DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Lord Liaden]

I'm guessing you're referring to The Man from UNCLE, in which Cavill played an American spy. Because Mission: Impossible - Fallout can't be said to have under-performed.

[Bazza]

The Man from UNCLE - yes! 

[Pattern Ghost]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Johnson's seriously wrong for Bond, IMO.  Johnson's physicality is too brutish;  Bond is more refined.  He's too old to start in the part now, too;  he's 50. 

 

Just want to point out that I was talking about Cavill.

 

Also going to point out two more things:

 

Cavill was runner up to Craig for the role, and lost out to Craig b/c he was too young at the time. He's now 39. Craig was 38 when he was in Casino Royale. So, the Bond franchise runners likely have him in the back of their minds.

 

As for his size? He doesn't walk around looking jacked constantly. He's a big guy without the Witcher/Superman level of muscle, at 6'1" and a pretty broad shouldered build, but he's not super bulky just walking around at his normal fitness level. I've met Sean Connery, who's an inch taller and seemed taller yet, b/c he's also a big, broad-shouldered guy. He had a fair run on Bond.

 

The big question is how they want to go with the next Bond? Do they want to go with ex-military action guy again, or suave Roger Moore type? I'm not overly familiar or a real fan of the Bond character, but I've read all of two short stories featuring him, and the ex-military action guy was stressed more in that material. So, it's definitely a facet of his character.

 

All that aside, I'm not too worried about Cavill's career. He's already got a dream gig, with producer credit, so more creative control, lined up. I'll watch that if it makes it to streaming. If not that, I'm sure he'll be around to entertain us for some time to come. He's talented, and seems to be a very composed, decent sort of guy.

 

Here's an interview with Cavill, where he discusses that bit about his earlier Bond near miss that I mentioned:

 

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

8 hours ago, Bazza said:

I don’t think Cavill will be Bond as his previous British spy thriller underperformed. I think this knocks him out. 

He won’t be Bond for the same reason he walked away from The Witcher. Ms. Broccoli who inherited the head chair from her late father Albert “Cubby” Broccoli, has said in interviews, the she sees the next Bond, is having to be “more in touch with his emotions “. This is just another way of saying “updated for a modern audience.”  Once again a female executive strikes a blow against Toxic Masculinity in entertainment, when Masculinity, toxic or not is precisely why I watch a Bond film. 
 

Cavill’s removal from the Superman Role was not James Gunn’s decision as much as it was Zaslov’s, due to Cavill’s salary requirements, and Zaslov wanting to slash production budgets and find new, unknown actors to keep costs down. Cavill’s not being Superman is a shame, and the focus on Superman’s early years, looks like yet another retelling of his origins.  I really don’t want to see any other origins retold yet again for legacy characters.  I want to see a story of a Superhero in their prime, performing their heroism, and challenging Villains we haven’t seen before in thee movies,  and maybe using a story from the pages of a comic?

[slikmar]

47 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

and the focus on Superman’s early years, looks like yet another retelling of his origins

No, Zaslov figured out another way to save money. He will just reuse the scripts from Smallville, modernized slightly. that way, not having to pay real writers.

 

<That's a joke, just in case. In rereading how I wrote it, it almost sounded plausible>

[Lord Liaden]

If that's his motivation and plan, Warner had better be prepared for lower returns while they rebuild, a la Marvel Studios.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Studios have gone absolutely nuts with budgets for movies lately, and they have to crank it back a bit.  Yes, once in a while you'll get a monster hit but you cannot rely on that and overspend on a film.  If you have to make HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to break even, you have real budget problems.  Trim it back, and aim lower.

[unclevlad]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Studios have gone absolutely nuts with budgets for movies lately, and they have to crank it back a bit.  Yes, once in a while you'll get a monster hit but you cannot rely on that and overspend on a film.  If you have to make HALF A BILLION DOLLARS to break even, you have real budget problems.  Trim it back, and aim lower.

 

This needs to be better targeted.

