No Green Lantern 2?

Yep, I knew it:

WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com

Green Lantern Sequel NOT Definite Say WB

THR have posted an update to their original story that claimed that a sequel to Martin Campbell's movie was in the works. It seems WB will be weighing up those numbers a bit more before moving forward..

THR's claims that a Green Lantern sequel was all go at WB may have been premature, as the site posted the following update..

While a top studio source told THR on Sunday that Warners was proceeding with plans for a follow-up film, a studio spokesman said Monday that no decision has been reached.

The reason that they haven't committed is of course Box Office. Green Lantern didn't do as well as expected and received a pretty tepid response from many critics and fans. If WB are going to move on a sequel they must first see what kind of total gross justifies one. Also, as THR report, even more money was spend on the first movie that you might think!..

Green Lantern had a budget well in excess of $200 million, according to industry sources, as well as an outsized marketing spend estimated at $100 million domestic and $75 million foreign. A source with ties to the studio says it is reasonable to assume that Warners has spent well over $400 million on the film--not unusual for a summer tentpole—making profitability a steep uphill climb.

The movie is still generating revenue overseas, but is not expected to exceed $270 Million in world wide gross. Will WB be able to get a sequel rolling based on this? Should they? maybe it's time a lesson was learned. They were so sure that they had a new cash cow on their hands that a script for a sequel was already being worked on before the first movie was even released. Shame they didn't spend more time making sure the launching pad for this potential franchise was up to scratch.

Here's what Mark Millar has to say about the situation:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=40515

Mark Millar Comments On Future Of Superhero Movies; Calls Green Lantern A "Blip"!
The acclaimed writer and creator talks in detail about the future of comic book movies and how the less than critically and financially successful Green Lantern will effect them, and other DC movies, in the long term...
Taking to the Millarworld forums, the comic book writer and creator has shared his thoughts on the future of superhero movies and why he thinks it's unlikely that we'll ever see the likes of Aquaman and The Flash hit the big screen. Having read this, I personally think it all makes a lot of sense and agree with Millar on many points. Be sure to share your thoughts in the usual place, and head on over to the site by clicking the link below to read the full version of the following.

I plan to focus solely on creator-owned for AT LEAST the next couple of years and so these trends are important. It's essential that nobody comes along and messes up the very successful system we've had for the last decade or so. But we have to keep things in perspective. Any Chicken Littles screeching about Green Lantern being a flop and ruining everything must look at the big picture and remember it's far rosier than any other genre. Our track record in comic book movies has been incredible since Goyer and Norrington changed the game with Blade, Singer carried it through with X-Men and Sam Raimi slam-dunked with Spidey. In the decade that followed we've had monster hits from almost unknown characters. Iron Man sells around 40,000 copies a month, but a combination of a fun script and very clever casting turned it into a $500 million grossing beast. Last year's sequel hit $650 million and these numbers don't even include DVD. The X-Men franchise has managed over 2 billion dollars in 5 movies and Spidey and Batman are the biggest of the lot. Check out www.boxofficemojo.com and it's very heartening to note that superhero and comic book adaptations have an incredible consistency for turning vast profits. There's the occasional dud like Catwoman and Jonah Hex, but these tend to be the exceptions rather than the norm and rare examples of unknown writers and directors being attached to characters traditionally coveted by the Hollywood A-list.

Three superhero movies have been out this summer and, bar GL, the others have done fine. Thor cost 150 mill and looks set to settle at around half a billion dollars. X-Men cost about the same and will probably sit around 350. Add in DVD and SPECIAL EDITION DVDs and these are in serious profit. Thor, we must remember, is another semi-unknown character in the mainstream and featured no bankable names. In this context, it's done INCREDIBLY well and X-Men had the disadvantage of no Wolverine (face it, nay-sayers, he's the best there is), a period piece and no actors recognised from the previous trilogy. Given these facts, it's another success as they're essentially starting from scratch with these prequels. The only genuine flop I think has been Green Lantern, which is a genuine shame and not for lack of love from the people involved. Nobody sets out to make a bad movie, but the non-Batman DC characters just don't seem to work in modern cinema and TV. I've loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it's Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever... they just don't seem to catch on in the modern world. I think it's hard to compete with the new characters (or even the more recent Marvel characters, created a full generation later). Batman works because he's more human for the big screen and more empathetic, but I fear The Flash and others would just meet the same fate as Green Lantern. They're just too outrageous to provide tension in a live action format and I'd love to see them done, Pixar style, as brilliant, theatrical animated movies. Aquaman talking underwater would have us wincing in live action. In a cartoon we wouldn't even blink. Some stuff just doesn't suit the format. Imagine instead Paul Dini and Bruce Timm getting 120 million to play with on a big Incredibles-style JLA movie!

