The Downside of the "Marvel Effect"

The Downside of the "Marvel Effect"

There's a lot of enthusiasm about the prospect of Spider-Man entering the Marvel Cinematic Universe... but is that the right reaction?

Read Full Article

Im perfectly happy with where everythin is at the moment. Yeah the Amazing Spider Man movies weren't spectacular, but they were more than watchable. Its not the end of the world if Marvel/Disney gets the rights to that, but I'm fine with it either way.

However they better keep their fuckin grubby hands off X-Men. Its very very clear that Fox has a plan for the franchise (unlike Sony where the only plan was throw shit against the wall to see what stuck) and a clear direction. First Class and Days of Future Past were fuckin brilliant and I'd easily rate first class as one of my all time favorite superhero movies, easily a match for any one of the Marvel movies to date. I would be horribly pissed if Marvel somehow got the rights back to X-Men and just shat all over all the good things Fox has done with the franchise.

Fantastic Four can go wherever it wants. I actually did like the original 2 films, but I liked them because they were cheesy as fuck, not because they were good films.

MovieBob:
Good movies or not, anointing one studio as the only folks "allowed" to work in a genre isn't good for anybody.

Yadda yadda, franchise control is inherently evil.

What were you expecting when you conceded the principle that creating art needs to be "allowed" by an owner that is determined by whichever corporation happened to employ a particular comic book issue's artist several decades earlier?

shintakie10:
Im perfectly happy with where everythin is at the moment. Yeah the Amazing Spider Man movies weren't spectacular, but they were more than watchable.

But the leaked Sony emails confirm that ASM causes cancer!

...Or, at least, that's the impression I get when I read these articles.

Marvel can't get the rights of spiderman fast enough, as for the fantastic four I strongly believe that it will happen the same and go back to marvel. The reason is quite obvious, they just don't have any idea of what to do with them. Better for the two franchises to go back to someone who actually cares about them and has an idea of what to do. AS for the X-men we all know too well that there is no way fox is giving them up and quite honestly I'm ok with it. So far they have been doing a great job with them and as long as they keep releasing good movies they can keep the rights.

I think it's a 3 fold issue.

From a logical stand point it just seems like Marvel should be in charge of everything on screen they own off.

Secondly Sony has had a black eye since they drove away sam rami. For everyone that had any complaints about the first 2 films theres a million of us who thought his spider-man vision was brilliant, sat right in with the rest of what marvels doing. Fun films with a kind of mature character depth to them. Sony for all the small good ideas in the last 2 films has just felt like they let a drunken homeless person produce and edit the ASM films. They aren't just bad like Fantastic four, They're too messy and confusing to watch.

Lastly, Forget Marvel, Disney is on a hot streak. Of any studio I'm most happy with Disney being involved. I know I know corporate tyrants and all that but man they know how to put together a movie.

I don't think anyone cares about the "give it back to marvel" ranting. Just please take it away from Sony. Stop pussyfooting around it and show Amy the door.

Comic accurate portrayal's, is that what we are calling Marvel's Hawkeye, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver and Thor (WHERE IS THE HELMET!) now? and no having the CGI look like the comic doesn't change the fact that only Captain America actually has a costume in the MCU.

Marvel are even having costumes in the comics redesigned to look more realistic (boring) so when they put them on film they can say look it's just like the comic.

We are entering the leather jacket with symbol age of comic book characters and it's terrible.

I think the overall precedent set by Sony's problems is an issue bigger and more historic than just Spiderman. This is studio that has suffered massive failings due to their projects (Amazing Spiderman's future and The Interview getting pulled) that have landmark repercussions no corporate giant should ever be associated with. The real crazy part is how two seemingly separate things now play into each other - the hacking reveals the higher-ups are jerks and that the Spiderman issue is more dire than we thought, while Sony sharing a franchise they directly control - something I don't believe has ever happened, at least like it is now - because they've bungled it and caving to terrorist "threats" paints them as weak. I originally thought at least having their name plastered on the news for weeks and the buzz generated by their secret projects (23 MIB Street?) would be a silver lining, but this is looking like a fallout that'll take years to recover from.

