Page 13 of 165
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 4:42 pm
by epilogue
The thing about Star Wars, though, is that it really can be good. It's been good before. There is a way. And I don't it has to be blindly bumped or lucked into.
But no version will satisfy everyone. It'll be either too familiar or too different or too slow or too fast or too dark or too light. It all goes back to that bullshit Obi Wan burped out about a certain point of view.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 4:45 pm
by stip
I am expecting them to be pretty good, actually. We can enjoy them together, DcT, while shaking our heads sadly at the fact that ever since Bad As Me McParadigm is incapable of enjoying anything.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 4:49 pm
by epilogue
I supposed if you have to have a last thing that made you happy. Amirite?
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 7:15 pm
by harmless
durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.
I don't know. Like I said, the original Star Wars films were not adults' films and they featured some dumb acting, scripting and 'fun'. But In terms of tone, Disney will probably carry on after the precedent set by the last three. All-natural special effects including fantastic vehicle and creature design and a complex, vibrant world (Eps. 4-6) vs. garish candy-coloured CGI, mostly shit character, vehicle and creature design and an underdeveloped, phoned-in continuation of that world (Eps. 1-3). I doubt Disney only because they're not known for complexity but for plots and concepts that merely go from A to D in a fairly pedestrian cliched manner.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 7:24 pm
by epilogue
harmless wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.
I don't know. Like I said, the original Star Wars films were not adults' films and they featured some dumb acting, scripting and 'fun'. But In terms of tone, Disney will probably carry on after the precedent set by the last three. All-natural special effects including fantastic vehicle and creature design and a complex, vibrant world (Eps. 4-6) vs. garish candy-coloured CGI, mostly shit character, vehicle and creature design and an underdeveloped, phoned-in continuation of that world (Eps. 1-3). I doubt Disney only because they're not known for complexity but for plots and concepts that merely go from A to D in a fairly pedestrian cliched manner.
Seems to me that what you're describing is a symptom of the decade, not the mouse per se. Disney in the 60s and 70s wasn't that far removed from the original SW trilogy in their tone and spectacle and imagination.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 7:50 pm
by bada
durdencommatyler wrote:Seems to me that what you're describing is a symptom of the decade, not the mouse per se. Disney in the 60s and 70s wasn't that far removed from the original SW trilogy in their tone and spectacle and imagination.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 7:52 pm
by bada
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 7:54 pm
by harmless
durdencommatyler wrote:harmless wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.
I don't know. Like I said, the original Star Wars films were not adults' films and they featured some dumb acting, scripting and 'fun'. But In terms of tone, Disney will probably carry on after the precedent set by the last three. All-natural special effects including fantastic vehicle and creature design and a complex, vibrant world (Eps. 4-6) vs. garish candy-coloured CGI, mostly shit character, vehicle and creature design and an underdeveloped, phoned-in continuation of that world (Eps. 1-3). I doubt Disney only because they're not known for complexity but for plots and concepts that merely go from A to D in a fairly pedestrian cliched manner.
Seems to me that what you're describing is a symptom of the decade, not the mouse per se. Disney in the 60s and 70s wasn't that far removed from the original SW trilogy in their tone and spectacle and imagination.
Hmmm... Maybe you're right. We shall see.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 8:09 pm
by bada
Harmless, I think you made a great point when you stated a few pages back that Star Wars probably reached the end of it's life cycle and a good Star Wars movie might not be possible(or something like that). I have a feeling you are right. I just don't agree with the notion(shared by many) that Disney is a bad choice to try and continue the franchise. I think a lot of the popular perceptions of them being creatively bankrupt is an unjustified cliche especially when compared to any number of other studios.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sat January 25, 2014 8:14 pm
by epilogue
harmless wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:harmless wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.
