[champ]

Which year you guys looking forward to most?

2016 for me...

March 2016 – Batman v Superman (DC)
May 2016 – Captain America (3): Civil War (Marvel)
May 2016 – X-Men: Apocalypse (Fox)
August 2016 – Suicide Squad (DC)
November 2016 – Dr. Strange (Marvel)
November 2016 – The Sinister Six (Sony)

edit

Also Deadpool is scheduled for 2016...

http://assets2.ignim...2jpg-8e9ac9.jpg

This post has been edited by champ: 31 October 2014 - 12:07 PM

[Cause]

Ka Ching!

[Macros]

I wonder if its going to be Jake Gylenhal or Vincent Chase playing aquaman

[champ]

Macros, on 02 November 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

I wonder if its going to be Jake Gylenhal or Vincent Chase playing aquaman

It's going to be Jason Momoa aka Khal Drogo!

[amphibian]

champ, on 31 October 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Which year you guys looking forward to most?

2017, because that is the year that we get Wonder Woman and Black Panther - also known as the tests of how committed Marvel/Disney are to doing anything other than making lots of money off the same audience with easy pickings over and over again.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 02 November 2014 - 11:47 PM, said:

champ, on 31 October 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Which year you guys looking forward to most?

2017, because that is the year that we get Wonder Woman and Black Panther - also known as the tests of how committed Marvel/Disney are to doing anything other than making lots of money off the same audience with easy pickings over and over again.

I think GotG did that. That movie was a risk and a half.

[amphibian]

Not really. It's still a white guy with muscles going around doing stuff that's easy to like (carefully chosen retro rock, having space adventures that are quite like Indiana Jones, motley teammates that aren't difficult to like etc).

Black Panther in particular will challenge the audience by being predominantly black, exploring mistreatment/racis , the separateness of Wakanda and challenges the presentation of whites as the rescuers and most powerful.

Wonder Woman is also a female lead who may have a storyline that directly challenges male superiority.

Is the audience going to buy in or turn away? To what degree ? Will new segments buy in? How big can the budgets pragmatically be? How much less $ are they going to make than something like Ant Man or Flash?

This post has been edited by amphibian: 03 November 2014 - 12:15 PM

[Cause]

amphibian, on 03 November 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Not really. It's still a white guy with muscles going around doing stuff that's easy to like (carefully chosen retro rock, having space adventures that are quite like Indiana Jones, motley teammates that aren't difficult to like etc).

Black Panther in particular will challenge the audience by being predominantly black, exploring mistreatment/racis , the separateness of Wakanda and challenges the presentation of whites as the rescuers and most powerful.

Wonder Woman is also a female lead who may have a storyline that directly challenges male superiority.

Is the audience going to buy in or turn away? To what degree ? Will new segments buy in? How big can the budgets pragmatically be? How much less $ are they going to make than something like Ant Man or Flash?

My only familiarity with black panther is from the Avengers cartoon. I liked the character for the most part, dropping him for Falcon in the new series because in the end there can be only one (Black person not immortal) was a bit painful to see. Worse though is I hate how they portray black panther in the show. Wakanda is one of the richest, and most successful nations in the world. Their military involves tanks and men in loin clothes armed with high tech spears! Seriously! In one episdoe Black panther is challeneged for rulership of Wakanda in a martial contest! Seriously? Listen I understand that not every nation on earth when it becomes first world has to become america but do we really believe this is how Africans would choose to fight/live. Hey its actually not a hypothetical, we can look at Africa today.

The Scottish still wear kilts today but they dont wield claymores and their houses are not cottages with straw roofs any more. For every instance black panther says hey black people are people too it also drops one ridiculous stereotype to ruin it. Still I would argue that any character which has being black a core element of his character is doomed to fail. Captain America is not a white super hero, he is a super hero who happens to be white. Black Panther is the opposite. The character of Falcon I would say is much better in this regard. The very fact that black panther is special because he is black implies that his situation is unique, it does more harm than good. By having to shout so loudly that not only white people can be strong and be the rescuer it kinda implies the exact opposite.

This post has been edited by Cause: 03 November 2014 - 01:02 PM

[amphibian]

No, the pushing of the storyline that Wakanda is Strong/Black Panther is Strong doesn't imply the opposite. You have it exactly right when you say by implication and directly that Africa is a large continent full of different peoples and ways of life. Americans often forget this, with ebola and the dumbass feeding frenzy over it being a great example.

Black Panther, when written right serves as both a kick ass hero and an example that black people are more than just bit players in the white heroes' dramas. T'challa is complex, skilled and angry about things in a way that is somehow appealing yet confrontational.

There are few representations of blacks in pop culture that are complex and powerful like white cultural figures are.IIn the media, minorities are treated with different language for the same crimes or same achievements. In real life, blacks are 21x more likely to die when dealing with police despite whites being more heavily armed and dangerous. There's all kinds of crazy things going on and it is a legacy of the slavery culture that blends into public perception of black people as dangerous and uneducated monsters that have to be dealt with violently.