The problem with superhero movies is that nobody is willing to sit down and think critically about them. Marvel's films have all been average action films with a nice coat of paint ... and now their coat of paint is the One True Coat of Paint that will lead us to the Promised Land, and you should accept no substitutes! I'm sick of vapid fanservice provided by a company that blatantly cares only about the sales figures suddenly being the new gold standard.

shintakie10:
However they better keep their fuckin grubby hands off X-Men. Its very very clear that Fox has a plan for the franchise (unlike Sony where the only plan was throw shit against the wall to see what stuck) and a clear direction. First Class and Days of Future Past were fuckin brilliant and I'd easily rate first class as one of my all time favorite superhero movies, easily a match for any one of the Marvel movies to date. I would be horribly pissed if Marvel somehow got the rights back to X-Men and just shat all over all the good things Fox has done with the franchise.

Not to mention that the X-Men frankly should not be sharing a universe with other superheroes at all, no matter who's writing it. The idea behind them is that "mutants" are actually something unique enough to be feared by a lot of people; what really differentiates a mutant from somebody like Thor or Ant-Man or Spider-Man in practice?

Granted, there are similar issues with Spidey himself. One of the recurring themes in his franchise is being a controversial figure, with people in the media trying to paint him as a public menace despite because he's a vigilante. That doesn't work so well in a world that's already used to people with super powers and where, realistically, he would get recruited by SHIELD before the first movie is even over and that would be the end of his solo career. If there's one thing the recent crop of movies deserves to get some credit for, it's actually playing up the "controversial figure hated by the authorities" angle, with scenes of him getting shot at by armies of heavily armed police right in the trailers.

Well, hey, maybe that could still work if they cast the next Spider-Man as black. :^P

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here and hypothesize that Marvel/Disney's success isn't about creativity (though that certainly plays a big part) or faithfulness to the source material (a premise I've always found more than a little dubious, given the cross-cultural pull these movies clearly have) as something a little more uncomfortable- quality control.

Most of the mainstream-oriented superhero films not helmed by Marvel in recent years (setting aside for the moment less-mainstream quasi-superhero offerings like Watchmen, V for Vendetta, Lucy, etc.) have had significant problems. Nolan's Batman was the best of them, and even it had its share of issues, especially in the final offering. When one gets to recent Fantastic Fours and Spider-Mans and Man of Steels, the issues get more noticiable. Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. Tone is inconsistent in a way that seems unintentional.

The thing is, in many cases I suspect it isn't that the people immediately responsible for acting/directing/writing these films are inherently of an inferior quality to those making Marvel ones. It's that somewhere in Marvel there's a firewall that's holding a line and saying "this isn't good enough, send it back and try again." I suspect that's mostly- but not entirely- at a script level. The quality of seemingly incidental but important things like banter among team-mates and beats between dialogue and action are so consistent among Marvel movies that I have to believe there's some sort of refining process going on behind the scenes, something that gives Favreau's Iron Man and Whedon's Avengers and Gunn's Guardians an appealing kind of continuity that goes well beyond a shared universe.

It's all but impossible to imagine Marvel mis-stepping as badly as the needless, witless fights in X-Men Origins: Wolverine or the stapled-on bad guys of later Spider-Man movies (both Raimi and Webb). They just wouldn't have gotten that far. (Anyone else notice that scene of a topless Gamora in the Guardians trailer got nixed in the final movie?)

My real fear as far as Marvel goes is that this polish will ebb away, especially in the wake of such a full docket of movies to oversee. Other studios have a certain amount of excuse in playing catch-up to Marvel. Marvel is, in a real way, competing against itself at this point. And if whatever forces keep quality in check behind the scenes get rushed or simply decide that product is product and we'll suck up whatever they produce so long as it has the "Marvel" brand stamped on it, it's their race to lose.

1st - Yes, the idiots who've been running the "amazing" franchise into the ground need to go. Sorry that Andrew Garfield is a casualty in all this (career wise) but I honestly didn't care for him either, though the fault was probably more in the directing/writing than anything else and I can accept that.

2nd - Rights going back to Marvel for Spiderman would not be a bad move. This isn't so much that other companies can't do super hero movies, but that Sony is so bad at making Spiderman movies that they shouldn't be doing it anymore. It makes me nervous for their upcoming (rumored) Sonic and possible Mario films... I can already feel my balls going blue and my depression kicking in.

