Joined: May 22nd, 2016, 10:05 pm

July 31st, 2018, 4:09 am #21

jecook wrote:
GladMech wrote:
DocsMachine wrote: I haven't seen Wonder Woman,...

Doc.
You definitely should try WW, just to see what the character is like when played by an Israeli Weapons Specialist/Combat Instructor (oh, and Miss Israel).
THIS. Gal Gadot *owned* the character. 
What they said. Gal Gadot is the best thing that's happened to DC since the Dark Knight trilogy ended. It helped that they had an actual coherent plot for that movie.
Love thou the rose, yet leave it on its stem. -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 6th, 2017, 4:10 pm

July 31st, 2018, 2:53 pm #22

DocsMachine wrote: Keeping in mind that really, only DC is disappointing me.

Yeah, I can't say I'm 100% happy with every little thing in all the Marvel movies (and I have to admit I've missed several of the latest ones for various reasons) but to be honest, I haven't been all that thrilled with any post-Nolan-Batmen DC superhero flick.

I haven't seen Wonder Woman, and didn't bother with Suicide Squad, Man of Steel was objectively terrible not only for the simple cinematic mechanics of it, but also in how they treated the character, Batman vs. Superman wasn't quite as godawful, but sure didn't live up to the hype, Green Lantern was basically a waste of everyones time, and Justice League, while not terrible, couldn't hold a candle to Avengers.

Given that track record, and the quality of the Shazam trailer, I am given really very little reason to hope "this time will be different".

Doc.
Wonder Woman is worth the watch, DEFINTELY.  Good script/casting/director. The final boss fight disappointed me slightly from basically being OVER-CGIed.
Suicide Squad is best viewed as a cheesy Will Smith action movie. Ignore that it's supposed to be DC characters, and it worked pretty well for me. As an actual movie of THE SUICIDE SQUAD, I still think it wasn't a TOTAL shitshow, but that's my personal opinion, YMMV.
-- Wow! Look, a Signature box!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2014, 3:09 am

July 31st, 2018, 4:25 pm #23

SteelSterling wrote:Shazam!  was a great chance to finally give the fans a BRIGHT, CHEERY movie like they missed with Superman and the JLA.  This proves they haven't learned.  "The lessons repeat until they are learned."
Honestly, it feels more like "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

There is such a severe disconnect nowadays between the movies being made and the stories that they are based on that I get really gun shy when I hear that a new movie is being made from a favorite series.  

Just looking at the giant dumpster fire that was the Transformer movies, The Last Airbender, and The Dukes of Hazzard movie, and then how bland and vanilla (and completely re-written) Ready Player One was compared to the book, and it makes me wonder if I even want to support these guys at all.

I won't even mention the Star Wars prequels and sequels....  (I know, there were mitigating factors in those...)

I just don't understand how the companies that own these Intellectual Properties don't have safeguards in place to keep them from throwing the legacies down the trash.  They need to keep actual fans of the series that they are working on on staff, to stop the train wrecks that keep happening.

Thankfully, the people over at Marvel seem to get it.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 22nd, 2016, 10:05 pm

July 31st, 2018, 6:29 pm #24

Most movie adaptations I've seen have been pretty far off the mark. I've only seen a few book adaptations that really followed the book. The 1973 Three Musketeers with Michael York and the first Harry Potter movie. (The other Potter movies were fun, but didn't follow the books very well.) 

The Marvel movies work for me because they take ideas from the comics and weave them into coherent stories which are fun to watch. I like how the movies build on each other. DC doesn't work because they're not as fun and they're trying to play catch up. Instead of introducing most of the main characters and then teaming them up, they introduced too many main characters in JLA. 

Also, nobody doing the DC movies understands their characters the way Stan Lee understands Marvel. Stan started back when Marvel was still Timely Comics.  On the other hand, the DC TV series tend to work way better than any Marvel TV series.
Love thou the rose, yet leave it on its stem. -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 14th, 2015, 4:02 pm

July 31st, 2018, 6:49 pm #25

Just for comparison, here's the latest from Sony (in association with Marvel Comics)  VENOM  
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 31st, 2018, 6:53 pm #26

Well, keep in mind that having the original owners of the IP produce a movie specifically to be faithful to the source is actually a very new thing, that basically only just started with the Marvel superhero movies.

