EmmaMcG said:

damosuzuki said:

i'm the last person who'll argue against a bit of well-placed sleaze in his films. as i never tire of telling people, my favourite film is beyond the valley of the dolls. i love a bit of trash.

but there's a time & place for such things. this is a movie made for a broad audience, young kids among them, & i don't think it's pearl-clutching, think of the children hysterics to say that it'd not very cool to have such a leering quality in a film aimed at least in part at younger people. when you consider just months earlier there was a massively successful film featuring that character that was trumpeted as a triumph, something for extremely young girls to celebrate as a role model, openly ogling her that same year is really a bit of a betrayal to those kids.

i haven't seen ww since it opened, so my memory of it has dimmed, & while they definitely did not try to tamp down her sex appeal or dim her looks, i don't think the camera ever blatantly eye-humped gadot the way it did in jl.
it's not my only problem with the film, or the biggest one for that matter - just needlessly trashy in a way that undermined the good will they'd built up for that character just a few months earlier.

[Edited 3/20/18 18:43pm]

Is it just Wonder Woman that you feel that way about or do you also think that Henry Cavill, Ben Affleck and Jason Momoa should not be "eye-humped" (great expression, by the way). How about the Marvel movies when Chris Hemsworth is often seen without his shirt in scenes specifically set up so that he can be eye-humped by the female cast. Or the numerous shirtless scenes featuring Hugh Jackman in the X-Men movies. Showing off a character's body may not be a necessary part of the movie but if the male actors do it, why can't the female actors do it too. It's not as though she got her tits out or anything. Heaven forbid. Some folks in the audience might faint. When you watch Wonder Woman again I think you'll be surprised at how often the camera lingers on the exposed parts of her outfit.

i'll give ww a revisit once it pops up on a streaming site. i'm certainly willing to believe my memory might be faulty.

as for how the men are presented: that's an interesting question, in that i've never really thought the way the guys are showcased, with all those shots of sweaty work-outs, men preening with straining muscles, are meant for women. i definitely don't think i'm the final authority on such matters, and i'd like to know what you think about this certainly, but my feeling is they've always served much more as a kind of male fantasy.

it's not that different from how 80s action stars in vehicles made for teen boys were shown in their films: arnold, stallone, all those guys were always showcased in their movies with their shirts off, sweaty, whether they were beating up other guys or working out or whatever. or even go back to the cbm source material - the actual comics, where the characters are almost always hugely muscular, veiny olympians. i certainly don't think any of that was done with women in mind.


the comics & the movies are a male dream fulfilment, often read & cared about most passionately by the outcast, weak weirdoes who got beat up by the powerful guys in their school and laughed at by the powerful guy's annoyingly beautiful girlfriend.

not that i know anything about that (coughs uncomfortably).

dance4me3121 said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Bale & Affleck > Keaton

I was actually disgusted when I heard Affleck was playing the Dark Knight, but he shut my mouth big time. He nailed it. His Batman was fucking hardcore, badass & vicious, especially when rescuing Martha.

[Edited 3/21/18 16:09pm]

I have to disagree with that one.Michael Keaton was a great batman.What are your opinions of Val kimmer and clooney? As Batman?

kpowers said:

dance4me3121 said:

uPtoWnNY said: I have to disagree with that one.Michael Keaton was a great batman.What are your opinions of Val kimmer and clooney? As Batman?

My sentiments exactly. But maybe they would have done better if not for the hack known as Joel Schumacher.

uPtoWnNY said:

kpowers said:

My sentiments exactly. But maybe they would have done better if not for the hack known as Joel Schumacher.

damosuzuki said:

uPtoWnNY said:

uPtoWnNY said:

djThunderfunk said:

JorisE73 said:

I've looked up his screenplay for Wonder Woman and that guy comes of as some douchy creep who should stay away from female superheros.

I've never read his WW script. In what way did it make him come off as "some douchy creep" in regards to female superheroes?

[Edited 3/21/18 10:27am]

In his script Wonder Woman is nothing more than a piece of meat for men to look at and she even needs to do some dancing strip act to distract men. He also feels the need to make her mere 'woman' instead of a beacon of power and pride, feels the need to have the bad guys constantly call her a Bitch or a Whore. Plus some really racist and stereotypical 'gangster' figures.
And that is not even the worst. His Wonder Woman is all tits and ass who needs 'men' and longs to pleasure and serve 'men'. Creepy about how some men need to look down her blouse and at het curves.