3rd - X-Men can legitimately stay with Fox. Yes, it sucks Marvel can't play with all their toys the way they want. The problem here though is explaining to the average movie-going why Mutants with super powers are inheritance bad but non-mutants with same powers are perfectly fine. And, more importantly, how the average citizenry in said movies can tell the difference so their racism is appropriate in the context of the narrative. Granted, the Civil War addresses this, sort of, but fact is X-Men functions perfectly fine in its own little bubble, perhaps better than if it had to be woven into the Marvel continuity like everything else. I'm not opposed to Marvel getting them back someday, but X-Men is fine where it is (unless we have another Wolverine Origins again).

4th - As for DC... I'm excited for Suicide Squad. I think that sounds fairly interesting. The rest of it... yeah... I'm still waiting to see how they recover from the very polarizing Man of Steel film. I don't want them to be just like Marvel, but they do need to get a better understanding of the source material so the characters and world feel more like... well... the characters and world the movies are trying to recreate.

SilverUchiha:

4th - As for DC... I'm excited for Suicide Squad. I think that sounds fairly interesting. The rest of it... yeah... I'm still waiting to see how they recover from the very polarizing Man of Steel film. I don't want them to be just like Marvel, but they do need to get a better understanding of the source material so the characters and world feel more like... well... the characters and world the movies are trying to recreate.

I'd say its better to be polarizing and talked about instead of forgettable or just plain bad. DC is interesting because the way I see it there are 3 eras of superhero films. The Superman era, the Spider-man era, and the Iron Man era.

Superman lasted from the original Donner film to Batman and Robin proving superheroes could be done on the big screen.

The Spider-man era is the era that began with Blade, X-men, and Spider-man that set the stage for superheroes to dominate the world.

The Iron Man era proved that intercontinuity between franchises is viable and now is the new standard.

DC has really only had 2 movies in the new era and one of those was made in between Batman films. Essentially while they were ruling the world with Batman Iron Man came along and changed the rules of the game forever and they sadly just have not adjusted to the rules. I mean Man of Steel is the opening to the DCU as we are led to believe but it still stands totally and completely on its own that you wouldn't need to add a movie universe if you didn't want too. I'm hoping Batman v. Superman will be great and I hope the Suicide Squad movie turns out good. If they do DC might've finally figured it out and while it might be lame if they aren't as "fun" as Marvel movies having a slightly more serious tone might be the thing that sets them apart.

I mean if someone is doing something you want to do but they are doing it better you have two options figure out how to out pace them or find a new angle. DC is finding a different angle and I hope it pays off because if after Batman v. Superman the quality of their movies is as consistently good as Marvels all of us win.

X-men is quite fine with Marvel. It wouldn't even make sense in the larger Marvel cinematic universe as others have pointed out.

Spider-man, on the other hand, would fit in perfectly in the MCU. What with the fall of SHIELD and, possibly, Ultron, a world that's grown bit weary around superheroes is possible. I just hope they don't give Jameson an obsessed hatred of spiderman... just cause.

I'm willing to see what the fantastic four movie will be like. It could turn out to be good. Maybe they'll do like a reverse avengers. First movie is a team, then later movies focus on a single character.
Sony's "The thing" coming to a theater near you. :P

Callate:
Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. .

Please tell me which Marvel villains are threatening? because Thor 2, IM3 and GotG all suffered from terrible boring irrelevant bad guys. The only good ones are Loki who is fun rather than a threat and Winter Soldier who's a mind controlled future good guy.

P-89 Scorpion:

Callate:
Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. .

Please tell me which Marvel villains are threatening? because Thor 2, IM3 and GotG all suffered from terrible boring irrelevant bad guys. The only good ones are Loki who is fun rather than a threat and Winter Soldier who's a mind controlled future good guy.

Oh man, you're right. If they fail make to make Ultron threatening despite having James Spader doing its voice then I will be be disheartened by Marvel.

Honestly, I think Spider-Man deserves a break from the big screen. He's been in 5 movies over the last 12 years.

And if he did return to the big screen under Marvel then I'd like it to be in a partnership with Toei. A reboot (soft or hard, it doesn't matter) of Supaidaman would be a wonderful foreign presence in the MCU.

Of the three: Spiderman, Fantastic Four and X-Men it's definitely Spiderman that I was most keen on seeing in the Marvel films.

