JUSTICE LEAGUE: PART ONE (11/17/17) 5 5

[Bosco685]

If Jesse Eisenberg in a battle suit is a studio-breaker, game on. There are characters like Black Adam and  Brainiac right there with him to fill the screen.

[Bosco685]

Until we find out otherwise, I'll have to go with the common rumor of $300M. Especially since one of those sources was the Wall Street Journal reporter.

[Bosco685]

FORBES.COM: How Rotten Tomatoes Screwed Over 'Justice League'

Quote

Yes, there is going to be a lot of talk about what went wrong with the opening weekend reception of Justice League, and at least some of the blame lies with the poor reception of Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, as well as the lackluster reviews and the choice to make the film into some de-facto copy of The Avengers. But there is one odd factor that deserves a moment of discussion, and that is how Rotten Tomatoes, and the media in covering Rotten Tomatoes, black-flagged the WB release just before the release date.

 

It was a minor thing at the time, as the STX Entertainment release wasn’t exactly banking on critical raves. But as expected See It/Skip It picked Justice League as the big reveal for the Nov. 16. show and everyone lost their minds.

 

As expected, the internet was flooded with conspiracy theories, handwringing and outrage about the show withholding the reviews and Tomatometer from the site, with folks who should have known better arguing that Time Warner was somehow attempting to keep the film’s poor reviews from leaking out into the world. Never mind that Warner Bros./Time Warner Inc. let the social media embargo for Justice League drop a week before release, or that the review embargo fell on Wednesday, Nov. 16, at 12:50 am PST. Never mind that, after the review embargo dropped, folks could Google “Justice League, review” or what-have-you and find pretty much every review that made up the first wave of critical reactions.

 

To a world and to a reactionary media that now only views critical discourse through the lens of Rotten Tomatoes, and specifically through that fresh/rotten score, keeping Justice League off the website and treating the score as a big reveal was the same as hiding the film’s critical reaction from the public or not screening it for press at all. It was bad enough that the media treated this Rotten Tomatoes hide-and-seek as a genuine news story, but people who damn well should have known better acted like this was an unprecedented event, as if it hadn’t happened in two prior See It/Skip It episodes.

 

As a result, the last thing that many general audiences and would-be consumers read about the film, the main story in the lead up Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon’s $250 million+ comic book superhero movie’s opening day, was that the film’s reviews weren’t being made available on Rotten Tomatoes, with a common line being that Warner Bros. and/or Time Warner was essentially suppressing negative reviews (reviews that were available all over the web).

 

But a big chunk of the responsibility is with the media who peddled conspiracy theories and once again treated the Tomatometer (which is merely the percentage of participating critics who rate a given film a “positive” – or 6/10 rating) as a kind of movie critic Hogwarts sorting hat.

If you think about it, in reality a 30% shareholder doesn't get to tell a 70% shareholder what to do. That's why there is such a large variance in ownership to ensure there is limited control.

But we had folks falling in line with the same story: WB had 'told' Rotten Tomatoes it would withhold the final critic score before release.

[herc2000]

I watched this yesterday, I really enjoyed it, give me this over Thor 3 any day of the week as I'm not really into comedies!

[Bosco685]

I've watched reviews from these guys since their time with Superhero Hype, which then they left and created their own movie tracking and review site. All three strongly disliked Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. Agustin Rios is a VFX professional, and worked on Mad Max: Fury Road, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange and even Spider-Man: Homecoming. Adam Hlavac has the same matching resume. So actual movie production members.

Interesting to see their reaction now. And yes, they pick apart the CGI based on their expert background.

 

[VintageComics]

23 hours ago, skypinkblu said:

@VintageComics Roy, we got to pick our seats for $9.50, they were these really neat electric couches...move and take the kids;) Also, maybe READ the thread before explaining how they took out Supes mustache

I wonder how many people that would have really bothered if you didn't know it was removed, and how much it cost before you did or (in some cases didn't ) see the movie?

I can't be bothered reading pages and pages of a missed thread.

There are so many meaningless posts in this forum that I have no interest in (toys, advertisements, multiple trailer and poster posts, fan creations, etc) that I don't visit as often as I used to. I just check in from time to time when I feel I want to post something about a film I've seen recently.

My comment towards the mustache was because I could tell something was up while watching the movie but I couldn't place my finger on exactly what it was. When Superman was making his evil grimace, it didn't look like Cavill and it annoyed me (in the theater, not after reading the article - which was two days later). To me, accumulative small things like this ruin what should be a world class production.

