Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice THREAD

[verslibre]

Yes, Daredevil is one of numerous Marvel characters derived from Batman, others being Moon Knight, Nighthawk (an acknowledged rip-off), and to some degree, Tony Stark/Iron Man, whose parents were killed in a retconned origin and who grew up to become a billionaire playboy who builds his own tech in his secret lab space to aid him in his fight against ne'er-do-wells.

Usually Batman has a famous "I'm Batman" line when introducing a new Batman. Hopefully Affleck has atleast 10 "I'm Batman" lines since he didn't have a solo film and a sequel to that solo film just in case people will be confused who the dude dressed up like a Bat is. Let's hope they understand it.

You're right. Otherwise, they may mistake him for something else.

[Monker]

YOU brought up the fact that Superman is a more relatable character than Batman because he is more "human" and a person would have to be pretty fucked up to related to Batman.

Yeah, your point? You brought up some stuff in response that wasn't true to what you were implying and I debunked it with showing some stuff that went against what you were trying to argue, which always turns into something completely irrelevant and head-scratching essays.

My point is that you were wrong when you accused me of coming on the forum and bringing up all of this stuff. YOU did it, and I replied to it...because I agree with George. Superman is nowhere near as relatable as Batman.

Good thing, because Superman is far from normal.

LOL...too funny. This is NOT what you originally argued.

The sole purpose to MoS was to make Superman relatable to the audience.

Of course it was...at least the first part of it was. It's an origin story following the Heroes Journey beat for beat, as you would say.

That was their main adjective. When somebody is relatable, they have human value. They go through hardships and insecurities.

No. To make a character relatable, they have to bring him down to being a common every day person. Jesus was a carpenter's son. Luke was a farm boy. Or, even less than common....Harry Potter was an orphan living with his uncle. Moses was an abandoned child. And, on and on and on.

THEN flaws are introduced, which further makes the character relatable...because NOBODY is perfect.

The "hardship" is those flaws being exposed and then overcome....but for that part to meet its potential - the audience MUST ALREADY RELATE TO AND CARE FOR THE CHARACTER.

In MoS, Clark was insecure and was in search of himself.

Yes, that is exactly right.

It had a father/son story and Goyer even brought up most of his experiences with his own step-son for dialogue.

Yes...he played the role of a mentor in the story.

People can relate to that and when people relate to something, they see the flaw in it. Superman is a flawed character, without question and a good writer will exploit that in his character.

Mostly true. People do not relate to the character and then see the flaws. The flaws that are exposed help them relate to the character.

Now, you are in a NEW movie, BvS...and they have to repeat the pattern. It's not going to carry over from MoS because of how it ended. And, because of how it ended, I doubt - very much - that BvS was firmly even planned as a sequel when that third act was written.

You're giving me a headache. Your stringing together sentences that ramble and passing it off as something that sounds important. It's called trying too hard.

No, it's called repeating things I have learned about dramatic writing. That is how it goes....in almost every great story ever told in the history of man...and that is NOT an exaggeration.

You know nothing of how the audience is going to react because nobody has a clue in how this is going to unfold both story and plot wise. You're blowing hot-air out of your wazoo.

Somewhat true...but, there are not a lot of choices here...and none of them, IMO, will allow this story to be told to its potential.

Therefore, in the first 1/3 of the movie, all of this has to happen. Then the confrontations with Luthor, or whoever his underlings are, will start happening...he will get Batfleck on his side, Wonder Woman at some point will join...probably after a failed confrontation with a lesser villan (probably not Luthor). Then, there will be a build up to the final confrontation with Luthor.

Now we're getting into lousy fan-fiction.

Nope...it's an educated guess. Mark this post and check it when the movie is out.

You can't help but talk yourself right into stuff that is completely irrelevant. What you said above has been written one million times over on the internet and other forums. This may not be so predictable as you might think.

I have no idea what is said on other forums. But, you should know that if so many others are saying it then perhaps there is a hint of truth there.

And, it IS predictable, or it could be a pretty shitty movie if they are trying to reinvent story telling.

MoS was an origin story. Snyder admitted that they needed to be handcuffed to that source material and tell that story first and get it out of the way. He said with BvS, the cuffs are off and they have more freedom to explode both Superman and Batman's universe's in more creative ways than one and go balls to the walls with this DCEU coming into play.

Oh, come on...it's not just for origin stories. Batman Begins follows this EXACT pattern. And, so does TDK. If I looked at TDKR, I bet I could find the same pattern.

What George is saying is he would do the exact opposite...find/invent something that Superman DOES NOT care about - but everybody else does, including the audience. THAT would be a flaw. In fact, it would create an internal conflict because he normally DOES care.

You're right! Maybe they should give him a Super-kid and get caught up in a love-triangle and not care enough to know or show up in court or else one of the worlds most famous psychopath's would get off scott-free without much fight. Now that's flaws baby!

No. If you want to seriously look at it, fine. I'll use ISIS as an example.

Under current rules, Superman would be told of ISIS and then go in, have some confrontation with an ISIS leader, or whoever, laser eye some bad guys, fight a atomicly morphed version of the Ayatollah, and defeat ISIS for the US and the world.

Yawn.

Now, let's say the President lights up the Superman signal and talks to Superman. He tells S that he can't get the cooperation he needs from the region to defeat ISIS. No country in the region will help, none of the NATO allies feel it is much of a threat. But, Superman looks at the situation and says, "Look, you are killing them. They are killing you. And, both of you are killing the innocent...whether intentionally, or not. The life of an ISIS soldier is no less important then the life of an American soldier and neither is more important then the life of the civilians. So, he decides to stay out of it. But, there is escalating pressure Superman has put himself under by NOT acting....people are dying, the public and government want action...etc. Until, finally, he HAS to act and do "something" because he finds out ISIS created an atomic Ayatollah that will destroy that region of the world.

Wow, a plot for a Superman movie....somebody better send me a check. But, the point is caring too much is no where near as interesting as not caring enough...especially if it is something the audience DOES care about.

What a way to joke. Destroying a 12 million dollar piece of military hardware is not an action done by somebody who isn't upset in the slightest. It's not like the Government was trying invade his privacy or anything. Ever approach somebody and have that "knock it off" vibe? That was the kind of mood Supe's was in. He was pleading his case and the scene ended with uncertainty of trust between Superman and the Government. Hardly a buddy-buddy, ha-ha talk. You should pick up on this subtle stuff, Mr.Observer. It's pretty obvious what that scene was.

Dude...if the intent was to portray Superman as being pissed off, then they failed with bad writing, direction, and production. I hope they do better next time.

It's Batman. It's Superman....for the first time. That's ALL you need to digest and then you let the movie take it from there.

It's Alien, it's Predator, let the movie take it from there. That's what you are promoting.

I know you're use to Marvel's way of telling stories in a way to allow kids to understand since they make up the majority of that audience, but with BvS's audience, it doesn't need to be spoon-fed to digest no matter how bad you keep wanting to beat that dead horse. You need to give the audience more props dude and stop insulting their intelligence. The hype alone will give the audience everything they need to feast on and buy that movie ticket.

[/quote]

You just don't get it. You can write ANYTHING and apply these principals to it. Marvel is simply doing what every great story in the history of humanity has done...and they do it well.

[verslibre]

With Wonder Woman being an important role in the DCEU and DC going all in on her, this was Marvel's chance to answer their critics with a female lead right away

That's what you want, and what other fans want. But, if it doesn't make sense in the grandiose storylines Marvel is plotting, it may not be what Marvel wants. In fact, it's obviously NOT what Marvel wants.

"Grandiose." LOL. No more grandiose than what Snyder or Abrams or Orci or anyone else is doing. In fact, the Marvel timeline is linear with a capital L to the point they can (and have) cut and paste at will, which they've obviously done with Captain Marvel's introduction in the MCU.

Do you know what Tom Hiddleston said this week? That he hasn't heard from Marvel for two years. He hasn't the faintest idea what Loki will be doing in Ragnarok. You'd think the principals linked to one of the primary MCU characters would at least have attended a preliminary meeting by now for a movie scheduled to come out in 2017. But I guess, as you like to quote Feige so often, "they're taking their time."

Black Widow is a supporting character and it again makes no sense to the story to move her up to the same level as the rest of the Avengers. Feige will probably never say that because it would offend Black Widow fans...but I am pretty confident that is what is going on.

Your confidence betrays you. Black Widow was a supporting character in Iron Man 2, the film where she was introduced. In the two Avengers movies, and in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, she is one of the primary characters. Just because they won't give her her own solo movie doesn't change that, and that's exactly what a lot of people find annoying about Disney-Marvel. Feige won't say it because he's trying to avoid those foot-in-the-mouth moments, your own opinions notwithstanding.

She is also not a "damsel in distress", a victim in need of a hero.

