The Geek Life: Avengers Aftermath Comments - Mania.com



COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Showing items 11 - 20 of 44
<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  
monkeyfoot 5/10/2012 2:42:46 PM

Rob, talking about kids at your Avengers showing brought up the bad memory at my 3D show. A mom with her 10 year old daughter were sitting next to me. The kid was constantly sticking her hand out right in front of me trying to touch different things coming out of the screen. She kept it up for about 20 minutes into the movie. It was driving me nuts! Luckily, she got bored with that and stopped so I could fully enjoy the Merry Marvel Marching Society on the Imax.  

shac2846 5/10/2012 3:36:48 PM

 Man Violator, I am so with you. That was the first thing my friends and I said when we walked out of the theatre last week. Man what an X-men movie could be under the marvel/disney machine. There's no excuse now. (other than the fact that they don't own it right now) I mean Whedon gave every character depth and a chance to shine. In all three x-men movies cyclops alone had like only what 15 speaking lines maybe. It was the Wolverine show throughout the whole trilogy then they gave him his own movie. I hope disney/marvel making an x-men movie isn't a pipe dream. I am a big fan of both dc and marvel and I would love to see a Justice League movie but there is a part of me that wants to see an epic x-men movie on the same scope as Avengers before I die. They were just such a huge part of my childhood. 

 

Wyldstaar 5/10/2012 4:03:35 PM

Wiseguy, I hate to pile on, but seriously?  How can you not understand pessimism towards DC comics movies?  Warner Bros has owned DC since 1969, and have spent most of that time demonstrating to the world that they have no idea how to incorporate the DC Universe into the cinematic format.  They have shown us time and again that they are incapable of learning from their own mistakes, or from the success of others.  Since Marvel got into the movie game in a serious way with Blade in 1998, DC has suffered through a long string of disasters, with only Chris Nolan's vision of Batman as a bright spot. 

It takes more than just Batman to prove you know what you're doing.  People like to point out that Nolan is giving input into Man of Steel as a good sign.  Personally, I don't.  It seems like as bad an idea as giving Superman Lives! to Tim Burton was.  Just because a director has a feel for Batman, does not automatically translate into an understanding of every comicbook hero there is.  Tim Burton and Chris Nolan have a very specific style of storytelling that lends itself to a particular sort of tale.  Dark, twisted, brooding, quirky... these are terms that describe their films and Batman.  They do not translate to Superman or the rest of the DCU.

Until WB finally manages to achieve a genuine success with a mainstream DCU character other than Batman, most comics fans will continue to view their movies with scepticism. 

hanso 5/10/2012 4:10:50 PM

 What's genuine success?

violator14 5/10/2012 4:23:56 PM

Trate/Shac-I keep imagining that one AMAZING action scene where he follows one Avenger to the next in one continuous shot (im sure you know what im talking about), but Imagine the X-Men in that kind of scene doing their thing.

i.e. Like Cyclops is blasting away at aliens, u see storm flying by lightning bolting away, leading to Colossus and Wolverine on the ground fukin shit up, then they do their "fastball special" and u see Wolverine flying by Iceman icebridging & freezing fools, and then you see Archangel flying by iceman helping him out, and then and then...OH MY!!! I just blew my own mind!!! haha  But ya, that woulda been pretty epic...   =T   Maybe one day.

jdiggitty 5/10/2012 4:26:26 PM

 How much control does DC have with it's movies? It just makes me wonder when I look at WB putting out the Harry Potter films, which, IMO, were all much better than the non-Nolan DC movies.

ElBaz13 5/10/2012 5:38:39 PM

I agree Violator.

Also a bigger X-fan than Avengers. I really thought X-men First Class could have been used as a reboot and stick to the comic source but sadly still stayed in the Bryan Singer-X-men universe which sucks.

I think my first post on one of these boards after seeing The Avengers was not a jab at TDK/DC but Fox and X-men. I think I said "see Fox Studios, that's how you do a super team movie true to the source material"

 

 

Wyldstaar 5/10/2012 7:34:03 PM

Hanso, that is an excellent question.  I meant genuine success to mean that the film would have to not only be a success at the box office, but continue to be well thought of by the audience afterward. 

Jdiggitty, DC has no control over it's movies.  Every once in a while there has been talk of changing this situation, but in the end the suits in the Warner Bros. boardroom don't want to relinquish their control over anything.  They own DC, and there wasn't a DC Studios already in place when WB purchased the company the way Marvel Studios existed when Disney bought Marvel.  They just use DC as their personal toy box, taking their characters as they see fit, and tossing them aside when they're done with them.  This cavalier attitude is one of the main reasons why Superman Returns cost $250 million dollars.  Bryan Singer didn't actually spend that much money.  About $100 million of that total came from the money WB wasted on various Superman projects that lingered in development hell following Superman: The Quest for Peace in 1987 through McG's failure to launch his movie Superman: Flyby in 2004.  If there is any other Hollywood studio who has wasted seventeen years worth of time and money without shooting a single frame of film, I'm unaware of it.

hanso 5/11/2012 5:03:49 AM

 Wyld, then I can agree with what you saying.  But check this, while Marvel has been successful in launching their franchises, they've only really hit out of the park twice (Iron Man and now Avengers).  Critically wise, most of their films are average ranging in the mid to high 70s if you look at RT.  Which is on par with Superman Returns, and and less than the current Bat flicks.  Btw, I'm not saying any flick is better than the other, I personally hate SR, just bringing up the "critics" score.

But we all know studios don't play the game to get critic love, they in it for the $.  Now WB with only 4 movies starting with Begins in 2005 to GL in 2011, have done similar numbers to Marvel's 5 movies (not including The Avengers).  TDK made a billion dollar which is close to Hulk, Thor and Captain America's numbers combined.  Then you have Begins, SR and GL making numbers close to both Iron Man movies.  I didn't include Avengers because while it widens the gap, WB still got TDKR coming out which will narrow it once again.  Obviously some of the WB movies weren't hits, like you mentioned those crazy mofos be spending way too much money on movies, which is why SR clocking almost $400 mil worldwide wasn't a hit, and GL is a failure even though it made $200 mil.  Still, to WB they might think they are hanging in there when they look at the $ being generated from their current superhero franchises, so they ain't worrying as much.  Also, since they aren't just in the superhero business, they got other franchises making them money like The Hangover, Sherlock Holmes, The Hobbit, etc. they don't care.  However, they are running out of franchises which is why Man of Steel is a big movie for them, so my guess is they will start taking the superhero business more seriously to kick start some new franchises.

 

 

dalgoda 5/11/2012 6:42:10 AM

Good read hanso. I think with Harry Potter ending and the success of the Avengers, you will see WB put some time and effort into their DC properties.

By the way, where is CrazyCEO? I haven't seen him around since right before the Avengers hit in US theaters.

 

<<  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  >>  

ADD A COMMENT

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.