Monker wrote:The other thread is filled with zombie-like posts by you two. Oh, sure, you'll throw in the occasional minor critique but you still excuse the inexcusable (BAD story telling in both BvS and SS, for example), praise the slapstick comedy in Shazam previews while critiquing it in Marvel films.
Save it. You're the guy who slaps "good storytelling" stickers all over Feige's bum like band-aids after you cut him shaving.
Monker wrote:Marvel has EARNED their billion dollar spot in the film industry by releasing quality films that entertain. DC hasn't but you two praise DC and excuse the stupid decisions.
Correction: we've slammed WB plenty, I mean plenty, for their meddling. If you think otherwise, feel free to use the search function and scroll away.
Monker wrote:I didn't buy the cassette for ST, I bought the vinyl.
You bought both. Or are you so ancient the idea of using a Walkman in class was something that was never in your wheelhouse?
Monker wrote:And, you think you were emitting some type of coolness by being a comic book nerd?
I've always had an IDGAF mindset. Not to mention if you were a rocker, it didn't matter. 'Sides, DC was the publisher that almost singlehandedly elevated mainstream comics above dim-lit-back-of-the-library-only table reads with
The Dark Knight Returns and
Watchmen. That's right, baby. But as I said, I never GAF.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:RWF even gloated about watching Wonder Woman without paying for it while it was still in theaters. His allegiance is more than apparent. That's fine, but you're taking his bait like a guy exposing his asshole to a leatherboy on Polk St. in San Francisco circa 1979.
Oh, please, I've posted stuff like this for a long time. I think you know I'm right and that is why you would rather talk about RWF and Steve Perry rather than why you can accept a comedy aimed at teens with Shazam but critique Marvel for doing the EXACT SAME THING with movies. You accept cookie cutter movies like WW, but say the EXACT SAME FORMULA is over done at Marvel. You know it's hypocritical...but will never admit it.
Yes, you
think you're right.
Again, a film with comedy or humor isn't automatically a flat-out comedy. A movie can be horrific without being straight-up horror. It's simple enough to me.
Speaking of flat-out hilarity, it's guffaw city to see you call
Wonder Woman cookie cutter when Marvel just released two films with nearly identical plot outlines. (I've talked about this before; use the search.)
Monker wrote:You are taking my comment out of the context of my post where I said Marvel releases quality and entertaining films and EARNED those billion dollar films. And, yes, Black Panther and Infinity War are "good films"...much better than "good" In fact, I will say that if WW was released by Marvel it would have been a billion dollar film as well - because Marvel has EARNED a reputation of entertaining their audiences in a way that DC HAS NOT.
1) The brand didn't make
Doctor Strange a billion dollar movie per your pseudo-prediction (use the search). Also, they released
A-M&TW after
Infinity War to maximize its reception. After 6-1/2 weeks in wide release, its domestic take is
below Justice League's. Mojo's breakdown reveals epic weekly drops for every day of release, in the 40-60% zone. It just got knocked down to 13th place, so the rest of its money will have to come from China. Its foreign box office is lower than they anticipated, too (and the budget's still under wraps). Don't think Disney hasn't noticed.
2)
Black Panther's overrated, sir. The third act is shaky and the most cookie-cuttin' third of the whole pie. The last action sequence also features some of the worst choreography and CGI in a Marvel movie. Makes you wonder why they went that way. Every other actor stole their scenes with Boseman, who inadvertently rewrote the playbook on stoicism. Almost like they wanted to make him the anti-Downey. Everyone ended up liking Killmonger.
3) OF COURSE
Infinity War did gangbusters. How could it not? It only features a villain they'd been building to since 2012 and nearly every MCU character is in the movie. It promised big battles, big VFX, big death. Like
The Dark Knight Rises, it's extremely ambitious yet not perfect, It's just unfortunate how they sidelined Thanos' obsession with the persona of Death, but that's neither here nor there now.
Monker wrote:LOL! I think Marvel gives a shit how well their movies do.