Who said she was? Why bother with such a vapid remark? Or is blowing smoke your idea of a good time?

That's not what I mean. What I am saying is you are so involved in posting and reading on these topics that glaring facts stare at you but you ignore them because the trend in forum conversation ignores them. You both do this.

Nope. Your grandstanding is so thickly biased "the levee's about done, pardner." You mistake DC enthusiasm for Marvel antagonism. As I've said before, I'm a fan of both companies' properties and while I don't ever want to see another Batman & Robin, I don't want to see another Iron Man 2, either.

No, they should NOT. Critics can make all of these critical comments, but the success Marvel has been getting shows that this critical wisdom is pretty much irrelevant.

The transplanting of the Avengers' template into Age of Ultron was not the reason it made as much money as it did. The Marvel "brand" is the reason.

As far as "humor being their brand" because of Ant-Man. Come on, it's the story of a guy whose super power is to shrink to the size of an ant. That's simply ridiculous...and the best way out of that was to admit it and embrace it. I don't think they had much choice with that film.

Which has nothing to do with fitting it with needless moments of unfunny "humor" and a poor man's Obadiah Stane for a villain, along with countering a great interlude in the "quantumverse" with a corny showdown on a Thomas toy train set. A character's powers don't make him silly — how they're regarded and depicted can, though. For the most part, the miniaturized Ant-Man's moves were very well choreographed.

Guardians of the Galaxy, IMO, had a perfect blend of drama and humor. Doing NOTHING but serious drama over the entire film makes for a very hard to watch film, like Watchmen.

Bologna. Watchmen (written by Alan Moore) was a very dark story, and surgically stitching copious amounts of buffoonery into its body would've been the worst possible way to adapt it. I'm just sorry you don't get that.

If that is the mood DC is going for, then I think they will have a tough time with audiences after Suicide Squad.

O Ye Of Little Faith. I've got four words for you. Blue Beetle. Booster Gold.

One article I read a few months ago, after Ant-Man was released, said Marvel has found their voice by not taking themselves too seriously...at the same time DC is about to release two of the most depressing movies of next year (BvS and SS). I agree.

Marvel "hasn't taken themselves too seriously" since, oh, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Marvel's The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Gee, six whole movies and it took an article you read recently to enlighten you?

It's really not bias whatsoever when Marvel is KNOWN to neglect their female leads. All I'm saying is that people are disappointed Captain Marvel was put on the back-burner for now. Even if she isn't and what you gargle is true, it still does Marvel no good in the fan's eyes when it comes to the chikas of the MarvelU.

So what? Marvel should do what is best for the story they are telling, not give in to what fans demand at the expense of telling a better story. That is the problem with entertainment in todays world of the internet.

Is that why Iron Man 2 sucked? Because they introduced Black Widow? No.
What do we blame for the repetition of story beat after story beat in AoU? The inclusion of Scarlet Witch? No.
Did Ant-Man not cross the 57M barrier its first weekend because of Hope Van Dyne? No.

Your arguments are pretty, ah, stinky, pal. Odoriferous, I'd say.

[YoungJRNYfan]

[Quote] LOL...too funny. This is NOT what originally argued [\quote]

You're pulling the strings to you own puppet and create extension of debates. My original argument was that Superman is way more relatable than people think if one would educate themselves with his stories. He has a very human heart at the core. That said, being relatable is totally different than being normal and l'll leave it at that. You're a chasing your tail type poster so there's nothing else to say for the discussion to move forward, as easy as it would to repeat things over and over.

[Monker]

"Grandiose." LOL. No more grandiose than what Snyder or Abrams or Orci or anyone else is doing.

Marvel is linking like 20 stories together. None of the those you mention are doing that. Even DC has maybe half that number. So, yes, I feel very justified in saying grandiose.

Do you know what Tom Hiddleston said this week? That he hasn't heard from Marvel for two years. He hasn't the faintest idea what Loki will be doing in Ragnarok.

So what? The movie is two years away - he doesn't need to know. And, if he went and spilled some spoilers you would critique Marvel for not keeping their plans secret. In the end, this really doesn't matter.

Your confidence betrays you. Black Widow was a supporting character in Iron Man 2, the film where she was introduced. In the two Avengers movies, and in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, she is one of the primary characters.

You are just wrong. She is not on her own Heroes Journey. She is supporting others in their hero journey. If she was at the level of Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, she would have had a vision in AoU. She supports the other character in their story. That is how she is being used. If you don't see that, then you aren't looking.

She is also not a "damsel in distress", a victim in need of a hero.

Who said she was? Why bother with such a vapid remark?

I don't remember your exact words, but you said something like "....that's why she is always being set up for Bruce Banner to rescue." What you are describing is called a "Drama Triangle", where one character is a hero (Hulk/Banner), one is a VICTIM (Black Widow), and one is the persecutor (Ultron, or "whatever" she needs rescued from - it doesn't have to be a person). The classic version is a villain tying some damsel to the railroad track and a hero coming to the rescue before the train (another persecutor) runs her over.

All I am saying is she doesn't portray herself as a victim in these stories.

That's not what I mean. What I am saying is you are so involved in posting and reading on these topics that glaring facts stare at you but you ignore them because the trend in forum conversation ignores them. You both do this.

Nope. Your grandstanding is so thickly biased "the levee's about done, pardner." You mistake DC enthusiasm for Marvel antagonism. As I've said before, I'm a fan of both companies' properties and while I don't ever want to see another Batman & Robin, I don't want to see another Iron Man 2, either.[/quote]

No, you guys are constantly referring to other forums saying, "all the Marvel fans are saying...That's not what the Marvel fans think....etc" You guys read so much opinions on forums, and opionating writers in articles, that you take their opinion as fact. It's not fact, even if they all agree.

They can all be wrong. Often, I find that opinions made en mass like that are collectively wrong because they have confused their own opinion for fact.

The transplanting of the Avengers' template into Age of Ultron was not the reason it made as much money as it did. The Marvel "brand" is the reason.

I would agree if it made $500 million, instead of over $1 billion. You don't get those numbers unless people went to see it multiple times. It made such money because it was entertaining and people enjoyed it. It's really that simple.

Which has nothing to do with fitting it with needless moments of unfunny "humor" and a poor man's Obadiah Stane for a villain, along with countering a great interlude in the "quantumverse" with a corny showdown on a Thomas toy train set. A character's powers don't make him silly — how they're regarded and depicted can, though. For the most part, the miniaturized Ant-Man's moves were very well choreographed.

I didn't say it worked or I thought it was funny, etc. My point was, the incredible shrinking superhero could not be taken seriously so why even try? Don't forget, I'm completely uninterested in seeing any Ant-Man movie...but I absolutely understand why they went with humor.

Bologna. Watchmen (written by Alan Moore) was a very dark story, and surgically stitching copious amounts of buffoonery into its body would've been the worst possible way to adapt it. I'm just sorry you don't get that.

Watchmen was incredibly dull and boring. It could have used a Rocket Raccoon saying, "What's the deal with the giant, naked blue guy? Ok, we get it, you got a big dick. Now, put it away, pervert!" Or anything. geez, what a boring movie.

If that is the mood DC is going for, then I think they will have a tough time with audiences after Suicide Squad.

O Ye Of Little Faith. I've got four words for you. Blue Beetle. Booster Gold.

I have no idea what that is supposed mean. What, the Wonder Twins join the Justice League movie?

One article I read a few months ago, after Ant-Man was released, said Marvel has found their voice by not taking themselves too seriously...at the same time DC is about to release two of the most depressing movies of next year (BvS and SS). I agree.

Marvel "hasn't taken themselves too seriously" since, oh, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Marvel's The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Gee, six whole movies and it took an article you read recently to enlighten you?

Again, you miss the point. Having the balance of drama and humor is a good thing. Being all dark and depressing is very, very tiring for an audience. One of the reasons Heath's Joker is so well done is that it IS funny at times, in a sick way. But, it helps digest the grim bits of the movie. In fact, that is a good reason why Joker is popular in general - he can be humorous and contrast Batman's constant serious tone.

Is that why Iron Man 2 sucked? Because they introduced Black Widow? No.

No, it's because they introduced Iron Man as a super-hero right from the start. They gave no time to develop the character and prompt us to care what happened. They gave no attention to the traditional first act of the story and jumped right into Act 2, and fighting Whiplash.

What do we blame for the repetition of story beat after story beat in AoU?

Your inability to not over-analyze and just be entertained? It wasn't perfect...but it wasn't bad, or even mediocre - it was a damn good summer movie.

Did Ant-Man not cross the 57M barrier its first weekend because of Hope Van Dyne? No.

It was a late summer mediocre movie that had a mediocre premise that took too much effort to sell to audiences.

