Film/moving picture show you most recently watched

[Alex 30523]

[Park Life 70]

The biggest issue with these films is that the producers want an action scene every 10/15 min. They did research that people just switch off otherwise. They aren't doing test screening with the right audience either...Lot of them are mom and pop day outs.

[adios 717]

Aren't these films massive commercial successes because they cater perfectly to their target audience?

 

Y'know 8-year-old kids.

[Rayvin 4964]

i thought nolan's batman movies were canny shit 

 

Are you serious? Compared to what?

[Park Life 70]

Aren't these films massive commercial successes because they cater perfectly to their target audience?

 

Y'know 8-year-old kids.

No it's the  marketing.

 

In modern Hollywood the budget of say 150m to make the film will normally be supported by another 30/40m on marketing. These films live or die not only on the filmic merit but the marketing campaign. On world marketing campaigns they can spend upto 60/70m. It's why even if they are commercial successes they also have to make the marketing money back. China has become a very important market for these films and literally tons of money are spent there on region specific marketing.

A marquee release will carry three major campaigns: Europe, America and Asia.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Park Life

[adios 717]

Filmic merit, Margot Robbie's arse.

[The Fish 9033]

My daughter made me watch it. Her and Mrs P love it. Thought it had some funny bits but for me was too flat. If you have a one character mine to dig you have to juxtapose a counter point (a character that questions all his actions) to give it that frisson and enlarge the 'world'. I don't like to manhandle complexity into an idea but you can see in Logan that not only is he continually questioning his actions but Charles is as well. The sullen performance of his 'daughter' also acts as a counterpoint in so much as Logan is seen as the last of his kind not only in the fictional stakes but also in the 'man' stakes. Mangold grafted the ageing gunfighter motif beautifully onto what otherwise might have been a tiresome fight fest.

 

The two outings of the Danish girl in 'Lucy' and 'Ghost in the Shell' are both flat due to the reasons I have already mentioned. She has no counterpoint in either film. 'Something has happened to me I need to figure it out' just isn't enough.

 

When I think of a protagonist with powers I first go to the flaws not the powers.

 

Why I've always enjoyed Marvel more than DC. 

 

Deadpool had a few characters questioning his choices, but because the 4th wall was broken so often I couldn't really buy into this reality, so when his girlfriend asks why he left her, I didn't think "because he couldn't bear to see him like this", I thought "Well, to set up the big climactic battle silly".

 

Outside of the 4th wall breaking and the humour, it was just another Superhero origin movie. Character intro->bit of a fracas->peril->all is lost->comes to terms with being a superhero->success despite adversity->kiss a girl.

 

But, if Superhero movies can be disposable and hilarious like Deadpool or actually a story like Logan each time, I'm happy enough.

[The Fish 9033]

Aren't these films massive commercial successes because they cater perfectly to their target audience?

 

Y'know 8-year-old kids.

Deadpool was an 18, Logan a 15. The Studios seem to be finally realising they can still make a shit load whether the PG the shit out of character who's a straight up Serial Killer or actually let him be as he was originally written. Mostly from Nerdlingers like me.

[Dr Gloom 19878]

Are you serious? Compared to what?

 

yes, took themselves way too seriously. couldn't past bale's ridiculous batman voice. preferred tim burton's efforts. 

[Dr Gloom 19878]

they were also way too long. tedious

[adios 717]

I thought Deadpool was alright tbf.  And the Xmen movies, in general, do seem to be a cut above.

 

I just think a lot of stuff like Avengers Assemble is pure rocket shit.

[adios 717]

yes, took themselves way too seriously. couldn't past bale's ridiculous batman voice. preferred tim burton's efforts. 

Agree that Nolan had disappeared completely up his own arse by the last one. Did enjoy the first couple although still massively overrated obviously.

[Park Life 70]

Why I've always enjoyed Marvel more than DC. 