I don't think Disney is going to tackle this head on, but since the character is so heavily rooted in the dynamic, I think we will see something interesting. Maybe it won't be successful, but I hope they have the guts to try.

[QuickTidal]

Regardless of its stars races...GotG was a HUGE risk. It has a anthropomorphic foul-mouthed, talking racoon riding a giant walking sentient tree...in space. It was a risk. That could have been a massive dud in someone elses hands.

As to Black Panther, I'm excited to see his film. He's a really interesting and deep character, and as you say DOES challenge a lot of hero views.

As for a prominent black superhero, this is why I hope we see the Green Lantern in the Justice League films is John Stewart. He's a REALLY strong, yet WELL-KNOWN black superhero. Well known enough that people who didn't know the lore behind GL thought that Ryan Reynolds GL (Hal Jordan) being white was a whitewash. They were incorrect, of course, but it shows how much John Stewart's GL permeates pop culture. In my head the BEST way forward for a GL in the JL movies and a new standalone one...is to cast for Stewart.

Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel will face off as the female-lead superhero movies...and it sounds like Captain Marvel will beat DC to the punch...but that may benefit DC and a WW production who can see what works and what doesn't.

So yeah, both of those/all of those films will be a big deal (and that's why PANTHER and CAP MARVEL) are the two on the Disney/Marvel slate that mean the most to me.

[polishgenius]

Lots of people have said that GotG was a risk but I don't really see it as any more of one than anything that's new to audiences, and a lot less than a totally original IP. It's essentially the same setup as Star Wars. Audiences love a good space opera.

The first Iron Man and Thor films were way bigger risks.

[amphibian]

Why would Captain Marvel beat Wonder Woman to the theaters? Wonder Woman is slated for 2017 and Captain Marvel for 2018 as per the schedules laid out above.

[Abyss]

amphibian, on 03 November 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

Why would Captain Marvel beat Wonder Woman to the theaters? Wonder Woman is slated for 2017 and Captain Marvel for 2018 as per the schedules laid out above.

Because DC.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 03 November 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

Why would Captain Marvel beat Wonder Woman to the theaters? Wonder Woman is slated for 2017 and Captain Marvel for 2018 as per the schedules laid out above.

Sorry, I had them swapped around.

It will be WW that could inform CAP MARVEL as to what works and what doesn't. Apologies. It's early.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 03 November 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Regardless of its stars races...GotG was a HUGE risk. It has a anthropomorphic foul-mouthed, talking racoon riding a giant walking sentient tree...in space. It was a risk. That could have been a massive dud in someone elses hands.

I finally figured out what bugged me about this. GotG wasn't about the raccoon or Groot. It was about Star Lord/Chris Pratt (the third white Chris superhero for Marvel alongside Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth) and a spirit of goofy space battles.

The raccoon and Groot were essentially reduced to Chewie or C3PO and R2D2 in the Star Wars movies. They were played for laughs or the big magical moment - not to be the carrier of the audience's attention and expectations for the majority of the movie.

The above means that the movie wasn't as big a risk as you are making it out to be. Action movies with a core of goofiness made in the last 15 years aren't that big of a risk - they comprise a large chunk of the top grossing movies of all time. Marvel movies, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potters, Fast and Furious, Avatar, Toy Story, Indiana Jones and more. This is a formula that has been improved to the point where failures are uncommon. We're now conditioned to like them more and almost all of them are led by the attractive white guy with a ragtag team.

The failures are actually more notable for what they didn't do, while the successes keep coming and churning out money for the studios - even if they don't necessarily set records.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 03 November 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 03 November 2014 - 02:19 PM, said:

Regardless of its stars races...GotG was a HUGE risk. It has a anthropomorphic foul-mouthed, talking racoon riding a giant walking sentient tree...in space. It was a risk. That could have been a massive dud in someone elses hands.

I finally figured out what bugged me about this. GotG wasn't about the raccoon or Groot. It was about Star Lord/Chris Pratt (the third white Chris superhero for Marvel alongside Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth) and a spirit of goofy space battles.

The raccoon and Groot were essentially reduced to Chewie or C3PO and R2D2 in the Star Wars movies. They were played for laughs or the big magical moment - not to be the carrier of the audience's attention and expectations for the majority of the movie.

The above means that the movie wasn't as big a risk as you are making it out to be. Action movies with a core of goofiness made in the last 15 years aren't that big of a risk - they comprise a large chunk of the top grossing movies of all time. Marvel movies, Pirates of the Caribbean, Harry Potters, Fast and Furious, Avatar, Toy Story, Indiana Jones and more. This is a formula that has been improved to the point where failures are uncommon. We're now conditioned to like them more and almost all of them are led by the attractive white guy with a ragtag team.