[S2M]

I'll end the debate right now. Cue crotchety old man S2M....I'm getting tired of these comic book/super Hero movies. Hollyweird is saturated. And 90% of them suck. Until they do Justice League vs. Legion of Doom...I'll pass on everything else. OR, a Thundercats movie. An EPIC Cats movie.

[verslibre]

I'm getting tired of these comic book/super Hero movies. Hollyweird is saturated.

Is Hollywood saturated with sci fi, fantasy, vampires and wise guys?

And 90% of them suck.

They've released a bunch of them after Iron Man 2.

Until they do Justice League vs. Legion of Doom...I'll pass on everything else.

They'll get there!

[YoungJRNYfan]

S2M in da hiZZay! And he might be onto something. A JL/Legion of Doom face-off in this DCEU is likely.

[YoungJRNYfan]

[verslibre]

Marvel is linking like 20 stories together. None of the those you mention are doing that. Even DC has maybe half that number. So, yes, I feel very justified in saying grandiose.

And you'll be wrong in assuming DC is doing nothing of the sort when they're using the Multiverse/Infinite Earths to have different actors play characters that are both the same and different, on both TV and film (that's actually Marvel isn't doing). Don't be surprised if it eventually culminates in Crisis on Infinite Earths. While the show's a little too bubblegum for my taste, the latest episode of The Flash introduced Jay Garrick, the Earth-2. The Flash and Arrow take place concurrently and cross over regularly. While it's on a different network, I expect Supergirl to at least contain passing references to those shows.

So what? The movie is two years away - [Hiddleston] doesn't need to know. And, if he went and spilled some spoilers you would critique Marvel for not keeping their plans secret. In the end, this really doesn't matter.

To you. "Two years away" and they haven't scheduled principal photography. You know how long postproduction takes on these movies. Hell, they did reshoots for The Force Awakens last month and it opens in two months.

You are just wrong. She is not on her own Heroes Journey. She is supporting others in their hero journey. If she was at the level of Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, she would have had a vision in AoU. She supports the other character in their story. That is how she is being used. If you don't see that, then you aren't looking.

Her journey isn't given the same kind of attention (the kind you apparently require) but it threads its way through four movies, so far. ScarJo's Black Widow is more popular than Hulk and Hawkeye, which is why people want her to have a solo.

I don't remember your exact words, but you said something like "....that's why she is always being set up for Bruce Banner to rescue." What you are describing is called a "Drama Triangle", where one character is a hero (Hulk/Banner), one is a VICTIM (Black Widow), and one is the persecutor (Ultron, or "whatever" she needs rescued from - it doesn't have to be a person). The classic version is a villain tying some damsel to the railroad track and a hero coming to the rescue before the train (another persecutor) runs her over.

You may have misread my complaint. I don't like the so-called Banner-Romanoff romance subplot at all. It's forced and exists only to (attempt to) add some spice to a dish that's lacking.

No, you guys are constantly referring to other forums saying, "all the Marvel fans are saying...That's not what the Marvel fans think....etc" You guys read so much opinions on forums, and opionating writers in articles, that you take their opinion as fact. It's not fact, even if they all agree.

They can all be wrong. Often, I find that opinions made en mass like that are collectively wrong because they have confused their own opinion for fact.

And you have all the facts, right? You know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? A) You're not writing these movies, and B) If I felt you were "right," I wouldn't be replying to your comments.

The transplanting of the Avengers' template into Age of Ultron was not the reason it made as much money as it did. The Marvel "brand" is the reason.

I would agree if it made $500 million, instead of over $1 billion. You don't get those numbers unless people went to see it multiple times. It made such money because it was entertaining and people enjoyed it. It's really that simple.

You just agreed with me without realizing it.

Don't forget, I'm completely uninterested in seeing any Ant-Man movie...but I absolutely understand why they went with humor.

They went with unnecessary forced humor for the same reason Thor: Ragnarok will have unnecessary forced humor.

Watchmen was incredibly dull and boring. It could have used a Rocket Raccoon saying, "What's the deal with the giant, naked blue guy? Ok, we get it, you got a big dick. Now, put it away, pervert!" Or anything. geez, what a boring movie.

Which proves another thing: you are exactly the kind of moviegoer Disney-Marvel wants. You're their demographic. You like silly and you like stupid. Those elements have their place — Bachelor Party and American Pie, for instance — but you saw what happened to Batman & Robin. You saw what happened to Iron Man 3 with its kid sidekick trope, hero-turns-MacGyver trope and hero-uses-basic-garage-implements-to-restore-his-ultra-advanced-weaponry trope. That's why I didn't see those movies multiple times in the theater as I did for The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, and Man of Steel.

O Ye Of Little Faith. I've got four words for you. Blue Beetle. Booster Gold.

I have no idea what that is supposed mean.

Read more articles.

Marvel "hasn't taken themselves too seriously" since, oh, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, Marvel's The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World, and Avengers: Age of Ultron. Gee, six whole movies and it took an article you read recently to enlighten you?

Again, you miss the point. Having the balance of drama and humor is a good thing. Being all dark and depressing is very, very tiring for an audience.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. You choose to pound home every point you make with a sledge hammer but you put too much effort into the down-swing and you end up bending the top half of the nail into the wood like an amateur construction worker. Cite as many newsbits as you like, but Marvel has altered their formula very little since 2008, if at all. The two Cap movies are tonally similar and thus they stand out against the others because they're a bit more serious. (Somebody obviously wisely pointed out that stitching buffoonery into a WW2 superhero's movie might not be the best idea.)

So you say they've found their voice, but then you quote an article that says Marvel has done just that "with Ant-Man" — or maybe you didn't mean for it to come across that way but you phrased it poorly. So much for brow-beating.

One of the reasons Heath's Joker is so well done is that it IS funny at times, in a sick way. But, it helps digest the grim bits of the movie. In fact, that is a good reason why Joker is popular in general - he can be humorous and contrast Batman's constant serious tone.

And so can the Riddler. And so can Catwoman. And so can Harley Quinn. And so can Poison Ivy. Luthor? Yeah, him, too.

See, there's "good funny" and "bad funny." Good-funny: Black Widow saying "Would you like to play a game?" into an old computer in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Bad-funny: just about everything in Iron Man 3, Darcy in Thor 2, Paul Rudd/Scott Lang interrupting Hank and Hope's moment in Ant-Man.

Is that why Iron Man 2 sucked? Because they introduced Black Widow? No.

No, it's because they introduced Iron Man as a super-hero right from the start. They gave no time to develop the character and prompt us to care what happened. They gave no attention to the traditional first act of the story and jumped right into Act 2, and fighting Whiplash.

Not sure what you're getting at. They gave no time to develop who? Whiplash? Iron Man was established as a superhero in the first movie. You know, the one that bears his name.

What do we blame for the repetition of story beat after story beat in AoU?

Your inability to not over-analyze and just be entertained? It wasn't perfect...but it wasn't bad, or even mediocre - it was a damn good summer movie.

Like I said, you're exactly who/what Disney-Marvel is gearing their output towards.

[Monker]

I'm getting tired of these comic book/super Hero movies. Hollyweird is saturated.

Is Hollywood saturated with sci fi, fantasy, vampires and wise guys?

No, it's not. Next year there will be around five big budget and potential blockbuster comic book movies: BvS, Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, X-Men Apocalypse, and Gambit. On top of that, you get things like Deadpool and Sinister 6.

There is no where near that amount of effort put into those other genres. I'd love to see that for sci-fi. This year we basically got The Martian and Star Wars. Fantasy has a fair share but it's still not comparable to these comic book movies. I really don't care much about vampire movies...and wise guys/gangster movies...that is laughable.

So, yes, he is right...this comic book bubble is getting close to capacity and ready to burst. Like I said, I think next year is when the genre jumps the shark.

[verslibre]

I'm getting tired of these comic book/super Hero movies. Hollyweird is saturated.

Is Hollywood saturated with sci fi, fantasy, vampires and wise guys?

No, it's not. Next year there will be around five big budget and potential blockbuster comic book movies: BvS, Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, X-Men Apocalypse, and Gambit.

Yeah, first time ever. So what? Don't be surprised if Gambit is pushed back into 2017 for any reason. I'm not saying it will be, but don't be surprised.

On top of that, you get things like Deadpool and Sinister 6.

At this time, Sinister Six is not scheduled. ("In development" means no work is being done on it.) If it does, it's years away. I mean years, IF they decide to do it. With the re-reboot and the new co-op with Marvel, the previously planned S6 movie was postponed don't-call-us-we'll-call-you style without further notice.

There is no where near that amount of effort put into those other genres.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

YA sci-fi/horror movie franchises based on bestselling books, all produced in the wake of the success of the Twilight films: The Hunger Games; Divergent; The Maze Runner. A bunch of movies there. Not my speed, but I'm not bitching about them, either.

