ASLUME (formerly Batman (DC Superheroes) 2024 - Rumors & Discussion)

[ARC2149Nova]

39 minutes ago, CloneCommando99 said:

Gunn cooked with the John Stewart casting.

Knowing nothing about this guy, I just watched a clip of him from Rebel Ridge and...

Yeah. I like this a lot.

[Renny The Spaceman]

2 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

A lot of folks seem to be all aboard the Gunn train because they enjoy his movies. The thing is, accuracy issues aside, Gunn is just incredibly one note. All of his superhero stuff has the same feel to it. I mostly dislike him making Star Lord an utter buffoon to the point where even the comics have made him such (a topic for another day), and turning the Guardians into nothing but a bunch of joke characters. People love it, though. I look at Suicide Squad and I see the same problem. Assault on Arkham and Hell to Pay are objectively better films, even though yes, animated-vs-live-action-yada-yada. They get the tone of the Squad right.

I agree that differences in adaptation don't necessarily mean a filmmaker disrespects the source material, but a Ra's al Ghul without the Lazarus Pit, Vulture and Mysterio being Iron Man's enemies/Spider-Man is basically Iron Lad are changes that do come across as just not "Getting it". Krypto's specific breed isn't the issue (he's an alien dog, after all), it's the size and stature of the breed chosen that does. Krypto is usually depicted as a Labrador for a reason. Story choices matter. Filmmaking choices matter. It's more than just "a dog". Making Krypto just any old dog takes away from what Krypto is and what he adds to Superman as a character. A strong guard dog, a fiercely loyal companion (emphasis on the fierce), and a superhero in his own right. Visually, it's important for Krypto to be a bigger breed.

I feel like you don't know what the word objectively means, the tone of the original Squad run as written by Ostrander is much better conveyed by the Gunn film than either of those animated ones. If you like the more modern new 52 versions of them I'm glad you have those but they are very different to the original themes and tone of the book.

Which reinforces my point of there's not a definitive way of writing the Suicide Squad, there are wrong ways to write a comic adaptation but you not liking one doesn't mean it's not a respecting the source material.

As for Krypton there's a reason I didn't use the examples you did. There is character in Wolverines height and Spider-Man's eye colour but there are wether they're good or bad filmmaking reasons why they change that for their original film versions. 

I know there are reasons he's a Labrador in the comics, there are reasons the Joker doesn't look as he does in the Dark knight in them too. New idea's can be conveyed by changing it that that are relevant to the core of the character. Maybe they won't do that then you can talk about how all the ways it was a detrimental change. It's still not disrespectful. Not getting it? Very well might be, that's a totally fair thing to say about every example you and me have said. But I never said you couldn't manage, have whatever opinions you want on Gunn but I'd appreciate if you're going to continue this conversation that you'd stop randomly assigning me beliefs you think Gunn fans because I only feel strongly about two of his film's, I mean I think he's a fine filmmaker but that's it. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hold every opinion that you see riders of the "Gunn train" do

[ARC2149Nova]

2 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

stop randomly assigning me beliefs you think Gunn fans because I only feel strongly about two of his film's, I mean I think he's a fine filmmaker but that's it. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hold every opinion that you see riders of the "Gunn train" do

I'm not assigning you views that you haven't expressed. I'm simply explaining my issues with Gunn and referencing arguments in his defense that I see often. When I say people on the Gunn train, I mean people on the Gunn train. I don't mean you personally. I worded it that way specifically so you'd realize I wasn't talking about you.

9 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

I feel like you don't know what the word objectively means, the tone of the original Squad run as written by Ostrander is much better conveyed by the Gunn film than either of those animated ones. If you like the more modern new 52 versions of them I'm glad you have those but they are very different to the original themes and tone of the book.

Which reinforces my point of there's not a definitive way of writing the Suicide Squad, there are wrong ways to write a comic adaptation but you not liking one doesn't mean it's not a respecting the source material.

As for Krypton there's a reason I didn't use the examples you did. There is character in Wolverines height and Spider-Man's eye colour but there are wether they're good or bad filmmaking reasons why they change that for their original film versions. 

If so, then I can concede to your point on the Suicide Squad specifically. It doesn't help Gunn's case, though, when Guardians has a very similar feel, and the Creature Commandos trailer invokes the same tone. Like I said, one note. I'm not saying it's easy to make different projects feel different, writers and directors tend to have a particular style they stick to, but I feel like Gunn's style doesn't lend itself to building a DC Cinematic Universe in the way most comic book fans are hoping for.

I know I haven't made it clear, but I don't mind having adaptational changes. What I do mind is when people (not you; in general) forget that these stories have roots, and tend to overlook the spirit of the original work in favor of some new guy's "creative vision".

