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

[Bazza]

7 Reasons Why There Is Still Hope For The DC Extended Universe

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/7-reasons-still-hope-dceu/

[bigdamnhero]

7 Reasons Why There Is Still Hope For The DC Extended Universe

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/7-reasons-still-hope-dceu/

tldr - The triumph of optimism over evidence and experience, aka "I Want To Believe."

[Bazza]

Which is ironic considering the doom & gloom of BvS & a lesser extent Suicide Squad.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm cautiously optimistic for Wonder Woman. Very cautiously.

[BoloOfEarth]

7 Reasons Why There Is Still Hope For The DC Extended Universe

http://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/7-reasons-still-hope-dceu/

 

 

 

Zack Snyder will definitely have taken on board the audience’s reaction to his previous films, so we can hope that he has amended his style to make a more inclusive, fun-loving movie.

 

Riiiiiight.  Hope all you like, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

[Starlord]

I don't necessarily need a more inclusive, fun-loving movie, I just want them to stop picking the gloomiest and darkest stories imaginable and I just want the characters to act like the characters.  I want Superman to be Superman, not the Sentry.  I want Batman to be Batman, not the Punisher.  I want Lex Luthor to be Lex Luthor, not the Joker....

 

 

I also want to Doomsday to be Doomsday...not a cave troll from LOTR.

[Joe Walsh]

We decided to go ahead and watch BvS, since I'd heard the extended edition was better.

 

I think the extended edition is a fine rental, if you're into the genre and don't mind spending 3+ hours on it. There were some cool bits in there, and I liked seeing middle-aged Batman. I think they can do a lot more with that character and look forward to seeing that movie. Wonder Woman was fine, Supes was "meh" like in Man of Steel, Lex was OK. I liked that they gave Lois enough to do in this. It was almost like the Marvel Netflix shows in that way; everyone had enough screen time that you could get to know them, and feel like they had a good part in the story rather than being a checkbox item on some producer's or marketer's list.

 

I'm glad I watched it, and I'm glad I didn't bother to watch it in the theater or buy the disc.

 

Up tonight is the extended edition of Suicide Squad....

[Bazza]

The Rise of Movie Extended Editions: Is More Always More?

From Aliens and Lord Of The Rings to Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad, we take a look at the extended edition...

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/extended-editions/260397/the-rise-of-movie-extended-editions-is-more-always-more

 

 

The average movie used to be around 90 minutes long.

 

That’s not strictly true, by the way – some cursory Google research puts paid to that particular piece of received wisdom – but reviewing the running times of what were some of my favourites flicks back in the day, I was hard pressed to find many that breached the two hour mark.

 

Which seems fair. Save the odd historical epic or substantive biopic, most stories designed for consumption in movie theatres should be able to be told in under 120 minutes. Besides, now that the quaint notion of an intermission appears to be in its death throes, simple logic dictates that films on theatrical release be kept to a manageable, easily-digestible runtime.

 

Of course, our tolerance for extended run times is rather different when viewing from the comfort of our own home, where timely utilization of the pause button (not midway through a scene, darling) allows us to maintain our viewing pleasure for as long as our patience – rather than our bodies – allows.

 

But is that necessarily a good thing?

[Joe Walsh]

It'd be best if the theatrical releases were edited better, of course, but given that they sometimes aren't, I'm glad studios are sometimes taking the home release as an opportunity to do better.

 

As for extended editions of already-good movies, I agree with the article: it depends.

[Cassandra]

tldr - The triumph of optimism over evidence and experience, aka "I Want To Believe."

 

Which is what people were saying about the X-Files  .  .  .

[zslane]

The mantra in Hollywood always used to be that a screenplay should come in at under 100 pages, with the understanding that the old "1 minute of screen time per page" was assumed to always be in effect. Scripts that landed on a producer's desk (or, to be more precise, the producer's assistant's desk) had better be under 100 pages or it would probably not end up being part of the coverage pile. But when a script is essentially commissioned by the studio, or the director writes it himself, there is far less filtering of that nature going on, and bloated scripts end up reaching the line producer with scan editorial oversight.

[Starlord]

Errr, aren't some of the very top grossing movies ever (inflation and non-inflation) also incredibly long?  Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Avatar, LOTR, etc....  IOW, the simple premise that long movies don't work is silly...it's clearly more complicated than that.

[zslane]

Of course it is, but given the mountain of scripts that producers receive, they need some sort of simple metric to help filter the pile down to something manageable. Historically, page count, genre, and log line have been the leading metrics for determining whether to bother reading a script.