You're about to see total Star Wars-centric saturation of the Fourth Kind: a trilogy (to start) and standalone movies: Rogue One and solo Han Solo and Boba Fett movies. I repeat: TO START.

Oh, that's right! A sequel to Independence Day arrives next year. I bet it has a VERY big budget behind it. If it's a slam dunk, expect more movies to follow. (Actually, a third movie is already planned.)

Oh, yeah, since last year's Godzilla performed so decently (500M+ worldwide), the kaiju/giant monsters genre is alive and kicking. Kong: Skull Island is due next year, Godzilla 2 is scheduled in 2018, AND Toho Studios is doing their own Godzilla reboot. Gamera returns in 2017. I hope we still get Pacific Rim 2.

And what about that Universal Monsters "shared universe" film series I keep hearing buzz about?

There's a lot happening.

I'd love to see that for sci-fi.

When has SF been ignored? What, did Star Trek Into Darkness and Jupiter Ascending suck? Don't blame CBMs for that. I'm also sorry John Carter failed to launch but Disney promoted it horribly, and dropping –of Mars from the title (except for the end credits) wasn't smart. I liked it.

This year we basically got The Martian and Star Wars.

Jurassic World is "science fiction," too. Yes, that movie. The big budget one that has made the most money this year so far, in spite of this "over-saturation" of CBMs you complain of frequently.

There's this other SF movie that's gotten a lot of buzz: Ex Machina. Maybe you should watch it.

Fantasy has a fair share but it's still not comparable to these comic book movies.

Let's see. Another Narnia movie is coming. We've had two Tolkien trilogies that did massive business. And you know those movies based on those J.K. Rowling novels about a kid magician or something like that? The ones that did huge business? The spin-off is coming next year. How about the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise? That's "fantasy." The fifth, Dead Men Tell No Tales, comes out in 2017, and they're already writing the sixth.

Terry Brooks' Shannara series — beginning with the second book — shifted to cable, but begins airing in January. Game of Thrones is huge, but it's also on cable.

How about all those animated films? They are legion. And they also cash in hugely. You know which ones.

So, yes, he is right...this comic book bubble is getting close to capacity and ready to burst. Like I said, I think next year is when the genre jumps the shark.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. More underlying anti-DC bee-ess, thinly (if at all) disguised. Zip it.

[S2M]

I'm well aware of Brooks' 'Shannara' series. I'm sure it'll get the shaft as far as production money. GoT gets A+++ treatment. Brooks will get crumbs. I wonder why they are starting with Elfstones. I hope it's more like GoT, and not at all like 'Once Upon a Time'

Myself, I would have went with Feist's, 'Magician' series. Better story arc, and better world.

[Abitaman]

LOL...too funny. This is NOT what originally argued [\quote]

You're pulling the strings to you own puppet and create extension of debates. My original argument was that Superman is way more relatable than people think if one would educate themselves with his stories. He has a very human heart at the core. That said, being relatable is totally different than being normal and l'll leave it at that. You're a chasing your tail type poster so there's nothing else to say for the discussion to move forward, as easy as it would to repeat things over and over.

Having read comics since the 70's I would have to agree with you. Superman has always had a thing for the human race. He as always felt like their protector. Even more so in Clark Kent persona, he is down to earth person.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Your inability to not over-analyze and just be entertained?

Hah! Says the same guy who wants to go back to watch TDK with his paper, pencil and taped bifocals to prove his Shakespear'in knowledge of storywriting that even TDK was written in the same vein as every movie written in the history of man. Dude, wake up and smell your own roses! Me and v has kept this FAIRLY simple this entire time and we're enjoying it for what it is and the potential of where the DCEU could be heading. In the history of this thread, it's you over analyzing basically every element that has gone on with DC and telling people they're wrong because your intelligence through studies far outweigh anything you can possibly enjoy with DC or BvS but it's us who are over analyzing and not willing to be entertained? You're the one finding every reason under the sun as to why everything WB/DC is doing won't work and how you're right and everyone else is wrong. Seriously, nobody likes a know-it-all but nobody likes a typing contradiction either!

While the show's a little too bubblegum for my taste, the latest episode of The Flash introduced Jay Garrick, the Earth-2. The Flash and Arrow take place concurrently and cross over regularly. While it's on a different network, I expect Supergirl to at least contain passing references to those shows.

Mine, too. You know my stance with television. I just can't do it because of the bubbles and bubble gum feel, but you're right how DC is branching their characters with their version of the multiverse. Speaking of references, I heard there was an awesome Superman reference on Flash the other night. It's all there for the multiverse to gain steam.

So, yes, he is right...this comic book bubble is getting close to capacity and ready to burst. Like I said, I think next year is when the genre jumps the shark.

In the most recent continuity comic book movie boom, DC has put out 1 film thus far connecting their Extended Universe (Man of Steel) and Marvel has been praised up and down the boulevard for creating their expertly put together phase movies but all of a sudden, the genre is going to jump the shark NEXT YEAR? What a coincidence since I SWEAR a huge movie featuring the two most iconic and most recognizable characters in pop culture will share the screen for the very first time. I hope someone near you knows the Heimlich from all the bias you're choking on!

Which proves another thing: you are exactly the kind of moviegoer Disney-Marvel wants. You're their demographic. You like silly and you like stupid.

[YoungJRNYfan]

LOL...too funny. This is NOT what originally argued [\quote]

You're pulling the strings to you own puppet and create extension of debates. My original argument was that Superman is way more relatable than people think if one would educate themselves with his stories. He has a very human heart at the core. That said, being relatable is totally different than being normal and l'll leave it at that. You're a chasing your tail type poster so there's nothing else to say for the discussion to move forward, as easy as it would to repeat things over and over.

Having read comics since the 70's I would have to agree with you. Superman has always had a thing for the human race. He as always felt like their protector. Even more so in Clark Kent persona, he is down to earth person.

There's a lot of debates from Supeman fans on who the real man behind the cape really is (The great Kill Bill movie scene addressed this.) I tend to lean on the side where Superman is the "mask" and Clark Kent is the real person.. not the other way around. Superman really is Clark Kent in tights who came to the decision and accept the fact that using his gifts for the greater of good is the right thing to do, even if his uncomfort and insecurities of being an alien may get in the way at times. Besides, Superman may be a "God" here on Earth, but he wasn't born as one on Krypton. If Krypton wouldn't have exploded, he would have been normal to Kryptonian standards, only existing on a vastly superior; advanced planet millennia ahead of its time. Technically, Kal was born as human as you and I. As a fan, there's value to that.

[verslibre]

I hope someone near you knows the Heimlich from all the bias you're choking on!

[verslibre]

I'm well aware of Brooks' 'Shannara' series. I'm sure it'll get the shaft as far as production money. GoT gets A+++ treatment. Brooks will get crumbs. I wonder why they are starting with Elfstones. I hope it's more like GoT, and not at all like 'Once Upon a Time'

They're skipping Sword because (and it's true) it's just too much of a Tolkien pastiche. Were it me, I'd say to hell with it and start with that, anyway.

I saw a bunch of footage from it, and it's being filmed in NZ, so expect it to resemble Jackson's movies.

Myself, I would have went with Feist's, 'Magician' series. Better story arc, and better world.

I'd love to see more dark fantasy, but especially sword & sorcery without all the gnomes and metrosexual elves. I thought the Conan reboot was solid (except for the very end) but it failed. Momoa's a lot closer to REH's Conan, though.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Awesome fan art!



Reminds me of the Greg Pakk; Jae Lee Batman/Superman pages:

[verslibre]

^That is sweet!

[Monker]

No, it's not. Next year there will be around five big budget and potential blockbuster comic book movies: BvS, Captain America: Civil War, Suicide Squad, X-Men Apocalypse, and Gambit.

Yeah, first time ever. So what? Don't be surprised if Gambit is pushed back into 2017 for any reason. I'm not saying it will be, but don't be surprised.[/quote]

Exactly...first time ever. It's becoming over-kill.

On top of that, you get things like Deadpool and Sinister 6.

At this time, Sinister Six is not scheduled. ("In development" means no work is being done on it.) If it does, it's years away. I mean years, IF they decide to do it. With the re-reboot and the new co-op with Marvel, the previously planned S6 movie was postponed don't-call-us-we'll-call-you style without further notice.

Well, good thing I said, "around five..." because that only drops it down to six.

There is no where near that amount of effort put into those other genres.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

YA sci-fi/horror movie franchises based on bestselling books, all produced in the wake of the success of the Twilight films: The Hunger Games; Divergent; The Maze Runner. A bunch of movies there. Not my speed, but I'm not bitching about them, either. [/quote]

First, you said scifi, not scifi/horror. Which are really two different genres. So are scifi/fantasy. Twilight is fantasy even more than horror, but not scifi. The basic test - take out the "science" (if there even is any) in Twilight, and you still have the story. That means it is NOT scifi. Also, the way Twilight was released seemed modeled after Harry Potter, and Hunger Games followed the same pattern.