Wolverine's height I get, but what about Spidey's blue eyes? Is it a plot point? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. It matters.  For example, Harry Potter. He has green eyes, his mother Lily had green eyes, it's a whole plot point about him having his mother's eyes. Unfortunately, Daniel Radcliffe was allergic to the contacts, so in the films Harry has blue eyes. A minor detail it may seem, but the memory of his mother Lily (triggered at the sight of Harry's eyes) is an important to understanding certain characters and their relationship (or lack thereof) with Harry. Now, that's an unavoidable case, nothing the filmmakers could do about that, but again, choices do matter.

23 minutes ago, Renny The Spaceman said:

I know there are reasons he's a Labrador in the comics, there are reasons the Joker doesn't look as he does in the Dark knight in them too.

Joker in TDK does have a classic look, though. The purple suit, green hair, and white makeup are the character. The style may be different, but the visual is not.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

If so, then I can concede to your point on the Suicide Squad specifically. It doesn't help Gunn's case, though, when Guardians has a very similar feel, and the Creature Commandos trailer invokes the same tone. Like I said, one note. I'm not saying it's easy to make different projects feel different, writers and directors tend to have a particular style they stick to, but I feel like Gunn's style doesn't lend itself to building a DC Cinematic Universe in the way most comic book fans are hoping for.

If by one-note you mean that he has a certain style of making movies, then yeah, I guess. Just like Nolan does, or Tarantino, or Leitch. And so on.

I don't get this point. Yes, the Guardians' movies are consequential in style and themes, obviously. But his Suicide Squad is fairly different. Both being comicbook movies about a morally-questionable group of misfits make for an easy easy to compare those.

Peacemaker also deals with completely different themes. There's also Slither, which further proves Gunn has much more range than you're giving him credit for.

4 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

A lot of folks seem to be all aboard the Gunn train because they enjoy his movies. The thing is, accuracy issues aside, Gunn is just incredibly one note. All of his superhero stuff has the same feel to it. I mostly dislike him making Star Lord an utter buffoon to the point where even the comics have made him such (a topic for another day), and turning the Guardians into nothing but a bunch of joke characters. People love it, though. I look at Suicide Squad and I see the same problem. Assault on Arkham and Hell to Pay are objectively better films, even though yes, animated-vs-live-action-yada-yada. They get the tone of the Squad right.

If you think Star-Lord is an utter buffoon you clearly need to pay more attention to the movies. Sure, he's silly and clumsy at times, but when lush comes to shove, he can instantly lock-in and become super-focused.

That's actually why he works so well as a character—he has a lot of issues which he buries under a thick layer of humour, so some people don't treat him seriously. But when someone he loves is in danger? This man will do anything to help them, he becomes focused and stops joking around until the goal is achieved. 

I also have no idea how you're interpreting Guardians as a bunch of joke characters. Rocket is an ironic megablock, but his character arc in GotG Vol. 3 is one of the most emotional things MCU has ever done. Groot is Groot, obviously, but he'll always be there for others to protect them. Drax is dumb, and I agree that after GotG until GotG Vol. 3 no one had any idea what to do with him, but he gets a pot of tender moments (especially in the last movie when he's the only one who understands kids). I'm not even gonna mention Gamora because you can't be serious.

Your worst crime? Using "objectively" when talking about movies. Ridiculous. Movies aren't mathematical calculations, they are a form of expression of human emotions. I can say that The Suicide Squad is objectively better than Hell to Pay. I've seen both, and I've enjoyed the former thoroughly more. Does that make it true? No—because it's subjective.

A movie can't be objectively better than another movie. If you could objectively calculate how well a movie is made, that means there'd be a formula for a well-made movie. Which means that all movies would be "objectively" good. Are they? No, and there's no such thing.

4 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

And this is why he shouldn't be making movies for established characters and universes. Make your own characters and sprinkle in your life, that's fine. But you're not Superman. A good writer knows how to separate themselves from their characters.

*local man discovers that screenwriters use their own experiences to write scrips*

You truly can't be serious. Have you seen the movie? Then do answer me, what part of his personality or personal life did he pour into Superman?

Edited October 17, 2024 by THELEGOBATMAN

[THELEGOBATMAN]

4 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

I agree that differences in adaptation don't necessarily mean a filmmaker disrespects the source material, but a Ra's al Ghul without the Lazarus Pit, Vulture and Mysterio being Iron Man's enemies/Spider-Man is basically Iron Lad are changes that do come across as just not "Getting it". Krypto's specific breed isn't the issue (he's an alien dog, after all), it's the size and stature of the breed chosen that does. Krypto is usually depicted as a Labrador for a reason. Story choices matter. Filmmaking choices matter. It's more than just "a dog". Making Krypto just any old dog takes away from what Krypto is and what he adds to Superman as a character. A strong guard dog, a fiercely loyal companion (emphasis on the fierce), and a superhero in his own right. Visually, it's important for Krypto to be a bigger breed.

