[amphibian]

Captain Needa, on 07 December 2016 - 08:16 AM, said:

Have the rights to all those characters lapsed, or are in the public domain? Would explain why Universal is trying to do a MCU on the cheap.

You're right about the public domain thing for Dracula, Jekyll & Hyde, and Frankenstein. The Creature from the Black Lagoon has been owned by Universal for a while now, just like the Wolfman. I think the Invisible Man is public domain. Not sure about that.

[Coco with marshmallows]

Give the director some credit for this statement though:

"The only way to build a universe is to not think in terms of building a universe. You have to make great individual movies, first and foremost, and if you do that, then the audience will follow you"

Take note DC.....

[Aptorian]

I feel like this sentiment is evident in all forms of content creation that is meant to be serialized, from television, to film, to books or games.

I love when an author/creator has planned ahead and you get to enjoy the long con but if you design the narrative so that all the cool shit you thought of wont even appear before book/season 5 then you shouldn't bother writing book/season 1.

[Abyss]

There is definitely an art to it.Look at how Marvel/Disney did the slow build... a cameo here, a reference there, then BOOM, ...Avengers. Cue mo' money.
Contrast w DC who gave made a mess of it. If JL succeeds it will be in spite of the movies to date, not because of them.
But this Universal monster thing, or the Godzilla King Kong whatever it is Legendary is trying to do... just has an aura of desperation.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 18 December 2016 - 07:05 PM, said:

There is definitely an art to it.Look at how Marvel/Disney did the slow build... a cameo here, a reference there, then BOOM, ...Avengers. Cue mo' money.
Contrast w DC who gave made a mess of it. If JL succeeds it will be in spite of the movies to date, not because of them.
But this Universal monster thing, or the Godzilla King Kong whatever it is Legendary is trying to do... just has an aura of desperation.

Disagree. Marvel is making fun, popcorn superhero movies that are (unfortunately) ultimately Forgettable (GotG is the exception because Marvel let Gunn do what he wanted with it). DC is making challenging movies that will stand the test of time better, because they grind against the existing franchise formula grain. Honestly, I'd say give BvS a decade of time and watch people rejigger their minds about it.

[worry]

Batman vs Superman is the Superman 64 of superhero movies and in a decade there will be a documentary made about how all copies were buried like the E.T. game.

[QuickTidal]

I think everyone kind of assumes that everyone else hated BvS....but that's not true. Lots of people liked it.

[worry]

People liked knowing their houses were protected from fire by asbestos too. There are public safety issues here, QT.

[QuickTidal]

Well, why do I even bother posting?

[worry]

Someone needs to counter my unqualified opinions.

[QuickTidal]

*narrows eyes* I suppose.

[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2016 - 10:45 PM, said:

Well, why do I even bother posting?

Because no-one wants this place to be a circle-jerk of opinion and groupthink? having to engage with people who have different opinions ensures that we aren't just shouting at a brick wall with faulty logic and bias.



Besides, we have Apt. His opinions on certain movies are just abominable, but we still like having him around.

[Abyss]

BvS had WW going for it.
On the other hand, Martha.

...but even if it were a cinematic masterpiece it wouldn't offset the sheer wave of dislike it and MoS before it got. Vs the tiny little chunk of voices who hated anything Marvel did in the runup to Avengers, it's just not even close.
And ten years from now the Martha thing is still going to be stupid.

IMNSHO. I could be wrong.
Martha.

[QuickTidal]

So, reviews have started rolling in for this...and they are...not good.

That coupled with the fact that it's coming out a mere week after WW....are both factors that are likely going to sink this whole attempt at a Shared Universal Monster movie universe methinks.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 07 June 2017 - 04:14 PM

[Abyss]

Yep.
The various trailers trying to market this as, variously, a horror movie, a summer adventure film, an epic drama, some sort of heroic romance thing, etc were a sure sign the studio was panicking.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 07 June 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Yep.
The various trailers trying to market this as, variously, a horror movie, a summer adventure film, an epic drama, some sort of heroic romance thing, etc were a sure sign the studio was panicking.

It's also apparent that Tom Cruise's character is a dicknozzle (from a personality angle) according to the reviews...and that doesn't help to sell it either.

[Aptorian]

I'm watching this with my stepmum on Sunday.

I will trust that Cruise will make it bearable but I never had a feeling this was going to be amazing. The shots of the mummy queen looked dumb in trailers. Sort of the B-version of the creepy witch from Suicide Squad.

[polishgenius]

The six screenwriters probably didn't help. And reports are that it's got the old-school damsel in distress type female lead which a week after WW (and considering Tom Cruise's recent record of having absolutely awesome women co-lead in his films) is a terrible look.



I really don't understand what Universal are doing here. A monster shared universe should be easy to do, as evidenced by the fact that urban fantasy writers and Alan Moore do it all the frigging time, often very well, but they've gone completely the wrong route with this one. They should be embracing the classic pulpy stylings of their original films, not this glossy high-production empty bullshit.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 07 June 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

. They should be embracing the classic pulpy stylings of their original films, not this glossy high-production empty bullshit.

Indeed!

Which was why the 90's Brendan Fraser MUMMY (the first one at the very least) was SO well received. They went ALL IN with the pulpy stylings.

[Abyss]

polishgenius, on 07 June 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

The six screenwriters probably didn't help. And reports are that it's got the old-school damsel in distress type female lead which a week after WW (and considering Tom Cruise's recent record of having absolutely awesome women co-lead in his films) is a terrible look.



I really don't understand what Universal are doing here. A monster shared universe should be easy to do, as evidenced by the fact that urban fantasy writers and Alan Moore do it all the frigging time, often very well, but they've gone completely the wrong route with this one. They should be embracing the classic pulpy stylings of their original films, not this glossy high-production empty bullshit.

Because they are trying to replicate the DC and Marvel superheroverse, only with monsters.
I agree with you, it would be logical for them to embrace the pulpy origins, but no, they want Frankenstein to be Captain America with head stitches, the Wolfman to be Batman, and Dracula to be wholly forgotten after than last bad movie thing. They want some of that juicy AVENGERS money.

Also, they are idiots who think the audiences will go see any old crap.

QuickTidal, on 07 June 2017 - 05:51 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 07 June 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

. They should be embracing the classic pulpy stylings of their original films, not this glossy high-production empty bullshit.

Indeed!

Which was why the 90's Brendan Fraser MUMMY (the first one at the very least) was SO well received. They went ALL IN with the pulpy stylings.

The first two MUMMY movies are glorious fun, stupidly enjoyable even when they are being stupid, CGI Rock and all.
There was no third movie.