[bigdamnhero]

The 100-page limit is strictly for spec scripts, ie - unsolicited scripts. As the article points out, blockbusters are almost never written on spec - they're assignments from the studio. Different set of rules, especially once the studio, producer, cast, etc all start adding their "contributions," never mind once you add a 3rd & 4th writer...

 

Edit: Belatedly realizing zslane said as much in a previous post.

[Ternaugh]

Errr, aren't some of the very top grossing movies ever (inflation and non-inflation) also incredibly long?  Gone with the Wind, Titanic, Avatar, LOTR, etc....  IOW, the simple premise that long movies don't work is silly...it's clearly more complicated than that.

 

And some of the worst grossing movies, as well:

 

Heaven's Gate, for example, is 325 minutes as a workprint, 219 minutes for the original theatrical release, and 149 minutes for the "edited" version for wide release. It made $3.5 million on a $44 million investment in 1980.

 

The Greatest Story Ever Told started out as a 4 hour 20 minute epic (in a roadshow theatrical release), but was trimmed multiple times, until it finally had a general release of 2 hours 17 minutes. It's never made back anywhere near enough to cover production costs.

 

Cleopatra in 1963 had the distinction of being the highest grossing film of the year ($26 million) while still losing money (production and marketing cost $44 million), and is notorious for almost bankrupting 20th Century-Fox. The director originally screened a 6 hour version for the studio, but was forced to cut it down to about 4 hours for the premiere. It was cut down to 3 hours for general release, so that theaters could get in more showings in a day.

[zslane]

Some stories are just too big to squeeze into two hours and still do them justice. I put The Lord of the Rings into that category. Does every single scene from the book have to be on film? No, of course not, but for a literary work like that, there's more to enjoy than just the plot. There is the environment itself, the cultures that inhabit it, and the long history that shaped it. Forming connective narrative tissue between these elements take a deft hand and considerable screen time. I am one of many fans who feel that the extended editions of the three films are actually an improvement over the theatrical releases. Unlike, say, the extended version of Apocalypse Now or Amadeus which did not really benefit from the restoration of scenes (mercifully) deleted from the theatrical release.

 

So sometimes making a cinematic experience shorter is better, and sometimes making it longer is better. It all depends on the story being told and the skill of the writer(s) in charge of bringing it to life on film. But when it comes to directors writing their own films, especially when they have the power to sidestep editorial oversight, brevity should probably be the prevailing guiding principle.

[Cassandra]

I'm cautiously optimistic for Wonder Woman. Very cautiously.

 

She's no Lynda Carter.

[Joe Walsh]

Well, poop.  Suicide Squad (extended edition) was a disappointment. That was a surprise! I expected to like it more than BvS: Extended. But, no, it was made worth watching (barely) only because of Harley Quinn. Without her, it'd be worthless. And even with her, I'd say it's only worth watching for free on streaming (if it ever becomes available that way). It's not really worth the price of a rental, let alone owning it.

 

After BvS: Extended, I was feeling a little more positive about the prospects for Wonder Woman. But now, I'm back to feeling like they'll never really get it.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Some stories are just too big to squeeze into two hours and still do them justice. I put The Lord of the Rings into that category. Does every single scene from the book have to be on film? No, of course not, but for a literary work like that, there's more to enjoy than just the plot. There is the environment itself, the cultures that inhabit it, and the long history that shaped it. Forming connective narrative tissue between these elements take a deft hand and considerable screen time. I am one of many fans who feel that the extended editions of the three films are actually an improvement over the theatrical releases. Unlike, say, the extended version of Apocalypse Now or Amadeus which did not really benefit from the restoration of scenes (mercifully) deleted from the theatrical release.

 

So sometimes making a cinematic experience shorter is better, and sometimes making it longer is better. It all depends on the story being told and the skill of the writer(s) in charge of bringing it to life on film. But when it comes to directors writing their own films, especially when they have the power to sidestep editorial oversight, brevity should probably be the prevailing guiding principle.

This sensible and nuanced opinion is dead to me!

[Burrito Boy]

This sensible and nuanced opinion is dead to me!

It's dead to me too. Nobody says anything bad about Apocalypse Now Redux in my presence and gets away with it.

[Pattern Ghost]

She's no Lynda Carter.

 

Nope, but she's a very decent Wonder Woman.

[Bazza]

Correction: Wonder Girl.

[Twilight]

Correction: Wonder Woman.

Fixed that for ya.

[Bazza]

Nope.  I meant what I said. Yes I understand the actress is over 30, but she isn't Wonder Woman to me but makes a very fine Wonder Girl. I feel the actress has been miscast to play the role. 

 

I also feel the actor was miscast playing Lex in BvS. Also, Ben makes a good Bats/Bruce. 

[Twilight]

Nope.  I meant what I said. 

Then you're wrong, sorry.