Or, hear me out, not everything needs to be perfectly accurate. Who are you to say what kind of dog breed fits the story best? Why is it so important for Krypto to be bigger and less hairy?

Complaints like these sound so petty.

He literally has explained why he's made that choice and how Krypto fits into the story. If you think real-life inspirations (which is basically how nearly every screenwriter works) make scripts worse, then I really have no idea what else to say. 

[BrickBob Studpants]

I don’t get why Krypto‘s breed seems to matter so much. He has flippin superpowers, so he doesn‘t need to be a larger breed to convey that he means business

And of course Gunn gets inspired by his personal experiences. That‘s what pretty much all creatives do, not only screenwriters! Satoshi Tajiri collected bugs as a kid, which inspired him to (co-)create Pokémon, Chain Chomps are based on a childhood memory of Shigeru Miyamoto, Tolkien was influenced by his war experiences and so on. 

I don‘t trust Gunn blindly, but so far he has given us no reason to worry about the DCU

[Lego Nostalgia]

3 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

I don’t get why Krypto‘s breed seems to matter so much. He has flippin superpowers, so he doesn‘t need to be a larger breed to convey that he means business

And of course Gunn gets inspired by his personal experiences. That‘s what pretty much all creatives do, not only screenwriters! Satoshi Tajiri collected bugs as a kid, which inspired him to (co-)create Pokémon, Chain Chomps are based on a childhood memory of Shigeru Miyamoto, Tolkien was influenced by his war experiences and so on. 

I don‘t trust Gunn blindly, but so far he has given us no reason to worry about the DCU

I'm worried about the tone more than anything else, With Superman I don't mind light hearted as long as it's not over the top and there's some serious tone to it, I am very worried on how they do Batman, He needs to be serious but there can be lighthearted moments between him and the Bat-Family and some of the JL members, Anyway as much as I love GOTG I hope Superman won't be like that

Also he seems to be only doing Projects he wants and not the fans, besides Superman,Lanterns,Batman,Titans,Supergirl and that Bane and Deathstroke movie, he's just wanting to do less known,weird and goofy characters instead of focusing on the main heroes first beside Superman and Batman, The first slate should have been Superman,Batman,Wonder Woman,Flash,Green Lantern and Justice League

He also likes to cast everyone he's worked with or his friends and family, there's obviously something going on there

There's a big chance that if this movie fails then the snyderverse will come back, either being sold to universal or WB doing it themselves, lots of rumors and Zack is with WB again, Snydervese had some potential, Henry,Ben and Gal were AMAZING as the DC Trinity and it's a shame we never got JL 2 or 3, I loved the Knightmare story, Shame we never got MOS 2 or Ben Affleck's Batman with Deathstroke, Instead we got the Hamada goofy era, Shazam 2,Blue Beetle,Black Adam,Birds of Prey, The Suicide Squad,The Flash, Joss Whedons Justice League. Suicide Squad 2016 was horrible and the Ayer Cut was better I'd say, the tone was changed and there was a lot more scenes and stuff cut from it

I hope the Ayer cut releases, I know I'm going to get clowned on for my opinion which I shouldn't have to be but that's the way it is, MOS,BVS and ZSJL were not bad movies

It's all to do with money at the end of the day, One thing I love about DC currently is the Reeves Verse with Pattinson's Batman, that's amazing and worth keeping, The Penguin is amazing

Edited October 17, 2024 by Lego Nostalgia

[BrickBob Studpants]

9 minutes ago, Lego Nostalgia said:

He also likes to cast everyone he's worked with or his friends and family, there's obviously something going on there

As do a lot of directors. Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese, Burton, just to name a few, all of them like to work with the same actors. Nolan often collabs with his brother as well and I never see complaints about that

[Lego Nostalgia]

3 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

As do a lot of directors. Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese, Burton, just to name a few, all of them like to work with the same actors. Nolan often collabs with his brother as well and I never see complaints about that

Yeah but at least they work with people who aren't they're friends, Gunn only kept characters from his projects from the DCEU (Peacemaker) and booted everybody else, Henry and Ben got treated badly

Imagine casting your Brother in everything and I mean everything, why not get other Actors to get a chance 

Maxwell Lord,Weasel,Calender Man, all played by him 

Edited October 17, 2024 by Lego Nostalgia

[Coryo]

Since we're on director talk, I'm genuinely surprised that Andy Muschietti was chosen for the Batman and Robin movie. I found most of the creative decisions in the Flash movie to be completely off-putting in regards to aesthetics, tone, and I guess the general sensibilities of the whole thing.

Never let bro cook again

[ARC2149Nova]

10 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

Or, hear me out, not everything needs to be perfectly accurate. Who are you to say what kind of dog breed fits the story best? Why is it so important for Krypto to be bigger and less hairy?