Before that, the original author (generally the writer of a book) had no involvement apart from signing a contract and cashing the check.

Yes, you often had movie producers who wanted to stay faithful to the source material- both Cujo and the original Carrie were reasonably close to the books- but many others simply wanted to use it as "inspiration" and to provide his or her own unique viewpoint. Keeping the Stephen King theme, Kubrick's The Shining was miles away from the book, but at least still in the same time zone. Lawnmower Man, on the other hand, shared exactly one three-second-long scene from the utterly, totally, completely different short story.

And it's not just the producers. Nicholas Cage, rather famously, wanted to play Superman, but as an older, washed-up hero. In some of the recent movies, Will Smith lobbied to be given the title role, and I'm sure at least a couple executives seriously considered it.

Movies are littered with such cases, all the way back to the movies Gone with the Wind and Casablanca. It was basically the norm, and really didn't come 'round to trying to be faithful to the source material 'til the Lord of the Rings movies, where they took great pains to be as true to the books as modern filmmaking and film run times allowed.

With deliberate exceptions like alt-universe stories like Red Son, Superman has always, from day one, been portrayed as a kind, beneficial, even at times humble hero. Fans of the comics and the character don't want to see him shown as a brooding, emo man-child, or worse yet a murderer. We didn't like seeing Clooney's Batman in near-day-glo armor with bat-nipples. We wanted to see the old Hal Jordan, who was a mature, if impulsive test pilot, not Reynolds man-child party-boy.

And here for Shazam, who has at least up until relatively recently virtually always been depicted as even more honest and upstanding than Superman, we don't want to see him as a literally man-child, playing pranks and thinking fart jokes are the epitome of humor.

You might as well put a tutu on Batman and make him chase down bad guys on a Segway. The effect is much the same.

Doc.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 8th, 2018, 1:55 pm

July 31st, 2018, 7:36 pm #27

You're right, Doc.  (Of course)  DC are risking a lot with their treatment of SHAZAM! (using their word to differentiate from the Other Captain Marvel coming soon) and they risk alienating the fans in the same way Disney did with John Carter of Mars when they made that film and tried to sell it to non-fans at the same time as they alienated potential fans by dropping the 'of Mars' from the title like they were hiding the fact it was a sci-fi film.

I'm all for the lighter touch in the DC universe but Shazam is not the character to do it with.  He's meant to be dignified.  Responsible.  Cool headed.  Sometimes fearful (He has a relationship with 14 year old Stargirl in the pages of Justice Society of America  - she knows he's a thirteen year old boy under the suit - that he has to break off when he realises Jay 'Flash' Garrick is getting concerned as he knows telling Flash his secret will change how they treat him) so Solomon's wisdom doesn't always win but it's THERE and there's no sign of that in this film

DC are beginning to show they can do humour though.  Annoyingly it's in the film of a TV show I despise.



There's some good gags in that trailer and DC riffs on itself.  From dismissing the GL movie to Slade getting annoyed because people keep calling him Deadpool it shows they've written it quite well.  And it's written for the right characters and the right audience.  Someday they may manage to do that again in the DCEU (They did it right for Wonder Woman and Frank Millar's parts of Batman Vs Superman)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 22nd, 2016, 10:05 pm

July 31st, 2018, 7:48 pm #28

I got around to watching the Shazam! trailer and I think it looks promising. The whole “getting acquainted with his powers” looks goofy, but no worse than other super hero movies like Iron Man or Ant-Man. I was surprised that Shazam/Marvel could shoot lightning bolts, as that wasn't in the original Fawcett character. 

Yes, the Captain Marvel character was created by a rival of DC Comics. Back when Superman was new and wildly successful, there were a lot of copycats. DC ignored most of them. Then Fawcett's Capt. Marvel committed the unforgivable sin of outselling Superman by two million issues-to-one million issues. So DC sued.

None of the legal teams or, more importantly, the judge, really understood this whole super hero genre, so the lawsuit could have dragged on for years. Except this was about when the idiot Fredric Wertham declared that comic books lead to juvenile delinquency, and was taken seriously! Anyway, the comic book industry tanked, Fawcett was bought out by DC and the whole Marvel Family line of comics languished in limbo until DC started publishing them.

