Miles Quaritch
Member
DerZuhälter;109446769 said:
Hehe.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Cyborg Cast for Man of Steel Sequel
- Thread starter Penguin
- Start date
- Status
Hehe.
BadAss2961
Member
Not everything has to be told in the fashion of an origin story. It seems like since Batman Begins, everyone wants to follow the origin template. It's tired now.
Origin is only necessary when you have to reboot or reinvent the character for some reason. Batman needed a fresh start, something different from the old series that became a shitfest under Schumacher, so they went with Begins. Superman desperately needed to move on from Reeve, in comes Man of Steel.
Wonder Woman is still an iconic figure, and is Lynda Carter's portrayal. One positive to WW not officially being in live action since then is that there's no tired or dead & buried portrayal to overcome. The character doesn't need a reboot, she just needs a resurgence.
Jmanunknown
Member
Where did I say it was necessary? I said she deserves it. Which she does. Also since when is getting an origin exclusive to Batman Begins? Superhero characters have been getting origin's in movies long before Batman Begin's.
Who said the character needed a reboot? You know what would give Wonder Woman a resurgence her own movie not playing third wheel to Superman and Batman.
Well in the New 52 reboot, he manages to interface with the alien computer and it informs him of Darkseid, the whole evil plan, etc.
BadAss2961
Member
You act as though it's necessary by saying Wonder Woman "deserves it." If it happens, cool, but she doesn't need it. What she does deserve is her own movie, but again, it doesn't have to be an origin story.
About Batman, not only has everyone been doing origin stories since Begins launched The Dark Knight Trilogy, but fans are starting to think it's the only way to introduce a major IP now -- similar to how people think Marvel's phase (1 2 3 4 5 6 whatever) strategy is the only way to build a universe. But anyway, the real point I was trying to make is that Begins and Man of Steel did it out of necessity, while others are doing it just because...
Except her origin is potentially interesting and unique. It's not like "I was living this inconspicuous life and then I got powers! What do I do with them?" Her origin completely defines her worldview.
Like Captain America or whatever, people recognize Wonder Woman and have vague ideas of what she can do. But they don't know shit about who she actually is. And being a character who has never gotten a movie, she would do well to have her origin told.
I am starting to think they are gonna throw a few characters in here to boost them into standalone films without having to worry about origin stories. Wishful thinking would be, as someone in the BvS thread mentioned, would be to have separate films having other members team up instead of standalone films (ala JL/JL:U).
BadAss2961
Member
Her origin can be told over the course of multiple films through legends, flashbacks, and implied history. What i'm saying is you don't have to dedicate an entire solo flick to her origin. You make a good a pitch for it, but it doesn't have to go down that way imo... Like, you mentioned Captain America. His origin story is hardly remembered by most who come to watch the Marvel movies now. His worldview film exists, but no one cares because the movie was extremely forgettable.
Universe means several films. Several hours of time to develop characters.
Father_Brain
Banned
I agree that the Lynda Carter version is the most familiar version to the general public, but how on earth is that a case against the character needing a reboot? Shouldn't WB want to distance the character as much as possible from a campy, dated artifact of the 70s?
BadAss2961
Member
You know Snyder's Wonder Woman is going to look very impressive and current. That's no problem at all.
...people skipping the First Avenger and picking up on Cap being a figure from WW2 during Avengers and WS isn't much of an excuse to skip on telling Diana's origin, even if it's relegated to the first 30 minutes of her solo movie.
BadAss2961
Member
She's in Batman/Superman. Justice League is probably the next step, she'll be in that. That's two movies.
Let's assume Wonder Woman gets a solo movie after that. How could an origin story be necessary? Would it even make sense to go in that direction rather than jump right into a classic Wonder Woman story with the character they've developed over 2 films already.
Father_Brain
Banned
Well, obviously Gadot won't look anything like Carter in the role. That's not my point, though.
The general public is familiar with WW's name, her classic costume, and possibly some of her powers, but her actual character - her backstory, her villains, her supporting cast, her reason for becoming a superheroine - is a complete blank slate as far as they're concerned. And that's why those elements, or at the very least her origin and backstory, deserve more breathing room than WB currently seems inclined to give them.
The Lamonster
Member
Cyborg, because Bane and Electro were not enough.