Complaints like these sound so petty.

He literally has explained why he's made that choice and how Krypto fits into the story. If you think real-life inspirations (which is basically how nearly every screenwriter works) make scripts worse, then I really have no idea what else to say. 

If Krypto is inspired by his own dog instead of the comics character, then that is a problem when you're writing an adaptation of source material. Krypto should be based on the comics dog, not your own personal dog.

Simple concept in all honesty.

Also, this all started because I just said I thought it was a bad choice. Period. All this extra guff is because "how dare you care about Krypto's breed?" "it doesn't matter" "you don't get how movies work" "Gunn is an excellent writer, he cares more than Snyder".

Jesus, people. Not everyone likes Gunn's story decisions and writing style. Full stop. I will never understand why personal complaints are treated with such hostility. You like it, fine. I don't, and I've explained why. I'm not going to keep explaining myself.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Lego news.

10 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

I also have no idea how you're interpreting Guardians as a bunch of joke characters. Rocket is an ironic megablock, but his character arc in GotG Vol. 3 is one of the most emotional things MCU has ever done. Groot is Groot, obviously, but he'll always be there for others to protect them. Drax is dumb, and I agree that after GotG until GotG Vol. 3 no one had any idea what to do with him, but he gets a pot of tender moments (especially in the last movie when he's the only one who understands kids). I'm not even gonna mention Gamora because you can't be serious.

A movie can't be objectively better than another movie.

As a group, the GOTG are not easy to take seriously. Yes, they do have their moments, but overall, it's a group of jokey misfits. Alternatively, they are try-hards. My first introduction to the Guardians was in Earth's Mightiest Heroes, one of the most comics accurate shows to date. I was excited to see those Guardians on screen. We never did, and so, yeah, I'm salty about that. I can admit it. Some people may like what Gunn did, I do not. It's allowed.

And yes, they actually can be objectively better. Story decisions aside, movies can objectively be shot better, framed better, paced better, scored better, etc. The details and how they're applied is what separates good films from bad ones. People can still enjoy the bad ones more than the good ones, but the enjoyment is what's subjective, not the film's quality.

11 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

*local man discovers that screenwriters use their own experiences to write scrips*

You truly can't be serious. Have you seen the movie? Then do answer me, what part of his personality or personal life did he pour into Superman?

*Don't debate if you're gonna insult someone's intelligence. Who are you?*

No, I have not seen the film, obviously. But like you just noted, Krypto is based on Gunn's dog, and not the comics character.

Since many of you aren't getting my point, I'll state it in the easiest way possible: If you're expecting the "perfect" comic book film (whatever the hell that means) from James Gunn, you are not getting it. Gunn will do his own thing. Just like Snyder. You may like it more, but it's still just Gunn's take on things. As my friend quoted above states so eloquently, that part is subjective.

These are my final thoughts on the subject. Thank you for attending my TED talk.

[CloneCommando99]

6 hours ago, Lego Nostalgia said:

He also likes to cast everyone he's worked with or his friends and family, there's obviously something going on there

So did: Ryan Reynolds, George Lucas, Tobey Maguire, Tom Hanks, Angelina Jolie, Bill Murray, Sean Austin, Will Ferrell, Will Smith, Richard Curtis, Stephen Spielberg….

 

I’m sorry to break it to you,
But, the Snyderverse is gone. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. It’s really just a vocal minority that want it back. 

Do enough casual film goers even care whether Snyder comes back? No.

Edited October 18, 2024 by CloneCommando99

[THELEGOBATMAN]

56 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

If Krypto is inspired by his own dog instead of the comics character, then that is a problem when you're writing an adaptation of source material. Krypto should be based on the comics dog, not your own personal dog.

I don't get how it's a problem. It really isn't.

It's not like he completely made a new character and based them on his own life. He still uses the comicbook Krypto. But just like every writer on this planet, he made a creative choice to fit an adapted character into his movie. I really don't see why you think it's a bad thing.

Also, you're still completely ignoring his reasoning, acting like he makes choices like these for their own sake without any justification.

59 minutes ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Also, this all started because I just said I thought it was a bad choice. Period. All this extra guff is because "how dare you care about Krypto's breed?" "it doesn't matter" "you don't get how movies work" "Gunn is an excellent writer, he cares more than Snyder".

Jesus, people. Not everyone likes Gunn's story decisions and writing style. Full stop. I will never understand why personal complaints are treated with such hostility. You like it, fine. I don't, and I've explained why. I'm not going to keep explaining myself.

No one's treating you with hostility. We're here to discuss things, it's not a personal attack on your views and ideals.

It seems that most people don't get your POV at all, so we're trying to understand and explain why it's the opposite for others. No one says that you have to like Gunn's story decisions, but it seems like you're a single man trying to convince everyone here that Gunn's movie is not going to be good (or at least as good as most people think).