EmmaMcG said:

JorisE73 said:

i think the point people are trying to make is that there is a difference between classy (Patty Jenkins film style) and trashy (Whedons cheap TV movie of the week style)
His Marvel movies are exactly that and you can easily pick the scenes he shot for JL out in the movie because, honestly, theyre just not consistent and plain corny and awful, again like his Mavel movies.

That new Avengers movie looks to be a huge step in an awesome direction (like Civil War was) compared to the first two Syfy channel quality movies by Whedon.
I've looked up his screenplay for Wonder Woman and that guy comes of as some douchy creep who should stay away from female superheros.

I think you're in the minority there when you refer to the first two Avengers movies as Syfy channel quality. They both reviewed well and were big hits at the box office. Not liking the movies is one thing, but your complaints about them come off as though you just don't like the director and you're using that dislike to form an opinion on the movies he's made. I've seen a lot of people slate Zack Snyder's take on Superman in Man of Steel and the Batman vs Superman movie because they just don't like him, similarly to how you've just done with Joss Whedon. I don't care who directs the movies just so long as the movies are good. And the Avengers (especially the first one) was really good. It genuinely felt like a big event that had been built up over the prior four years. I kind of liked Justice League but it didn't have that same impact. Nowhere near it. There was little to no build up. We didn't even know who Flash, Aquaman and Cyborg were prior to the movie coming out. The CGI was awful, as has been the case in all of the DCEU movies so far. The plot seemed to have been written on the back of a napkin. Batman, an undisputed highlight of BvS, was severely underused because too much time was spent explaining what the mother boxes are and why we should care about them. None of these issues had anything to do with Joss Whedon.

I don't know Joss Whedon, just his shitty work and my opinion is based on that.

I just find his writing and direction really lame and corny. I looked around for his Wonder Woman script after someone mentioned it in this topic and it was really horrible and quite insulting to the Wonder Woman character.

I really didn't like his corny TV shows either (those shows also weren't popular in Holland I guess because I don;t know anyone who watched them and if they watched them they found them unintentionally funny in a bad way and cheap looking) I only quite understand the praise he got for the TV shows he did simply because the TV landscape was horrid in the 90's with The X-Files being the only exception. His teenager shows were just crap (like all those other shitty shows in the 90's like Charmed, Angel, Xena, Hercules, Firefly etc.) and that same style is all over The Avengers.

If you compare his Avengers movies with Winter Soldier or Civil War or even Iron Man 3 it's just like day and night. His Avengers feel like TV movies (and look cheap like his TV shows) wereas the others I mentioned feel like pretty huge movies.

I agree with him not being the sole problem of JL but his direction and his shitty written bits were.

I blame WB for the removal of 1/3rd of the movie where the characters were obviously more fleshed out and had more depth as can be seen in the trailers. and of course WB rushing this movie to release thatis why the CGI was garbage and that was also explained by the CGI team and that is why they leaked all the deleted footage and concept art of how it was supposed to look if WB gave them more time.

JorisE73 said:

JorisE73 said:

Firefly is absolutely classic scifi tv, one of the best. Avengers was pretty great. It did have it's issues, but "cheap looking" was not one of them. Whedon bashing seems to be popular these days. The problems with Justice League are from the decisions and meddling of Warner execs, not Whedon.

EmmaMcG said:

I never watched Buffy so I can't speak for that but the fact you call Firefly "shitty" makes me suspect that you're pulling my leg. Or you've just never actually watched it because it's nothing like the other shows you mentioned and is actually considered a classic. It also spawned a sequel/spin-off movie, Serenity, which is also considered to be among the best sci-fi movies of this century. I don't know how you make out that The Avengers looks cheap either. I'm very critical of CGI in general but the special effects in the Avengers were top notch. Again, it sounds like you're just taking the piss and "trolling" but I'll assume you're not. But your idea of what is cheap looking seems askew. WB definitely rushed the movie out but even had they allowed Zack Snyder the time to finish I doubt the end product would have been much better. The fact that half of the team were debuting in the actual Justice League movie is ridiculous. There's no way they would have properly fleshed out the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman while also introducing a decent villain and give him a proper back story. Zack Snyder is great at framing a scene but he's not a great story teller. Introducing all these elements would be impossible for the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg, so Snyder had no chance. I don't blame him for that though, WB would have been the ones who decided to rush ahead with the Justice League before giving The Flash etc their own solo movies first. They were chasing that Avengers cash but failed to realise that The Avengers was so anticipated upon release because it had been built up over the previous 4 years and 5 or so movies. I'm a hardcore Batman and Superman fan so people like me will flock to see any old crap that features those characters but to draw a wider audience you need more than big names in the title of the movie. Hopefully WB will have learned their lesson and will get their act together before it's too late. And yeah, JL was definitely rushed which of course had an impact on its awful CGI but Wonder Woman and Batman vs Superman also had awful CGI so even if JL was given time, I still think that the CGI would have been awful. It seems to be the DCEU trademark.

