zslane

I think TLJ's box office performance was mostly from the pent up demand to see Luke finally return to the big screen. If disappointed fans could have gotten their money back after seeing what Rian Johnson did with the character, I'm pretty confident TLJ's total would be below Rogue One's.

I think Snyder was just the next in the series of auteur directors handed a DC movie franchise and given free reign to subvert audience expectations. Like Kathleen Kennedy, who doesn't "get" Star Wars and doesn't want to produce movies that Star Wars fans can truly appreciate, Snyder doesn't really get the superhero genre or have much interest in making superhero movies that comic book fans would truly appreciate. Watchmen was a subversion of the genre, rather than a celebration of it, which fit into Snyder's philosophical wheelhouse nicely. But as soon as he was faced with doing superheroes "for real", he just couldn't step into that paradigm, and ended up making a superhero movie that had more in common with The 300 or Sucker Punch than Superman: The Movie.

Disney has all sorts of clauses in their contracts with actors, directors, and so on, many of which cover how you present yourself to the public. Gunn may be able to sue Disney for breach of contract, but as far as we know he is not doing that. There may even be a "pay out" clause to terminate the contract with some amount of compensation, and Gunn may be taking the pay out and bowing out gracefully. Unfortunately, we are not privvy to such details.
 
In any event, issues of free speech are irrelevant in cases of contract employment where it is the terms of the contract that matter, not the Constitution.

My biggest problem with the recent Star Wars movies (except Rogue One which I also liked quite a lot) is that Kennedy decided to hijack the Skywalker Saga as the vehicle for this "new Star Wars for a new generation," rather than coming up with an entirely new saga in which to jerk the franchise in a direction that has produced as much fan outrage as it has box office success. Episodes 7-9 feel more like the "let's kill off the original characters and themes and make room for new characters and themes saga," rather than the final chapters of the Skywalker storyline.
 
It's as if Kathleen Kennedy hated the old characters as much as Harrison Ford hated the Han Solo role. To be fair, I don't think she actually hated them so much as she just had complete disdain for them, having no fan/emotional connection to them, and therefore did not grasp the value of preserving their legacy as pop culture icons.

My biggest problem with the recent Star Wars movies (except Rogue One which I also liked quite a lot) is that Kennedy decided to hijack the Skywalker Saga as the vehicle for this "new Star Wars for a new generation," rather than coming up with an entirely new saga in which to jerk the franchise in a direction that has produced as much fan outrage as it has box office success. Episodes 7-9 feel more like the "let's kill off the original characters and themes and make room for new characters and themes saga," rather than the final chapters of the Skywalker storyline.
 
It's as if Kathleen Kennedy hated the old characters as much as Harrison Ford hated the Han Solo role. To be fair, I don't think she actually hated them so much as she just had complete disdain for them, having no fan/emotional connection to them, and therefore did not grasp the value of preserving their legacy as pop culture icons.

This is way off topic, but briefly as I can:
 
The first amendment is the constitutional requirement by the people that the federal government protect and not attack free expression insofar as it does not materially damage other rights.
 
Freedom of expression ("speech," the press, assembly etc) is an innate, God-given, inalienable right all human beings share simply by being human.  We all have the right to freedom of expression merely by being human, although that right's expression can be suppressed (you can be silenced, you just still have the right to speech).
 
As a society, we agree to an informal and unwritten contract: we will give up certain non-critical freedoms in order to gain greater safety and expression of our overall rights.  I have the right to express myself however I wish even if it is lying and damaging to people, but we have agreed that it is illegal to slander or libel someone.  I have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (as the saying goes) but have agreed that it ought to be illegal to create chaos and riot that may harm people or businesses.
 
Gunn has the right to say whatever he wants, but we have agreed that private businesses may choose to punish someone for their expression if they deem it too damaging to their business or public image.  Whether this is a proper use of that power or not, is up to some debate.  Youtube has the power to not carry Alex Jones' content if they choose to, because it is their business and their money to do with as they wish, even though Jones has the right to say what he chooses.  Businesses are private organizations who are spending their money to hire and promote people: its their money to do with what they choose.
 
The thing we all have to try to cling to is the greatest amount of liberty with the least amount of censorship.  Putting up with things we don't care for and don't want to hear is the entire point of freedom of speech; if all we tolerate is things we want to hear, then we've abandoned the entire concept of liberty.
 
As I've stated before, I do not like people being fired for what they say, I think that's a bad precedent and what someone says on their own time in their own capacity, not representing the business directly, is their own affair.  I wouldn't want a boss to fire me for some off-color joke I've made in the past, with my friends.
 
Putting a gigantic monkey wrench into this whole discussion is how private speech is, and to what degree you represent your employer on social media.  It seems completely public and a high-profile person has always had to be more careful than ordinary citizens.  A senator or governor can't get away with stuff which you or I can on a regular basis.  People who are famously part of a business are less free to say things without necessarily impacting the business they work for (say, the girl who plays Wendy for the commercials).
 
All of this stuff has to be taken into consideration, its not as simple as we do/do not have free speech.

Disney has a "brand identity" as a purveyor of family-friendly entertainment.   Marvel Studios, while they may have a freer hand than, say, Disney Animation, nonetheless has the shadow of that brand ID looming over their heads.  
It wasn't political correctness or "SJWs"(hate that term) who got Gunn fired.  It was running astray of corporate standards and practices and most likely violating contractual clauses.  It's messed up that it happened over tasteless jokes made years ago,  but it happened nonetheless. 

I'd like to see a Star Hero Complete and an Action Hero Complete.