I don't get this attitude. If you want to use "objectivity" (no such thing in experiencing art), all his projects have been "objectively" well-received and the bast majority of people love them—whether it's Guardians, Suicide Squad, or Peacemaker.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

And yes, they actually can be objectively better. Story decisions aside, movies can objectively be shot better, framed better, paced better, scored better, etc. The details and how they're applied is what separates good films from bad ones. People can still enjoy the bad ones more than the good ones, but the enjoyment is what's subjective, not the film's quality.

No, there can't. Who's even the indicator of objectivity? How is one movie framed better than the other? It's a personal prefernce and an artistic choice. You can't just say "Killers of the Flower Moon is shot better than Aftersun." (I mean you can, but it doesn't make it objectively true.) They are two completely different movies shot and framed with different intentions. Their styles will resonate with different viewers, but it's a personal preference.

Pacing is a personal thing—some movies will flow flawlessly for one person, but be uneven for another. There's no such thing as a "recipe for good pacing"—otherwise all movies would be perfectly paced. (But surprise, they aren't.)

Now you lost me completely at scored. Music is quite possibly the most individual, open-to-interpretation form of art there is. A movie can't be scored better than another movie. How would you even measure it? So you're saying that "Oppenheimer" is the best-scored movie of 2023 because it won an Oscar, right? That's what objectivity means. If not, who would be the judge of that? Because for one, I can name you at least five movies which I think have a better score than Oppenheimer—but it's a subjective opinion.

The only way you can even try "objectively" judging a movie is according to a certain film school—how a script is supposed to be structured, the exact way a movie is "supposed to" be shot etc. But the thing is, one film school is not equal to the other. You can't just classify all movie by a single measure, it's impossible.

If you could quantify a movie's quality, that literally means we'd only be getting good movies—since no one actively wants to make bad movies, they'd just use the objective measure to make a good one. How simple!—only it isn't.

1 hour ago, ARC2149Nova said:

*Don't debate if you're gonna insult someone's intelligence. Who are you?*

No, I have not seen the film, obviously. But like you just noted, Krypto is based on Gunn's dog, and not the comics character.

Since many of you aren't getting my point, I'll state it in the easiest way possible: If you're expecting the "perfect" comic book film (whatever the hell that means) from James Gunn, you are not getting it. Gunn will do his own thing. Just like Snyder. You may like it more, but it's still just Gunn's take on things. As my friend quoted above states so eloquently, that part is subjective.

It was a joke, and no one's insulting your intelligence. Don't take debates like this personally, they're not an attack. 

No, Krypto is based on Krypto, the comicbook character. Just because he's influenced by Gunn's experiences doesn't make the interpretation any less valid. Do you think Krypto always acts in the same way in every comic he's been in? No, because every writer takes a slightly different approach, using their own experiences and knowledge to write a good story.

And honestly, please stop with this "I'm gonna convince you that the movie's not gonna be as good as you think it is" attitude. No one even mentioned a perfect comicbook film, and even if they did, it's a personal measure. You're not one to say what's perfect for a single person—no one is. Maybe I will consider it a "perfect" comicbook film—and that'd that. It's a subjective opinion, and no one will try to convince to love it as much as one does. 

"Gunn will do his own thing. Just like Snyder. You may like it more, but it's still just Gunn's take on things."

Yes, that's actually what every single director on Earth does. That's all that directing is actually about. Nolan's Batman movies are widely considered to be the best DC movies there are—but they're exactly that—"just Nolan's take on things." Same for Burton, Schumacher, Jenkins, Ayer, Wan, and so on. That's what directors are for.

Ones will resonate more with some people, others with some other people. That's all there is to it.

[RiddlerDC]

About that dog. There is this animation movie from 2022.

Spoiler

 

 

[Lego Nostalgia]

28 minutes ago, RiddlerDC said:

About that dog. There is this animation movie from 2022.

  Hide contents

 

 

You wouldn't be Turtle's alt account by any chance would you ?

[BrickBob Studpants]

20 minutes ago, Lego Nostalgia said:

You wouldn't be Turtle's alt account by any chance would you ?

It‘s funny how that was my very first thought as well  We‘re so paranoid that every new member who ever-so-slightly sounds like him gets suspected! But there was no comment about how stupid a laser dog that flies like a bee is, so it‘s either not him or he has more restraint than I expected

[Agent Kallus]

9 hours ago, Lego Nostalgia said:

I know I'm going to get clowned on for my opinion which I shouldn't have to be but that's the way it is, MOS,BVS and ZSJL were not bad movies.

There's a big chance that if this movie fails then the snyderverse will come back, either being sold to universal or WB doing it themselves, lots of rumors

I wouldn't call it clowning, more like jokering on dare I say Jonklering.

