criterionforum.org

The General?

knives wrote:The General?

Certainly a Keaton would be the closest parallel in terms of physical performance, but then he had other elements he didn't have to worry about.

Dances with Wolves, maybe? I get it's not exactly loaded with fight scenes, though. Braveheart might be a better shout.

Those are pretty great examples. Both Costner and Gibson were worn out by the end of them, too. It's definitely a daunting proposition. Add onto that the ridiculous fanbase pressure - just look at the gauntlet of his Live by Night press junket - and you have a recipe for a guy to recognize it's better to find a partner.

Elsewhere online people are speculating that WB is pushing him out. I just can't see that, at least not in the straight up manner online speculation implies. WB clearly wanted him to direct the film, and it was an obvious top reason they hired him for the role in the first place. There's very little positive PR for them in not having him direct.

What about Hong Kong films? The work people like Jackie Chan and Sammo Hung did when they were directing and performing truly exhausting fight sequences.

Stallone would be the biggest example, no? He directed four Rockys, the last Rambo, and the first Expendables. Those are six major actions films he directed and starred in.

And Eastwood of course, his 70s westerns and crime films he directed and starred in.

Whatever is going on, it confirms that WB's DC franchise is still a trainwreck mess. And though I'm reluctant to say it since I checked out of the movies a long time ago, it makes Marvel's streamlined, relatively drama-free franchise assembly look like a rather amazing accomplishment.

Brian C wrote:Whatever is going on, it confirms that WB's DC franchise is still a trainwreck mess. And though I'm reluctant to say it since I checked out of the movies a long time ago, it makes Marvel's streamlined, relatively drama-free franchise assembly look like a rather amazing accomplishment.

Imagining if Disney acquired DC around the same time as Marvel, we'd probably be discussing the new Nightwing sequel.

Luke M wrote:

Brian C wrote:Whatever is going on, it confirms that WB's DC franchise is still a trainwreck mess. And though I'm reluctant to say it since I checked out of the movies a long time ago, it makes Marvel's streamlined, relatively drama-free franchise assembly look like a rather amazing accomplishment.

Imagining if Disney acquired DC around the same time as Marvel, we'd probably be discussing the new Nightwing sequel.

But we would have never got Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy in their model, so it's a trade-off.

These things are cyclical. Disney will make an outright bad MCU and Star Wars film or two at some point in the next ten years, and WB will make a great DC film or two in the next ten years. It was just a few years ago Disney was being ripped for The Lone Ranger and John Carter.

There will be Batman films in one form or another in the next ten years with or without Affleck directing. I was interested in what he would do as a director on one of them, but there are other directors I'd be just (or even more) curious about, too.

It would be nice to imagine that the superhero boom in general might ease up at some point in the next decade- the idea that all blockbusters will be from the same handful of intellectual property indefinitely is intensely depressing.

Inevitably its going to switch to a different genre. Like westerns, big studio musicals, die hard ripoff and Tarantino wannabes, disaster movies etc. comic book movies will lessen (I hope sooner than later). We've also got Star Wars now, which judging by box office records, were going to see a lot more of. It will just change to a different IP, and who knows, maybe video games will finally kick off in the near future

We also got big creature films right now (Transformers, Jurassic Worlds, Godzilla/Kong, Pacific Rim), the Apes films, the Disney live action remakes (Beauty and the Beast is gonna make $1 billion), and so on. Superhero films are currently at the peak, but even if they continue to get made and be successful something else may become #1.

captveg wrote:If they get Matt Reeves to direct as mentioned in the article I'd consider that an actual upgrade. I'm a huge Dawn of the Planet of the Apes fan.

Justin Kroll of Variety is reporting that Matt Reeves has been offered the directing job for Batman (and will accept once contract details are hammered out).

Personally, as mentioned before, I am VERY happy with this. Affleck is a strong director, but none of his films are action-effects or fight-choreography heavy like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is and Batman will need to be. Dawn also has a confident balance of action and character driven story. IMO, from a directing standpoint of a (ideally) smart tentpole action film, this is an upgrade.

Now, here's hoping Kroll's recent tweet saying that the latest draft of the script is something both the WB execs and Affleck are very happy with is true. If Reeves is signing on right now that's a good sign that it is, though one would expect a few tweaks from Reeves through collaboration.

The first Guardians is probably my favorite MCU film, so if Vol. 2 can actually live up to the hype I'll be more than ecstatic about it.

Whoa. Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck will be directing the Captain Marvel movie.

domino harvey wrote:Tom Hardy will be playing Venom with Ruben Fleischer directing

Interesting choices. It at least has me curious.

Zack Snyder has stepped away from post-production of Justice League in the wake of his daughter's suicide, and Joss Whedon will take over for him.

Good on WB and Whedon for providing a pathway for the Snyder's to deal with a family tragedy that best serves their needs.

It's exciting to see the MCU expanding their ideas of what a 'superhero' movie actually means, since this (like Guardians) seems like an almost entirely different beast, generically- especially since this trailer doesn't feature any cameos from any of the other heroes. It's also exciting to think of a movie that could be an international blockbuster in which 80% of the cast are black people, since there's been an ongoing assumption that 'black' movies won't play in a lot of markets.

matrixschmatrix wrote:It's exciting to see the MCU expanding their ideas of what a 'superhero' movie actually means, since this (like Guardians) seems like an almost entirely different beast, generically- especially since this trailer doesn't feature any cameos from any of the other heroes.

Dr. Strange was that way, too, and is probably my favourite of the Marvel films. More character driven, and eschewed endless battles in favour more clever and imaginative resolutions.