By the way, Captain Marvel/Shazam has always been depicted at a kid in an adult's body. This was particularly funny when some beautiful woman made a play for Shazam and he had no idea how to react. (BTW, I've always thought that Shazam had the best disguise in the history of comic books. How could anybody look at Shazam and recognize him as being Billy Batson?) This was particularly well done in the Young Justice cartoon series when Shazam wanted to hang around with the teen aged heroes, but they didn't want to hang around with someone they perceived as an adult.

Things in the trailer that I really like, this movie has Freddie Freeman in it! I always liked Capt. Marvel, Jr. more than Capt. Marvel. I have no idea if they're going to give Freddie powers or what they'll call him if they do. (Shazam, Jr.?) I particularly like that movie Freddie is a smart ass. “You're a disabled foster kid, you've got it all!” I also like that Freddie is not helpless. Plus, according to IMDB, they're actually going to have Mary Bromfield in it!
Love thou the rose, yet leave it on its stem. -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 31st, 2018, 8:17 pm #29

Welsh Rat wrote: DC are risking a lot with their treatment of SHAZAM! (using their word to differentiate from the Other Captain Marvel coming soon)[...]
-Technically, it stretches back a lot further than that. I can't recall the specifics, but the character now known as Shazam was more accurately called Captain Marvel, and has been since the beginning- that is, in the 1940s.
But he was also a separate entitiy, owned by a different comics company from what eventually became DC, and even after DC bought the IP, the character wasn't used as much as he could have been, owing to some continued copyright issues, and the simple fact he was basically just a palette-swapped Superman.
Later, when DC did finally start getting some mileage out of the character, there were infringement issues with Marvel, both from the name of the company and the fact they, too, had a character called Captain Marvel (technically known as Mar-vell, almost specifically to avoid the copyright thing.)
To either dismiss a lawsuit or to prevent it from happening in the first place, DC decided to rename the character Shazam- and this was all back in the mid-90s, as I recall. (And I probably have some details wrong anyway.)
and they risk alienating the fans in the same way Disney did with John Carter of Mars when they made that film and tried to sell it to non-fans at the same time as they alienated potential fans by dropping the 'of Mars' from the title like they were hiding the fact it was a sci-fi film.
-Well, to be perfectly honest, the actual fan base for Carter was pretty damn small to start with, being a century-old property that had never been particularly popular, and had rarely ever been produced in any other medium outside the original books. I'd wager that 90% of the people that DID see the movie, had never heard of the books prior to it.
Then to try and make a $200 million blockbuster movie out of it was just silly. Yeah, it would have been very hard to film it without an incredible amount of CGI, and good CGI costs a bundle, but yeah, it was basically badly handled from stem to stern.
Kind of like the Golden Compass movie. I'd never heard of the books prior to the movie coming out, and that's another movie that required fabulous amounts of CGI to even hope to pull off, but while the film was visually amazing, holy crap was it a mess.
Marvel has some people, I used to know who, that are both fans of and part owners of the IP for the characters. (Stan Lee has some input, I think, but he's almost entirely a figurehead at this point.) Those people have the power to tell the directors and actors and whatnot, "this is how the character is, this is how the character acts, this is what the character wears." And if the director doesn't like it, he gets replaced- which as I recall hasn't happened in a Marvel movie yet, but the point is, it's not a Tim Burton thing, where the director says "I have a vision for this character, and we'll film it my way or we don't film it at all!"
And with mature, solid, widely-known and widely-respected IP like Marvel and DC comics, featuring characters that in several cases have been around longer than any of us here (with the possible exception of Mark-T 😁) have been alive, if the owners of the IP want to maintain that respect, they HAVE to impose that kind of control.
Marvel is, DC isn't, and we can see which one is the more successful brand.
Doc.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 12th, 2014, 3:32 am

July 31st, 2018, 9:40 pm #30

Jelsemium wrote:On the other hand, the DC TV series tend to work way better than any Marvel TV series.
Batman: The Animated Series is probably my absolute favorite, primarily due to the voice acting, and the work (and care and attention) poured into each episode. 
Quote
Like
Share