Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KTG17 wrote:
Han might be THE most popular character after Darth Vader...

Yes, when Han is played by Harrison Ford.

Darth Vader might be the most popular, but conversely Anakin is nowhere near the top of the list of popular Star Wars characters. The actor has a huge impact on our enjoyment of characters, because without the actor you have no character.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

You should all keep in mind that the vast majority of the movie going populace has no idea who Kathleen Kennedy is, no idea what she said about who, no idea who got bullied or not, and no idea what kind of things were being said about TLJ online. Most people don't care. They just go watch movies for fun.

Exactly right - I have no real idea who she is - I blame the Director as its his film.

I go to have fun at the movies - I had zero fun watching the gakfest that was TLJ.

You're allowed to dislike TLJ, just like you're allowed to like Thor 2.

When things get unhinged is when people start cooking up conspiracy theories and odd narratives to explain differences of opinion and position their own opinion in a certain way. This is, I suppose, related to human beings increasingly losing the ability to have regular conversations with give-and-take. Instead, we fire our opinions at one another like weapons, attempting to defeat 'opponents' and win...I dunno, something or other.

Personally, I don't think the analysis of these SW movies needs to be very complicated. Some people didn't like TLJ because there were divisive elements in it. I liked TLJ, but I can understand that. Similarly, audiences didn't show up for Solo because they were lukewarm about the concept, didn't see it as 'important', and were uninterested in a Han Solo movie that doesn't star Harrison Ford. These are also understandable points. No '-isms' of any kind are required. (Although that also doesn't mean that those individuals don't exist.)

Equally your allowed to like TLJ as you allowed to dislike Thor 2

Summing up Solo as "How Han Got [X]" misses the mark so widely that I really suspect it is nothing more than a dig.

In fact, the theme of Solo is very clear. I often ask myself, after I watch a movie, what was that movie about? Solo is NOT about how Han got his name or his blaster or the Milennium Falcon or even about how he became friends with Chewbacca, even despite that these things happen during the course of the film. Rather, Solo is about whether a fundamentally decent guy can afford to keep being decent in a really scummy world. Inevitably, the movie would have to feature the famous elements mentioned above BUT these reference points were woven into the theme of the picture. Even the cheesiest moment, when an Imperial recruitment officer assigns Han the surname "Solo," serves to punctuate that our protagonist begins his arc on his own. We then see a very careful and deliberate examination of various relationships: between Beckett and his gang, between Beckett and Val, Lando and L3-37, Han and Chewie, Han and Beckett, and most importantly between Han and Qi'ra.

The campfire scene, for example, deftly characterizes Beckett and his gang members, so that we will care about them when they are eventually in danger (PAY ATTENTION GARETH EDWARDS, RIAN JOHNSON), but also takes the time to set up the main theme of Han's story: there is some back and forth about being alone, being in a gang, and being in love. The train heist set piece shows us Beckett losing his buddy Rio (whose last words to young Han are that it's no good dying alone), and his girlfriend Val. During the next big action set piece, we see Lando lose his buddy L3. (By the way, both moments are underlined by the same tragic theme in the soundtrack.) These are the stakes you run as scum. Can you really afford to care about someone? Is any of it worthwhile if you don't? All of this leads up to the tension between Han and Qi'ra, his unwillingness or inability to see that, as Beckett advises him, "it doesn't work with her" - but also her own longing for some lost version of herself.

Rather than just being a movie about how Han met Chewie or Lando or about how Han got the Falcon, Solo takes these elements, which are already obligatory for this product's premise, and figures out how to incorporate them into a story about being a good guy in a bad world. For example, Chewie was tempted to split from Han when he met up with his enslaved clanmates on Kessel - but he changes his mind after seeing Han launch himself into crossfire to help Lando bring back L3. Han barely knew and did not really like Lando at this point. The scene is about Han seeing Lando trying to save his friend and responding to that impulse. That's what Chewie recognizes and values in Han. Or take the Falcon, which is used in the movie to illustrate the more complicated relationship between Han and Lando. For Lando, the ship represents accomplishment and luxury - the fruits of a successful criminal career. But for Han, it's always been about being escaping life in the gutter. When Han sees the Falcon for the first time, he's seeing freedom.