When was the last time you had seven different big scifi movies planned for a year? You may get Hunger Games (which, IMO, is more fantasy than scifi anyway, but whatever) and something like Gravity. But, you don't see: Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Lost In Space, and The Last Starfighter all released in the same year...not in recent memory anyway. If they were, I'd say the same thing about scifi.

Fantasy hit a bit of a saturation point back when Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter were both being released at the same time. It has been hanging right on the edge ever since.

You're about to see total Star Wars-centric saturation of the Fourth Kind: a trilogy (to start) and standalone movies: Rogue One and solo Han Solo and Boba Fett movies. I repeat: TO START.

Yep...and I'm happy for that. And, we'll see how much of that is actually completed. If Rogue One dies, I wouldn't be surprised if they back off a bit. When the last "Lost In Space" movie was released, it was supposed to relaunch the franchise as well...with new movies and a TV series. Didn't happen.

Also, you have to add in Star Trek continuing their movie efforts. And, with Star Wars always comes BSG...and there has been talk of a BSG movie reboot even before the series ended...nothing planned but BSG always comes right after SW.

So, yeah, scifi could get there. But, right now - it's not. Starting next year, comic book movies, IMO, will be.

Oh, that's right! A sequel to Independence Day arrives next year. I bet it has a VERY big budget behind it. If it's a slam dunk, expect more movies to follow. (Actually, a third movie is already planned.)

Yep...and once the promotion starts for next summer's movies, it may take a LOT of steam away from both BvS and CA:CW. Following Star Wars, people may want to see that INSTEAD of another comic book movie....and that one is a big name that a lot of people have been waiting for.

Oh, yeah, since last year's Godzilla performed so decently (500M+ worldwide), the kaiju/giant monsters genre is alive and kicking. Kong: Skull Island is due next year, Godzilla 2 is scheduled in 2018, AND Toho Studios is doing their own Godzilla reboot. Gamera returns in 2017. I hope we still get Pacific Rim 2.

Yep...but, that is a separate genre that has been dead for decades and simply does NOT equate to what comic book movies are doing next year.

And what about that Universal Monsters "shared universe" film series I keep hearing buzz about?

Don't know...not really my thing. Sounds like a better TV series than a movie franchise though.

I'd love to see that for sci-fi.

When has SF been ignored? [/quote]

I didn't say that scifi was "ignored". I said I would love to see scifi get five genre movies in one year. Hell ya, give me 10 scifi movies next year instead of two blockbusters and a few mediocre POS"s.

What, did Star Trek Into Darkness and Jupiter Ascending suck?

No...not "suck". Into Darkness did not meet expectations because it was a Khan movie. It was a better than mediocre movie that seems less than that because you have to compare it one of the greatest Star Trek movies ever.

Jupiter Ascending was OK. It was also a Spring release where those types of mediocre movies are released. I would say the same about Seventh Son (and, it's FANTASY, not scifi). They don't dump movies in the Spring and expect them to be blockbusters.

Don't blame CBMs for that.

I didn't! You are imagining things!

I'm also sorry John Carter failed to launch but Disney promoted it horribly, and dropping –of Mars from the title (except for the end credits) wasn't smart. I liked it.

Yeah, it was good. But, like I argued back when it was released, it was a Spring release so I did NOT expect it to do well.

This year we basically got The Martian and Star Wars.

Jurassic World is "science fiction," too. Yes, that movie.[/quote]

Meh, kinda scifi. But, OK, whatever. You are still not even close to saturating the market like comic book movies.

The big budget one that has made the most money this year so far, in spite of this "over-saturation" of CBMs you complain of frequently.

Whoah, what are you going on about? I am not arguing that comic book movies are killing other genres. I am saying comic book movies are committing suicide by saturating the market.

There's this other SF movie that's gotten a lot of buzz: Ex Machina. Maybe you should watch it.

Meh. Looks stupid. So did CHAPPiE. Both Spring releases.

Let's see. Another Narnia movie is coming.

We've had two Tolkien trilogies that did massive business. And you know those movies based on those J.K. Rowling novels about a kid magician or something like that? The ones that did huge business? The spin-off is coming next year. How about the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise? That's "fantasy." The fifth, Dead Men Tell No Tales, comes out in 2017, and they're already writing the sixth. [/quote]

LOL...so what. Five blockbusters in one year. You are taking series and spreading them out over years. Some of them are even over with. Fantasy is not saturating the market. It was close, but not quite there.

Terry Brooks' Shannara series — beginning with the second book — shifted to cable, but begins airing in January. Game of Thrones is huge, but it's also on cable.

Not movies...and if read my post, you would see I didn't even mention the TV/cable/Netflix/etc series.

How about all those animated films? They are legion. And they also cash in hugely. You know which ones.

Yep...what is your point?

So, yes, he is right...this comic book bubble is getting close to capacity and ready to burst. Like I said, I think next year is when the genre jumps the shark.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. More underlying anti-DC bee-ess, thinly (if at all) disguised. Zip it.

LOL...dude. It has nothing to do with DC. I listed five main movies. Two of them are DC movies. Three of them are from Marvel comics...and of those from Marvel, X-Men isn't even controlled by Marvel.

I made a general comment - you are imagining anti-DC'ness. Weird.

[S2M]

I'm well aware of Brooks' 'Shannara' series. I'm sure it'll get the shaft as far as production money. GoT gets A+++ treatment. Brooks will get crumbs. I wonder why they are starting with Elfstones. I hope it's more like GoT, and not at all like 'Once Upon a Time'

They're skipping Sword because (and it's true) it's just too much of a Tolkien pastiche. Were it me, I'd say to hell with it and start with that, anyway.

I saw a bunch of footage from it, and it's being filmed in NZ, so expect it to resemble Jackson's movies.

Myself, I would have went with Feist's, 'Magician' series. Better story arc, and better world.

I'd love to see more dark fantasy, but especially sword & sorcery without all the gnomes and metrosexual elves. I thought the Conan reboot was solid (except for the very end) but it failed. Momoa's a lot closer to REH's Conan, though.

Between Brooks and Feist, there are over 50 COMPLETED books in those respective series. None of this RR Martin crap about waiting til the Winter book is written. I don't have high hopes for Shannara( it is actually pronounced SHAN-ara, NOT SHAN-NARA). Again, i would love to see Feist's books come to life...all the Midkemia stuff....etc. Macros...Thomas...Dragons.

[verslibre]

Between Brooks and Feist, there are over 50 COMPLETED books in those respective series. None of this RR Martin crap about waiting til the Winter book is written. I don't have high hopes for Shannara( it is actually pronounced SHAN-ara, NOT SHAN-NARA). Again, i would love to see Feist's books come to life...all the Midkemia stuff....etc. Macros...Thomas...Dragons.

Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern and all the rest of the books in that series have also been optioned but I haven't heard anything more about it since. It's only listed as "In development" (that again) but there's activity in the IMDb forums so there's interest in seeing it realized.

[Monker]

Marvel is linking like 20 stories together. None of the those you mention are doing that. Even DC has maybe half that number. So, yes, I feel very justified in saying grandiose.

And you'll be wrong in assuming DC is doing nothing of the sort when they're using the Multiverse/Infinite Earths to have different actors play characters that are both the same and different, on both TV and film (that's actually Marvel isn't doing). Don't be surprised if it eventually culminates in Crisis on Infinite Earths. While the show's a little too bubblegum for my taste, the latest episode of The Flash introduced Jay Garrick, the Earth-2. The Flash and Arrow take place concurrently and cross over regularly. While it's on a different network, I expect Supergirl to at least contain passing references to those shows.

Errr, good luck with that.

To you. "Two years away" and they haven't scheduled principal photography. You know how long postproduction takes on these movies. Hell, they did reshoots for The Force Awakens last month and it opens in two months.

So what. He doesn't need to know until he gets a script. But, really, this is such a non-issue, I just don't care.

Her journey isn't given the same kind of attention (the kind you apparently require) but it threads its way through four movies, so far. ScarJo's Black Widow is more popular than Hulk and Hawkeye, which is why people want her to have a solo.

Oh, please, Black Widow is not on a heroes journey. That's just a FACT.

You may have misread my complaint. I don't like the so-called Banner-Romanoff romance subplot at all. It's forced and exists only to (attempt to) add some spice to a dish that's lacking.

It exists to give Hulk a reason to leave the Avengers. Obviously, they wanted him to take off on his own for some reason. Maybe he's on Planet Hulk, who knows.

And you have all the facts, right? You know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? A) You're not writing these movies, and B) If I felt you were "right," I wouldn't be replying to your comments.

