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.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Some really janky CG in that trailer when he's throwing the car and especially the rubber arms when he's flying up and hits the force field. Sometimes less is better, Hollywood.
We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
So I saw this. It's getting beat up a little by critics, but I'm not sure it's all deserved. It's not as good as the first, and I get that it's a little too by-the-numbers. But it's a perfectly fine, mostly family-friendly movie. The audience scores aren't bad either. I feel like critics are suffering from superhero fatigue more than audiences.
The box office might also be slightly better if WB acted like they cared about marketing it. Beyond giving away a big cameo in a TV ad.
Personally I think the problems with superhero films are
1) Too many - just feels like there's a constant stream of them
2) Too much interconnection. Yes its great to get films that relate to each other, but so many of them require you have watched a halfdozen to a dozen before to get everything. This gets increasingly confusing when some of them have 2 or 3 different continuities and such (eg Spider man has at least 4 now?)
3) Too many origin stories, not enough maturity and when we get it its often linked to point 2 - a maturity of several heroes all smashed together.
Personally that dilutes my interest in some of the superhero genre. I just don't want to get into the cinema and see a film with a dozen lead characters who never have enough time to really lead or establish within the film and I leave feeling like I've got to go back and watch others to catch up.
I'm sure there's still LOTS of good money in superhero films to be had, but I feel like we might slowly be hitting a market saturation point where people aren't as fired up for them.
Which isn't a bad thing, perhaps we'll see generic sci-fi or fantasy have a chance at taking off once the superhero buzz has stilled a little.
Overread wrote: Personally I think the problems with superhero films are
1) Too many - just feels like there's a constant stream of them
2) Too much interconnection. Yes its great to get films that relate to each other, but so many of them require you have watched a halfdozen to a dozen before to get everything. This gets increasingly confusing when some of them have 2 or 3 different continuities and such (eg Spider man has at least 4 now?)
3) Too many origin stories, not enough maturity and when we get it its often linked to point 2 - a maturity of several heroes all smashed together.
Personally that dilutes my interest in some of the superhero genre. I just don't want to get into the cinema and see a film with a dozen lead characters who never have enough time to really lead or establish within the film and I leave feeling like I've got to go back and watch others to catch up.
To add to the list, i'd also say that a lot of these movies, and especially those that heavily rely on CGI, look extremely same-ish to each other and pretty bland in consequence. Hero Mc Burlyface fights a huge CGI creature in a misty cave, huge thunderstorm, alien plane or other convenient no-too-brightly-lit background, throwing oversaturated lightning or other flashy effects around. Pretty awesome the first time you see it, much less so on the 20th reskin. Films are still a visual medium, and that stuff just looks extremely unappealing even in the trailers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/20 22:44:57
warboss wrote:While I haven't actually seen it, from reports/reviews I don't think the Shazam sequel qualifies for more than one of those criteria.
My early impression earlier in this thread would agree with you. My point was more in general for "hero" film issues. Whilst they might not apply to Shazam itself, they might well be contributing factors in the genre itself. So whilst Shazam doesn't have many of the issues, they are perhaps contributing to why fewer are getting up to go see it.
Tsagualsa wrote:
Overread wrote: Personally I think the problems with superhero films are
1) Too many - just feels like there's a constant stream of them
2) Too much interconnection. Yes its great to get films that relate to each other, but so many of them require you have watched a halfdozen to a dozen before to get everything. This gets increasingly confusing when some of them have 2 or 3 different continuities and such (eg Spider man has at least 4 now?)
3) Too many origin stories, not enough maturity and when we get it its often linked to point 2 - a maturity of several heroes all smashed together.
Personally that dilutes my interest in some of the superhero genre. I just don't want to get into the cinema and see a film with a dozen lead characters who never have enough time to really lead or establish within the film and I leave feeling like I've got to go back and watch others to catch up.
To add to the list, i'd also say that a lot of these movies, and especially those that heavily rely on CGI, look extremely same-ish to each other and pretty bland in consequence. Hero Mc Burlyface fights a huge CGI creature in a misty cave, huge thunderstorm, alien plane or other convenient no-too-brightly-lit background, throwing oversaturated lightning or other flashy effects around. Pretty awesome the first time you see it, much less so on the 20th reskin. Films are still a visual medium, and that stuff just looks extremely unappealing even in the trailers.
True, though the worst for those in my view were the Bay Transformer filmes.
They are utterly amazing in the amount of detail, information and such in the mechs and what we get now.
Plus I own several macro lenses and I typically love lots of ultra-fine detail in things. However I do feel that some films are throwing so much that they just overwhelm your senses. There's so much going on that you can't actually focus on what is going on so easily. It's just a huge blast of light, explosions, detail, effects and all that it ends up a visual and mental blur.
It's not been a good start to the year for super-hero flicks.
Yeah, not good but again I don't think it got any help from the studio. Seems like they have a lot of faith in The Flash, so that one will probably get the full-court press from a publicity perspective. It will be interesting to see what happens with Aquaman 2. The first did huge money, although part of that was China, and Hollywood films suddenly aren't doing well there.