This stuff is not my interpretation of the film or some attempt to rehabilitate it. Everything above is explained by the movie itself because the movie is competently made. It's accessible. It's engaging. It's entertaining. And it is objectively NOT just a movie about "How Han Got [X]."

 Earth127 wrote:
Apparantly SW can't capture the Marvel magic.

Well, not every MCU movie was a huge hit, Hulk was pretty much a flop and first Captain America had very modest gross too.
Artistically, Iron Man 2 & 3 were total turds and destroyed the goodwill towards the character created by first movie.

Wow, worldwide Rampage as made about $50 million more than solo so far.

Backfire wrote:

 Earth127 wrote:
Apparantly SW can't capture the Marvel magic.

Well, not every MCU movie was a huge hit, Hulk was pretty much a flop and first Captain America had very modest gross too.
Artistically, Iron Man 2 & 3 were total turds and destroyed the goodwill towards the character created by first movie.

Hulk was very patchy movie, Cap A was dull and not great IMO

In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.

However neither Hulk or Cap A were so unrelentingly bad I would not waste money on a follow-up film. TLJ did.

Wow, worldwide Rampage as made about $50 million more than solo so far.

Not suprised - its a great fun film.

 Mr Morden wrote:

In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.

Iron Man 2 & 3 were flat out awful only marginally rescued by the charismatic leads. Story-wise they were simply repeats of the first movie (Iron Man creates his own villain - 3 times in a row!) with no interesting villains (weren't we supposed to be CHEERING for the Russian guy who matched Stark with shoestring budget??) and spamming of the Iron Man suits destroyed the uniqueness of the suit. Hey, why doesn't Tony just give everyone Iron Man suits??

I mean seriously, Iron Man dual wielding Iron Man suits to defeat somebody who has copycatted Iron Man suit gets old real fast.

Backfire wrote:


IMO, what we are seeing is result of the scifi glut. Backlash against Phantom Menace was enormous (far bigger than anything against TFA or TLJ), yet that didn't stop next two films being financial successes as well. Difference was that Disney released FOUR Star Wars movies in same time Lucasfilm released one.

Your post got me thinking. I’m not convinced that proximity to TLJ was a major issue for Solo. It’s Star Wars, the Mack Daddy of franchises. However, we live in an age of Dr Strange and Black Panther feature films. It’s probably fair to say that just getting a Han Solo movie doesn’t impress audiences like it might have years ago. And when the concept for the movie doesn’t impress either...people today aren’t going to show up just because. Again, they didn’t have the star power and familiarity of the original actor to lean on either.

Maybe we can also consider the troubled production as a symptom instead of a cause. Did Lucasfilm and Disney want a Solo film to exist more than they knew what they wanted from or in a Solo film? WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place? Plenty of directors are chameleons...but I wouldn’t say that about those two.

And was that the best Han Solo story they could come up with? Or were they already thinking ‘new franchise’ as the ending suggests?

So maybe the simple lesson here for LF going forward is that they need to make Boba Fett and Kenobi films that people want to see, rather than making films with those characters and expecting people to see it because it’s Boba and Obi-Wan.

Backfire wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

In the same way as I feel Both Iron Man fims were better than them - not as good as first but enjoyable - large part due to the charimsa between RDJ and GP on screen - somehting missing between the two leads in Hulk. Mid tier Marvel films on a par with watchable films such as Guardians.

Iron Man 2 & 3 were flat out awful only marginally rescued by the charismatic leads. Story-wise they were simply repeats of the first movie (Iron Man creates his own villain - 3 times in a row!) with no interesting villains (weren't we supposed to be CHEERING for the Russian guy who matched Stark with shoestring budget??) and spamming of the Iron Man suits destroyed the uniqueness of the suit. Hey, why doesn't Tony just give everyone Iron Man suits??

I mean seriously, Iron Man dual wielding Iron Man suits to defeat somebody who has copycatted Iron Man suit gets old real fast.

To you not to me - I enjoyed them. As you said charasmatic leads, good action etc but then Tony Stark is my fav Marvel Character (never having read the comics). However I also loved the first two Thor movies and thought Ragnarok was good but not not brilliant.

Different strokes and all that.

 gorgon wrote:
WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?

A great question, for Kathleen Kennedy to answer.

 Lance845 wrote:
See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?