I too hope WB will finally get things right but in order to do so, I truly believe this DCEU should be killed and started over with a new studio that actually understands comics...

Neversin.

[Edited 3/23/18 0:18am]

EmmaMcG said:

JorisE73 said:

I don't know Joss Whedon, just his shitty work and my opinion is based on that.

I just find his writing and direction really lame and corny. I looked around for his Wonder Woman script after someone mentioned it in this topic and it was really horrible and quite insulting to the Wonder Woman character.

I really didn't like his corny TV shows either (those shows also weren't popular in Holland I guess because I don;t know anyone who watched them and if they watched them they found them unintentionally funny in a bad way and cheap looking) I only quite understand the praise he got for the TV shows he did simply because the TV landscape was horrid in the 90's with The X-Files being the only exception. His teenager shows were just crap (like all those other shitty shows in the 90's like Charmed, Angel, Xena, Hercules, Firefly etc.) and that same style is all over The Avengers.

If you compare his Avengers movies with Winter Soldier or Civil War or even Iron Man 3 it's just like day and night. His Avengers feel like TV movies (and look cheap like his TV shows) wereas the others I mentioned feel like pretty huge movies.

I agree with him not being the sole problem of JL but his direction and his shitty written bits were.

I blame WB for the removal of 1/3rd of the movie where the characters were obviously more fleshed out and had more depth as can be seen in the trailers. and of course WB rushing this movie to release thatis why the CGI was garbage and that was also explained by the CGI team and that is why they leaked all the deleted footage and concept art of how it was supposed to look if WB gave them more time.

I never watched Buffy so I can't speak for that but the fact you call Firefly "shitty" makes me suspect that you're pulling my leg. Or you've just never actually watched it because it's nothing like the other shows you mentioned and is actually considered a classic. It also spawned a sequel/spin-off movie, Serenity, which is also considered to be among the best sci-fi movies of this century. I don't know how you make out that The Avengers looks cheap either. I'm very critical of CGI in general but the special effects in the Avengers were top notch. Again, it sounds like you're just taking the piss and "trolling" but I'll assume you're not. But your idea of what is cheap looking seems askew. WB definitely rushed the movie out but even had they allowed Zack Snyder the time to finish I doubt the end product would have been much better. The fact that half of the team were debuting in the actual Justice League movie is ridiculous. There's no way they would have properly fleshed out the Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman while also introducing a decent villain and give him a proper back story. Zack Snyder is great at framing a scene but he's not a great story teller. Introducing all these elements would be impossible for the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg, so Snyder had no chance. I don't blame him for that though, WB would have been the ones who decided to rush ahead with the Justice League before giving The Flash etc their own solo movies first. They were chasing that Avengers cash but failed to realise that The Avengers was so anticipated upon release because it had been built up over the previous 4 years and 5 or so movies. I'm a hardcore Batman and Superman fan so people like me will flock to see any old crap that features those characters but to draw a wider audience you need more than big names in the title of the movie. Hopefully WB will have learned their lesson and will get their act together before it's too late. And yeah, JL was definitely rushed which of course had an impact on its awful CGI but Wonder Woman and Batman vs Superman also had awful CGI so even if JL was given time, I still think that the CGI would have been awful. It seems to be the DCEU trademark.

I reaaly tried to get in Firefly after all the hype but I thought is was just a lame show.

I love Star Wars and Trek and am a huge Mass Effect fan and hoped for something similar in Firefly, but agin I thought it was crap.

and cheap maybe not the best word (my English isn;t the greatest) but I mean more like Transformers quality and a cheap feel(?) it just seems off and TV movie quality, but I think that's because Joss Whedon works better on the TV format. Like with Cabin In The Woods, that movie played like a TV movie/pilot until that Elder Gods ending.