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one." Yeah, they want everything to kick ass but they have to realize by now that not everything will. That's why I posted the numbers for
A-M&TW above. Now imagine if that movie opened in Fall. It wouldn't have done that well. That would have pushed Rudd right off the shelf as a headliner.
Monker wrote:Your comments about Rudd are hilarious.
I'm on the moh-nay. Peyton Reed even said he thinks Wasp should headline an all-female Avengers movie. In the comics, Hawkeye led the WCA (West Coast Avengers) in their own book. I wouldn't be surprised if they modified the concept and went with all chicks, because, you know, $$$$$$.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Self-contained movies with mid-credits scenes to thread the continuity.
Even if I concede your point, it is still more than what DC has done.
Yep, there's the Marvel Zombie talkin'...snarling and biting.
Monker wrote:"Solo" was a bomb. It doesn't even compare with Antman. "Throw away" "space filler", call it what you want. My point is that Marvel can afford to do that. Do you really think DC can afford to put out a movie they KNOW is going to be a mediocre grossing film? I don't think so.
Wait, so now you're agreeing with me? I thought you said they care how well their films do.
Monker wrote:LOL. So, you actually believe that WW was successful because it somehow shows "the horrors of war". That's complete bullshit and simply proves my point.
For a guy who waxes high 'n mighty, your reading comprehension seems shaky. Prove to me how what I said is "complete bullshit." You can't — because it's not. That's not the
sole reason it was a success; it was one component. You'll dance around it because you're on some unholy quest to stake Marvel's flag on every hilltop you drive by in your puke-green '85 Journey-stickered Yugo.
Monker wrote:It is a classic heroes journey from beginning to end. You'll never admit it...because you will admit being a hypocrite if you do.
So now it's "classic" and not "cookie cutter." Make up your mind. It's an origin film based primarily on George Pérez's 1986 reboot. That's why you see his name spaced above the other creators' in the credits. As they did with Iron Man when they retooled his Cold War origin to Viet Nam, and then Afghanistan, certain elements were retained and others kept. But the initial premise remains: Diana leaves Paradise Island/Themyscira and ends up fighting the Axis/German forces.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:It didn't matter if it wasn't Saving Private Ryan: The No Man's Land sequence is touted as one of the best CBM scenes ever. Walk your ass over to the Hype and read the DC haters praising Wonder Woman and NML because even they are unable to disavow what a fine film it is.
Of course it is a "fine" film. It is a fine film that relies heavily on telling a heroes journey...just as IM, CA, and Thor do, and probably Captain Marvel, too.
So those are cookie cutter movies? That's what you mean, right? You're the one who seems bent on analogizing the Heroes' Journey with cookie-cutter storytelling. I don't see anyone else around here doing it.
Monker wrote:My son saw [Titans] and told me it looks horrible.
Yay.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Swamp Thing is coming. It doesn't matter if either won't be theatrical. Wan's one of the producers, and he said it's going to be horror.
Joker is happening. It won't be a comedy. You think Reeves'
The Batman is going to be Schumacher-esque fodder?
RIGHT NOW..."dark" doesn't exist in DC.
^Look, he can backpedal.
Monker wrote:And, for you to claim any of these FUTURE releases is going to be ANY specific way is very presumptuous ....because of how random DC is acting. THAT is my point.
DC's film roster won't be largely monochromatic like Marvel's. Prove me wrong. Oh, you can't? Bummer.
Monker wrote:That is exactly what it is. A classic heroes journey type tale.
Never seen another so effectively emulate scratched vinyl.
Monker wrote:Because Snyder created films that DC/WB did not like so they replaced him and put Joss Wheedon in an impossible situation - to back off of Snyder's direction and go in the direction the execs wanted in only a few months and not go too far out of budget.