 

Infinity War and Endgame didn't care.  They knew they were gonna blow through those numbers, the audience was a lock.  It'd been cultured and built over multiple movies.  DC has none of that.  They've never had box office momentum last, and their entire franchise has little to no connectivity.  So each movie is a separate crapshoot...from a studio with a poor track record.  In situations like that, then, yes, expecting major box office returns is wishful thinking.

 

But there are multiple places to trim.  Some are smart, others aren't.  Actors...again, for kick-off type movies, not the later ones.  Michael B. Jordan got $2M for Black Panther.  Pretty sure Downey didn't get a lot for the first Iron Man.  Did anyone know who Hemsworth was before Thor?  Or for that matter, Cavill before Superman?  I can actually see NOT retaining him now...because he's getting too expensive for an effort to start a franchise from scratch.  You want to find the next Hamill, Ford, Reeve, Craig, and ride them.  The risk?  You might get the next Hayden Christiansen, altho I wonder how much of *that* was just really bad direction.

 

You can also cut back on SFX, and use them when you need to, instead of overloading the movie with them.

 

DC's bigger problem is just plain tone, tho.  You can't create ongoing, building momentum from gritty, grimdark stories.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

You might get the next Hayden Christiansen, altho I wonder how much of *that* was just really bad direction.

 

Probably most of it, I mean Natalie Portman has demonstrated that she can act quite well, in other stuff.  In the prequels she was a block of wood.

[Old Man]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

But there are multiple places to trim.  Some are smart, others aren't.  Actors...again, for kick-off type movies, not the later ones.  Michael B. Jordan got $2M for Black Panther.  Pretty sure Downey didn't get a lot for the first Iron Man. 

 

RDJ agreed to a lowball $500k up front in exchange for something like 5% of net on the back end.  Then he and Jeff Bridges went and ad-libbed the first IM which I don't think ever had a final script.

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Did anyone know who Hemsworth was before Thor?  Or for that matter, Cavill before Superman? 

 

Cavill was great in Count of Monte Cristo, one of those guilty pleasure films that had no business being as good as it was.

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I can actually see NOT retaining him now...because he's getting too expensive for an effort to start a franchise from scratch.  You want to find the next Hamill, Ford, Reeve, Craig, and ride them.  The risk?  You might get the next Hayden Christiansen, altho I wonder how much of *that* was just really bad direction.

 

If you look at the performances of Natalie Portman and SLJ in the prequels, there's no question it was bad direction.  (Actually as I understand it Lucas' problem was a lack of direction, like he basically just expected the actors to show up in front of the green screen and turn the lines he'd writtten into Shakespeare.)

 

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

You can also cut back on SFX, and use them when you need to, instead of overloading the movie with them.

 

DC's bigger problem is just plain tone, tho.  You can't create ongoing, building momentum from gritty, grimdark stories.

 

DC's problem is, and has always been, that the suits are in charge and there's no one with a good grasp of the source material and a coherent vision.  So the DCEU has been plagued with studio interference and constant changes of direction.  WW only succeeded because studio management for once had a clue and realized they could not meaningfully contribute to a film with a strong female lead, so they left Patty Jenkins alone.  But people forget how fraught WW was to produce--it was the studio's third run at making any WW film, and Snyder's casting of Gal Gadot in JL was sharply criticized.  (Which would probably have been less intense if we'd known who the other potential casting choices were.)

 

Ironically WW benefited in a way from the grimdark DCEU, as it gave a contrasting background against which to show this lighthearted idealistic heroine.  Seriously Diana is the only thing about WW that isn't grimdark, it's literally WWI ffs.

[Lord Liaden]

Oh, the studio definitely did not leave Patty Jenkins alone. Among other things, the suits wanted to cut the entire Diana crossing No Man's Land scene, and Jenkins had to fight to keep it in.

[Hermit]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Oh, the studio definitely did not leave Patty Jenkins alone. Among other things, the suits wanted to cut the entire Diana crossing No Man's Land scene, and Jenkins had to fight to keep it in.

 

Yeah, blew my mind when I heard that because its one of my favorite scenes, and to a large degree where she BECOMES Wonder Woman. I'm very glad Patty fought for it

[Christopher R Taylor]

Patty Jenkins kinda oversells her role in the first movie, from rumors about her work in Wonder Woman 1.  Who knows what the truth is, but it worked out pretty well despite having some dumb story elements (it took them a couple days to get from Greece to London?  In a small open boat?  With no food or supplies).  I liked the first movie but it does not hold up to any sort of scrutiny or analysis and the ending was weak.