[Edited 3/23/18 1:03am]

djThunderfunk said:

Firefly is absolutely classic scifi tv, one of the best. Avengers was pretty great. It did have it's issues, but "cheap looking" was not one of them. Whedon bashing seems to be popular these days. The problems with Justice League are from the decisions and meddling of Warner execs, not Whedon.

Whedon wrote and directed the new crap in it and he removed the music that for great a part made the previous movies and fit better in my opinoin and by removing that he changed the complete feel of this series so he's a big part of the blame.

Like with Cabin In The Woods, that movie played like a TV movie/pilot until that Elder Gods ending.

That ending made the movie though, everything before that ending is just Teeny "TV movie of the week" quality indeed...

Neversin.

[Edited 3/23/18 1:08am]

djThunderfunk said:

Firefly is absolutely classic scifi tv, one of the best. Avengers was pretty great. It did have it's issues, but "cheap looking" was not one of them. Whedon bashing seems to be popular these days. The problems with Justice League are from the decisions and meddling of Warner execs, not Whedon.

Calling "Firefly" a classic is a stretch but it was an enjoyable sci-fi show with a bigger budget...
And I think it's not about bashing Whedon, the guy is just not right for comicbook movies or movies altogether, let that guy roam freely in the TV-for-teens landscape...
It's like if Kevin Smith would direct a "Green Lantern" movie, I really like the guy and his love for comics, but I really doubt he could make a great comicbook movie...
I really didn't like the Marvel Comedy Universe from the get-go and hope it'll be rebooted after the last "Avengers" movies so they can finally do a serious and coherent Marcel Cinematic Universe, with Dr. Doom, Fantastic 4, The X-Men, Planet Hulk etc. and leave Iron Man in the background where he belongs... But keep Whedon far away from it and get some higher caliber directors who like to gamble and take chances...

If all goes well, there'll be a "The Killing Joke" movie coming with Scorcese producing (but directed by some comedy idiot...) that's outside of the DCEU, so that could be the start of some awesome "Elseworld" stories... Imagine "Gotham By Gaslight" or "Arkham Asylum" or a full blown original "Hard R" horror take on a Batman story from a villain's point of view...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

JorisE73 said:

JorisE73 said:

Neversin said:

EmmaMcG said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Bale & Affleck > Keaton

I was actually disgusted when I heard Affleck was playing the Dark Knight, but he shut my mouth big time. He nailed it. His Batman was fucking hardcore, badass & vicious, especially when rescuing Martha.

[Edited 3/21/18 16:09pm]

I don't like Bale's Batman. His Bruce Wayne was quite good. Nobody plays a rich prick quite like Christian Bale but his Batman was not my cup of tea at all. He sounded like Phil Mitchell with throat cancer. Not to mention he had a crap Batmobile, a crap Alfred, a horrible batsuit and his fight scenes are just terrible. It's like the cameraman is breakdancing or something because you can't make out what's going on half the time. There are 3 cuts used for each punch thrown. And he was always going on about his no killing rule despite quite clearly killing Ra's Al Ghúl in Batman Begins. I know a lot of that isn't Christian Bale's fault but it all adds up to a less than stellar Batman. Michael Keaton, on the other hand, had none of those issues plus he had the quintessential Batman theme. And he had no stupid rule on not killing the bad guys so he killed them without a second thought, as real action heroes do. Tim Burton may not have made a decent movie this century yet but his Batman movies stand head and shoulders above the rest. There are so many little subtle details in that movie that you see something new and different every time you watch it.

I liked Batman '89. Despite some campy elements, I thought it was great for it's time and the theme was classic. It was a lot better than that hot mess Batman Returns. I don't know what Burton was thinking.

I loved Nolan's trilogy (it doesn't get any better that The Dark Knight). For me, Bale was THE Batman until Affleck's performance in BvS. I haven't seen JL yet - did they tone him down?

uPtoWnNY said:

EmmaMcG said:

In other words, Bruce Wayne is his disguise.

Rachel (Katie Holmes) said something similar in Batman Begins, about Bruce Wayne being the mask. He died the night his parents were murdered.

I love Nolan's take on the character, setting him in the real world, where Superman and the other heroes can't exist.

Batman Returns could been have a classic if it just focused on Batman & Catwoman. Adding Penguin was unecessary, and Devito was awful in the role. But even that film was better than what followed......smh

[Edited 3/23/18 15:20pm]

uPtoWnNY said:

EmmaMcG said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Rachel (Katie Holmes) said something similar in Batman Begins, about Bruce Wayne being the mask. He died the night his parents were murdered.