No, I don't have "All" the facts. But, what I do know does not mesh with what you are saying. And, what you are saying would not make sense from Marvel's perspective anyway. So, I would rather trust my intuition than what you are saying a bunch of comic book nerds are making up on other forums.

Don't forget, I'm completely uninterested in seeing any Ant-Man movie...but I absolutely understand why they went with humor.

They went with unnecessary forced humor for the same reason Thor: Ragnarok will have unnecessary forced humor.

Go back and read the thread. You said something about Marvel's voice being that of comedy and used Ant-Man as an example. All I am saying is they had no choice with Ant-Man because the premise is loopy anyway. In general, Marvel tries to balance the humor and drama. You may not LIKE the humor they use, but that doesn't mean that is what it is all about.

Which proves another thing: you are exactly the kind of moviegoer Disney-Marvel wants.

Which proves you don't know anything about publishing.

Go and write the best story you can write. Go and call up some publishers and tell them that you have the best story ever and the public just has to read/hear/see it. Nobody will buy it.

Publishers buy what the public wants to pay for. Period.

If you want a story sold, you will write what a publisher wants to buy. You will call publishers and ask what they are buying before you type a single letter...and then you will have a CHANCE to find a publisher to buy it, depending on how good you are at writing.

Disney/Marvel is making films the public wants to pay money to see. They are not making films they want the public to see. There is a difference. You may not like it, you may be tempted to write a post saying how wrong that is, but it has been the truth for hundreds of years.

In other words, the statement quoted above is completely backwards. Marvel is making movies I (and a lot of other people) want to see.

You like silly and you like stupid. Those elements have their place — Bachelor Party and American Pie, for instance

Nope...you pegged me wrong. Don't like either of those movies much.

Silly and stupid that I like. Beetlejuice, any Monty Python movie, Time Bandits, Airplane.

You saw what happened to Iron Man 3 with its kid sidekick trope, hero-turns-MacGyver trope and hero-uses-basic-garage-implements-to-restore-his-ultra-advanced-weaponry trope.

Iron Man 3 wasn't all that bad....MUCH better than Iron Man 2. You are way over exaggerating.

Cite as many newsbits as you like, but Marvel has altered their formula very little since 2008, if at all.

I never said they altered it. I cited one article I read which said Marvel added humor to their movies at a time where DC is going to release two of most depressing movies of the year next year. The point isn't that Marvel changes their formula. The point is that if DC thinks a movie filled with nothing but dark drama without any comic relief is going to compete, well, they may burn people out pretty quickly.

So you say they've found their voice

No, I didn't say that...I said somebody else said that. It depends on the character and movie. Like YOU said, they seem to have found a good voice for Captain America. I think they did very well for Guardians of the Galaxy. But, they can't find Hulks voice (grunt) at all. They also seem to struggle with Thor. They are hit and miss with Iron Man. And, I think over-all they do good with the Avengers as a group.

And so can the Riddler. And so can Catwoman. And so can Harley Quinn. And so can Poison Ivy. Luthor? Yeah, him, too.

But, none of them do it as well as the Joker.

See, there's "good funny" and "bad funny."

No, there is opinion. I love Ren and Stimpy. Other people like Beavis and Butt-head. I like South Park. Other people like Family Guy.

You are arguing schematics now and are at the point where you are trying to define what is funny and what isn't. My point is, whether you like it or not, Marvel has learned to use a bit of comic relief to ease the audience through drama.

No, it's because they introduced Iron Man as a super-hero right from the start. They gave no time to develop the character and prompt us to care what happened. They gave no attention to the traditional first act of the story and jumped right into Act 2, and fighting Whiplash.

Not sure what you're getting at. They gave no time to develop who? Whiplash? Iron Man was established as a superhero in the first movie. You know, the one that bears his name.[/quote]

It's the same point I have been arguing. In EACH of these movies they have to start with act 1 - get the audience to relate to the character. They completely skipped that with Iron Man 2. At least in Iron Man 3, he is brought down to Earth and becomes relatable.

Like I said, you're exactly who/what Disney-Marvel is gearing their output towards.

So what. If you decide you don't want to see it, then don't. The simple fact is that people want to buy what Marvel is selling. You can be upset at that all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that Marvel knows what they are doing.

[Monker]

Hah! Says the same guy who wants to go back to watch TDK with his paper, pencil and taped bifocals to prove his Shakespear'in knowledge of storywriting that even TDK was written in the same vein as every movie written in the history of man.

I did not say that at all. I said TDK*R*. I really don't care much for TDKR so it would take me rewatching it.

But, seriously, WATCH THE VIDEO. It's not that hard to understand...

https://youtu.be/yZxs_jGN7Pg

[/quote]

So, yes, he is right...this comic book bubble is getting close to capacity and ready to burst. Like I said, I think next year is when the genre jumps the shark.

In the most recent continuity comic book movie boom, DC has put out 1 film thus far connecting their Extended Universe (Man of Steel) and Marvel has been praised up and down the boulevard for creating their expertly put together phase movies but all of a sudden, the genre is going to jump the shark NEXT YEAR? [/quote]

Well, not all of a sudden. I mentioned this months ago.

I'm not 'blaming' DC, or anyone. I'm just saying I think it's going to happen. Just because DC came in late and is only now adding air to the balloon doesn't mean I am blaming them.

Which proves another thing: you are exactly the kind of moviegoer Disney-Marvel wants. You're their demographic. You like silly and you like stupid.

You know, this is hilarious. You are posting in a forum about a guy who dresses up like a bat and another who flies around in his underwear...and we're talking silly and stupid?

[verslibre]

Exactly...first time ever. It's becoming over-kill.

"Overkill" is an absolute. It is or it isn't. IMO, it is not, because this has never happened before. How many zombie movies have been made in the last 15 years? Or since Night of the Living Dead? Nobody's bitching about overkill there. I know I'm not. How about all those movies that start with Paranormal?

Well, good thing I said, "around five..." because that only drops it down to six.

Three studios are releasing two movies apiece. Three studios, three separate universes. One genre. That's overkill?

You see, my point about this being the first time ever is that it's the first the CBM genre has been this prolific.

First, you said scifi, not scifi/horror. Which are really two different genres. So are scifi/fantasy.

A slash means "and/or." The proper labels are SF-Horror (like Alien) and Science Fantasy (like John Carter).

Twilight is fantasy even more than horror, but not scifi.

No, it's a bestselling YA series that clearly paved the way for the other three, tonally speaking, and those are labeled "sci-fi." Anything "post-apocalyptic" falls under the SF banner. IMDb tags these movies as "adventure, drama, sci-fi" (it's last because it's alphabetical order, not because it's peripherally SF).

The basic test - take out the "science" (if there even is any) in Twilight, and you still have the story. That means it is NOT scifi. Also, the way Twilight was released seemed modeled after Harry Potter, and Hunger Games followed the same pattern.

See, this is what you do: you like to emphasize the wrong part of the statement. You fetishize pontification. You glossed right over The Hunger Games, Divergent and The Maze Runner — they don't feature starships and lightsabers, but they're "Sci-Fi."

When was the last time you had seven different big scifi movies planned for a year?

Planning is one thing. Stalling is another. Cameron's been threatening to dump Avatar sequels on us for years, but for whatever reason, he hasn't gotten around to it. Now Robert Rodriguez has been tapped to direct Battle Angel Alita, which is another project Cameron has been "planning" for years.

You may get Hunger Games (which, IMO, is more fantasy than scifi anyway, but whatever) and something like Gravity. But, you don't see: Star Wars, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Lost In Space, and The Last Starfighter all released in the same year...not in recent memory anyway. If they were, I'd say the same thing about scifi.

You can scroll all the SF films of 2015 and 2014 right here. They don't all feature spaceships like Interstellar, The Force Awakens, Jupiter Ascending and The Martian, but they're categorically SF nonetheless: http://movieweb.com/movies/2015/sci-fi/

If Rogue One dies, I wouldn't be surprised if they back off a bit.

Don't bet on it. It's the "Star Wars brand," just like the Marvel brand, that is going to make these movies rake it in at the box office. Even if Rogue One doesn't make a gazillion dollaz, they're not going to "back off" at all. Remember, this is Disney we're talking about.

When the last "Lost In Space" movie was released, it was supposed to relaunch the franchise as well...with new movies and a TV series. Didn't happen.

Because it SUCKED.

Also, you have to add in Star Trek continuing their movie efforts.

I mentioned STID so it was implied. I hope Beyond is a fuckload better than STID.

And the resurrection of the Apes franchise, too. That's SF in my book. Dawn's a great movie, much better than Rise. Not perfect, but great.

And, with Star Wars always comes BSG...and there has been talk of a BSG movie reboot even before the series ended...