 

Deadpool had a few characters questioning his choices, but because the 4th wall was broken so often I couldn't really buy into this reality, so when his girlfriend asks why he left her, I didn't think "because he couldn't bear to see him like this", I thought "Well, to set up the big climactic battle silly".

 

Outside of the 4th wall breaking and the humour, it was just another Superhero origin movie. Character intro->bit of a fracas->peril->all is lost->comes to terms with being a superhero->success despite adversity->kiss a girl.

 

But, if Superhero movies can be disposable and hilarious like Deadpool or actually a story like Logan each time, I'm happy enough.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/logan-2017

[The Fish 9033]

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/logan-2017

[NJS 3986]

I really enjoyed Deadpool - the piss taking could have ruined it but in fact made it imo.

[Park Life 70]

I really enjoyed Deadpool - the piss taking could have ruined it but in fact made it imo.

Me and Fish are having a meta discussion we ain't interested if you 'enjoyed' a film.

[Rayvin 4964]

yes, took themselves way too seriously. couldn't past bale's ridiculous batman voice. preferred tim burton's efforts. 

 

Dude...

 

You and I are never going to agree on anything

 

[Dr Gloom 19878]

Dude...

 

You and I are never going to agree on anything

 

 

obviously not  

 

[David Kelly 1117]

Could have been mint, but DC (Batman/Superman/WonderWoman et al) seem 5 years behind Marvel at the minute. Hoping Wonder Woman nails it, not only because it'll be the first successful female lead superhero movie, but it'll hopefully show DC how to get it right for the modern audiences. People enjoyed Nolan's Batman trilogy and the Marvel movies because they spent time establishing the character(s) rather than just tossing them straight into the action. I thought Man of Steel was going that way, but too quickly they dumped the interesting origins and relied on destruction porn to distract the audience from the lack of any meaningful story.

.

How many times does Superman need to be established as a character?  Or Batman or Spiderman?  Surely those characters have been well established in the 20 or so films they've been in by now?

[The Fish 9033]

obviously not

 

First thing they addressed for Batfleck. I mean, the guy is supposed to be a lunatic genius billionaire, I'm sure he could have come up with a better way of disguising his voice than doing a Slipknot cover.

[Andrew 4235]

How many times does Superman need to be established as a character?  Or Batman or Spiderman?  Surely those characters have been well established in the 20 or so films they've been in by now?

 

Aye but every director has to put "their take" on it don't they?

 

Actually I'm really glad they seem to be skipping it with Spiderman for Homecoming. He's already been introduced in Civil War, he's got a suit, he's got his powers etc. More of that for inevitable future reboots please.

[The Fish 9033]

How many times does Superman need to be established as a character?  Or Batman or Spiderman?  Surely those characters have been well established in the 20 or so films they've been in by now?

Batman hadn't been in a movie for years, Nolan had to not only remind people who're not au fait with the character's origin and lore, but he also had to establish his version of Batman. One that was far removed from Burton's run and certainly not like Adam West's tv show.

 

Superman Returns was a hamfisted attempt to relaunch an iconic character without rebooting him entirely. Man of Steel was, like Batman Begins, an attempt to introduce the character to new audiences and distinguish the character from previous iterations. Had the film followed Clark Kent going off into the world, putting him through Herculean labours, until he comes out the other end ready to lead that double life, it would have been brilliant. But the studios were far too timid and opted, instead, for the boring Baystruction of a city.

 

Spider-man's origin has been done to death and I'm glad this new film isn't going to be the origin (I've no doubt it will be referenced) and is instead what got a lot of people into the comic in the first place; high school. At it's core, Spider-man is about an unpopular kid, struggling to fit in, to find his place, and the mutations from the spider bite are allegories of pubescent sexuality, ascent into adulthood, and drugs.

[David Kelly 1117]

Batman hadn't been in a movie for years, Nolan had to not only remind people who're not au fait with the character's origin and lore, but he also had to establish his version of Batman. One that was far removed from Burton's run and certainly not like Adam West's tv show.