What, you watch a movie once? You never buy a DVD of a movie you saw in the theater and really enjoyed? You never buy other stuff marketed for the movie?

When a movie's REALLY good, people see it... then take their friends and go see it again... and sometimes over and over. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an infamous example; people going to see it week after week for years at a time.

When Star Wars came out, some people saw it twenty times in the theater. Seeing it a half-dozen times was not all that rare. That's why it was in theaters on and off for over a year back in 1977. Granted, this was before VHS, much less streaming video. But rewatching a good movie in the theater still happens. My friends and I went to the Matrix three times as a group above and beyond individual trips.

I've got a pretty extensive DVD collection too.

And it's those fans that drive the real moneymaker, merchandise. A casual viewer might buy a SW birthday card. It's the fans that buy the legos, the action figures, the model starships, etc., etc., etc. Pissing off those fans cuts VERY heavily into the merchandise sales.

So no, a fan is NOT worth just one movie ticket. They can be worth two, three, five, or more... in addition to Disney's share of DVD sales and merchandising.

In the modern age most people will only go see a movie once. We live in an age where the average family will only go to the cinemas about 3 times a year. Hell, the only film I've seen twice in the cinemas recently was TLJ, once with my family when it first came out and then again in its final weeks with my friends who hadn't seen it yet just because we were looking for something to do.

We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
See above. The "backlash" is a drop in the bucket. This right here is another toxic element of fandom. Assuming you're more valuable then you are. Each person in that boycott is worth exactly 1 ticket. Are there over a million of you boycotting? How many of you "boycotting" are teenagers who don't even pay for the toilet paper to wipe their own ass? If they are not paying for the ticket guess what value they have?

What, you watch a movie once? You never buy a DVD of a movie you saw in the theater and really enjoyed? You never buy other stuff marketed for the movie?

When a movie's REALLY good, people see it... then take their friends and go see it again... and sometimes over and over. The Rocky Horror Picture Show is an infamous example; people going to see it week after week for years at a time.

When Star Wars came out, some people saw it twenty times in the theater. Seeing it a half-dozen times was not all that rare. That's why it was in theaters on and off for over a year back in 1977. Granted, this was before VHS, much less streaming video. But rewatching a good movie in the theater still happens. My friends and I went to the Matrix three times as a group above and beyond individual trips.

I've got a pretty extensive DVD collection too.

And it's those fans that drive the real moneymaker, merchandise. A casual viewer might buy a SW birthday card. It's the fans that buy the legos, the action figures, the model starships, etc., etc., etc. Pissing off those fans cuts VERY heavily into the merchandise sales.

So no, a fan is NOT worth just one movie ticket. They can be worth two, three, five, or more... in addition to Disney's share of DVD sales and merchandising.

Again, you are over valuing yourself while also missing the point.

First the point was ticket sales. Merch and dvd sales dont exist yet. So are you just on here screaming about how solo has bombed in all categories because of a fan boycott when 2/3rds of the categories dont really exist yet?

Second fans dont drive merch sales. Kids drive merch sales. Parents buy their kids gak their kids like. Not gak they like. If you think the 25-35 yr old demographic is single handedly holding up hasbro and lego then your even more delusional about your fan value then i thought.

3rd the average movie goer sees 1-2 movies a month or less and goes with small groups of friends or family. There IS value in word of mouth but if you think the reletively small number of SW fans who are ranting and raving are doing anything to sway the general populace besides making yourselves look like lunatics for giving so much of a gak about a movie then you're also out of your mind.

Basically no movies become rocky horror. Sw never has been and never will be. Thats a straw man example. Its unrelated. Sw doesnt have the cult experience of going to see it that rocky horror does. I own exactly 0 sw movies. Because 123 suck and 456 are not available in their original format. 789 are not out in a box set yet for obvious reasons. Il pick those up when it inevitably comes out.

The "fans" have an impact. You are a factor. One of many. But not the biggest. Not even 50%. Not even 25%. MAYBE 10% in extreme cases... But likely much less. Especially something as big as sw. You rabid fans are so small a % of the people who watch.

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Gorgon, I genuinely don't understand your criticism of Solo. It seems like you are saying it's a bad thing that the heroes were likeable and effective, as opposed to TLJ where the heroes are frustrated and miserable and they consistently fail/are underminded by ancillary characters seemingly invented just to serve as obstacles for them. Are you saying the former is too conventional (and therefore boring) whereas the latter is unexpeced/subverted and therefore creative?