Yeah, well, we'll have to wait and see if Bryan Singer finds the time, since he's the guy who wants to do it. Only I don't want him to do it. I think he's a very overrated director. Ron Moore's BSG hit a lot of bumps in the road, but I loved that show. If that's where it stops — after Blood & Chrome, that is — then that's where it stops. If they reboot it again, it may end up resembling Star Wars. It's a concept that works better as a serial.

Yep...and once the promotion starts for next summer's movies, it may take a LOT of steam away from both BvS and CA:CW. Following Star Wars, people may want to see that INSTEAD of another comic book movie....and that one is a big name that a lot of people have been waiting for.

I think is Star Wars is overrated as fuck-all, but if that's the case, so be it. I don't think it'll necessarily diminish BvS' or CA:CW's thunder, though.

Oh, yeah, since last year's Godzilla performed so decently (500M+ worldwide), the kaiju/giant monsters genre is alive and kicking. Kong: Skull Island is due next year, Godzilla 2 is scheduled in 2018, AND Toho Studios is doing their own Godzilla reboot. Gamera returns in 2017. I hope we still get Pacific Rim 2.

Yep...but, that is a separate genre that has been dead for decades and simply does NOT equate to what comic book movies are doing next year.

It hasn't been "dead for decades." Toho has made a ton of movies. They did decide to take a break after 2004's Final Wars. Well, you're going to start seeing movies there. King King vs. Godzilla looks to be a certainty after Godzilla 2.

I didn't say that scifi was "ignored". I said I would love to see scifi get five genre movies in one year.

What you mean is you want "space opera." You want swashbuckling in outer space. Starships, laser weapons, Death Stars. If you want to be general, you're getting that many science fiction movies a year. At least.

And you wanna know something? Guardians of the Galaxy is both a CBM and a SF film. Specifically the kind you want to see, apparently.

They don't dump movies in the Spring and expect them to be blockbusters.

That hasn't been the case for years. I commented on this a few pages ago.

I am not arguing that comic book movies are killing other genres.

Are you sure? Subtext, subtext, subtext.

I am saying comic book movies are committing suicide by saturating the market.

Other genres that do the same don't seem to be affected.

There's this other SF movie that's gotten a lot of buzz: Ex Machina. Maybe you should watch it.

Meh. Looks stupid. So did CHAPPiE. Both Spring releases.

Now you sound like "Spring movie = suckfest." I doubt many people agree with that equation. And Ex Machina has gotten a lot of positive buzz. It doesn't look like my kind of movie, but I'm not going to pretend I haven't read a lot of positive feedback about it.

I would say the same about Seventh Son (and, it's FANTASY, not scifi).

Who said it was SF?

Let's see. Another Narnia movie is coming. We've had two Tolkien trilogies that did massive business. And you know those movies based on those J.K. Rowling novels about a kid magician or something like that? The ones that did huge business? The spin-off is coming next year. How about the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise? That's "fantasy." The fifth, Dead Men Tell No Tales, comes out in 2017, and they're already writing the sixth.

LOL...so what. Five blockbusters in one year. You are taking series and spreading them out over years. Some of them are even over with. Fantasy is not saturating the market. It was close, but not quite there.

Here's where you can see all the films under the fantasy header that have been released in 2014-15: http://movieweb.com/movies/2015/fantasy/

Since we're generalizing, the list includes Pan, Cinderella, The Last Witch Hunter, Seventh Son, Fallen, Maleficent, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and so on. Lots of fantasy being produced. Maybe it's not all "Dark Fantasy" or "Heroic Fantasy" or "Fairy Tales," but when it comes to CBMs, we're not saying "Mutants," "Men in Tights," "Supernatural Superheroes," etc.

How about all those animated films? They are legion. And they also cash in hugely. You know which ones.

Yep...what is your point?

The point is that a lot of them get made, they make a bunch of money, and nobody's complaining.

It has nothing to do with DC.

Whatever you say.

[YoungJRNYfan]

I did not say that at all. I said TDK*R*. I really don't care much for TDKR so it would take me rewatching it.

Either you lack the comprehension needed to understand the reference as to what I was referring to or you are a master at deflecting the topic at hand. Lets not lose sight here and go back the original point I was making. My point had nothing to do with TDK*R*'s but everything to do with the fact that out of all people to jump on somebody for over-analyzing things and be entertained, it's you, when all you've really done thus far is go farther in the deep end of needing to explain, in depth, your knowledge of how these movies follow the same pattern over and over and over. It's ironic the "over-analyzing" statement came out of your mouth to someone else when that's all you've really done since you entered this thread. v and I, time and time again, explained to you that things will unfold in BvS and just freakin' enjoy it but all you want to do is write a thesaurus about how the audience won't be engaged about this and that and because they're not doing this and that while excluding this and that because you said so. It's stale.

I'm not 'blaming' DC, or anyone. I'm just saying I think it's going to happen. Just because DC came in late and is only now adding air to the balloon doesn't mean I am blaming them.

Good thing Marvel and DC have their own balloon to blow in. They are going to be so different at the core that DC's version of their superhero's could be labled as a totally different genre than what Marvel is doing, it's going to be THAT different so I'm not worried. Besides, we got Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman for the first time EVER! The Holy Trinity. Comic Book movies can cease after that and I wouldn't give a shit.

[Monker]

Three studios are releasing two movies apiece. Three studios, three separate universes. One genre. That's overkill?

YES. Three studios that expect all these movies to be big blockbuster movies. We are going to be inundated with comic book superhero advertising, merchandise, and movies all summer next year, and into the fall. It is going to be jump the shark over-kill.

Twilight is fantasy even more than horror, but not scifi.

No, it's a bestselling YA series that clearly paved the way for the other three, tonally speaking, and those are labeled "sci-fi."

Then it is labeled wrong. It can not possibly be scifi when no science is involved in the story at all. That is the very definition of science fiction.

Anything "post-apocalyptic" falls under the SF banner. IMDb tags these movies as "adventure, drama, sci-fi" (it's last because it's alphabetical order, not because it's peripherally SF).

What the hell are you talking about? Twilight is about high school vampires and werewolves wanting to seduce some human chick. Hell, it's more of a romance than scieince fiction. Even Underworld is more scifi than this crap.

The basic test - take out the "science" (if there even is any) in Twilight, and you still have the story. That means it is NOT scifi. Also, the way Twilight was released seemed modeled after Harry Potter, and Hunger Games followed the same pattern.

See, this is what you do: you like to emphasize the wrong part of the statement. You fetishize pontification. You glossed right over The Hunger Games, Divergent and The Maze Runner — they don't feature starships and lightsabers, but they're "Sci-Fi."

Dude! That's because I already know that those other films are scifi. I had no issue with those, only Twilight. If you remove the science from any of those movies, the story has to change. That is scifi. Those are all pretty much soft scifi, but that's another topic.

When was the last time you had seven different big scifi movies planned for a year?

Planning is one thing. Stalling is another. Cameron's been threatening to dump Avatar sequels on us for years, but for whatever reason, he hasn't gotten around to it. Now Robert Rodriguez has been tapped to direct Battle Angel Alita, which is another project Cameron has been "planning" for years.

And, that is called avoiding the question.

If Rogue One dies, I wouldn't be surprised if they back off a bit.

Don't bet on it. It's the "Star Wars brand," just like the Marvel brand, that is going to make these movies rake it in at the box office. Even if Rogue One doesn't make a gazillion dollaz, they're not going to "back off" at all. Remember, this is Disney we're talking about.

Yes, it's Disney...and they know if something loses money then they need to move on from it.

When the last "Lost In Space" movie was released, it was supposed to relaunch the franchise as well...with new movies and a TV series. Didn't happen.

Because it SUCKED.

Yep. And, so could Rogue One....you just don't know. I know I'm not sold on it. Sounds like it should be a made for TV movie/mini-series instead of being released to theaters.

Also, you have to add in Star Trek continuing their movie efforts.

I mentioned STID so it was implied. I hope Beyond is a fuckload better than STID.

I haven't even looked into what it is about. They need to reboot a TV series...there is a huge hole that Star Trek could fill there.

And the resurrection of the Apes franchise, too. That's SF in my book. Dawn's a great movie, much better than Rise. Not perfect, but great.

Of course it is scifi...the original Planet of the Apes is one of the most classic scifi series ever.

Yeah, well, we'll have to wait and see if Bryan Singer finds the time, since he's the guy who wants to do it. Only I don't want him to do it. I think he's a very overrated director.

Kinda irrelevant to me. All I am saying is when Star Wars comes along, so does BSG. The original movies happened, BSG came about soon after. The prequels happened, the BSG reboot happened soon after. Now the sequels happen...

