite movies and call them out, because, their dare to have their own opinion wihtout reading Superman comic books or having DEEP knowledge of his character.

To put it bluntly: your defense of MOS is an epitome of arrogance and elitism.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Like, I get it, guy. A movie that wasn't aimed at you anyway, failed to grab you. That doesn't at all mean they made a bad movie, just that you didn't care for it. Which SHOULD be okay, but apparently it isn't.

And Plan 6 from Outer Space had just failed to grab anyone.
Sure.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Again, we can - and should - carry this on privately going forward, as I'm hearing rumblings from people about you and I as it is. SO, I suggest we leave this and the other thread(s) alone and continue whatever philosophical disagreements we have in PM. I have no problem with that, even though it's clear we disagree on a lot. That's entirely up to you. I find that most people really just want to make a big public show of things rather than have an actual conversation, which is disappointing. But I guess we'll see.

I can do both.
As a wrestling fan you should like those.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Taste is subjective, quality is not.

Yeah, we're done. I absolutely don't talk to people who say ridiculous things like that. What a tart.

And I'm NOT a "wrestling fan", buddy. I wrestle. For ten years. Which means, like many others, that I absolutely cannot STAND wrestling. OR wrestling fans. They're about as stupid as TMNT fans, although it changes depending on the day.

Regardless, wow. Stalk someone else. I keep telling you, I don't wanna talk to you on account of ... lots of sh*t. Many people here have been Reporting you for weeks due to harassment, and now I'm forced to do the same thing. No Means NO, dipsh*t. You're ignorant, standoffish, and a troll. And I don't f*cking waste time with people like that.

You're not on this forum to converse or exchange ideas with anyone, you're here to insult people and tell them why your taste is superior to theirs. And unlike me, you're not kidding around when you do it. Intolerable.

Save your words, I'm not indulging you any further. Every single time I see one of your posts directed at me, it's a Harassment report. That's a promise.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Many people here have been Reporting you for weeks due to harassment

What? Who? Plastron? That was all FAKE harassment, look at the posts.

Save your words, I'm not indulging you any further. Every single time I see one of your posts directed at me, it's a Harassment report. That's a promise.

I think I know your favorite movie now...