In short, GL is a blip. It's registered because a 200 mill plus budget and 100 mill marketing campaign means they needed to make 600 mill to break even (after cinema costs are recouped) and will be lucky to crack 250 worldwide. But like I said we need to keep this in context and remember that even the Fantastic Four movies made a big profit. Hollywood is still very much in love with superheroes and will continue to be so until they consistently start losing cash. Next Summer? It's The Avengers, the sequel to the Dark Knight and a Spider-Man reboot I've heard nothing but great things about.

The full version is at the following link:

http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?/topic/98078-2011-superhero-movies/

It sounds like he thinks BATMAN is the only relevant DC character for the silver screen! Did you see him even include SUPERMAN in that list?! Yeah, I know, he was obviously referring to SINGERMAN but don't forget, this is the same guy who wanted to do a Superman film! A little hypocrisy there huh? And to add insult to injury, he thinks that AQUAMAN & FLASH don't stand a chance now!

Obviously WB/DC need to learn a 'Marvel lesson' in there somewhere. I mean, if Marvel can 'break the mold' with Iron Man & Thor, why then can't WB/DC do this too?! I do know that Marvel at least believes in their products while WB/DC tend to treat their products (sans Batman) like they themselves were on the 'short bus' if you get my drift? I mean, I know Robert Downey Jr. had already gotten his act together & all beforehand but Iron Man really revived his career, like PULP FICTION did with John Travolta (yet I remember a hit before that, LOOK WHO'S TALKING).

Although I liked GL OK & all, I can say that if MARVEL STUDIOS had made the film, it would've been a smash hit! Not only does Marvel care about their characters but, & I hate to even try to explain exactly what it is, but with DC characters, there seems to be some kind of apathy from the general public, except for Batman, of course. Let's hope that changes with THE MAN OF STEEL! Who knows? Maybe that will be the film that breaks the mold for DC?

I always have to laugh a bit when people say that DC films simply don't catch on and then cite the likes of Catwoman and Singerman to prove their "point". The fact is that Batman was regarded as utterly toxic right up until Chris Nolan developed a take that caught on with people. Then suddenly Batman became the safest bet in Hollywood. I swear, it happened overfreakingnight and NOBODY noticed. Any given example of Hollywood conventional wisdom has a way of being held as gospel truth right up until the very second it dies completely unmourned.

Irrespective of my feelings about it, Green Lantern is a disappointment. But I also firmly believe it's an isolated incident. It doesn't belong in the same class of atrocities as Catwoman and Singerman.

thecolorsblend wrote:I always have to laugh a bit when people say that DC films simply don't catch on and then cite the likes of Catwoman and Singerman to prove their "point". The fact is that Batman was regarded as utterly toxic right up until Chris Nolan developed a take that caught on with people. Then suddenly Batman became the safest bet in Hollywood. I swear, it happened overfreakingnight and NOBODY noticed. Any given example of Hollywood conventional wisdom has a way of being held as gospel truth right up until the very second it dies completely unmourned.

Irrespective of my feelings about it, Green Lantern is a disappointment. But I also firmly believe it's an isolated incident. It doesn't belong in the same class of atrocities as Catwoman and Singerman.

Yeah, remember the public perception of Batman in the years following BATMAN AND ROBIN? That was a far cry from the initial GREAT reception that the 1989 Burton film got. That first film, although greatly 'dismissed' now by all the 'Ledger lovers', was simply AWESOME for it's time & I still like watching it from time to time. However, when the franchise went downhill, it took Batman with it & I believe there was even some initial apprehension with BATMAN BEGINS, as in, can it wash out the bad taste of the previous film? But like you said, Nolan came up with a take that the public latched on to which ultimately paved the way for THE DARK KNIGHT. Now it's like the public doesn't even have memories of 'B&R'. Let's just hope SUPERMAN can get the same 'pass that Batman did!