He doesn't really need his own standalone films at the moment but he'd be a great addition to the Avengers team. They don't really have a young little guy and they also don't have a hero who's identity isn't known (Hulk stays private but everyone knows who he is).

X-Men are a team in themselves and at least some of their films have really good. Several of the characters could easily get overshadowed or ignored if they were joined the rest of the Marvel entourage (although while the films still act like "Wolverine & Pals" movies that's already the case)

I don't care about the Fantastic Four because I've never seen anything in which they aren't crap

Zachary Amaranth:

shintakie10:
Im perfectly happy with where everythin is at the moment. Yeah the Amazing Spider Man movies weren't spectacular, but they were more than watchable.

But the leaked Sony emails confirm that ASM causes cancer!

...Or, at least, that's the impression I get when I read these articles.

I never quite understood that.

Did ASM set the world on fire? God no, but it did well enough.

Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?

shintakie10:
Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?

That would depend a great deal on the selling price.

I must say, this article is a pleasant surprise coming from Bob. I had him pegged as a brainless Marvel cheerleader but he proved me wrong here, props to him.

Marvel so far has not screwed over their films, sure 2 or 3 might be okay at best they are not running jokes. WB/Fuax and Phony need to bring in a comic bent crew and let them develop the comic films becuse the studios have no clue at what they are doing as so far between them their films has been mostly miss.

captha: vote pancakes 0-o

MovieBob:
...I'm wondering what things will look like when the studio starts grabbing for properties that aren't in need of "rescue."

All the properties they have any claim TO make a grab for ARE in need of rescue.
Even the X-men.
(And just because Fox may have a plan, doesn't mean it's good, especially when they don't stick to it in order to be needlessly reactive to what other studios are doing.)
I'm all for Marvel doing Marvel.
That's my opinion anyway.

shintakie10:

I never quite understood that.

Did ASM set the world on fire? God no, but it did well enough.

Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?

Well, I mean there could be issues, I'm just not sure if they exist outside of Bob editorialising. For example, ASM2 did slightly worse than the first. The budget was already pretty massive and it's been reported that the marketing was almost as costly as the budget. While there is still a large chunk of profit here (and Bob had to walk back prior comments), they could be worried about any other movie in the franchise costing them money in the long run (maybe they should have thought about that before using this one to try and set up five sequels, but still). Costs tend to go up on iterative movies, so they may be looking at the big picture here.

Does it make sense? Ehhhhhhhhhh. Kind of, especially when we're talking a company that's had some pretty big financial woes.

Personally, I'd like to see this franchise continue as-is, if only to spite the people who act like it's literally worse than the holocaust.

Uriel_Hayabusa:
I must say, this article is a pleasant surprise coming from Bob. I had him pegged as a brainless Marvel cheerleader but he proved me wrong here, props to him.

Oh... finding the brainless fanboys is easy. Just look for the people calling other people brainless fanboys.

Steve the Pocket:
Not to mention that the X-Men frankly should not be sharing a universe with other superheroes at all, no matter who's writing it. The idea behind them is that "mutants" are actually something unique enough to be feared by a lot of people; what really differentiates a mutant from somebody like Thor or Ant-Man or Spider-Man in practice?

What differentiates a black person from a white person? What distinguishes a Muslim from a Catholic? Do you really think peoples capacity for irrational hate is that limited? Plus if you play up Magneto as the mutant Osama Bin Laden, you have a perfect in-universe scapegoat to whip up anti-mutant hysteria.

Seriously, what in the news at the moment makes you think people can't be inspired to horrible acts of violence under the flimsiest pretences?

Kolyarut:

Steve the Pocket:
Not to mention that the X-Men frankly should not be sharing a universe with other superheroes at all, no matter who's writing it. The idea behind them is that "mutants" are actually something unique enough to be feared by a lot of people; what really differentiates a mutant from somebody like Thor or Ant-Man or Spider-Man in practice?

What differentiates a black person from a white person? What distinguishes a Muslim from a Catholic? Do you really think peoples capacity for irrational hate is that limited? Plus if you play up Magneto as the mutant Osama Bin Laden, you have a perfect in-universe scapegoat to whip up anti-mutant hysteria.

Seriously, what in the news at the moment makes you think people can't be inspired to horrible acts of violence under the flimsiest pretences?