I think Snyder was just the next in the series of auteur directors handed a DC movie franchise and given free reign to subvert audience expectations. Like Kathleen Kennedy, who doesn't "get" Star Wars and doesn't want to produce movies that Star Wars fans can truly appreciate, Snyder doesn't really get the superhero genre or have much interest in making superhero movies that comic book fans would truly appreciate. Watchmen was a subversion of the genre, rather than a celebration of it, which fit into Snyder's philosophical wheelhouse nicely. But as soon as he was faced with doing superheroes "for real", he just couldn't step into that paradigm, and ended up making a superhero movie that had more in common with The 300 or Sucker Punch than Superman: The Movie.

I think Snyder was just the next in the series of auteur directors handed a DC movie franchise and given free reign to subvert audience expectations. Like Kathleen Kennedy, who doesn't "get" Star Wars and doesn't want to produce movies that Star Wars fans can truly appreciate, Snyder doesn't really get the superhero genre or have much interest in making superhero movies that comic book fans would truly appreciate. Watchmen was a subversion of the genre, rather than a celebration of it, which fit into Snyder's philosophical wheelhouse nicely. But as soon as he was faced with doing superheroes "for real", he just couldn't step into that paradigm, and ended up making a superhero movie that had more in common with The 300 or Sucker Punch than Superman: The Movie.

Indeed. To my mind it is more about genre and tone (morally gray comic book vigilantes) than power level. The Six Million Dollar Man, the Bionic Woman, the A-Team, Walker Texas Ranger, James Bond, Mission Impossible, etc. those are all firmly planted in the action adventure genre, with little-to-no gray area between heroes and villains, and so they don't really fit the core "Dark Champions" charter. They belong in an Action Hero genre book instead, IMO.

A noir detective Batman story NEEDS Catwoman as the femme fatale. Heck, Selina Kyle would make a good antagonist as well. 

I'm thinking you could have your cake and eat it too, by adapting Clayface. Consider what sort of detective challenge it would be to pursue a villain who can look like anyone; yet also has true superhuman powers making him more than a physical threat to Batman.

I agree, the fact that Batman is first and foremost a detective has been largely forgotten, turning him into a thug with a plan instead.  Or replacing "detective" with "has a bitchen computer"  A noir detective story with Batman sounds exactly right for the character.

Wow, that's some top-notch writing, right there.  That's some Pulitzer-level work.  Put dialogue into the mouth of one of the smartest, best-educated characters in the DC universe that a trash-talking 13 year old playing Call of Duty would use.  What's next, he talks about their mother and teabags one of them?

I think the costumed superhero genre will fade away once Hollywood ceases to find fresh ways to tell those stories. I think Deadpool and Logan are good examples of how you can pull the genre in lots of different directions to keep it from getting too stale and losing cultural momentum. But I agree that as soon as creators get tired of making the effort, the public will get tired of the same old pabulum and will turn their backs on it, just as they did with Westerns. To my mind this has less to do with any inherent limitations in the (superhero) genre or the public's appetite for it, and more to do with Hollywood's limited ability to sustain innovative storytelling over a really long period, regardless of genre. As I said before, the real enemy is weak storytelling, not "oversaturation" of a genre.

Well, either Disney failed to do their due diligence when hiring Gunn for GotG, or they knew about it and just swept it under the rug hoping no one would notice. Either way, I agree that Disney doesn't come out squeaky clean in all of this. And they probably would have gotten away with it had Gunn not poked the bear with his political rantings.

This looks like it is going to be truly awful. It doesn't even look worthy of being on the CW to me.

The prevailing theory among fans and pundits seems to be that season one will see Dick transition from Robin to Nightwing. It is abundantly clear from the trailer that he harbors some kind of deep resentment towards Batman which, ostensibly, bleeds over into issues of self-identity as Robin "the boy wonder", embittered sidekick to the Caped Crusader.

The GotG cast is wasting their time, but it's a nice show of loyalty to Gunn.

Yes, I am aware of the villains who have survived. Honestly, it is hard to tell if you are agreeing with me or not with this observation since it does not refute what I said, yet is nevertheless presented as if in opposition to my point. As I recall there was a list compiled around here not long ago showing that a little over 50% of MCU villains are dead after having been in only one or two movies or tv seasons (usually only one). That's why I very specifically said "at least half" rather than "most" or "all".

Killing the villain off doesn't strike me as absolutely necessary to the "one and done" nature of a movie. It does, however, fit right in with the contemporary action movie motif of MCU films. In this sense they are more like Die Hard than they are like Star Wars (where, don't forget, Darth Vader got away in the end).

Secret identities are like capes and brightly colored costumes. They are stylizations that require proper support in the fictional universe they inhabit. The MCU does not provide that support for the most part, largely because it is trying to exhibit as much "plausible verisimilitude" as it can while also asking you to take a talking raccoon and a talking tree seriously.

I think the costumed superhero genre will fade away once Hollywood ceases to find fresh ways to tell those stories. I think Deadpool and Logan are good examples of how you can pull the genre in lots of different directions to keep it from getting too stale and losing cultural momentum. But I agree that as soon as creators get tired of making the effort, the public will get tired of the same old pabulum and will turn their backs on it, just as they did with Westerns. To my mind this has less to do with any inherent limitations in the (superhero) genre or the public's appetite for it, and more to do with Hollywood's limited ability to sustain innovative storytelling over a really long period, regardless of genre. As I said before, the real enemy is weak storytelling, not "oversaturation" of a genre.

This loss is more tragic. Orville's girl security chief was infinitely cuter than TNG's.