As far as GREEN LANTERN is concerned, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the film hadn't even been made yet, that it was currently just an idea 'on the table'. No cast, no script, nothing. Now, after Marvel's success with IRON MAN & THOR, wouldn't the average comics fan feel like, "Hey, this is DC's answer to Iron Man!" Exactly! And to me, it should've been! It was a chance to have a 'non-Batman character' finally make it to the big screen! Who wouldn't want that? But, even though I liked GL, apparently WB/DC should've spent more time developing the concept, not necessarily more money. It seems that they were in a 'rush' to get this product out there when maybe they should've been doing 're-writes' & what-not & even debating the casting & such. Who knows? If they had spent the proper time actually developing the film, then maybe it would've been another Iron Man?! However, it appears WB/DC just simply want to compete with Marvel without necessarily 'doing their homework' & it's costing them! It does make one wish that they'd finally get their act together!

See, that's where I have to differ with a lot of folks. GL has it's fair share of plot holes but in large part it's about as well made any other action movie. It doesn't have the same kind of handicaps that Catwoman and Singerman have. So in that case, the public really has spoken. Even though I liked the movie, it's got to be acknowledged that John Q. Public didn't gravitate towards it. Maybe that's because of piss-poor reviews (although I usually think most action films that cater to teens and early twenty somethings as being somewhat critic-proof) or whatever else but the verdict truly is in. I don't think extra development or refinement would've changed much of anything with GL.

I personally hope dc just doesn't give up on others. They just need the right people on board and not get to hands in it studio wise. So they can hopefully find the right mix like marvel studios have gotten with there writers/directors.

thecolorsblend wrote:See, that's where I have to differ with a lot of folks. GL has it's fair share of plot holes but in large part it's about as well made any other action movie. It doesn't have the same kind of handicaps that Catwoman and Singerman have. So in that case, the public really has spoken. Even though I liked the movie, it's got to be acknowledged that John Q. Public didn't gravitate towards it. Maybe that's because of piss-poor reviews (although I usually think most action films that cater to teens and early twenty somethings as being somewhat critic-proof) or whatever else but the verdict truly is in. I don't think extra development or refinement would've changed much of anything with GL.

But you see, that goes back to that APATHY I spoke of that the general public seems to have towards all things DC, except for Batman. Hopefully the Superman reboot will change all of that! But look at WATCHMEN. Obviously a fan favorite on these forums & without a doubt one of the finest comics films ever made but otherwise not considered to be a success financially or by the fickle public. What is it with this apathy towards DC characters?! I really wanted FLASH but we can probably forget it now!

Ya know, considering WB's success with SMALLVILLE, maybe they ought to be focusing on new TV series?! Right off the top of my head they could continue GREEN ARROW directly from SV. Maybe they should've done this with GL? Maybe with other characters? It seems that, not counting the recent WONDER WOMAN, they may have something on their hands with their TV interpretations. Maybe that's what they should be focusing on for 2nd tier characters?!

As much as I would love to see ga/flash/ac/others in tv. I do say some probably would be best for tv. But others I would love to see a feature film. Where they have more money/sfx budget to play with. Where as tv would be limit funds and more so if they where stuck on a network like cw.

thecolorsblend wrote:See, that's where I have to differ with a lot of folks. GL has it's fair share of plot holes but in large part it's about as well made any other action movie.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. It makes all the WRONG DECISIONS that bad action movies have made over the years.

Oh, and the plot-holes are numerous & insultingly bad in 'Green Lantern'.

It doesn't have the same kind of handicaps that Catwoman and Singerman have. So in that case, the public really has spoken. Even though I liked the movie, it's got to be acknowledged that John Q. Public didn't gravitate towards it. Maybe that's because of piss-poor reviews (although I usually think most action films that cater to teens and early twenty somethings as being somewhat critic-proof) or whatever else but the verdict truly is in. I don't think extra development or refinement would've changed much of anything with GL.

I like plenty of films that nerds and critics alike have "savaged". 'Sucker Punch' is a much better film than what people online have been saying, 'The A-Team' was the best action movie of 2010, and 'Paul' was funnier than I expected. But you won't hear me making excuses for why they failed, or try to rationalize why people didn't go and see them.

Shit happens.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:See, that's where I have to differ with a lot of folks. GL has it's fair share of plot holes but in large part it's about as well made any other action movie.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. It makes all the WRONG DECISIONS that bad action movies have made over the years.