But in all seriousness, I do agree with @THELEGOBATMAN on objectivity, so I won't say they are bad movies ( but I think my previous posts on the subject of Synder make my true opinion of his films more than clear). However they certainly weren't well received by Joe public, I know you didn't like the star wars sequels ( and fair enough I think they're okay but not great except for episode 9 which is truly quite bad) but I think it's quite likely that the SW sequels have more fans than the sybder DC films and they've definitely sold more Lego sets.

As for rumours, WB have made a lot of bad decisions with DC lately and if they are truly planning that then it would be another. I do expect the Gunn superman movie to do well, even if it performs mediocre I imagine it'd still do better than the Synder stuff. A resurrection of the synderverse is a near zero likelihood and if does happen I imagine it'd be as an elseworlds animated feature.

In the Lego fandom we should know the value of unproven rumours *cough* tower of fate * cough* batman beyond and nurse joker figures *cough* that superman torso print from  a few weeks ago. *Coughing continues until I sound like Grevious* 

[RiddlerDC]

So what is wrong with turtles?

We saw BTAS sets so why not DC Super Pets sets. That dog might be as important for DC than the Superman itself.

[ARC2149Nova]

2 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

No, there can't. Who's even the indicator of objectivity? How is one movie framed better than the other? It's a personal prefernce and an artistic choice. You can't just say "Killers of the Flower Moon is shot better than Aftersun." (I mean you can, but it doesn't make it objectively true.) They are two completely different movies shot and framed with different intentions. Their styles will resonate with different viewers, but it's a personal preference.

Pacing is a personal thing—some movies will flow flawlessly for one person, but be uneven for another. There's no such thing as a "recipe for good pacing"—otherwise all movies would be perfectly paced. (But surprise, they aren't.)

Now you lost me completely at scored. Music is quite possibly the most individual, open-to-interpretation form of art there is. A movie can't be scored better than another movie. How would you even measure it? So you're saying that "Oppenheimer" is the best-scored movie of 2023 because it won an Oscar, right? That's what objectivity means. If not, who would be the judge of that? Because for one, I can name you at least five movies which I think have a better score than Oppenheimer—but it's a subjective opinion.

The only way you can even try "objectively" judging a movie is according to a certain film school—how a script is supposed to be structured, the exact way a movie is "supposed to" be shot etc. But the thing is, one film school is not equal to the other. You can't just classify all movie by a single measure, it's impossible.

If you could quantify a movie's quality, that literally means we'd only be getting good movies—since no one actively wants to make bad movies, they'd just use the objective measure to make a good one. How simple!—only it isn't.

Do the details match the film? As in, does the music fit the scene to which it's attached? That's an objectively right or wrong decision. Something about the song chosen has to be relatable to what's on screen. Movies are paced differently to achieve different affects, that is true. What works for one will not work for another. If a movie is poorly paced for the content of the story, then it is an objectively bad decision. I mean, how do you think film criticism works? If nothing matters and everything is subjective, tell me why people pay money to take film making and screenwriting classes, why critics are paid to analyze and review movies, why bad films exist? Liking it may be subjective, good or bad can be objective.

People want to make good movies, but not everyone can make a good movie. By your own admission, there are good movies and bad movies, meaning that yes, quality can be quantified.

2 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

And honestly, please stop with this "I'm gonna convince you that the movie's not gonna be as good as you think it is" attitude.

Stop defending Gunn where he needs no defense. Two can play this game. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I'm saying people need to slow down on the Gunn praise until the film actually drops.

When it drops, if it's great and awesome and everyone loves it and it makes all the money, then we can say whether or not Gunn is good for the DCU. As I see it, he isn't. He's no better than Snyder, no better than a Kevin Fiege or Christopher Nolan, etc. People think Gunn will usher in a new Golden Age for DC. Hype means nothing if the product is a wash.

So, I say again, for the absolute last time: pump the brakes on the James Gunn hype. Every little thing he does is met with oohs and ahhs, give the product a chance to actually drop. We've seen this too many times before to get sucked in again. People seem to forget that the DCEU was extremely hyped, then it dropped and everyone thought it sucked. Not saying history will repeat itself, I'm saying let's just wait and see.

3 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

I’m sorry to break it to you,
But, the Snyderverse is gone. Let the past die, kill it if you have to. It’s really just a vocal minority that want it back. 

Do enough casual film goers even care whether Snyder comes back? No.

After the Snyder Cut Justice League, I don't think there'd be any point in continuing his universe. It's a mess of continuity. I don't think anyone wants him to come back.

18 minutes ago, RiddlerDC said:

So what is wrong with turtles?

It was a whole thing with this guy from Finland, a long story...

You wouldn't happen to be from Finland, would you? 

19 minutes ago, RiddlerDC said:

We saw BTAS sets so why not DC Super Pets sets. That dog might be as important for DC than the Superman itself.