I also don't understand why people who voice negative opinions about a movie shouldn't say anything. I don't have any particular agenda except for the fact that I believe that these movies should be held to high standards.

I'm past the 'I should just be happy to see my heroes on the screen' phase.  I was happy for this 30 years ago.

We're well into an arena where I would expect quality productions at this point and not just passable, mediocre efforts to pry my money from my wallet.

It's what competition is supposed to bring....quality and choice.

 

[VintageComics]

19 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

They say they could have made 2 JLA pictures with all the cuts!

Between BVS and JL they could have made 3- 5 movies IMO.

[VintageComics]

19 hours ago, F For Fake said:

I've been saying this for years: Hollywood needs to make cheaper movies, so that the stakes don't have to get impossibly high.  When they don't reach those unrealistic markers, it's time to shutter the whole genre, which is unfair, because there clearly are many fans of these films. You can make more economical movies that will make a lot of profit IF you don't spend so much money on them in the first place.  Not every superhero is built to be in the Billionaires club.

It's hard to make a production like this cheap.

It's not that they WANT to spend $300MIL to make a movie, it's that they need to.

I posted an article about a year ago about unions and costs in Hollywood. The costs are staggering.

You need your make up done? You can't touch it up yourself. You have to get a specialized worked which charges an exorbitant rate to do it.

You need a prop moved or a light switched on? You need to call a specialized person to do it.

Everyone wants their cut of the pie and they want their jobs protected. Movie making is no different.

People want raises, they want to make more and so they have to spend more.

I don't know how cheap you'd have to go before it starts to affect the film, but I don't think you can make a cheap movie anymore.

[fantastic_four]

6 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I'm past the 'I should just be happy to see my heroes on the screen' phase.  I was happy for this 30 years ago.

We're well into an arena where I would expect quality productions at this point and not just passable, mediocre efforts to pry my money from my wallet.

Another way of looking at it is that the standard we're holding the films up to is a standard that 99.99% of comic books ever written would never stack up against.  We as collectors seem to endlessly give comic writers and artists a pass on mediocre writing and/or art, but not film directors, screenwriters, and actors.  Why do we do hold filmmakers up to a standard our primary comics medium has never lived up to?  

Edited November 22, 2017 by fantastic_four

[VintageComics]

19 hours ago, Gatsby77 said:

Logan's a perfect example of a smaller film that prioritized storytelling over spectacle. 

And gets to be called a success because it clocked $226 million domestic on a $97 million budget. (Compared to budgets of $150 million and $120 million, respectively, for the first two Wolverine solo films).

Rather than go bigger as the films progressed, Logan won by going smaller.

I did not realize they made that film for under $100MIL

If so then maybe it is possible to stay profitable and put out a quality film.

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

7 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I'm past the 'I should just be happy to see my heroes on the screen' phase.  I was happy for this 30 years ago.

We're well into an arena where I would expect quality productions at this point and not just passable, mediocre efforts to pry my money from my wallet.

Another way of looking at it is that the standard we're holding the films up to is a standard that 99.99% of comic books ever written would never stack up against.  We as collectors seem to endlessly give comic writers and artists a pass on mediocre writing and/or art, but not film directors, screenwriters, and actors.  Why do we do hold filmmakers up to a standard our primary comics medium has never lived up to?  

That's untrue. It used to be true when comics were just for kids, but as the hobby matured so did the readers.

People don't give free passes to books anymore either.

Sure, kids do but adults don't. Online discussions always include quality of a story line now.

This isn't the Silver Age where Peter Parker is a teenager for ever. Comics (and Graphic Novels) are now competing with real literature in my opinion.

[Get Marwood & I]

5 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I can't be bothered reading pages and pages of a missed thread.

There are so many meaningless posts in this forum that I have no interest in (toys, advertisements, multiple trailer and poster posts, fan creations, etc) that I don't visit as often as I used to. I just check in from time to time when I feel I want to post something about a film I've seen recently.

My comment towards the mustache was because I could tell something was up while watching the movie but I couldn't place my finger on exactly what it was. When Superman was making his evil grimace, it didn't look like Cavill and it annoyed me (in the theater, not after reading the article - which was two days later). To me, accumulative small things like this ruin what should be a world class production.

I also don't understand why people who voice negative opinions about a movie shouldn't say anything. I don't have any particular agenda except for the fact that I believe that these movies should be held to high standards.

I'm past the 'I should just be happy to see my heroes on the screen' phase.  I was happy for this 30 years ago.