Oh, and the plot-holes are numerous & insultingly bad in 'Green Lantern'.

It doesn't have the same kind of handicaps that Catwoman and Singerman have. So in that case, the public really has spoken. Even though I liked the movie, it's got to be acknowledged that John Q. Public didn't gravitate towards it. Maybe that's because of piss-poor reviews (although I usually think most action films that cater to teens and early twenty somethings as being somewhat critic-proof) or whatever else but the verdict truly is in. I don't think extra development or refinement would've changed much of anything with GL.

I like plenty of films that nerds and critics alike have "savaged". 'Sucker Punch' is a much better film than what people online have been saying, 'The A-Team' was the best action movie of 2010, and 'Paul' was funnier than I expected. But you won't hear me making excuses for why they failed, or try to rationalize why people didn't go and see them.

Shit happens.

I have to agree. Making up BS excuses to justify a film's failure is for Apologists.

All I can tell you is that I dug on Green Lantern. I don't care what anyone else says. And I'd like to think I've got some cred here because I usually freakin LOATHE Hal Jordan (although I'm reading Emerald Dawn right now and kind of digging it).

Watchmen was another disappointment. I don't give two fucks what some online Monday morning quarterback says, the theatrical cut is one of the greatest comic book films of all time. Snyder handily managed what I would've sworn was an impossible task in adapting that storyline. But the box office just wasn't there (although I think WB had minimal expectations for that film based on the budget, the release window, the largely unknown/lesser known cast, etc).

And yeah, Sucker Punch was good too. VERY underrated. In fact, I've wondered if the Apologists' endless shit-talk didn't have something to do with all that. But whatever, it's over.

Don't you mean the extended 'Director's Cut'?

non_amos wrote:Don't you mean the extended 'Director's Cut'?

Let me double check...

No, I said the theatrical cut and I mean the theatrical cut. To me, that's the cut of the movie. It distills the majority of the most important stuff about Watchmen into film.

The ultimate cut... it's okay. I guess. Hollis Mason's development in the ultimate cut almost makes it superior to the theatrical version but the Tales of the Black Freighter segments ultimately drag the enterprise down somewhat.

In fact, I liken it somewhat to LOTR. I'm not a huge fan of that franchise by any stretch but I usually prefer watching the theatrical cuts. It felt like Jackson told a (supposedly) big story as economically as he possibly could. The extended cuts have some interesting parts to them (noticeably different, and frequently superior, color-grading in several sequences, for one) but ultimately the theatrical cuts (esp ROTK) simply tell a more compact story. More thrilla, less filla.

Same deal, ultimately, with Watchmen. The extended run time for Watchmen is no credit to it in the big scheme of things.

To REALLY get off topic...

In fact, all other things being equal, I don't think most films benefit from a second (or more) cut. I've never seen any alternate cuts of the two Godfather movies... and I honestly don't care to. I like them the way they are on my DVD's. Whether it's Star Wars, STM, Watchmen or whatever else, generally the theatrical cut is the one that turns out the best.

One exception to this is Robocop. To me, the director's cut is the version that should be out there. You get a clearer insight into Verhoeven's wit and intentions behind several scenes. A classic example is ED-209 malfunctioning at the beginning. In the theatrical cut, it's HORRIFYING. The executive gets shot down and then someone shouts for a medic in total panic. It's a tragedy.

But in the director's cut? The guy doesn't just take a few bullets, he gets friggin shot into spaghetti. You need a spoon to get him into the "body" bag. Verhoeven intentionally shot the scene in an over the top, borderline cartoonish kind of way... so that when the other guy shouts for a medic, you LAUGH because, c'mon, there's just no way.

I guess this is the main reason I'm opposed to "fan edits". They miss the forest for the trees. Again, most films don't benefit from alternate cuts. Even fewer benefit from such being done by anyone other than the filmmaker himself. But even beyond that stuff, the "fan editors" don't have access to the raw materials to make the thing work. You know as well as I do that it's just a matter of time until some hackjob "fan editor" reincorporates all the deleted scenes, including Return To Crapped-On, back into Singerman once the BRD set comes out. I mean, Singerman sucks already so putting in all the scenes that were too shitty even for an already shit film won't likely improve much of anything.

In fact, the BEST you can hope for with most "fan edits" is a lateral move. The film still has the same fundamental weaknesses as before but now it has extra scenes and a longer run time.