Ron Moore's BSG hit a lot of bumps in the road, but I loved that show. If that's where it stops — after Blood & Chrome, that is — then that's where it stops. If they reboot it again, it may end up resembling Star Wars. It's a concept that works better as a serial.

No. Reboot the series. The entire premise that Cylons look like humans was lame and only done to save money. Go back to the original story of scary metallic machines rebelling against their creators...and make them scary this time. Keep the swishing eye and metallic Mr. Roboto voice. And, completely get rid of Ron Moore's shock drama. In short, do it Glenn Larsen style...not Ron Moore style.

I think is Star Wars is overrated as fuck-all, but if that's the case, so be it. I don't think it'll necessarily diminish BvS' or CA:CW's thunder, though.

It may if people feel the bubble and start craving something different. Star Wars followed by Independence Day may resurrect the big scifi blockbusters and take money away from comic book movies. Not everybody is going to see six or so movies every summer.

It hasn't been "dead for decades." Toho has made a ton of movies. They did decide to take a break after 2004's Final Wars. Well, you're going to start seeing movies there. King King vs. Godzilla looks to be a certainty after Godzilla 2.

Oh, please. Most, or maybe even ALL of them, were not even in wide release in the US. I saw most these on the cable channels. The are even over-dubbed. I mean, "Take that you dinosaur!" is one of my favorite lines, but it's not made for American Cinema.

And, BTW, I mentioned King Kong vs. Godzilla months ago and you all critiqued it as virtually impossible.

What you mean is you want "space opera." You want swashbuckling in outer space. Starships, laser weapons, Death Stars. If you want to be general, you're getting that many science fiction movies a year. At least.

No I don't mean just "space opera". I would like that to be revived a bit on TV, though. It's a bit more difficult on the big screen.

And you wanna know something? Guardians of the Galaxy is both a CBM and a SF film. Specifically the kind you want to see, apparently.

I know that, too. I'm the one who compares it to Farscape. Geez. And, BTW, Farscape continued on in comics as well...not that it matters much.

They don't dump movies in the Spring and expect them to be blockbusters.

That hasn't been the case for years. I commented on this a few pages ago.

LOL...you're just wrong. Studios do not take a potentially huge blockbuster and move it from late fall or summer to Spring. It's a rarity that those movies hit big. I'll admit they take more chances...and BvS is one...but it is NOT the norm.

I am saying comic book movies are committing suicide by saturating the market.

Other genres that do the same don't seem to be affected.

That's because they are not releasing a half dozen big blockbuster movies in the summer. When that happens, they will be pushing the envelope.

Now you sound like "Spring movie = suckfest." I doubt many people agree with that equation. And Ex Machina has gotten a lot of positive buzz. It doesn't look like my kind of movie, but I'm not going to pretend I haven't read a lot of positive feedback about it.

It looks stupid. And, the movies during the first three months of the year generally do suck. Yes, you can find exceptions...but in general, those movies suck, they are not promoted much, and mediocre performance is likely meeting expectations.

I would say the same about Seventh Son (and, it's FANTASY, not scifi).

Who said it was SF?

Not taking any chances since you seem to believe movies without any science (Twilight) are scifi.

Since we're generalizing, the list includes Pan, Cinderella, The Last Witch Hunter, Seventh Son, Fallen, Maleficent, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and so on. Lots of fantasy being produced. Maybe it's not all "Dark Fantasy" or "Heroic Fantasy" or "Fairy Tales," but when it comes to CBMs, we're not saying "Mutants," "Men in Tights," "Supernatural Superheroes," etc.

Yep...which is EXACTLY why I say that fantasy is on the edge.

The point is that a lot of them get made, they make a bunch of money, and nobody's complaining.

I don't think "animated movie" is a genre in itself. But, since they are generally aimed at kids, I doubt anybody really cares. I don't.

[verslibre]

Twilight is fantasy even more than horror, but not scifi.

No, it's a bestselling YA series that clearly paved the way for the other three, tonally speaking, and those are labeled "sci-fi."

Then it is labeled wrong. It can not possibly be scifi when no science is involved in the story at all. That is the very definition of science fiction.

Oh, dear. I guess I must clarify because you're clearly skimming these posts. The "No" is my agreeing/acknowledging that "No, it's not SF"; followed by a comma (pause), then the reiteration of my point that TONALLY it is a template for the other three franchises that ARE SCIENCE FICTION, however threadbare the "science" aspect of their stories and settings may be.

Okay, are you there? Good.

Twilight is about high school vampires and werewolves wanting to seduce some human chick.

Yes, yes, yes. It's not SF, it's schlocky YA horror that obviously ripped off a movie that predated the books called Blood & Chocolate. Now: no. more. Twilight. talk.

Planning is one thing. Stalling is another. Cameron's been threatening to dump Avatar sequels on us for years, but for whatever reason, he hasn't gotten around to it. Now Robert Rodriguez has been tapped to direct Battle Angel Alita, which is another project Cameron has been "planning" for years.

And, that is called avoiding the question.

I answered your question.

Yes, it's Disney...and they know if something loses money then they need to move on from it.

I highly doubt one of these Star Wars movies is going to lose money. The solo films probably won't even have the same budgets. But the fanboys and fangirls (and their kids, and their parents who loved the OT) will be out in force. You're going to be standing in line behind four chicks and two guys dressed as Slave Girl Leia at the Subway near the theater.

Because it SUCKED.

Yep. And, so could Rogue One....you just don't know. I know I'm not sold on it. Sounds like it should be a made for TV movie/mini-series instead of being released to theaters.

Actually, it sounds like it's closer in tone to Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica. You might end up liking it and seeing it seven times.

Ron Moore's BSG hit a lot of bumps in the road, but I loved that show. If that's where it stops — after Blood & Chrome, that is — then that's where it stops. If they reboot it again, it may end up resembling Star Wars. It's a concept that works better as a serial.

No. Reboot the series. The entire premise that Cylons look like humans was lame and only done to save money. Go back to the original story of scary metallic machines rebelling against their creators...and make them scary this time. Keep the swishing eye and metallic Mr. Roboto voice. And, completely get rid of Ron Moore's shock drama. In short, do it Glenn Larsen style...not Ron Moore style.

In other words, restore it to the version that people dubbed "a Star Wars rip-off." The version Richard Hatch wanted to bring back. Hey, I like both the '70s and '00s series, but the update was great. I attended the very first panel at SDCC when Moore's BSG was barely a thing. I was against the body-hopping at first, too, but once I watched the inaugural miniseries I was sold. It was a great series and when it was at its best it was far and away better than Star Wars.

Star Wars followed by Independence Day may resurrect the big scifi blockbusters and take money away from comic book movies. Not everybody is going to see six or so movies every summer.

Or maybe ID4: Electric Boogaloo will suck. It's another sequel that was intended to happen many years ago, anyway. I'm sure Emmerich & company are much more confident after the success of Jurassic World.

Oh, please. Most, or maybe even ALL of them, were not even in wide release in the US.

Godzilla (1998) — US release.
Godzilla: Millennium aka Godzilla 2000 — US release.
Godzilla: Final Wars (2004) — limited US release.
Godzilla (2014) — US release.

You'd have been better off mentioning the gap between Godzilla 1984 (released here as Godzilla 1985) and the 1998 film.

And, BTW, I mentioned King Kong vs. Godzilla months ago and you all critiqued it as virtually impossible.

I thought they were going to stick to a darker slant on the home-grown movies but I guess they want to revisit it. Not sure how they're going to explain a giant ape (radiation, I assume) because otherwise the movie should be over in two minutes. Godzilla would step on Kong on the way to the pond.

LOL...you're just wrong. Studios do not take a potentially huge blockbuster and move it from late fall or summer to Spring. It's a rarity that those movies hit big. I'll admit they take more chances...and BvS is one...but it is NOT the norm.

Like I said, not the case, anymore. Spring is March, April, May. Are you referring to MARCH only? Because a number of movies released in "Spring" have done well.

Since we're generalizing, the list includes Pan, Cinderella, The Last Witch Hunter, Seventh Son, Fallen, Maleficent, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and so on. Lots of fantasy being produced. Maybe it's not all "Dark Fantasy" or "Heroic Fantasy" or "Fairy Tales," but when it comes to CBMs, we're not saying "Mutants," "Men in Tights," "Supernatural Superheroes," etc.

Yep...which is EXACTLY why I say that fantasy is on the edge.

So 5-6 CBMs = overkill while 5-6 fantasy movies = "on the edge"? I see.

[verslibre]

[A bunch of crap bypassed]

So what. If you decide you don't want to see it, then don't. The simple fact is that people want to buy what Marvel is selling. You can be upset at that all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that Marvel knows what they are doing.

The bolded part is what we've been trying to tell you for an age.

The only one who seems upset is you, but it's not going to change the fact that DC and Warner have a plan, Stan.