Anyway, the director is active on Twitter and Reddit and isn't afraid to talk pretty honestly and openly, so it's been interesting to read his comments. Like this one:
No worries. It’s not like this comes as a surprise. I saw where this was heading a long time ago. I’ll be alright though. I got paid all my money upfront.
LOL! I think he later said he was joking with that one. Was he though? He also later said he was done with superhero movies and was looking forward to "disconnecting from the superhero discourse online".
He doesn't come across as being overly sensitive (he wades into Twitter and Reddit, after all), but I imagine the fan intensity that comes with these big franchise films (because it's clearly not limited to superheroes) must make things pretty exhausting when you're trying to make something you're creatively proud of AND makes bank.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/21 14:05:25
You're not wrong about WB just kinda letting this one out without much fanfare, and it gives us an intriguing case-study of a "lame duck superhero film", but my comments are more directed towards super-hero flicks in general.
To put some perspective on what I mean, Morbius had a higher opening weekend than Shazam 2. Is Morbius a better film? Is Shazam 2 somehow worse than Morbius? The answer to both these questions is clearly "No!", but I think the reason this is tanking is due to the same reasons Ant-Man 3 is drowning: The malaise of years of sub-standard mediocre super-hero films has finally caught up to the genre, and these ones are being made example of, for lack of a better term.
Ant-Man 3 isn't worse than Black Widow, or Eternals, or Dumb & Dumber, or Marvel's take on blue fish people, but it's getting creamed because those films didn't capture imaginations (and the D+ shows certainly haven't helped much). It's happening with Star Wars right now and Mando Season 3, which is a boring directionless mess that thought that just by going "Look! Baby Yoda is back!" they would maintain momentum and audiences. They haven't.
So, circling back to DC, we've got the "It doesn't even matter!" factor of the DCEU being dead, but it's also coming off the back of a string of flops (Black Adam, The Suicide Squad*, WW1984, Birds of Prey), and a few years of Marvel not kicking the gak out the box office. A rising tide raises all ships, and the opposite is also true, so if Marvel is in the doldrums, what chance does the always-struggling DCEU have? In the face of all that it's not really a surprise that the studio didn't bother trying to advertise a movie for a connected universe that's already over, featuring a character no one cares about, and featuring no real big-name actors.
I tell ya what though... Guardians 3 better be good!
*A victim of WB more than a comment on the film's quality.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/22 05:02:24
They certainly have a brand problem, along with all the other issues you mentioned. I just wonder if Gunn's DCU will be DOA. I told a friend recently that maybe WB should just put DC away for 7-8 years (other than siloed things like The Batman and Joker 2) and let some demand build again. Maybe it won't matter if Disney continues to carpet bomb with Marvel product. But I just don't know if doing carpet bombing of their own (starting 2 years from now) while replacing actors that were generally popular in their roles is really going to be a path for success. Feels like the moves they're making now to get organized etc. are 10 years too late.
And I still think it's going to be awkward if the Flash is a critical/box office hit as expected right before a total reboot. The superhero film environment may prevent that, but if people want more of something that will never happen, that too makes the studio look incompetent even if there's a reason and plan.
I think a lot of people didn't really realize how much certain ACTORS carried Marvel movies. I feel like the MCU to an extent is starting to fail because the favorite actors aren't there anymore.
That said the phase 5 movies I've actually seen in theatres I've enjoyed. Granted that's only the new Antman, Strange, and Spidey 3 so......
Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)
They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016)
Some of that definitely took time though. With the exception of RDJ I don't feel like anyone really cemented their role until Avengers sold them as a group deal. A lot of the Phase 4 stuff has been similar to Phase 1 for me; just with a lot more of it and a far greater level of online scrutiny.
Hulksmash wrote: I think a lot of people didn't really realize how much certain ACTORS carried Marvel movies. I feel like the MCU to an extent is starting to fail because the favorite actors aren't there anymore.
Characters more than actors, I'd argue. RDJs other films don't do well. They're not flocking to see him, they're flocking to see him as Iron Man.
Hulksmash wrote: That said the phase 5 movies I've actually seen in theatres I've enjoyed. Granted that's only the new Antman, Strange, and Spidey 3 so......
Strange and Spidey were Phase 4. Ant-Man is the only film of Phase 5 so far, but Guardians 3 ain't that far away.
Hulksmash wrote: I think a lot of people didn't really realize how much certain ACTORS carried Marvel movies. I feel like the MCU to an extent is starting to fail because the favorite actors aren't there anymore.
That said the phase 5 movies I've actually seen in theatres I've enjoyed. Granted that's only the new Antman, Strange, and Spidey 3 so......
I agree that RDJ really carried the MCU through Endgame. And the studio fed that too once they realized it. Really, that whole story arc was his more than another other actor and character. Actors still matter a lot in filmmaking, no matter what kind of movie it is. I think Marvel thought they had their new lead in Boseman, but then he died. Most of the rest of the new gen just don't seem to have that quality.