Setting aside your highly opinionated characterizations of the heroes, it's not that Solo is conventional and therefore boring. Solo is boring to me because it's a very ordinary movie that only ever strives to be adequate and check boxes. It seems more interested in displaying events and explaining details than in being a thoughtful Han Solo character study. It's a parade of 'How Han Got/Did/Met X'. The end result for me is a forgettable film, like many of the Marvel movies. There are Marvel films like Black Panther and Winter Soldier that manage to be conventional AND interesting.

And TLJ is checkbox of scenes of V and VI to go through to the level that when I went to see TLJ it didn't actually offer me anythig I hadn't seen already. Like over 20 years ago...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?

Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.

That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.

I never thought I'd see the phrase "try watching Down Periscope".

I take it you're not a Kelsey Grammar fan then. I thought the movie was amusing, if completely unrealistic.

 Vulcan wrote:
I take it you're not a Kelsey Grammar fan then. I thought the movie was amusing, if completely unrealistic.

No, I am a fan, especially of his role in Pentagon Wars. I just haven't seen or thought about Down Periscope since I was in high school or early college. I enjoyed that film as much as I enjoyed Pauly Shore's In the Army or Cabin Boy at that age, and suspect I should never revisit those movies at my current age.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?

Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.

That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.

Red Dwarf is on Netflix, at least here in the uk.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?

Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.

That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.

Red Dwarf is on Netflix, at least here in the uk.

It USED to be in the USA but hasn't been for awhile.

Gunna have to buy me some Red Dwarf one of these days.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
We also live in the age of streaming services like Netflix. Why buy a DVD that'll sit on a shelf unused most of the time when you can just stream on demand?

Try watching Down Periscope on Netflix or Hulu. Or Red Dwarf. Or early seasons of the original Top Gear. Or even just the first Captain America movie.

That's why we buy DVDs. There is a large but ultimately finite amount of stuff online, and what gets priority to go and stay on streaming services is ultimately determined by what's popular right now, and if it's not being viewed often enough it gets tossed into the virtual trash can.

Or we use a free alternative streaming site with a good pop up blocker and anti virus program You know, like how almost everyone watches game of thrones. or the lost episodes of doctor who, or supertroopers 2, which everyone should go see in the theaters because it was really awesome and you should see it instead of solo. whew tied that back into solo. solo just can't compete against any of the movies it's up against.

 Manchu wrote:
Summing up Solo as "How Han Got [X]" misses the mark so widely that I really suspect it is nothing more than a dig.

In fact, the theme of Solo is very clear. I often ask myself, after I watch a movie, what was that movie about? Solo is NOT about how Han got his name or his blaster or the Milennium Falcon or even about how he became friends with Chewbacca, even despite that these things happen during the course of the film. Rather, Solo is about whether a fundamentally decent guy can afford to keep being decent in a really scummy world. Inevitably, the movie would have to feature the famous elements mentioned above BUT these reference points were woven into the theme of the picture. Even the cheesiest moment, when an Imperial recruitment officer assigns Han the surname "Solo," serves to punctuate that our protagonist begins his arc on his own. We then see a very careful and deliberate examination of various relationships: between Beckett and his gang, between Beckett and Val, Lando and L3-37, Han and Chewie, Han and Beckett, and most importantly between Han and Qi'ra.

The campfire scene, for example, deftly characterizes Beckett and his gang members, so that we will care about them when they are eventually in danger (PAY ATTENTION GARETH EDWARDS, RIAN JOHNSON), but also takes the time to set up the main theme of Han's story: there is some back and forth about being alone, being in a gang, and being in love. The train heist set piece shows us Beckett losing his buddy Rio (whose last words to young Han are that it's no good dying alone), and his girlfriend Val. During the next big action set piece, we see Lando lose his buddy L3. (By the way, both moments are underlined by the same tragic theme in the soundtrack.) These are the stakes you run as scum. Can you really afford to care about someone? Is any of it worthwhile if you don't? All of this leads up to the tension between Han and Qi'ra, his unwillingness or inability to see that, as Beckett advises him, "it doesn't work with her" - but also her own longing for some lost version of herself.