Oy, sorry to blather on so much...

No, I said the theatrical cut and I mean the theatrical cut. To me, that's the cut of the movie. It distills the majority of the most important stuff about Watchmen into film.

The ultimate cut... it's okay. I guess. Hollis Mason's development in the ultimate cut almost makes it superior to the theatrical version but the Tales of the Black Freighter segments ultimately drag the enterprise down somewhat.

I have all 3 versions of Watchmen. If the Black Freighter crap is too irritating to watch in the context of the film, you can just watch the regular 'Director's Cut' which is the extended version without the cartoon. I think I actually liked that better because the cartoon seemed to take me out of the story whereas the regular extended version seemed to add to it. Some of it was even Rorshach's dialogue that was left out of the theatrical version. To be fair, the theatrical is of course the first version I saw, obviously, & loved the film! But that initial 1st Director's Cut really did it for me.

In fact, all other things being equal, I don't think most films benefit from a second (or more) cut. I've never seen any alternate cuts of the two Godfather movies... and I honestly don't care to. I like them the way they are on my DVD's. Whether it's Star Wars, STM, Watchmen or whatever else, generally the theatrical cut is the one that turns out the best.

I can definitely agree on the Godfather films but I have to disagree on Superman: the Movie. Although I like the theatrical cut on that, when I first saw the 'extended cut' that came out back in 2000, even though I didn't actually see it in 2000, but anyway, just like with Watchmen more recently, that extended cut added to the film for me but in a good way. The additional scenes & dialogue on Krypton are good examples. Also the additional dialogue between Superman & Jor-El after 'First Night'. Even Superman entering Luthor's lair for the 1st time is extended & IMHO, is better than simply knocking the door down.

As for Singerman, you're probably right about that. Just like with my 'Restored International Cut' of Superman 2, I wouldn't put it past even the same people to do likewise with Singerman. I'm sure some apologist has already thought of it.

Actually, the ABC version of Superman The Movie DID improve the film. How could Donner cut out the "Three Trials" portion of the film? That's insane.

Here's an interesting thing to do though to truly test your theory, thecolorsblend:

Pick a movie you have never seen, that has an extended cut. Watch the EC first, then the theatrical.

If you can still say the same after, then all's well. If not, then maybe you'll go into extended cuts with a more open mind.

[quote="non_amos"]Here's what Mark Millar has to say about the situation:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/joshw24/news/?a=40515

Mark Millar Comments On Future Of Superhero Movies; Calls Green Lantern A "Blip"!.......I've loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it's Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever... they just don't seem to catch on in the modern world.

WTF??? That's because people keep putting them in shitty movies and TV shows.

He brings up the Aquaman pilot and Birds Of Prey, so I'm guessing he's talking TV too. So what do you call a decade of Smallville for crying out loud??

Christ, he thinks the Flash would flounder on the big screen....has he seen Thor? The thing is the people behind the Marvel movies are clearly more adept at adapting their characters for modern audiences. The DC folk have to make better films, like Donner, Burton and Nolan did. Don't blame the characters, blame the movies and shows you're putting them in.....and stop handing these TREASURED characters to hacks like Singer who clearly don't get the iconic characters.

....and another thing!!

...who exactly is buying all the DC DVDs and Blu-rays? Who does he think is buying the latest Justice League movie? Or STM on Blu-ray? Time travellers from 1978??

Sorry, it starts to sound like a deliberate attempt to diminish the supposed worth of a few brand names here............Pretty low stuff.

There's a heck of a lot riding on "Man Of Steel", especially IF it's a recognizable version of Superman. Either way, if it is seen to have failed it looks pretty grim

Father Finian wrote:He brings up the Aquaman pilot and Birds Of Prey, so I'm guessing he's talking TV too. So what do you call a decade of Smallville for crying out loud??

Or however many seasons there were of JLU? Hell, for that matter what about the entire Timmverse?

As far as Aquaman goes, that doesn't even count. But even if you do count it, it doesn't strengthen the guy's argument. It was a WB pilot that, like all WB pilots, got intentionally rejected as a series during the WB/UPN merger. It was about corporate politics. When the Aquaman pilot was released to iTunes, it was a big hit. I've seen it myself and really dug it. Can't promise I would've tuned in for the show each week but the pilot itself was rock solid.

non_amos wrote:I have all 3 versions of Watchmen. If the Black Freighter crap is too irritating to watch in the context of the film, you can just watch the regular 'Director's Cut' which is the extended version without the cartoon. I think I actually liked that better because the cartoon seemed to take me out of the story whereas the regular extended version seemed to add to it. Some of it was even Rorshach's dialogue that was left out of the theatrical version. To be fair, the theatrical is of course the first version I saw, obviously, & loved the film! But that initial 1st Director's Cut really did it for me.