Because Lego hates DC in general. It's why Superman is our only hope at a proper revival.

[Max_Lego]

10 hours ago, Lego Nostalgia said:

I know I'm going to get clowned on for my opinion which I shouldn't have to be but that's the way it is, MOS,BVS and ZSJL were not bad movies

Remember all those times I claimed the Star Wars Prequels are bad? I didn't make my point correctly then: the Prequels are VERY good movies!.. Seriously, they ARE very good. ROTS is a magnificent movie in particular.

...That is, until you remember that they are supposed to be prequels to the OT. And they automatically start being horrible SW movies, while still being very good on their own (it's just my own unpopular opinion; as far as I know, I am the only person in the entire multiverse who cannot stand all those times the Prequels blatantly contradicted the Originals)

Zack Snyder's movies may actually be nice movies... But many DC fans hate them for whatever reason. I personally don't like how characters act there and the decisions they make - for me, that makes little sense in context.

20 minutes ago, RiddlerDC said:

We saw BTAS sets so why not DC Super Pets sets. That dog might be as important for DC than the Superman itself.

BTAS is a cult classic but got only two sets as of now. I don't think DC Super Pets doesn't deserve tie-in sets, but it's very unlikely. The dog appeared in the 76096 set, and three DC Super hero girls sets had a puppy version 

[RiddlerDC]

Just now, Max_Lego said:

BTAS is a cult classic but got only two sets as of now. I don't think DC Super Pets doesn't deserve tie-in sets, but it's very unlikely. The dog appeared in the 76096 set, and three DC Super hero girls sets had a puppy version 

LEGO is mainly for children to play. Even the just revealed X-Men: The X-Mansion is for play (not display). TLG doesn't need to make marketing plans with DC League of Super-Pets. Dog and Dogs is not new in DC. I own both of the previous dogs. Perfect figures.

[Max_Lego]

2 minutes ago, RiddlerDC said:

LEGO is mainly for children to play. Even the just revealed X-Men: The X-Mansion is for play (not display). TLG doesn't need to make marketing plans with DC League of Super-Pets. Dog and Dogs is not new in DC. I own both of the previous dogs. Perfect figures.

Well, I don't think Lego hates DC, but DC performed poorly recently, so Marvel has much more advantages when given tie-in sets. Why didn't we get any Batwheels sets, for example? Why didn't we get more Beware the Batman sets back in 2014? Lego doesn't hate DC, but doesn't like it either 

[BrickBob Studpants]

Film criticism is a very broad topic. While certain technical aspects of filmmaking can be quantified, like composition, plot structure, and framing, others are subjective. Whether a story has any holes or underdevelopped threads is objective, whether it‘s good is subjective. A story free of inconsistencies may be boring while one full of plotholes may be far more entertaining and meaningful.

I feel some „critics“ on YT have really changed film criticism for the worse (looking at you, Cinema Sins).

Quality may be measurable, depending on what quality means in this context. Movies can‘t be assessed via checklists

[Renny The Spaceman]

17 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Joker in TDK does have a classic look, though. The purple suit, green hair, and white makeup are the character. The style may be different, but the visual is not.

Come on man, white dog, red cape is the same basic look, the stylisation of both make them look scraggly being less refined and elegant looking than the classic. We know that it works in the context of TDK and you could absolutely make it work in the context of Krypto being a stray Superman adopts who's the only refugee from his world other than him he's ever met, maybe Gunn doesn't take that angle but you can't know without seeing the movie, that fits very well with the press release that came with the image and the themes Gunn usually plays with.

 

17 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Wolverine's height I get, but what about Spidey's blue eyes? Is it a plot point? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious. It matters.  For example, Harry Potter. He has green eyes, his mother Lily had green eyes, it's a whole plot point about him having his mother's eyes. Unfortunately, Daniel Radcliffe was allergic to the contacts, so in the films Harry has blue eyes. A minor detail it may seem, but the memory of his mother Lily (triggered at the sight of Harry's eyes) is an important to understanding certain characters and their relationship (or lack thereof) with Harry. Now, that's an unavoidable case, nothing the filmmakers could do about that, but again, choices do matter.

Not a plot detail, like Krypto's breed isn't but it informs characterisation, in media blue eyes are usually used to show ethereal beauty, celebrities, Prince Charmings, Elves and most relevant a lot of Superheroes. Peter's not ugly in the comics but he's a normal guy compared to the traditional hero look of the time which is blue eyes and blond hair, which isnwhy Spiderverse chooses to make their perfect Peter have blond hair and blue eyes. In the first Spider-Man Raimi changes that and instead creates a moment where MJ realises Peter has blue eyes right after Peter "saves" her for the first time to show that despite being a dorky shut in he has classic heroic traits.

