I kinda like it, but I want to see it in action. Really hope it is Brainiac, brilliant take with a brilliant actor though it was, Smallville being the only live action version of the character is a crime.
2 Likes
Yes it is. I still think Brainiac should have been the villain in Man of Steel. His plot could have been similar to Zod’s. We also wouldn’t feel burnout on General Zod as a villain. I’d even take Toyman as a villain at this point over Lex and Zod again!
1 Like
I want to say it might grow on me but I am not optimistic about that happening…
Not blown away. I would’ve preferred the first image to have been the polar opposite of Snyder/Cavill. Something bathed in sunshine with an optimistic facial expression. The suit itself looks too baggy and on the cheap side, IMO. I’ll wait and see how it looks in live action.
I like the casual moment amidst something weird going on outside. And it seems he has the trunks, right?
Well, after watching Tyler Hoechlin in the most magnificent „Superman & Lois“, the best adaptation since the first Donner film, every new film has its work cut out.
I think Gunn knows what he’s doing.
4 Likes
I was just thinking he seems disturbingly laid back about that big pink jellyfish hitting Metropolis with a particle beam.
I like that the colors are a bit brighter this time around (even if it looks like the tunic could use a wash). Not sure how I feel about the mock neck and the shoulders seem baggy but thats likely because the cape’s tucked into them. Everyone seems to have trouble figuring out to attach that cape.
The notched boots are a nice nod to the comics. Most people seem to think he has the trunks on but I cant tell from this. I’ll be glad if he does. The spit curl/forelock is a nice touch. Wish the symbol was an actual “S.”
I agree they’ve got their work cut out topping Hoechlin. His suit is the best “modern” take so far (though it took a while to get there: the one he had on “Supergirl” was the pits) and more importantly he embodies the spirit of the character in a way I’d given up on anyone ever managing in the 21st century. But I’m hopeful. Frankly big screen Superman has nowhere to go but up at this point. Okay, up and away.
3 Likes
Only four years after takeoff; I know of enterprises which haven’t turned a profit in 20 years…
But then again, Disney’s catalog and backlist are amongst the most popular and valuable in the market. If Disney couldn’t turn a profit nobody in streaming can.
3 Likes
1 Like
I always wonder who decides whose posts get used for these articles.
From the article:
„ Later in the call, Iger fielded a question about Disney’s focus on sequels and originals, noting that the focus is currently more on franchise films: “We’re gonna balance sequels with originals. Specifically in animation, we had gone through a period where our original films and animation, both Disney and Pixar, were dominating. We’re now swinging back a bit to lean on sequels.”
Iger cited Disney’s plans for the next “Toy Story” movie and this summer’s release of “Inside Out 2” and said these films have an increased value because known IP costs less to market.“
First: Which period does he mean? Originals seem to have been a thing of the past for some time now.
Second: There you have it - IP costs less to market. But where do you get the IP if you focus on reheating stuff with diminishing returns?
It’s the same basic problem everywhere: only focus on short term profits instead of thinking of the future, simply because in the future these decision makers won’t have to face the consequences anyway.
4 Likes
This would be good for the MCU. Let’s see if they keep their word, truthfully. They got 4 movies a year for the next 2 years. How many bad one-liners can they keep giving out? I know a lot of people who have tuned out. This could be history-making, folks.
2 Likes
Personally, I think they should do one of two things:
-
Do 1 movie a year or even just 1 every 2 years until something really catches fire with the audience and shows there is demand for more.
-
Announce they are taking a 5-10 year pause on Marvel. Then come back and start fresh with some of the compelling characters and some new stories based on the best comics.
Either way, they could still do some TV shows but I think people need a break from Marvel. On the DC side, I think they should leave it at 1 movie a year at most. Again, they can do some TV shows.
From where I sit (as someone who liked both Marvel and DC (probably DC more)), they are at risk of losing a whole lot of money and burying the genre for 20 plus years. On the other hand, I am an old man that knows little about the industry (i.e., not their target audience).
4 Likes
The problem is: for Marvel movies to be the box office success Disney needs, they have to a) attract the Marvel fanboys so they will buy tickets for multiple viewings and b) attract the other four quadrants of the audience by making the movies events everybody thinks they need to see.
This, it seems, only will work with more Spider-Man.
The Fantastic Four might also work but is in no way a guarantee.
The new Captain America? Also rather a maybe.
The other heroes are only of fanboy interest and awareness.
Also, there is superhero fatigue, even if the players deny that. The most famous heroes have had their movies, and the crescendo of the Avengers was a satisfying ending.
New Avengers? With heroes which are unfamiliar? Doubtful.
And new tv shows? Starring… who?
They all will be well made, maybe even interesting and deserving - but is Marvel still a must see? I don’t think so.
And if Superman next year tanks or is only as successful as Superman Returns - say goodbye to Gunn‘s reboot DC universe.
While I always root for Superman to succeed, I would welcome a cinematic world with no super heroes for the next two decades at least. Been there, done that - move on, Hollywood. You need it.
3 Likes
Intriguing review - I was sceptical that another film is needed after the great sequel trilogy. But if this one really is that good…
1 Like
2 Likes
If we accept Raimi’s 2002 SPIDER-MAN as the effective start of the superhero wave that’s 22 years of vigilante and superhuman heroics in tights and capes now. Almost a generation of CGI antics and overblown blue screen final acts. People born in that year never knew anything else but the supreme franchise/IP rule over most of the mainstream market.
It’s astonishing.
1 Like
I’d definitely go X-Men in 2000. Hard to believe they’re essentially still making them (Deadpool and Wolverine) 24 years later!
3 Likes
Totally forgot about that! Yes, absolutely.
1 Like
Perfectly said. For all their flaws, even Lucasfilm said they were going to rethink Star Wars for awhile. Marvel needs to do the same. At least Star Wars gives us a bit more breathing room.
1 Like
Wow, this next Star Trek film really is gearing up…
1 Like