[Scott Ruggels]

I think Patty Jenkins problem is that she's a good director, but not a good writer. 

 

...then Patty goes and kills her career by going full Karen on her former bosses at DC. Sending Peter Safran the Wikipedia definition of Character Arc in an Email was not the wisest choice.

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Patty Jenkins kinda oversells her role in the first movie, from rumors about her work in Wonder Woman 1.  Who knows what the truth is, but it worked out pretty well despite having some dumb story elements (it took them a couple days to get from Greece to London?  In a small open boat?  With no food or supplies).  I liked the first movie but it does not hold up to any sort of scrutiny or analysis and the ending was weak.

 

They must have take one of the boats from Seasons 7 & 8 of Game of Thrones.

 

I noted that time jump, but for the sake of interesting storytelling I was willing to overlook it. I also liked the ending. The most frequent criticism of it is that it was "just" special effects. But I love that kind of truly "super" action, and besides, Diana was suddenly fighting a genuine god, so she had to fight on that level.

 

I know there are other criticisms, but I won't take up space going there unless someone wants to.

 

[Starlord]

https://movieweb.com/james-gunn-wonder-woman-patty-jenkins/

 

Keeping things short and sweet, The Suicide Squad and Guardians of the Galaxy director provided his own brief assessment of the recent reports, revealing that all the interactions between himself, DC Studios co-chief Peter Safran and Patty Jenkins have been both professional and pleasant.

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Especially since this is what Hollywood uses for a character arc anyway.

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I think Patty Jenkins problem is that she's a good director, but not a good writer.

 

WW was written by Allan Heinberg, though of course the director has the ability to make changes if she wants.

[Scott Ruggels]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

WW was written by Allan Heinberg, though of course the director has the ability to make changes if she wants.

 Correct, and WW84 was written by Patty Jenkins

[Matt the Bruins]

If Heinberg had the time to write a screenplay for WW3 with Jenkins directing, I think it would have been a recipe for a really enjoyable and successful movie.

[Scott Ruggels]

Well it wasn’t the script, it was a treatment that Patty Jenkins turned it, and it was rejected because Steve Trevor was brought back again.  

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah the last time was creepy enough.  Plus, the relationship never was very played out in the first movie enough to buy into this supposed undying love.  Which, I'm glad for, no reason to turn it into a deep romance.  But to keep dipping into that well is just odd.  Its like how the Wanda-Vision love affair was all off screen, so it never felt plausible she was so traumatized by his death that she enslaved an entire town.  Especially as next time we see her, she's fixated on her nonexistent kids and has forgotten Vision entirely.

[Bazza]

Basically, in Strange MOM, Wanda lacked Vision, and wanted to “adopt” (well, kidnap) someone else’s (identical) kids, but because she’s throughly evil from the Darkhold, the kids rejected her.  

[slikmar]

Been catching up on Stargirl. Another reason for hating the takeover from Nextar of the WB brand. Stargirl has remained really good, to me at least. It has retained that hopefulness we saw in the earlier Supergirl series and apparently two of the last season episodes (before they realized they were making their last season, so might not have wasted the episodes) were setting up an Infinity Inc. series with Jade, Obsidian and Sand as members and The Shade on his redemption run mentoring them. but alas, not to be.

[Ranxerox]

1 hour ago, slikmar said:

Been catching up on Stargirl. Another reason for hating the takeover from Nextar of the WB brand. Stargirl has remained really good, to me at least. It has retained that hopefulness we saw in the earlier Supergirl series and apparently two of the last season episodes (before they realized they were making their last season, so might not have wasted the episodes) were setting up an Infinity Inc. series with Jade, Obsidian and Sand as members and The Shade on his redemption run mentoring them. but alas, not to be.

 

Yeah, I liked Stargirl too and thought the last season was surprisingly strong. I say surprisingly strong, because most CW shows are going badly down hill by their 3rd season.