I'm not saying her origin has to be told in this movie, or in Justice League, largely because unless the mythology stuff is central to either movie, neither will really be about her in any significant capacity. What I'm saying is that if a solo WW movie does come around, they need to tell her origin. They can suggest or hint at her background in BvsS or JL, but when it comes to a solo movie, she needs to have her beginnings told.
...So.... I agree?
PaperFlame
Member
I bet you all that these superhero actors/actresses are just going to be in the end for 5 minutes to introduce the justice league movie.
Calling it nooooooooooow
Calling it nooooooooooow
BadAss2961
Member
Gadot is under a 3 movie deal according to reports. If all goes to plan, every one of those elements could be checked within those 3 films.
Marvel didn't do it that way, but it can be done and done well.
Not really. lol
Again, a solo movie is apparently last in line at the moment. So using it to go back and have her beginnings told might not make the most sense after how much of it is already shown in the preceding movies. A lot can be explained in BvS and even JL -- we just don't know yet.
Father_Brain
Banned
She doesn't need an origin movie first, even if I'd prefer that, but I don't think they can really do two films with her without explaining her origin/backstory to some not-insigificant extent.
Well we know Gadot is around for at least 3 films.
I'd imagine this, Justice League and has to be a solo adventure?
Why do you think she (or anyone else) needs an origin story? You have an already established character and can tell her background (or at least all the necessarily informations) through her or others dialogs and actions. Unless it's strictly necessarily for the story, there's no need to spend 30 or so minutes just to show how it all started.
Movies and books do it all the time. You start with certain character in a certain moment of her/his life and learn about the character and the world around her/him as the story progresses.
I'm thinking she'll get the Black Widow treatment: hints and little details slip out to build interest and mystery around the character with her first appearances establishing her powers, motivations, personality, etc, and then her first movie getting into the nitty gritty details of her origin in a solo movie. Now, wether the solo movie takes the standard origin format where we see her on Paradise Island loafing around for 40 minutes until she and Steve Trevor bounce or if they'll switch it up and find another way of telling that story (like something happens and she has to go back home and we learn it all through flashbacks and dialogue) remains to be seen. But I agree they can't simply not tell us her origin or where she came from.
entremet
Member
What we could have.
This dude is still around?! I though he was killed. But then, comics.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
"you leave hawkeye alone, he is the bestest avengers evaaaaaaaaaaaar" said no one ever. lol
Yep, he wants to die but because he exists as pure energy he can't. The AntiMonitor promised to kill him in order to get him to work for him.
Kaneda Shotaro
Member
Nope. The rumored plot is pretty much the world against Superman. Wayne goes to the UN and wants him banned from cities, Wonder Woman is looking for his weakness to fight him herself and Aquaman is pissed because he disturbed his waters (lol). No matter what they call this movie, there is going to be a massive cliffhanger leading into the Justice League movie with everyone wanting to kick his ass.
This is the first I'm hearing of this particular plot synopsis. What's your source?
Kaneda Shotaro
Member
Huh, I thought this was known after the new writer came in. Maybe aintitcool or SHH? I never trust most other places.
Wayne goes to the UN, wants him to be known as an enemy of the world, doesn't trust him. WW works undercover at LexCorp because they might have found his weakness, Aquaman shows himself to the world and demands superman's head because he's ravaged his oceans. Flash and Cyborg have cameos. Don't know how but ends with most of them agreeing they need to stop Superman and ends with most of the team being formed and Lex being responsible for Metallo (?).
I don't remember perfectly. Just know that WB wants the most massive cliffhanger a movie can have to make everyone salivate for the JL film and Supes made out to be this world enemy. Most of Lois and Lex's scenes are with Bruce apparently too. We'll know soon how true this "synopsis" is with leaks.
First I've heard of it. Actually sounds pretty interesting.
fixed for accuracy
Which wasn't really necessarily because a) most people who watched Avengers (i.e. that were interested in superhero comic book movies) already knew those characters more or less; b) knowledge about their detailed backstory wasn't needed to enjoy the movie and everything you needed to know (i.e. Banner is a scientist that turns into a big green unstoppable monster when he gets mad; Tony is a rich egocentric intelligent womanizer that build himself a war suit; Captain America is some kind of supersoldier from the past; Thor is a god from Norse mythology and Loki is his evil brother; Black Widow is a spy; Hawk Eye shoots arrows really well; and S.H.I.E.L.D. is some secret espionage agency that saves the day) was told during the assembling group part of the movie.