Or maybe the curtains were just blue

17 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

If so, then I can concede to your point on the Suicide Squad specifically. It doesn't help Gunn's case, though, when Guardians has a very similar feel, and the Creature Commandos trailer invokes the same tone. Like I said, one note. I'm not saying it's easy to make different projects feel different, writers and directors tend to have a particular style they stick to, but I feel like Gunn's style doesn't lend itself to building a DC Cinematic Universe in the way most comic book fans are hoping for.

Yeah, the squad is very much leaning into the absurdity of the characters and world under Ostrander, there's heart, there's the same themes about mental health and people considered disposable by society but also there's a running gag where someone is secretly throwing pies in the faces of the cast without being caught.

I do not think there is a more Gunn moment in comics than Dr Light's death in the Apokilipse arc and that's including all the brand synergy Peacemaker and Guardians comics made with the express purpose of aping his style.

He was a perfect choice for an adaptation of the original tone of the Squad.

I agree though, regardless of their quality, Guardians and Creature Commandos from what it seems are very similar to that. Maybe he'll just retrofit Superman to fit his style, I sure hope not. We can't know until the film comes out but I think the fact he turned down doing a Superman film so many times and only did when he lost his father and had an angle with him gives me hope that regardless of if it's good it'll be something new.

5 hours ago, CloneCommando99 said:

So did: Ryan Reynolds, George Lucas, Tobey Maguire, Tom Hanks, Angelina Jolie, Bill Murray, Sean Austin, Will Ferrell, Will Smith, Richard Curtis, Stephen Spielberg….

Yeah, this is a weird thing people focus on, nearly every director does this because any creatives will find certain people work with them well and thus they'll keep hiring them

I do wonder if he's going to keep putting Michael Rookery as generic henchmen to reinforce his running gag of killing him off in every film he does 

4 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

No, there can't. Who's even the indicator of objectivity? How is one movie framed better than the other? It's a personal prefernce and an artistic choice. You can't just say "Killers of the Flower Moon is shot better than Aftersun." (I mean you can, but it doesn't make it objectively true.) They are two completely different movies shot and framed with different intentions. Their styles will resonate with different viewers, but it's a personal preference.

Pacing is a personal thing—some movies will flow flawlessly for one person, but be uneven for another. There's no such thing as a "recipe for good pacing"—otherwise all movies would be perfectly paced. (But surprise, they aren't.)

Now you lost me completely at scored. Music is quite possibly the most individual, open-to-interpretation form of art there is. A movie can't be scored better than another movie. How would you even measure it? So you're saying that "Oppenheimer" is the best-scored movie of 2023 because it won an Oscar, right? That's what objectivity means. If not, who would be the judge of that? Because for one, I can name you at least five movies which I think have a better score than Oppenheimer—but it's a subjective opinion.

The only way you can even try "objectively" judging a movie is according to a certain film school—how a script is supposed to be structured, the exact way a movie is "supposed to" be shot etc. But the thing is, one film school is not equal to the other. You can't just classify all movie by a single measure, it's impossible.

If you could quantify a movie's quality, that literally means we'd only be getting good movies—since no one actively wants to make bad movies, they'd just use the objective measure to make a good one. How simple!—only it isn't.

It was a joke, and no one's insulting your intelligence. Don't take debates like this personally, they're not an attack. 

No, Krypto is based on Krypto, the comicbook character. Just because he's influenced by Gunn's experiences doesn't make the interpretation any less valid. Do you think Krypto always acts in the same way in every comic he's been in? No, because every writer takes a slightly different approach, using their own experiences and knowledge to write a good story.

And honestly, please stop with this "I'm gonna convince you that the movie's not gonna be as good as you think it is" attitude. No one even mentioned a perfect comicbook film, and even if they did, it's a personal measure. You're not one to say what's perfect for a single person—no one is. Maybe I will consider it a "perfect" comicbook film—and that'd that. It's a subjective opinion, and no one will try to convince to love it as much as one does. 

"Gunn will do his own thing. Just like Snyder. You may like it more, but it's still just Gunn's take on things."

Yes, that's actually what every single director on Earth does. That's all that directing is actually about. Nolan's Batman movies are widely considered to be the best DC movies there are—but they're exactly that—"just Nolan's take on things." Same for Burton, Schumacher, Jenkins, Ayer, Wan, and so on. That's what directors are for.

Ones will resonate more with some people, others with some other people. That's all there is to it.

Yeah, I think the internet has flattened a lot of how we talk about movies. All of these filmmaking traits don't have A right way to do them, there a certainly wrong ways but if we take pacing for example look at Lord of the Rings, people who prefer the theatrical versions mainly say it's because it strengthens the pacing, making these films go quicker from beat to beat strengthens it's pace for some but for others the extended versions are better paced as it more accurately reflects the scale of the events of the movie