 

Superman Returns was a hamfisted attempt to relaunch an iconic character without rebooting him entirely. Man of Steel was, like Batman Begins, an attempt to introduce the character to new audiences and distinguish the character from previous iterations. Had the film followed Clark Kent going off into the world, putting him through Herculean labours, until he comes out the other end ready to lead that double life, it would have been brilliant. But the studios were far too timid and opted, instead, for the boring Baystruction of a city.

 

Spider-man's origin has been done to death and I'm glad this new film isn't going to be the origin (I've no doubt it will be referenced) and is instead what got a lot of people into the comic in the first place; high school. At it's core, Spider-man is about an unpopular kid, struggling to fit in, to find his place, and the mutations from the spider bite are allegories of pubescent sexuality, ascent into adulthood, and drugs.

Batman and Robin came out eight years prior to Batman Begins, The Amazing Spiderman came out five years after Spiderman 3 and The Man Of Steel came out seven years after the previous piece of shit.  Surely the audiences memories aren't that bad that they need another telling of the origin of any of these characters?  Fuck me, if it had been twenty years, we are talking about some of the most well established stories of the last century.  Antman, Guardians, Deadpool etc all need their origin stories told because no one but the nerds had a clue who they were.  But Superman, Batman and Spiderman?  My mother and father would easily able to have good shot at giving you the origins of all three and they watch nothing but Coronation Street and Emerdale.

 

Bond didn't need an origin story between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye.  Yes new directors/writers/actors need to establish the characters again but it doesn't need to be done by retelling the same story over and over again.

[The Fish 9033]

Batman and Robin came out eight years prior to Batman Begins, The Amazing Spiderman came out five years after Spiderman 3 and The Man Of Steel came out seven years after the previous piece of shit.  Surely the audiences memories aren't that bad that they need another telling of the origin of any of these characters?  Fuck me, if it had been twenty years, we are talking about some of the most well established stories of the last century.  Antman, Guardians, Deadpool etc all need their origin stories told because no one but the nerds had a clue who they were.  But Superman, Batman and Spiderman?  My mother and father would easily able to have good shot at giving you the origins of all three and they watch nothing but Coronation Street and Emerdale.

 

Bond didn't need an origin story between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye.  Yes new directors/writers/actors need to establish the characters again but it doesn't need to be done by retelling the same story over and over again.

 

Aye, but Batman and Robin came out and killed the franchise. It took 8yrs, a visionary director and some absolute heavyweight actors to get back on track. The first Nolan movie absolutely had to be the origin and not, as in Burton's Batman, a brief snapshot of the incident that sewed the seeds of the fully fledged Batman we see in the rest of the film. But Bruce Wayne the child (not) dealing with his loss, becoming powerful, returning with a focus and finally, at the films end, becoming Batman.

 

Burton didn't tell the origin story, Nolan did.

 

It was 20yrs between Reeves' Superman and Routh's and a further 7yrs until Man of Steel. 20yrs is definitely long enough to reboot a franchise like Superman and because of the failure and poor reception of Singer's Superman Returns it makes sense (to me anyway) to retell the story. Like Burton's Batman, Singer's Superman was already fully formed character and that film wasn't the origin story that could have established a contemporary version of Superman.

 

Snyder should have nailed it, Nolan, Favreau, Johnston and Whedon and shown how you can do a variety of Superhero movies for the modern audience. But he done fucked it up.

 

 

re: Bond he doesn't need an origin story movie because there's a Bond movie every 2 or 3 years and he's never had a pivotal incident that created him. Not like Uncle Ben biting the dust. Although Casino Royale was as close to an origin movie as Bond will likely get. Bond's character has a permanence in the broader culture that I'm not sure comic-book heroes do. 

[Rayvin 4964]

Don't think Nolan's trilogy was actually improved by the origin story mind. The first film was fairly weak. The second two were much stronger in terms of narrative and dramatic effect. I think the second two could have happened without the origin... certainly the third one. Maybe the second needed it for the emotional attachment to 'Rachel'.