Maybe I'll rewatch the director's cut.

non_amos wrote:I can definitely agree on the Godfather films but I have to disagree on Superman: the Movie. Although I like the theatrical cut on that, when I first saw the 'extended cut' that came out back in 2000, even though I didn't actually see it in 2000, but anyway, just like with Watchmen more recently, that extended cut added to the film for me but in a good way. The additional scenes & dialogue on Krypton are good examples. Also the additional dialogue between Superman & Jor-El after 'First Night'. Even Superman entering Luthor's lair for the 1st time is extended & IMHO, is better than simply knocking the door down.

Stuart Baird's editing in the theatrical cut is first rate. It really is. Top quality. There's a momentum to the piece that I think certain restored scenes kind of ruin, chief among them being Superman's conversation with Jor-El after the first night. Donner's cameo doesn't help much either though.

It's hard to be objective though because of the remixed sound. I prefer the original sound mix for STM. That upgraded soundtrack just doesn't do it for me. That's why I was so relieved when the newer DVD's came along that gave you the option of watching and listening to the original version.

non_amos wrote:As for Singerman, you're probably right about that. Just like with my 'Restored International Cut' of Superman 2, I wouldn't put it past even the same people to do likewise with Singerman. I'm sure some apologist has already thought of it.

To be fair, Singerman really is a worst case scenario. It's an easy target to pick on because we all hate it but I mentioned it because even adding in the scenes that allegedly give the film better and clearer context still won't polish that particular turd. Anyway.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Actually, the ABC version of Superman The Movie DID improve the film. How could Donner cut out the "Three Trials" portion of the film? That's insane.

From a cost point of view... good question.

From a narrative point of view, I maintain it's not really needed. At that point, the suspense is on Luthor and the (phony, as it turns out) gas bomb he was planning to unleash on the city. Those "trial" sequences are good unto themselves but they don't do too much to advance the narrative during a time in the film when it should be kicking into high gear.

That said, Donner could've re-shot the Lex/Tessmacher bits for that scene and set it up that Lex was testing Superman to get an idea of his abilities and his limits and then placed it just after his debut but before he visits Lois for their little interview/date. That would've made that remark Otis made that "fire and bullets won't hurt this guy but this stuff will kill him?" thing make a lot more sense.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Here's an interesting thing to do though to truly test your theory, thecolorsblend:

Pick a movie you have never seen, that has an extended cut. Watch the EC first, then the theatrical.

If you can still say the same after, then all's well. If not, then maybe you'll go into extended cuts with a more open mind.

I'll see if there's a worthy movie out there (not one of those dumbass "unrated" comedies that don't matter for anything) and put this to the test.

I'll see if there's a worthy movie out there (not one of those dumbass "unrated" comedies that don't matter for anything) and put this to the test.

I've read online that this is true of the DAREDEVIL film. Actually I own both versions but I have so many DVDs I've never taken the time to watch the 'Director's Cut' but maybe I'll have to correct that. I understand though that it does work in that case?

non_amos wrote:

I'll see if there's a worthy movie out there (not one of those dumbass "unrated" comedies that don't matter for anything) and put this to the test.

I've read online that this is true of the DAREDEVIL film. Actually I own both versions but I have so many DVDs I've never taken the time to watch the 'Director's Cut' but maybe I'll have to correct that. I understand though that it does work in that case?

I'd argue the director's cut is worth watching as it fills in a lot of character stuff. I prefer the theatrical cut because I think the movie WANTS to be fun, popcorn entertainment and the director's cut undermines that a little but that's a small quibble. A lot of folks prefer the director's cut. Either way, it's worth checking out.

EDIT- Oh yeah, and a director's cut is justifiable in Daredevil's case as the studio wanted a 90 minute film while Johnson would've preferred the director's cut being released to theaters.

thecolorsblend wrote:When the Aquaman pilot was released to iTunes, it was a big hit. I've seen it myself and really dug it. Can't promise I would've tuned in for the show each week but the pilot itself was rock solid.

