DC Extended Universe

Martian Manhunter for Elba.

That's a strange way of spelling "John Stewart."

You're both speaking gibberish that translates to "Lance Reddick is the best and only possible choice for Martian Manhunter", obviously.

I have been thoroughly convinced.

How about this as a compromise: Idris Elba can be John Stewart, and Lance Reddick can be Martian Manhunter. See there? Everybody's happy.

...Except comicwriter, but that's a loss I can live with.

edited 28th Jun '16 8:52:31 PM by MapleSamurai

You gents are thinking too small.

Idris Elba for Granny Goodness.

Well, if we're being serious about Idris Elba as a New God, I can easily see him as Darkseid.

Please, Lian Harper.

A perfect fit.

I'm beginning to wonder if today is a Bizarro Episode for the TV Tropes forums.

Usually this thread is consumed by a toxic but ultimately petty argument about a movie universe's most divisive film while the MCU thread has its jokey digressions, but today it's the other way around. Weird.

We should do this more often.

Toxic huh?

Well, yeah, pretty much. I've mentioned how I'm scared to post here too often because of the constant arguing.

Ed Asner was still alive last I heard. Why waste an opportunity?

An explanation for why Girdon is so buff in JL

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/jk-simmons-explains-why-justice-leagues-commissioner-gordon-is-so-jacked

How about getting Bobcat Goldthwait and Gilbert Gottfried to both do the same lines and then put the voice tracks on top each other for Granny Goodness?

Give Granny a Metamoran dress and we're good.

But yeah, I'm really trying to keep something of a positive outlook because I do want to see it succeed and seeing Geoff Johns and Ben Affleck (through Jon Berg) take charge, combined with the hype for Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman, is enough for me to essentially give the DCEU a third chance. However, the DCEU lives or dies with whether or not Snyder can deliver with Justice League, and unlike the road to The Avengers this road is far more bumpy.

I find myself tending to side against the extreme viewpoints in any forum discussion. If it's blind praise and worship, I tend to offer more criticism even if I like it. If it's blind hatred and demonization, I tend to offer more praise even if I didn't like it. I consider being able to do both and have such a balance to be a mandatory part of any intelligent discussion. In the end all we're talking about is entertainment.

I overheard part of a Kevin Smith podcast where he was critiquing The Dark Knight Rises and regardless of what he thought of the movie personally, he gave praise to Warner Brothers for handing responsibility of making a Batman movie over to a filmmaker and letting them do their job, a job that lasted over a well received trilogy. Nolan had close to full control over the movies from story to script to casting to final cut. That kind of stuff just does not happen on movies of this scale.

When a movie is made by committee, even if good, it tends to be sanitized at least a little bit in behavior or mechanically designed in structure. And so most of the time it's a weird thing where they are not that good but not that bad either. A middle ground okay, filmmaking choices that are adverse to risks. But when you have a singular voice you tend to reach the opposite extremes, risky choices that really don't work alongside some that turn out brilliant. What the DCEU is trying to figure out right now is how to stand by their filmmakers and actors while still minimizing the bad choices.

I'd rather 100 Batman V Superman theatrical versions than a Force Awakens.

Even Sucker Punch, which I really didn't like, had interesting ideas that I could get behind. I want my cinema to have interesting ideas. That's where movies become "fun" to me. Deadpool was a great movie while watching, but the amusement ended because the only thing to discuss about it was "Yeah, that was pretty funny, right?" I mean, that's fine, but it's not the thing I watch movies for.

Interesting ideas don't amount to anything if they're executed poorly, a problem with much of Snyder's work and I say this as someone who likes Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman to a lesser extent.

Yeah that's the thing. If the big defense of a film is "well it had interesting ideas" or "it was ambitious," then the response to that is "yeah, but you still have to execute them well. And if you don't, then the film seems even worse than it would have otherwise as a result." Plus I find the notion of "well Snyder had grand ideas in BVS" to be rather overblown honestly. These "grand ideas" seem more like ideas that I've seen many times before in other films, including other CBM's, and done better there.

Plus this notion that having a simple but still enjoyable story/film is somehow a BAD thing, is one that I'll never agree with. For example, Jaws ain't high-art in terms of it's plot, but it still has far more rewatch value for me than BVS, because it's just a better-made and executed film imo. Same with TFA or Deadpool. I've seen them well over a dozen times already each (Jaws even more so) and the enjoyment factor is still there. Whereas, and I say this as a massive Batman fanatic, I have little to no interest in rewatching BVS again, or at least not anytime soon,

edited 29th Jun '16 1:43:09 PM by Punisher286

That's fine.

I don't care though. Even if I hate a film, as long as it did something interesting to me, I will respect it. I don't like Star Wars Episode 2, but I respect what Lucas was trying to do, the film's place in the story, the themes and the creative structure of the film, for example.

For me personally it's case by case.

Even if it isn't super excellent in its execution, an interesting film can be more memorable and wortwhile to me than a "safe" movie which you might be able to argue does things better. Sometimes the movie is so bad the interesting ideas can't salvage it and my impression is overall negative.

For me Bv S (the theatrical cut) is sort of in the middle of that, I think the director's cut if it has better editing might elevate it to "flawed but enjoyable" to me which is basically my opinion of Man of Steel.

I have come to the conclusion that Snyder is at best a decent copyist. Yeah, those visuals look great. They looked just as great when I saw them in various paintings though. Some of the dialogue sounds smart, but it is also lifted from various sources - he totally misunderstood the line about god being either all powerful or good but unable to be both, btw. The line doesn't even apply to Superman because he is obviously not all powerful.

While no idea under the sun is truly new, what Snyder does is more ripping off other people ideas than anything else. Often badly. It's like reading a fanfiction from Cassandra Claire.

I'm pretty sure it's Lex that don't understand that.

It's not about having interesting ideas, most movies have at least one or two interesting ideas. It's that these interesting ideas are brought up in a solitary scene, with maybe one additional scene at the beginning to set it up. The rest of the story goes pretty much nowhere with the idea, instead focusing on action sequences and other subplots. Iron Man 3 is a good example with the whole puppet villain idea. The story goes nowhere with the idea, being more about figuring out the origin of the bombings, but it's certainly interesting. Both Man of Steel and Batman V Superman takes a couple of interesting ideas and weaves it into the foundation of the story, almost every scene supports that idea. That's why I feel like their narratives are much richer than the norm.

edited 29th Jun '16 3:11:23 PM by KJMackley