I don't know. Like I said, the original Star Wars films were not adults' films and they featured some dumb acting, scripting and 'fun'. But In terms of tone, Disney will probably carry on after the precedent set by the last three. All-natural special effects including fantastic vehicle and creature design and a complex, vibrant world (Eps. 4-6) vs. garish candy-coloured CGI, mostly shit character, vehicle and creature design and an underdeveloped, phoned-in continuation of that world (Eps. 1-3). I doubt Disney only because they're not known for complexity but for plots and concepts that merely go from A to D in a fairly pedestrian cliched manner.
Seems to me that what you're describing is a symptom of the decade, not the mouse per se. Disney in the 60s and 70s wasn't that far removed from the original SW trilogy in their tone and spectacle and imagination.
Hmmm... Maybe you're right. We shall see.
But you could be right. I really don't know. I never "got" Star Wars the way others did. I'm just thinking out loud.
And I don't expect this new Episode to feel like 4,5 & 6. They'll feel/look different. But I bet Abrams is aiming for closer to those than 1,2 & 3. I'm sure they'll come out a lot like Star Trek.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sun January 26, 2014 12:12 am
by harmless
I enjoyed the new Star Trek movies so I'd be OK with that.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Sun January 26, 2014 12:13 am
by Dev
.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Mon January 27, 2014 2:30 pm
by epilogue
harmless wrote:I enjoyed the new Star Trek movies so I'd be OK with that.
You and me both, chum.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Mon January 27, 2014 2:33 pm
by Kaius
Guys, this is not the Star Wars thread. Get it together.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Mon January 27, 2014 6:55 pm
by Norah
phone is ringing, oh my god
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Fri January 31, 2014 6:07 pm
by epilogue
Jesse Eisenberg and Jeremy Irons Cast in the Superman/Batman Film!
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=114256
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Fri January 31, 2014 6:09 pm
by epilogue
Snyder stated, "Lex Luthor is often considered the most notorious of Superman’s rivals, his unsavory reputation preceding him since 1940. What's great about Lex is that he exists beyond the confines of the stereotypical nefarious villain. He's a complicated and sophisticated character whose intellect, wealth and prominence position him as one of the few mortals able to challenge the incredible might of Superman. Having Jesse in the role allows us to explore that interesting dynamic, and also take the character in some new and unexpected directions."
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Fri January 31, 2014 6:15 pm
by dimejinky99
harmless wrote:durdencommatyler wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Tonally Star Wars and Disney are about the same, imo.
I can't believe I'm about to agree with Burt, but... yep.
I don't know. Like I said, the original Star Wars films were not adults' films and they featured some dumb acting, scripting and 'fun'. But In terms of tone, Disney will probably carry on after the precedent set by the last three. All-natural special effects including fantastic vehicle and creature design and a complex, vibrant world (Eps. 4-6) vs. garish candy-coloured CGI, mostly shit character, vehicle and creature design and an underdeveloped, phoned-in continuation of that world (Eps. 1-3). I doubt Disney only because they're not known for complexity but for plots and concepts that merely go from A to D in a fairly pedestrian cliched manner.
Though they tore it far away from its original story, the odd life of Timothy green call lie to that idea. It was a complex story to begin with and they simplified it into vanilla. But a bittersweet one. It doesn't know if its a kids movie or one for adults but its pretty good at being a heart wrencher.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Fri January 31, 2014 6:17 pm
by Jorge
So it was Eisenberg, not Heisenberg.
Re: Movie: Superman vs. Batman (2016)
Posted: Fri January 31, 2014 6:18 pm
by dimejinky99
durdencommatyler wrote:Snyder stated, "Lex Luthor is often considered the most notorious of Superman’s rivals, his unsavory reputation preceding him since 1940. What's great about Lex is that he exists beyond the confines of the stereotypical nefarious villain. He's a complicated and sophisticated character whose intellect, wealth and prominence position him as one of the few mortals able to challenge the incredible might of Superman. Having Jesse in the role allows us to explore that interesting dynamic, and also take the character in some new and unexpected directions."
So Bruce Wayne is actually Lex Luther
The plot thickens..