I'm not surprised, it did deliver Hartley. Miller seems to be echoing the corporate line. How can Aquaman and Wonder Woman fail to engage modern audiences when they never got a chance to see them? Then in the same breath include Superman into the mix when his show ran for a decade, and not to mention the years of continued success by the animated division, as you point out. And let's not forget the interest generated in Smallville when some old school DC characters were revived, some for the first time in live action.

This lot sound like a bunch of politicians trying to spin a line....deliberately diminishing their own assets. Incredible. Staggering.

I tell you what. You'll never hear Disney suggest Mickey Mouse has had his day, even though we all know he sort of has. They have to much respect for their legacy.

thecolorsblend wrote:From a narrative point of view, I maintain it's not really needed. At that point, the suspense is on Luthor and the (phony, as it turns out) gas bomb he was planning to unleash on the city. Those "trial" sequences are good unto themselves but they don't do too much to advance the narrative during a time in the film when it should be kicking into high gear.

Here's the thing though: That scene didn't HINDER the pacing either. In fact, it explained why Superman was as pissed as he was when he pushed in Lex's door. Which even though it was so quick, I loved how they did it. It actually looked like Chris Reeve was trashing that door.

I'll see if there's a worthy movie out there (not one of those dumbass "unrated" comedies that don't matter for anything) and put this to the test.

If you haven't seen 'The A-Team' yet, that is the perfect DVD to try it out on. I saw the EC first, and thought it was far superior to the TC.

Father Finian wrote:

I tell you what. You'll never hear Disney suggest Mickey Mouse has had his day, even though we all know he sort of has. They have to much respect for their legacy.

One thing I find interesting here is that now DISNEY OWNS MARVEL! Marvel Studios continues to put out a superior product even so. No doubt they'll continue to do so. Who knows, maybe the 'new owners' will really exploit these characters but in a good way! And due to duh lawsuit from duh heirs, duh apologists continue to want WB/DC to lose so that DISNEY can own Superman, through Marvel, of course. What do I say to that?

Ain't happenin'!

Apologist Puncher wrote:Here's the thing though: That scene didn't HINDER the pacing either. In fact, it explained why Superman was as pissed as he was when he pushed in Lex's door. Which even though it was so quick, I loved how they did it. It actually looked like Chris Reeve was trashing that door.

Fair enough. You could reasonably argue that Superman's terseness in that scene is due to wanting to take out the imaginary gas bomb right then and there but, as you say, it could as easily be chalked up to that series of tests.

That said, I still prefer the theatrical sequence.

Apologist Puncher wrote:If you haven't seen 'The A-Team' yet, that is the perfect DVD to try it out on. I saw the EC first, and thought it was far superior to the TC.

Already saw A-Team but I didn't exactly regard it as an inviolable masterpiece. If I can find it, I'll check out the director's cut thereof.

Since we're sort of on the subject, another good director's cut is Oliver Stone's JFK. The director's cut meanders a bit more but (A) the theatrical cut isn't terribly focused either and (B) that stuff is completely intentional as the film is designed, among other things, to show the extent of the forces at work against Garrison. Both work, both are equally good overall and I could watch one as easily as the other.

Father Finian wrote:I'm not surprised, it did deliver Hartley. Miller seems to be echoing the corporate line.

Precisely. It's just a common and popular talking point that a lot of Marvel fanboys and general outsiders parrot but which has little basis in verifiable fact.

Father Finian wrote:How can Aquaman and Wonder Woman fail to engage modern audiences when they never got a chance to see them?

True dat. But on top of that, WB is the great equalizer in all this. Marvel Studios can sign their names to most films they executive produce. Success or failure, they can at least hold their heads up that they presented the truth of that given character; whatever happens after that is up to the moviegoing public.

However, every single motherfucking DC film is at Hollyweird's mercy. "We've got existing deals with Doug Liman, Matt Damon and Jennifer Connelly so let's have 'em do a Superman movie and rush through their contracts".

Marvel seems to approach each new project with the same degree of care and precision that a high end chef invests in five course dinner.

The difference in terms of end result is clear on that account.

Father Finian wrote:This lot sound like a bunch of politicians trying to spin a line....deliberately diminishing their own assets. Incredible. Staggering.