Rather than just being a movie about how Han met Chewie or Lando or about how Han got the Falcon, Solo takes these elements, which are already obligatory for this product's premise, and figures out how to incorporate them into a story about being a good guy in a bad world. For example, Chewie was tempted to split from Han when he met up with his enslaved clanmates on Kessel - but he changes his mind after seeing Han launch himself into crossfire to help Lando bring back L3. Han barely knew and did not really like Lando at this point. The scene is about Han seeing Lando trying to save his friend and responding to that impulse. That's what Chewie recognizes and values in Han. Or take the Falcon, which is used in the movie to illustrate the more complicated relationship between Han and Lando. For Lando, the ship represents accomplishment and luxury - the fruits of a successful criminal career. But for Han, it's always been about being escaping life in the gutter. When Han sees the Falcon for the first time, he's seeing freedom.

This stuff is not my interpretation of the film or some attempt to rehabilitate it. Everything above is explained by the movie itself because the movie is competently made. It's accessible. It's engaging. It's entertaining. And it is objectively NOT just a movie about "How Han Got [X]."

This is a very good summary of the themes of the movie. They were consistent, made-sense, and helped define the universe the film was set in. That IS what a competently made film does.

That is also why so many films are no longer competent. They suffer from scope creep and try to do too much and end up incoherent. Ron Howard is a true profressionalc raftsman, not an auteur. You can see the craftsmanship in Solo.

 Lance845 wrote:
You rabid fans are so small a % of the people who watch.

Aww, why so mean?

 Manchu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?

A great question, for Kathleen Kennedy to answer.

I don't think she deserves *TOO* much scorn, especially if you really liked Solo. At least she took decisive action before it was too late in order to right the ship. Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I take it you're not a Kelsey Grammar fan then. I thought the movie was amusing, if completely unrealistic.

No, I am a fan, especially of his role in Pentagon Wars. I just haven't seen or thought about Down Periscope since I was in high school or early college. I enjoyed that film as much as I enjoyed Pauly Shore's In the Army or Cabin Boy at that age, and suspect I should never revisit those movies at my current age.

Cabin Boy!



Another personal fave: "Purple lightning...that's always a good sign."

At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.


I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.

I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.

Good thing that's what no one with any sense is saying.

Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.

Ah you mean a good fun film emulating the brilliant success of the Marvel films without pretending to be "visionary" or other ill used descriptors....

 Mr Morden wrote:

Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.

Ah you mean a good fun film emulating the brilliant success of the Marvel films without pretending to be "visionary" or other ill used descriptors....

No, a stitched-together Frankenstein monster that shows all the seams from three scripts and two directors, with rushed, unfinished effects to boot. Solo looks like the work of one director, and hasn't become a punchline and perpetual meme generator like JL did.

JL has its crowdpleasing elements, but it isn't genuinely a *good* film. I'm a DC fanboy and even I can see that clearly. The studio should have fired Snyder when they wanted to, instead of holding their noses and hoping for the best. It's like stock investing -- if knowing what you know now, you wouldn't buy a given stock...then why do you still own it? Kathleen Kennedy (getting this back on topic) at least made the right call with replacing Lord & Miller after her initial, baffling decision to hire them. I'm obviously not a Solo fanboy, but I can see that clearly too.

I enjoyed Solo, and I really enjoyed JL but yeah, I definitely think this is a completely fair point. Even though I liked it, JL is most definitely at least 2 films stitched together, trying to find a middle ground between two VASTLY different styles. - It's probably the best of a bad situation, but it's still a bad situation.

Solo, which I repeat, I enjoyed, did manage to avoid getting into that bad situation. Either via throwing money (and, probably more importantly, time), or being caught much sooner, avoiding the issue.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.


I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.

Way to not follow what I was saying. Liking things isn't toxic. Liking things that don't matter so much that you become so emotionally attached that you "Feel ill" when it's a "bad" one. is toxic. Liking it so much that when you don't like this newest one you attack the people involved in it's creation is toxic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Had she fretted but hesitated like WB did with Snyder and JL, the end result probably would have been JL-like.

Ah you mean a good fun film emulating the brilliant success of the Marvel films without pretending to be "visionary" or other ill used descriptors....

JL was a complete mess that was about as good as slightly worse than the worst Marvel films.

Yeah. JL was worse than IM3.