The failures are actually more notable for what they didn't do, while the successes keep coming and churning out money for the studios - even if they don't necessarily set records.

I don't think I'd say that. Chris Pratt was the audience-entry into the world (like a Doctor Who companion). The human proxy into an alien world. The rest of the movie is very much the team dynamic, and Rocket and Groot are the two most knowing aspects of the criminal underworld they spend traversing. It's not until the end that Star Lord leads the team for real for the first time. Up until that point Rocket and Groot hold MOST if not all the cards, up to and including the jail break, the use of Knowhere as a place to search and through the Collector, even escaping from Knowhere later, and saving the day by Groot encompassing everyone as the ship crashes. Star Lord really only is the focus in a nebulous sense. We aren't dealing with his backstory at all...he just happens to be a thief who stole an infinity stone...and it turns out has special parentage. He spends large portions of the film following along. He's not the focus in the conventional sense. We could query anyone after they walk out of GotG and ask them to tell you who their fave characters are...I think Rocket and Groot would top that list a lot of the time. But mostly, without them in place the movie/story simply doesn't happen. Star Lord rots in space jail and so does Gamora.

And calling Rocket and Groot "Chewie and Threepio" is selling them ALARMINGLY short considering their importance in the events.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 November 2014 - 06:45 PM

[amphibian]

http://grantland.com...le-superheroes/

Molly Lambert's thoughts on this. She also brings up that Hunger Games made a ton of money, Blade did well (until the third movie was trash) and movies like Alien/Aliens/Aliens 3 etc. did well - yet there was very little big budget follow up to them.

Also, I swear most of the movie going audience will tell you that the main person of GotG is Star Lord. I doubt Rocket was that popular. Groot was massively popular - but that's because he's catered to the audience in a very, very easy to understand and empathize with manner - like R2D2. I do my market research by asking my little cousins and BJJ kids what they think of the movies etc.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 03 November 2014 - 06:47 PM, said:

Also, I swear most of the movie going audience will tell you that the main person of GotG is Star Lord. I doubt Rocket was that popular. Groot was massively popular - but that's because he's catered to the audience in a very, very easy to understand and empathize with manner - like R2D2. I do my market research by asking my little cousins and BJJ kids what they think of the movies etc.

I don't doubt that Star Lord is a major draw. Chris Pratt is amazing. But Rocket and Groot are not Chewie and Threepio...who are glorified ornaments hung on the heroics of Luke, Han, and Leia...Rocket and Groot serve in bigger capacities, and as I stated the story simply does not happen without their functionality. Star Lord's purpose is only as good as those that are able to lead him to leadership...and that's everyone BUT Star Lord.

[D'rek]

Plot-wose, QT, I'd say you're right, but camera-wise it is not so. Star Lord gets a lengthy solo introduction sequence, while Gamora's is pretty short (and busy also introducing Ronan/Nebula/Thanos), and Rocket/Groot's introduction only occurs right at the moment they join the cast.

When the crew goes to Knowhere, the camera sticks with Star Lord so we watch his scene talking about music and home to Gamora, but we do not see the scene of Rocket and Drax gambling until Star Lord enters into it.

Plot or not, the narrative/view is framed more around Star Lord than the rest.

[QuickTidal]

Indeed, but that's what I'd said initially about him being the audience-proxy as opposed to star. Similar to any episode of DOCTOR WHO we usually get a long intro of the companion before the Doctor is even seen. It's because they are the audience proxy that we get that stuff. We find out who he is (a human who was abducted, whose mother passed away), and then we are basically chucked into his latest find, which concerns the plot of GotG (purple infinity gem). And in the very next sequence almost ALL the other players show up. And now we have a team movie.

Knowhere: Rocket and Drax gambling scene is actually framed around the scene with Peter and Gamora. They show it first (everything is drunken fun and fine), and then cut to Gamora and Peter (exposition on the mix tape and dancing) and then they finish up on Rocket and Drax because of what happens there (all hell breaks loose with Rocket). That's a filmic choice because the gambling scene is much more integral to the plot than the Peter/Gamora love scene...which is mostly played for prop gags...Gunn was certainly aware of that when it was storyboarded.

General consensus before the trailer dropped for this film = RISK. Google that phrase and you will see the myriad websites and pundits were calling that it might very well fail before it opened. Before the trailer dropped that's all I heard about it, whether that was about James Gunn's directorial chops, or about the source material (which is way out there).

Look, I realize Peter is up front on all the posters, and the marketing focuses on him ect. I get that. I just don't think Gunn and the writers feel that Peter is the main draw...since they did such a splendid job of giving all the main characters such likeable personalities.

EDIT: With that in mind I feel the second film WILL focus on Peter and his parentage. So in that vein, yes we will have a white male lead/focus.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 03 November 2014 - 08:55 PM