I can only say that Mark Millar, however talented he may be as a writer, is ultimately in the business of promoting himself. To my knowledge, he's not working for DC or WB at the moment.

Plus, odds are good he's still sore that Goyer is writing the reboot while he himself got passed over. Say whatever you want about Mark Millar's pitch (what we know of it anyway) but the controversial stuff would never have seen the light of day and we already know that he would've nailed the characters. If he was writing the reboot, I'd be defending that thing left, right and center.

I tell you what. You'll never hear Disney suggest Mickey Mouse has had his day, even though we all know he sort of has. They have to much respect for their legacy.[/quote]

non_amos wrote:One thing I find interesting here is that now DISNEY OWNS MARVEL! Marvel Studios continues to put out a superior product even so. No doubt they'll continue to do so.

Of course. My guess is that Disney bought Marvel (A) because of the characters first and (B) let's face it, it ain't like Marvel Studios is floundering at the box office. They've had two bona fide hits, one near miss, one decent performer, an upcoming film this summer a *LOT* of people are looking forward to and, lest we forget, Avengers in 2012, the first real superhero team up movie there's ever been.

That's not a studio you dick around with. You leave 'em alone and let 'em do their thing.

non_amos wrote:Who knows, maybe the 'new owners' will really exploit these characters but in a good way!

You kidding? I'd argue they're there already. You been to a Target or Wal-Mart lately? Go down the toothpaste aisle some time. You've got Captain America, Spider-Man, Iron Man and other toothbrushes. Go to the t-shirts. Avengers, X-Men, Deadpool, etc. Sure, some of that stuff was there already but it's really increased in the last year or so. Disney already has existing inroads in terms of merchandising and licensing so all the Marvel folks have to do is take advantage of the existing infrastructure.

By way of comparison, how many Batman or Green Lantern items are you going to find? Yeah, that's what I thought.

non_amos wrote:And due to duh lawsuit from duh heirs, duh apologists continue to want WB/DC to lose so that DISNEY can own Superman, through Marvel, of course. What do I say to that?

Ain't happenin'!

Let's say that it did. Disney has an existing comic book deal going with BOOM! Studios. But let's face it, they're giving Superman to Marvel. There's just no way in hell the BOOM! deal will continue once the current contract lapses. I just can't picture Disney not taking advantage of an in-house publishing arm. It doesn't make any kind of sense.

So Superman would necessarily get folded into the Marvel universe. Assuming we're talking about Superman as we currently know him (instead of bastardized, Golden Age-lite version), I'd absolutely trust Marvel Studios to do a proper movie but I don't trust Marvel Comics any further than I can throw them. The Marvel U is all about realism and down-to-earth, flawed (but likeable) characters.

In short, that's everything Superman isn't. He's an inspirational icon, the flawless hero who does the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and doesn't expect to get rich and famous for it.

As you say, those Apologists have no idea what the fuck they're asking for.

IF the Siegels somehow get their hands on Superman for good, ironically I could most easily envision them taking Superman to BOOM Studios. Whether it's the REAL Superman of the comics or the hacked up, quasi-Golden Age Superman, BOOM makes the most sense, but maybe IDW or Dark Horse could manage it.

thecolorsblend wrote:Fair enough. You could reasonably argue that Superman's terseness in that scene is due to wanting to take out the imaginary gas bomb right then and there but, as you say, it could as easily be chalked up to that series of tests.

That said, I still prefer the theatrical sequence.

I don't.

Remember, up to that point the ONLY sequence showcasing the "Steel" part of the Man Of Steel was a guy hitting him with a crowbar. This tidbit reminds people of just how tough Superman is, and did not detract from the film.

It's much better included than excluded.

Already saw A-Team but I didn't exactly regard it as an inviolable masterpiece. If I can find it, I'll check out the director's cut thereof.

Fair enough, but to bring it back to the topic at hand, it was everything 'Green Lantern' was not.

It was fun.

Since we're sort of on the subject, another good director's cut is Oliver Stone's JFK. The director's cut meanders a bit more but (A) the theatrical cut isn't terribly focused either and (B) that stuff is completely intentional as the film is designed, among other things, to show the extent of the forces at work against Garrison. Both work, both are equally good overall and I could watch one as easily as the other.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, and the JFK assassination is still the grand-daddy of them all. Oswald did it, and worked alone. Stone's over-blown film brings up a lot of questions, but anyone with a brain can and should answer them all.