Originally posted by Bentley
I've picked up Fantastic Four books here and there because I like the characters ad the quirky gallery of rogues… But most of their comics are sh_t. It struggles between Hulk level and Captain America level crap. Hickman really told a real Fantastic Four story that made sense, expanded the mythos and helped to build the identity of the team.
Sounds good 👆
I've read Fantastic Four - Dark Reign so far. I usually hate stories about kids in comics, but it was entertaining watching them interact with the likes of Osborn. I thought the Johnny/Ben/Sue stuff was meh, but the Reed part? Very good. Ridiculously ott but for Reed, it feels like it works. I can see why people like Hickman's FF already.
Originally posted by -Pr-Agreed with all of this. But it gets worse for DC, because investing in good writers only makes sense if you can reliably turn that into profit, which means profit at the box office, or through merch and Netflix.
They'd rather talk about how woke they are instead of understanding the fact that being "woke" isn't a substitute for being a good writer.You want to hire the gayest/transest/brownest person to write your comics? Go right ahead, but they need to be able to WRITE the comics.
One needs to only look at the recent Iceman series, which even had gay readers shitting all over it.
And that's without getting in to the whole "trying to find an audience that's never going to buy your stuff" argument.
Diversity (in artists or characters) isn’t a patch for shitty stories, but even further, good stories can’t patch up bad movie execution (although bad execution is almost guaranteed if it’s based on shitty stories).
So DC is stopping putting out original comics even where the comics are actually good just because they can’t figure out how to connect the dots to draw an arrow from comics to good movies to more movies... etc. So long, Vertigo.
Originally posted by Smurph
Agreed with all of this. But it gets worse for DC, because investing in good writers only makes sense if you can reliably turn that into profit, which means profit at the box office, or through merch and Netflix.Diversity (in artists or characters) isn’t a patch for shitty stories, but even further, good stories can’t patch up bad movie execution (although bad execution is almost guaranteed if it’s based on shitty stories).
So DC is stopping putting out original comics even where the comics are actually good just because they can’t figure out how to connect the dots to draw an arrow from comics to good movies to more movies... etc. So long, Vertigo.
Definitely, and with DC the big thing that's been on my mind for a while is that there's just too much oversight, and it strangles creativity.
Warner Bros controls the movies, so there's never going to be a Feige because one or two execs are always going to have to stick their nose in. Marvel might have stumbled blindly in to that winning formula because Jon Favreau told them "No, I want RDJ", but once they nailed that shit down, they stuck with it and built a ****ing empire.
DC's best movies have come from letting the people make them do pretty much whatever they wanted for the most part.
Where the comics is considered goes, I honestly feel like the best work DC has put out in the last 10-20 years has all come when writers were just left alone. I find it hard to imagine that anyone at DC tells Geoff Johns or Grant Morrison what to do.
Never do get why executives feel the need to micromanage creativity.
Sometimes, it's almost like they're trying to tank a company, on purpose. Maybe they're profiting off losses, or something? Marvel paying them off? Betting against their own company in the stock market? Or some corporate attitude that the little wins don't matter, if you can't package it into insane Loot Box/Mobile App targeting kids with their parents credit card money stream?
I dunno, it just never makes sense strangling the very people your product relies on, but too many people do it.
Originally posted by cdtm
Never do get why executives feel the need to micromanage creativity.Sometimes, it's almost like they're trying to tank a company, on purpose. Maybe they're profiting off losses, or something? Marvel paying them off? Betting against their own company in the stock market? Or some corporate attitude that the little wins don't matter, if you can't package it into insane Loot Box/Mobile App targeting kids with their parents credit card money stream?
I dunno, it just never makes sense strangling the very people your product relies on, but too many people do it.
A lot of the time it strikes me as similar to that phenomenon in sports where someone becomes an owner but always fancied themselves good enough to be a coach or even a player, so they start involving themselves in the decision-making process.
It's not enough to pump some money in to the new Batman movie and get a producer credit; you want to be a part of the process. Maybe take credit for something you get to see on the big screen. So, using that clout you've built up, you "encourage" the directors or writers to make changes because after all, aren't your ideas just the best? I don't even think it necessarily comes from a bad place either. Some people just aren't the artists they think they are.
I'm thinking it's much the same when it comes to editors too, if they aren't former writers themselves. So much ego and politicking.
Originally posted by -Pr-Yeah, but some of their worst movies have also reflected too much trust placed in Zack Snyder. Maybe the corporate meddlers were saying “we need more slow-mo, more saturation and shitty lighting, more grit!” ... but it feels like a lot of that was just Snyder being given enough rope to hang the movie with.
DC's best movies have come from letting the people make them do pretty much whatever they wanted for the most part.
I guess I want both things: writers to have freedom, but not enough to undermine good work that was already done. Ideally, excellent comics are realized for being excellent, and then a filmmaker is picked who ‘gets’ what makes those comics great, and brings it to life by keeping the spirit intact.