That's part of my concern about DC rebooting again. Cavill, Gadot, and Momoa for instance might not be master thespians (though I think Cavill is a little bit underrated, as Man from UNCLE showed) and they may not have been great in every DC film they were in. But they all showed the right amount of presence and were liked in the roles. It's not easy carrying a film wearing a superhero outfit. They might get someone better than Cavill. Or they might get another Brandon Routh. You just don't know how it's going to turn out.
It seems like a bunch of the issues recently come down to Dwayne Johnson trying to take over the DCU. There have been several interviews like this one that talk about how he wanted to remake it with Black Adam at the center, which is also why Black Adam doesn't show up in Shazam 2 and Superman does show up in Black Adam. Even though he says he loves Black Adam it seems he feels Captain Marvel is beneath him (both the actor and the character).
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: It seems like a bunch of the issues recently come down to Dwayne Johnson trying to take over the DCU. There have been several interviews like this one that talk about how he wanted to remake it with Black Adam at the center, which is also why Black Adam doesn't show up in Shazam 2 and Superman does show up in Black Adam. Even though he says he loves Black Adam it seems he feels Captain Marvel is beneath him (both the actor and the character).
He's been trying to play Black Adam for nearly a decade.
Ahtman wrote: It seems like a bunch of the issues recently come down to Dwayne Johnson trying to take over the DCU. There have been several interviews like this one that talk about how he wanted to remake it with Black Adam at the center, which is also why Black Adam doesn't show up in Shazam 2 and Superman does show up in Black Adam. Even though he says he loves Black Adam it seems he feels Captain Marvel is beneath him (both the actor and the character).
He's been trying to play Black Adam for nearly a decade.
That changes nothing about the actions he has taken in regards to the DCU once he got a toe hold. Having silly ideas for a decade doesn't keep them from being silly, or even daft.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
No doubt. It's just an extension of a lot of his "brand control". Contractually will not be in a story where he loses a fight, stuff like that. Wanting to shape the DCEU around his character comes as no real surprise.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
LunarSol wrote: No doubt. It's just an extension of a lot of his "brand control". Contractually will not be in a story where he loses a fight, stuff like that.
Wich always makes me wonder " Then why the Hell has he been so set on playing Black Adam?" Because Adam is the villain. And the villains role in these sories is to lose. Or ultimately lose in multi-chapter stories..... Does he not understand this?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
LunarSol wrote: No doubt. It's just an extension of a lot of his "brand control". Contractually will not be in a story where he loses a fight, stuff like that.
Wich always makes me wonder " Then why the Hell has he been so set on playing Black Adam?" Because Adam is the villain. And the villains role in these sories is to lose. Or ultimately lose in multi-chapter stories..... Does he not understand this?
Vader technically loses in Starwars yet you can bet a LOT of actors would love to play his role
The only issue with actors playing "bad guys" is the same issue as an actor playing any role; getting typecast. And that isn't a guarantee that it will happen
Just look at Christopher Lee who played many and it didn't seem to hurt his career
LunarSol wrote: No doubt. It's just an extension of a lot of his "brand control". Contractually will not be in a story where he loses a fight, stuff like that.
Wich always makes me wonder " Then why the Hell has he been so set on playing Black Adam?" Because Adam is the villain. And the villains role in these sories is to lose. Or ultimately lose in multi-chapter stories..... Does he not understand this?
Vader technically loses in Starwars yet you can bet a LOT of actors would love to play his role
The only issue with actors playing "bad guys" is the same issue as an actor playing any role; getting typecast. And that isn't a guarantee that it will happen
Just look at Christopher Lee who played many and it didn't seem to hurt his career
Except we've seen what his idea of Black Adam was and it wasn't Black Adam. If someone wanted to play Vader but insist Padme is still alive and that you don't really fight the good guys you only fight really, really bad guys... that isn't really Vader anymore. You just want to be a tall guy in a black suit going around flexin' on people.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
A Marvel equivalent of Black Adam would be either Namor or Magneto (both can be seen as either a Hero or Villain as the writer needs him to be).
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
LunarSol wrote: No doubt. It's just an extension of a lot of his "brand control". Contractually will not be in a story where he loses a fight, stuff like that.
Wich always makes me wonder " Then why the Hell has he been so set on playing Black Adam?" Because Adam is the villain. And the villains role in these sories is to lose. Or ultimately lose in multi-chapter stories..... Does he not understand this?
Vader technically loses in Starwars yet you can bet a LOT of actors would love to play his role
The only issue with actors playing "bad guys" is the same issue as an actor playing any role; getting typecast. And that isn't a guarantee that it will happen
Just look at Christopher Lee who played many and it didn't seem to hurt his career
Here I’d argue the semantic between a movie star and an actor. Not slagging either off like.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
He also later said he was done with superhero movies and was looking forward to "disconnecting from the superhero discourse online".