One could easily skip all those five movies, watch Avengers and still know what's going on.
Glass Rebel
Member
I don't know why people keep repeating this as if it were some fact
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Thought that had been debunked shortly after it appeared? It's been awhile.
Because there's some truth in it? There is.
Glass Rebel
Member
With no way to prove it.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Kinda hard to prove the opposite either. One side says "It's likely a lot of people saw Avengers without seeing all of the preceding Marvel movies." and the other side says "It's likely people only saw Avengers because they saw most of the preceding Marvel movies." They're both going to point to box-office numbers and home-video sales to make their points.
There is a place somewhere between that where the truth probably resides. I'd suggest it's closer to the former than it is the latter, but it's probable neither side is 100% right on their stance.
marvel gives each character a movie before the avengers
this movies just throws them all in its gonna be a mess of a movie
Glass Rebel
Member
Which is why both are stupid statements to defend or attack WB's approach.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Not really. They just need to be more measured than "NOBODY SAW THOSE MOVIES" or "EVERYBODY SAW THOSE MOVIES."
The point of bringing those examples up also needs to be examined before doing so. Because if the only point of even broaching that topic is to stake out some turf on either side of the stupid "Marvel vs DC" rivalry, then why even bother?
The most any standalone marvel phase one movie did at BO was around 650 million, then Avengers comes and suddenly you have 1.4 billion. There is absolutely no way that majority of the people that went to see the Avengers saw all the phase 1 movies. Similar can be inferred from the increased BO numbers for phase 2 movies, signifying the audience who saw The Avengers but didn't go to see any of the phase 1 movies is coming back to watch the phase 2 movies.
Glass Rebel
Member
Unless you have box-office numbers, home-video sales and numbers from streaming-services and illegal sources, how are you going to examine them in any meaningful manner?
All of the Phase 1 movies were out as BD/DVD before Avengers came out.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
But people have those. All that information isn't too hard to dig up.
They just don't USE it all that often, and instead go with pre-fabricated narratives that sound good.
I understand my stance on this is essentially "People should probably think before they post, and maybe know what they're talking about before they start talking" and that's not a thing that's going to happen with much frequency on a large discussion forum (ironically or not) - but it's not a difficult ideal to move towards.
Again that does not nor can it account for the significant increase from IM2/Thor/CA to the Avengers or the 'Avengers bump' the phase 2 movies are getting.
I'm not saying everyone who watched the Avengers movie are comic book fans. Nor am I saying that you need to be some kind of nerd who knows all about Marvel superheroes to watch Avengers. I'm just saying that a majority of people probably already know these characters from sources other than Marvel movies, be it comic books, TV series or pop culture overall. For example, I haven't read or seen a single comic book or TV series dedicated to Captain America or Iron Man, because as a kid I was mainly a Spider-man and X-men guy. However, because both those character appeared in SM / X-men cartoons and comic books that I read, I was familiar with them.
Not to mention, Avengers is an action flick with paper thin storyline. Do you seriously think people went to see those movies because they care about character X's story? No, they went to see this movie because of a bunch of superdudes do action stuff and have funny conversations for 2 hours. Let's not pretend that the universe and character in those movies are deep, complicated and so well written that people watch it for the story.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It's not that hard to like superheroes. Lotta superhero fans seem to think it's a much more complicated prospect than it really is.
Glass Rebel
Member
They do? I'd love to see some conclusive numbers.
I'm not denying that there was a bump thanks to The Avengers but Cap 2 had some great critical reception and I assume all of the Phase 2 movies had better marketing.
Regardless, the original claim was that most people who watched Avengers already knew the heroes. I don't see how box-office numbers support or contradict this.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Then do a couple searches! I promise you, this information is available. It's not being hidden by the studios/companies.
http://boxofficemojo.com
http://the-numbers.com
http://torrentfreak.com
those are three great first-stops for someone trying to find out box-office, home-video, and pirated/downloads figures.
Netflix/iTunes numbers are probably a little harder to dig up, it's not as easy (comparatively) to determine how many people have streamed/rented a particular title.
- Status