Yes:
Whedon failed. He turned the most badass Batman we ever got into a JOKE — Batfleck was rendered meme fodder. What part of that don't you get? He reshot stuff that didn't require it. The movie's production budget was 200M and by the end it was easily another 100M. Notice how Joss no longer is writing & directing
Batgirl? Think there may be a reason for that? He even said (paraphrasing) "is there a sexier way to say I failed?" He made it sound like he had "no story" for Batgirl, but that makes no sense. It was the project he wanted as soon as he saw the block letters on a grid in what was originally called the "Snydercave." There's no doubt in my mind that Joss was referring to the failure of
JL. He even liked a tweet from somebody who said Steppenwolf who said he was the worst CBM villain ever. If that isn't an admission, I don't know what is.
Stop impersonating an ostrich and wake up: the best parts of
Justice League are Snyder's. Glaringly so, even. And the movie's edited so savagely, the scenes don't breathe (I mean all of them) except maybe one or two.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:A film WITH comedy. Not a comedy. Shazam! got an awesome trailer.
Please. It is joke after joke, subway scene, joke after joke after joke.
Just like
Iron Man 3,
Ant-Man,
Thor: Ragnarok? Joke after joke after joke? Those films are comedies? Well, thanks for admitting it. It's a dirty job, but some Marvel fanboy's gotta do it.
Monker wrote:It's a fucking comedy...even moreso than the Marvel movies you critique for having too much comedy. When it is released, it is going to be laughed at as an accidental parody of superhero films. THAT is how bad it looks.
You're in the minority, bub. The trailer landed. It's sequenced perfectly, looks great, gives nothing major away, and had everyone talking about it when
Aquaman was supposed to be the shiznit of Hall H.
Monker wrote:"The Batman" started out as an Afleck project. Then someone else directing Afleck. Now it is axing Afleck and going younger.
Who's Afleck? Somebody related to Ben
Affleck? Ben still has a movie in his contract. Batfleck isn't completely done.
Monker wrote:That history along with all of the other BS that has happened with DC over the last couple years tells me that believing with any certainty what "The Batman" is going to be like is a ridiculous concept and the act of a zombie that does not have a brain to think logically.
That's what Reeves said. "Noir-driven." Is noir synonymous with comedy or lighthearted fare? What are you expecting, a sequel to
Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid? You're the zombie. A zombie can't reason. A zombie can't rationzalize. You're a zombie. The only thing that sets you apart is how chafed you are from the marathon stroke-off resulting from the release of new music from Esteban Pereira.
Monker wrote:If there is "no reason" for Marvel to have too much comedy, release movies aimed at teens, not being "dark" enough...then tell me what the reason is that makes it OK for DC to do THE EXACT SAME THING?
DC's not doing it in every movie, Chief Moronus. It's character-specific. Notice how Gal Gadot didn't act like Lynda Carter? It's called being different.
Monker wrote:Yes, it IS fine...because Thor was set up to kill Thanos with his Thanos killing axe.
It's called Stormbreaker, doof. He got it in the comics, but it wasn't to use against Thanos. Read Walt Simonson's epic run. He did for Thor what Frank Miller did for Daredevil.
Monker wrote:It is good story telling, ...something DC fans know little about.
Talk about bias!
Monker wrote:Correct. I expect Captain Marvel to be a well done and written heroes journey mythos tale, just like Wonder Woman.
You mean it'll be cookie cutter. That's the lingo you sling, WingDing.
Monker wrote: "DC fans are jealous."
Yep...I think that is how you are acting.
No, your bias is showing. That's all.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:"Marvel makes good movies that make lots of money."
Yep...that is a fact...not even an opinion.
Avatar made a lot of money. It's also overrated. I sense a theme.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:"Wonder Woman 1984 won't be as successful."
Wont be as successful as what? There is not enough out there to really say much. From the small bit we have seen, I'm not that impressed. I doubt it will be as good or as successful as the the first WW movie.
That it won't be as successful as the first film, per your previous remarks in the DC thread. Search function, bruh.
Monker wrote:I post what I post when I want to post. I don't care if you read it, reply to it, or even acknowledge it exists. I write because I want to write something. To have motivation beyond that is very foolish in a forum like this one.
Considering what a mess you make of HTML tags, yeah, I probably won't bother.
