Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I mentioned, Superman needed an origin movie because they changed the character from the Supes we all knew to some other strange alien dude. Then they needed a couple more Superman movies to change his character to the Supes we know.
You guys may want to have a gander at this. Bummer it didn't go this way, i.e. the five-movie plan.
"Back in April 2013 (before Man of Steel was released in June) I was tasked with doing the Superman 75 short," Oliva said. "I met with Zack, who was the exec producer on it, and he showed me storyboards of Batman v Superman, with Batman already in it. AND it was a Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. I know this as fact because I was there and I remember it very clearly because I was sad that I may not get the opportunity to work on a film that used Miller’s DKR as an influence. Because well you know, I kinda did a little film that did just that. So how could it be revisionist history if the plan for the following films were already planned BEFORE the release the Man of Steel? Now was there a plan to do a sequel when Goyer and Nolan wrote it? I don’t know for sure but you can bet your ass that prior to June there was a plan."
Nice to have an insider's perspective, huh?
Also, watching the last third of Avengers on the tube last week (AMC and some other network were showing most of the Marvel movies because of IW), I must reiterate the "destruction porn" complaints where MoS is concerned are unfounded and ultimately biased. That's all bullsh**. NYC gets trashed by Chitauri sentries and Chitauris riding Moebius-esque chariots and the Chitauri's giant pet steel slugs. You can't have a battle of that magnitude occur without historic-level damage. One of the slugs even does a back-flip onto the top of a low rise.
The issue here is that the destruction in MoS is rendered so much more epically — shot better, lit better, better CGI, better angles, a real sense of danger — that everyone uses Zod's death as a springboard to jump back to the Smallville and Metropolis battles and dub them "destruction porn." Nonsense. Zod aimed to kill every human on Earth and Superman stopped him. There's no kryptonite of any kind in the movie.
I just watched San Andreas, which is complete fluff (but hey, all those hot actresses made for fine eye candy, no?), and even that movie conveys metropolitan destruction better than the third act of Avengers. Sue me.
But more to the point of the thread tangent, it also meant it was inevitable and natural for superheroes to bump into one another, which Marvel did from the beginning and with great frequency, and those tie-ins were subjects of discussion with fans in their back-page blogs from the 60s.
Whoa! There were no weblogs then. Surely you mean the letters columns. (Or editorials.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
What's funny is that "go goofy" is that the balancing act didn't work, and that is how Thor finally hit his stride.
Thor wasn't at all goofy in Infinity War and I thought that was the character's best arc to date in the entirety of the MCU.
They were more than either letter columns or editorials. Except for being paper instead of electronic, they served the same function as blogs.
Yes, you mean the editorials. Well, they weren't really editorials. They were sound-offs. I loved 'em all. The best ones were usually in Savage Sword and any written by Dick Giordano, where he'd give you juicy insights to the goings-on in the building I wanted to grow up and work in but never made it there. One time he wrote about "curling up on the carpet [of his office] at 2AM" to get some sleep after meeting a deadline. There was also the funny bit where he went "[blah blah blah] ...and having my third cup of coffee...and my last! Honest!"
Giordano was an awesome artist, too. One of the best. He doesn't get the same nods as 90% of the rest of the artists. He was one of the top inkers, but his own art was superb. I have his OOP art book Dick Giordano: Changing Comics, One Day at a Time. (Needless to say, it's a must-have.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
But the goofy Ragnarok is where Thor was most successful, and he was goofy enough for Infinity War, given the overall very somber tone and ending.
In terms of ticket sales, yes. But the trailers featured the Hulk, not to mention the Hulk leaping at Surtur, and that image alone sold the movie.
Yes, you mean the editorials. Well, they weren't really editorials. They were sound-offs. I loved 'em all. The best ones were usually in Savage Sword and any written by Dick Giordano, where he'd give you juicy insights to the goings-on in the building I wanted to grow up and work in but never made it there. One time he wrote about "curling up on the carpet [of his office] at 2AM" to get some sleep after meeting a deadline. There was also the funny bit where he went "[blah blah blah] ...and having my third cup of coffee...and my last! Honest!"
Whereas DC writers and artists were just names on the page.
Marvel was actively creating fans as we know fans today. They could have rolled into a comicon without skipping a beat even back in the 60s...and made appearances from the very first one.
Whereas DC writers and artists were just names on the page.
Marvel was actively creating fans as we know fans today. They could have rolled into a comicon without skipping a beat even back in the 60s...and made appearances from the very first one.
You are absolutely correct. I like the phrase “creating fans” because my mother (and some of her co-workers), who don’t know split abou comics/superheros have become Marvel fans. She hasn’t seen them all, but saw both Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther, and loved them. Somehow Marvel was able to catch all sorts of fans from every demographic group around the globe who may not typically be comic book/superhero fans, and they “created fans.”
