Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LifeDistortion
Well, to tell someone that they shouldn't let the critics deter someone from seeing a movie, that's what critic's support of a movie or dislike of a film is there for. Sure, we're welcomed to ignore criticism but the negative reviews of this movie were damn near universal. The problem is that DC movies of late have not been great, and they seem to really want to reach the heights of Marvel, putting out two movies or a year from their properties, but they have yet to make a solid movie post-Nolan's Batman trilogy. There were a lot of people who after Batman V. Superman were really hoping Suicide Squad would set the course right, and it didn't. To put out two bad movies in a row is not looking good for the near future. Fans want to be psyched for Wonder Woman, and Justice League, but DC have yet to prove they can pull off a solid good movie from beginning to end.
|
There's a good column in all this somewhere. I think the main thing DC/WV fails to grasp is that the reason Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy was so amazing is because they recruited a
director... Like, a serious filmmaker. They did not hire a "comic book director" like Zach Snyder, Kevin Smith or, bless his heart Joss Wheadon.
Batman Begins came with pretty low stakes. It was not an attempt to cash in on a trend or start a booming franchise. It had been a decades since the world's most popular super hero had been on screen, and the last film was so disastrous that there was really nothing to lose. So they went a little "arty" with it, and hired an indie director with an eye like Kubrick, and a penchant for epic scenes to rival that of Ridley Scott. Both parties benefitted. Nolan became a household name and got a big budget to make the Prestige, Inception, and Interstellar, and Batman got a surprisingly good kick in the pants.
Then they pulled out the stops and made a sequel that was recently voted favorite movie of all time by Twitter users.
They hired great actors, not just big names, but big names with balls.
Heath Ledger's Joker was not the result of method acting bizarro bullshit, or an actor succumbing to the madness of his character. It was an instance of an actor actually making a character better, not through schtick, but through excellent acting. Heath had COMPLETE control in that film. Control over himself playing the part, and control over everyone's Eyez as they watched him.
Somehow that has really fucked shit up for everyone to come after, though. Applying "method acting" techniques to the Joker is not what made that film a success. Going "extreme" was not what made it a success. Any of them. They were all just good movies with good, often excellent acting, and a brilliant vibe. They were actually pretty terrible as comic boom adaptations in the Avengers sense of the word.
They need to stop trying to replicate TDK, stop trying to build a shared universe, and just focus on making ONE good, solid film.
For what it's worth, I still think Man of Steel was a good, solid film. But even the audiences are spoiled by TDK at this point.