Yeah but black and white people look different. How do you separate thor and captain america from mutants?

Wolverine? "Oh, I'm not a mutant. I'm actually from asgard. :D"
Mutant problem is solved.

Bob, admit it, you do all 4 of those fan behaviors you listed on the first page. Don't presume you speak for EVERYONE in your age bracket of geek culture. Now I just feel bad for Sony, showing how inept they are at securing their internal documents and making great Spider-Man movies. It looks like Bob's predictions in his videos will come true!

Knowing actors are well paid in a movie doesn't make it more enjoyable. The conditions crew are under doesn't necessarily make a movie more enjoyable. Being a good movie makes a movie enjoyable, and so far Marvel have a fantastic track record.

When they put out a stinker they will lose their goodwill they've accrued up until now. But that hasn't happened, so this article is premature.

shintakie10:

Zachary Amaranth:

shintakie10:
Im perfectly happy with where everythin is at the moment. Yeah the Amazing Spider Man movies weren't spectacular, but they were more than watchable.

But the leaked Sony emails confirm that ASM causes cancer!

...Or, at least, that's the impression I get when I read these articles.

I never quite understood that.

Did ASM set the world on fire? God no, but it did well enough.

Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?

Actually as an outsider we really don't know how well it did for Sony for they never released how much the movie cost to make and how much they spent on advertising. Last time I checked and it could have changed now, but a movie needs to make twice as much as the production value plus the marketing costs at theaters to generate a profit. If the rumors from multiple websites is the combined cost of ASM2 was around $350 million dollars and if Box Office Mojo is accurate with an international box office of just under $709 million that means Sony might have made money, but was it enough to justify the initial risk?

Think of EA and Battlefield 4, they were sued by their shareholders because they felt the issues around the game cost them money and I can easily see that happening with Sony and the Amazing series of movies.

I really wouldn't like to see Marvel in direct control of the "Superhero genre", but I would like to see them in control of their properties and leasing them out to other studios for movies that are different instead of Sony and Fox rushing movies out every few years because they want to keep the licenses.

Looking back at my issues with the Spider-Man movies which to me are the last three movies (Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man, and Amazing Spider-Man 2) all suffered with reported studio meddling, I wonder if that is really where a lot of the problems are for the franchise. So that makes me wonder if the reason why Marvel is doing better then the other right now for they are guiding the movies, but at the same time allowing the people who are directly working on the movie have more control over the final product.

esserin:
Yeah but black and white people look different. How do you separate thor and captain america from mutants?

Wolverine? "Oh, I'm not a mutant. I'm actually from asgard. :D"
Mutant problem is solved.

Guys like Thor, Captain America, etc. are seen as individuals. Mutants are seen as a race. And a race with dire evolutionary implications for normal baseline humanity, i.e. eventual extinction. THIS is what makes mutants different. I never understood why many fans have a difficult time grasping this concept. XMFC and DoFP practically hit you over the head with it even though in that universe mutants are the only ones with powers. I'd say mutants being without non-mutant peers to have a contrast with eliminates the bulk of what makes them interesting.

Sanunes:

shintakie10:

Zachary Amaranth:

But the leaked Sony emails confirm that ASM causes cancer!

...Or, at least, that's the impression I get when I read these articles.

I never quite understood that.

Did ASM set the world on fire? God no, but it did well enough.

Why on earth would you sell the rights to a franchise thats a guaranteed payday simply because its not as big of a payday as you want it to be?

Actually as an outsider we really don't know how well it did for Sony for they never released how much the movie cost to make and how much they spent on advertising. Last time I checked and it could have changed now, but a movie needs to make twice as much as the production value plus the marketing costs at theaters to generate a profit. If the rumors from multiple websites is the combined cost of ASM2 was around $350 million dollars and if Box Office Mojo is accurate with an international box office of just under $709 million that means Sony might have made money, but was it enough to justify the initial risk?

Think of EA and Battlefield 4, they were sued by their shareholders because they felt the issues around the game cost them money and I can easily see that happening with Sony and the Amazing series of movies.

I really wouldn't like to see Marvel in direct control of the "Superhero genre", but I would like to see them in control of their properties and leasing them out to other studios for movies that are different instead of Sony and Fox rushing movies out every few years because they want to keep the licenses.