Also, watching the last third of Avengers on the tube last week (AMC and some other network were showing most of the Marvel movies because of IW), I must reiterate the "destruction porn" complaints where MoS is concerned are unfounded and ultimately biased. That's all bullsh**. NYC gets trashed by Chitauri sentries and Chitauris riding Moebius-esque chariots and the Chitauri's giant pet steel slugs. You can't have a battle of that magnitude occur without historic-level damage. One of the slugs even does a back-flip onto the top of a low rise.
The issue here is that the destruction in MoS is rendered so much more epically — shot better, lit better, better CGI, better angles, a real sense of danger — that everyone uses Zod's death as a springboard to jump back to the Smallville and Metropolis battles and dub them "destruction porn." Nonsense. Zod aimed to kill every human on Earth and Superman stopped him. There's no kryptonite of any kind in the movie.
I just watched San Andreas, which is complete fluff (but hey, all those hot actresses made for fine eye candy, no?), and even that movie conveys metropolitan destruction better than the third act of Avengers. Sue me.
Yes. I have noticed that Marvel’s CGI and even color/lighting/visuals was not alwaya great early on. The recent phase (Phase 3) has looked very good, but as you point out, in Avengers and other earlier films, they did not akways have great CGI or visuals. I have loved their CGI/visuals in recent films.
Whereas DC writers and artists were just names on the page.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Dick Giordano was one of the main guys at DC. To slight "DC writers and artists" is kind of silly, and ignorant, because both houses shared some of the biggest names (*cough* Jack Kirby, Jim Starlin, Frank Miller *cough*) and until more recently, the artists always overshadowed the writers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Marvel was actively creating fans as we know fans today. They could have rolled into a comicon without skipping a beat even back in the 60s...and made appearances from the very first one.
And you're saying DC could not have? That makes little sense. Scratch that: NO sense.
You are absolutely correct. I like the phrase “creating fans” because my mother (and some of her co-workers), who don’t know split abou comics/superheros have become Marvel fans. She hasn’t seen them all, but saw both Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther, and loved them. Somehow Marvel was able to catch all sorts of fans from every demographic group around the globe who may not typically be comic book/superhero fans, and they “created fans.”
Well, movies are always going to reach more people. You have to realize for decades the comics medium didn't get the widespread respect it deserved, the respect it now enjoys thanks to many of these films. More power to the readers (who usually aren't the ones responsible for slamming one house at the expense of the other).
Also, watching the last third of Avengers on the tube last week (AMC and some other network were showing most of the Marvel movies because of IW), I must reiterate the "destruction porn" complaints where MoS is concerned are unfounded and ultimately biased. That's all bullsh**. NYC gets trashed by Chitauri sentries and Chitauris riding Moebius-esque chariots and the Chitauri's giant pet steel slugs. You can't have a battle of that magnitude occur without historic-level damage. One of the slugs even does a back-flip onto the top of a low rise.
The issue here is that the destruction in MoS is rendered so much more epically — shot better, lit better, better CGI, better angles, a real sense of danger — that everyone uses Zod's death as a springboard to jump back to the Smallville and Metropolis battles and dub them "destruction porn." Nonsense. Zod aimed to kill every human on Earth and Superman stopped him. There's no kryptonite of any kind in the movie.
The difference you’re missing:
In the first AVENGERS movie: The Chitauri were attacking NYC. I’ll grant you this doesn’t make any sense. “I shall conquer Earth by disrupting traffic in downtown Manhattan and causing extensive property damage! The insurance claims alone with cripple Earth's economy for decades!” It is a perfect example of an Idiot Plot Point. But the fact remains that the Avengers had no choice but to fight the Chitauri in NYC. Nothing they could have done about that in the context of the story. But hey, don't worry. The next movie will be even dumber, wherein the Avengers will decide the best way to fight a sentient AI villain is to engage in a fistfight in traffic.
In MAN OF STEEL, the bad guys are attacking Superman. Not once does Superman think: Hm, maybe I could try to lure the bad guys out of this heavily populated area? Maybe fight them over the ocean or in space? Nope. They keep knocking each other through buildings and gas stations. As a result, Superman comes across as an idiot at best or a callous monster at worst. The problem isn't the scale of destruction. The problem is the hero comes across as stupid, callous, and above all unheroic. And worse, in the next movie is he wracked with guilt? Does he for a moment seem to mourn the lives lost? Nope.
As to which one was better directed or had better effects, I don’t think either ought to win any prizes. But neither were as bad as the dark, muddy, thoroughly bland battle scenes in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bummer it didn't go this way, i.e. the five-movie plan.