One of the key lessons DC should have taken away from Whedon’s Avengers is that you want to lean in to everything “comic-booky” about the stories, rather than assume that those colorful elements need to be changed and dulled by a new, ‘grittier’ vision.
Originally posted by Smurph
Yeah, but some of their worst movies have also reflected too much trust placed in Zack Snyder. Maybe the corporate meddlers were saying “we need more slow-mo, more saturation and shitty lighting, more grit!” ... but it feels like a lot of that was just Snyder being given enough rope to hang the movie with.I guess I want both things: writers to have freedom, but not enough to undermine good work that was already done. Ideally, excellent comics are realized for being excellent, and then a filmmaker is picked who ‘gets’ what makes those comics great, and brings it to life by keeping the spirit intact.
One of the key lessons DC should have taken away from Whedon’s Avengers is that you want to lean in to everything “comic-booky” about the stories, rather than assume that those colorful elements need to be changed and dulled by a new, ‘grittier’ vision.
Point taken about Snyder, though you touched on something else that doesn't get addressed enough: A lack of accountability.
I feel like it made some sort of sense to let Snyder make BvS. MoS wasn't a bad movie, and I feel like most of the people that criticise it have more problems with the premise than the execution itself. After BvS, though? Someone really should have sat down with Snyder and said "No, it needs to change, or you're out".
And I still think that anyone clamouring for a Snyder cut of Justice League for any reason other than seeing how awful it was, is delusional. He doesn't understand Superman. He doesn't understand Aquaman. His Flash is weird. Cyborg could have been interesting, but that didn't really go anywhere. I mean, yeah, it's an adaptation so some leeway is expected, but there's only so far you can go before these characters are only superficially like the ones we were supposed to get.
I do still attribute the success of WW and Shazam (in terms of their quality at least) to be largely due to a lack of meddling, though.
Originally posted by Smurph
Yeah, but some of their worst movies have also reflected too much trust placed in Zack Snyder. Maybe the corporate meddlers were saying “we need more slow-mo, more saturation and shitty lighting, more grit!” ... but it feels like a lot of that was just Snyder being given enough rope to hang the movie with.I guess I want both things: writers to have freedom, but not enough to undermine good work that was already done. Ideally, excellent comics are realized for being excellent, and then a filmmaker is picked who ‘gets’ what makes those comics great, and brings it to life by keeping the spirit intact.
One of the key lessons DC should have taken away from Whedon’s Avengers is that you want to lean in to everything “comic-booky” about the stories, rather than assume that those colorful elements need to be changed and dulled by a new, ‘grittier’ vision.
And you are right too: Just like in fantasy and sci-fi, you get the best results when you play things straight. Not everything needs to be snarky "nudge nudge wink wink" stuff. You can take yourselves seriously even if people called Wolverine and Cyclops are fighting a guy whose actual name is Mister Sinister.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Point taken about Snyder, though you touched on something else that doesn't get addressed enough: A lack of accountability.I feel like it made some sort of sense to let Snyder make BvS. MoS wasn't a bad movie, and I feel like most of the people that criticise it have more problems with the premise than the execution itself. After BvS, though? Someone really should have sat down with Snyder and said "No, it needs to change, or you're out".
And I still think that anyone clamouring for a Snyder cut of Justice League for any reason other than seeing how awful it was, is delusional. He doesn't understand Superman. He doesn't understand Aquaman. His Flash is weird. Cyborg could have been interesting, but that didn't really go anywhere. I mean, yeah, it's an adaptation so some leeway is expected, but there's only so far you can go before these characters are only superficially like the ones we were supposed to get.
I do still attribute the success of WW and Shazam (in terms of their quality at least) to be largely due to a lack of meddling, though.
Wan had a lot of freedom in Aquaman, which is why it was the most successful DCEU to date. I hope Matt Reeves has similar freedom.
Originally posted by -Pr-So Shazam is head and shoulders my favorite DCEU film and I also liked it better than the large bulk of the MCU, but I wouldn't tout it as some success for the DCEU.
I do still attribute the success of WW and Shazam (in terms of their quality at least) to be largely due to a lack of meddling, though.
A good movie that doesn't sell is still a failure. And a mediocre movie like Aquaman that sells like hot cakes is a success.
"Quality" only matters to a company if it leads to fincancial success. Shazam did okay, but it is the lowest-grossing film in the entire DCEU by a pretty far margin, not even making the top 50 highest grossing superhero films. Shazam is a better movie than Aquaman by far, but WB does not care and frankly shouldn't. Audiences loved it despite it being a mediocre mess, so there's no reason to assume what occurred with Aquaman couldn't occur again. Why should they look to Shazam in their plans going forward over the surprise box office juggernaut that Aquaman was?