Looking back at my issues with the Spider-Man movies which to me are the last three movies (Spider-Man 3, Amazing Spider-Man, and Amazing Spider-Man 2) all suffered with reported studio meddling, I wonder if that is really where a lot of the problems are for the franchise. So that makes me wonder if the reason why Marvel is doing better then the other right now for they are guiding the movies, but at the same time allowing the people who are directly working on the movie have more control over the final product.

I think the main reason Marvel are doing so well as opposed to the rest is that in their case the studio is the auteur rather than any individual director. That's kind of a necessary thing if one wants to play in the expanded cinematic universe franchise game. Because 1 single director in charge of a film or a sub-franchise isn't enough. And every other studio plays by the rules of not being an auteur but rather hiring/buying the vision of a director for this or that project and such. That works ok for individual films and even trilogies once in a while but that will never work for a cinematic universe. You NEED someone over it all who's really the one with the vision and can direct the directors. Marvel has that in Kevin Feige. Maybe Kevin Tsujihara at WB/DC and Kathleen Kennedy at Lucasfilm can do that for their brands as well, who knows. They remain completely untested in this new arena. Only Feige so far has proved he can do it. Other than those two up and comers I don't see anyone like that at Universal, FOX or Sony.

P-89 Scorpion:

Callate:
Villain isn't threatening. Hero isn't likable or identifiable. Plot is cluttered and fragmented. Humor falls flat. .

Please tell me which Marvel villains are threatening? because Thor 2, IM3 and GotG all suffered from terrible boring irrelevant bad guys. The only good ones are Loki who is fun rather than a threat and Winter Soldier who's a mind controlled future good guy.

The villains in Thor 2 were at least threatening enough that they could kill one pre-existing character and make a credible case that they had killed a second one. I wasn't over-the-moon about the "Dark Elves", but they filled their niche well enough.

All the Iron Man enemies were, to some degree, about figuring out who the "real" villain was. By the time- usually near the end- that the threat was narrowed down to the point that a hero like Iron Man could have a credible chance of striking back, I'll grant their perceived danger was often reduced- but while they were, say, paralyzing the hero in his home and removing the device that allowed him to remain alive, or introducing a platoon's worth of military androids, or calling in an air strike on his home, I'd argue they remained a pretty decent threat.

GotG's villain destroyed an entire planet's defenses en route to preparing to destroy the planet by touching it.

Now, your mileage, as ever, may vary, depending particularly on how willing you are to suspend disbelief that the heroes aren't going to come through in the end and save the day. I've found things like Hydra's level of penetration of the government and military fairly captivating. You may just roll your eyes, and you're certainly entitled to feel that way.

But compared with, say, Dr. Doom in the Fantastic 4 movie? There was never a moment in the film where one of Marvel's allegedly scariest villains didn't seem outclassed, almost to the point that four-on-one seemed downright unfair.

For me, I feel differently about all of these studios. Marvel has a very, very good track record so far. They haven't made a truly bad movie yet, just a couple of not-terribly good ones *cough*Iron Man 2*cough* I actively look forward to their movies, even the ones based on characters I know very little about. I mean, the Inhumans? They sort of sound like a Marvel-ized version of Nightbreed... okay, why the heck not?

I'm of two minds on Fox. For one, I've thoroughly enjoyed their last several X-men movies, and I want them to keep the rights for as long as possible. That's saying a lot coming from me, considering how much I disliked The Last Stand and Origins. Now, Fantastic Four... I have no idea what to think, largely because I don't a single freaking thing about it yet. Educate me, Fox. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Warner Brothers is a bit of an unknown factor here, and that's actually pretty intriguing in my opinion. At this point, we really can't say what most of the movies are going to be like, or how good they'll be. That's a total gamble, and I find it exciting. And it helps that Suicide Squad is sounding better and better all the time. Oh, and Jason Momoa as Aquaman? As a fan of that character, I'm thrilled that he'll be a certified badass on film.

And Sony... oh Sony. I hate saying bad things about them, since I actually liked the Amazing Spider-Man films. That being said, they are seriously going full retard on this. Instead of dropping their habit of screwing with the movies, they fire Andrew Garfield for calling them out on it. Seriously, WTF? He's one of the best things you have going with these movies. And making a cinematic universe around a single character and his supporting cast is just stupid.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here