We're well into an arena where I would expect quality productions at this point and not just passable, mediocre efforts to pry my money from my wallet.

It's what competition is supposed to bring....quality and choice.

 

Ah, come on Roy. The posts that don't interest you may interest others, at the very least those that posted them, so why voice a negative opinion about it when you then go on to voice a complaint about people voicing negative opinions? Be fair buddy. I don't see an issue with negative opinions being expressed, as long as they are backed up by people who've actually seen the film. I thought BvS and JL were quality productions. 

Homecoming was poo though.

And I thought there was something not right about Cavill's mush too (I didn't read this thread to avoid spoilers so didn't know about the moustache)

[VintageComics]

18 hours ago, Comicopolis said:

On 11/21/2017 at 5:43 AM, bane said:

How the other half live eh? 

I hate people eating popcorn next to me in the cinema. If I saw somebody having a meal I'd probably spontaneously combust.

I was thinking about you when I posted it.

The theater is designed for having dinner and a movie.

Like I said a few years ago, it's probably just a cultural thing. It's very common over here.

[Get Marwood & I]

18 hours ago, Comicopolis said:

I hate people eating popcorn next to me in the cinema. If I saw somebody having a meal I'd probably spontaneously combust.

[VintageComics]

2 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Ah, come on Roy. The posts that don't interest you may interest others, at the very least those that posted them, so why voice a negative opinion about it when you then go on to voice a complaint about people voicing negative opinions?

I was simply explaining to Sharon (skypinkblu) why I don't read the threads anymore because she asked me to read them before posting.

3 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Homecoming was poo though.

I thought homecoming captured who Spider-man was supposed to be, even if they had to change the supporting cast to make it more PC for today's world.

[Get Marwood & I]

Just now, VintageComics said:

1) I was simply explaining to Sharon (skypinkblu) why I don't read the threads anymore because she asked me to read them before posting.

2) I thought homecoming captured who Spider-man was supposed to be, even if they had to change the supporting cast to make it more PC for today's world.

1) Quite right too

2) Eh? Who was Spider-Man supposed to be?

[chrisco37]

2 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I was thinking about you when I posted it.

The theater is designed for having dinner and a movie.

Like I said a few years ago, it's probably just a cultural thing. It's very common over here.

Yeah, they have them here as well (Cinema-Drafthouse is the term).   The one near me is about $10/ticket (at least during the day).  The seats are pretty comfortable and the aisles are basically a bar top.  You can order your standard movie fare (popcorn, nachos, soda, etc...) but the also offer "real" food (pizza, chicken tenders, sandwiches/subs, etc) and beer. 

2 people (including dinner & drinks) probably will run you close to that $100 range (with tip). 

[fantastic_four]

8 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

That's untrue. It used to be true when comics were just for kids, but as the hobby matured so did the readers.

What year would you say that changed?  I wouldn't put it before about 2005, and even after that the majority of stories just aren't that great.  More started to be over the last decade or so, but still most are filler that wouldn't hold up to the standard of a Hollywood screenplay.

[VintageComics]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

What year would you say that changed?  I wouldn't put it before about 2005, and even after that the majority of stories just aren't that great.  More started to be over the last decade or so, but still most are filler that wouldn't hold up to the standard of a Hollywood screenplay.

I can't comment definitively but since the advent of the Bronze Age, story telling has always progressed towards an adult direction with a definite trend towards quality story telling.

The big BA arcs of the death of Gwen Stacey and GL #76 onward are the big two that come to mind, but stuff like Starlin's long winding arcs are also pretty good. I still adore his run on Warlock.

Moving into the 80's you had stuff like X-men and Superboy which hold up reasonably well IMO. You had The Watchmen and Dark Night.

You have the Moore and Gaiman stuff. Kingdom Come.

And with the advent of independent publishing you have tons of titles that people rave about (but I never read anymore).

I've just noticed a general trend towards better and better story telling with some titles / arcs / Graphic Novels standing out head and shoulders above the rest.

The 60's stuff was geared towards kids. After that, it began to be geared for young adults and today it seems to be geared to all age groups, but the stuff geared for an adult crowd definitely is doing so with an effort to produce quality story telling.

The last arc that I read actively was the Bendis / Maleev Daredevil stuff. I thought it was top notch, quality wise.

[Thawk]

Went and saw it for a second time last night.  It really holds up.  The CG is still poor, but I really enjoyed the tone and characters.  Superman was finally who I've been waiting for him to be - positive, light, powerful, and with a correctly colored suit haha.

Really enjoyed this movie a lot even though it's not perfect.