I love Nolan's take on the character, setting him in the real world, where Superman and the other heroes can't exist.

Batman Returns could been have a classic if it just focused on Batman & Catwoman. Adding Penguin was unecessary, and Devito was awful in the role. But even that film was better than what followed......smh

[Edited 3/23/18 15:20pm]

I kind of liked Devito. But I can understand why his performance wouldn't be for everyone. Michelle Pfeiffer is still unbeatable as Catwoman though. I actually have a cool picture of her as Catwoman as the wallpaper on my phone.

IMO Batman Returns was the best live movie version (Overall the best Batman movie is Mask of the phantasm). Hey really liked Christopher Walken in it.

kpowers said:

EmmaMcG said:

Neversin said:

Calling "Firefly" a classic is a stretch but it was an enjoyable sci-fi show with a bigger budget...
And I think it's not about bashing Whedon, the guy is just not right for comicbook movies or movies altogether, let that guy roam freely in the TV-for-teens landscape...
It's like if Kevin Smith would direct a "Green Lantern" movie, I really like the guy and his love for comics, but I really doubt he could make a great comicbook movie...
I really didn't like the Marvel Comedy Universe from the get-go and hope it'll be rebooted after the last "Avengers" movies so they can finally do a serious and coherent Marcel Cinematic Universe, with Dr. Doom, Fantastic 4, The X-Men, Planet Hulk etc. and leave Iron Man in the background where he belongs... But keep Whedon far away from it and get some higher caliber directors who like to gamble and take chances...

If all goes well, there'll be a "The Killing Joke" movie coming with Scorcese producing (but directed by some comedy idiot...) that's outside of the DCEU, so that could be the start of some awesome "Elseworld" stories... Imagine "Gotham By Gaslight" or "Arkham Asylum" or a full blown original "Hard R" horror take on a Batman story from a villain's point of view...

Neversin.

It was rumoured that Ben Affleck's script for his solo movie would be based on Arkham Asylum. He thought it would be a good story and a good way to introduce a lot of Batman villains so they'd have a lot to choose from in a sequel. Unfortunately WB decided against it and hired another guy to write it instead. Because why would they want an Oscar winner writing their movie when they can get the guy that directed a planet of the apes movie.

I hate Affleck as an actor but I believe that guy can write good shit when he wants to... And him being a pretty big Batman fan helps... He knows the comics and has a pretty extensive knowledge base in Kevin Smith and his band of Batman geeks to prod for any info he needs...
But the logic in WB actually going that way is absurd because why would WB want to make bucketloads of money with a sure thing, even though directed, written and probably produced by a guy whose last directed movie was a bomb while still being a pretty decent one ("Live by Night") when they can have some hip "blockbuster" director who did a pretty average monkey movie...?

When the reasons came out for the "Justice League" mandates (securing year end bonusses for the fat cats, and the biggest WTF decision of the 2 hour running time because they believed "Blade Runner 2049" underperformed due to the lesser amounts of screening per day (as if that stopped "The Dark Knight Rises" from making even more money...) all I could think about was that the time had come for WB to just die already... Their Music division has been garbage since the 1990's (to their roster of "artists" and their practice of conning them out of their "loans") and full of retards running the show and the same now for their Movie producing division and sadly they're taking DC down with them... It's a frustrating thing to see WB destroying DC like this and be so shameless about it... They really have no decency... All in all they have the rights to EVERY single DC character created and yet they keep on pushing the same characters all because of "money"... At least pedo Disney has the guts to push nobodies like "Black Panther" and "Ant-Man" to the forefront and introduce them to a new audience, but WB only thinks "Batman" sells, put him in every movie and in the process destroy him like they did in the 1990's when they ordered Schumacher to sell more toys...

Neversin.

EmmaMcG said:

kpowers said:

IMO Batman Returns was the best live movie version (Overall the best Batman movie is Mask of the phantasm). Hey really liked Christopher Walken in it.

Christopher Walken was really good. Was he playing an original character? I've never heard of Max Shreck outside of Batman Returns

He was playing himself, he just got lost in Gotham when taking a stroll one evening...

Neversin.

Neversin said:

When the reasons came out for the "Justice League" mandates (securing year end bonusses for the fat cats, and the biggest WTF decision of the 2 hour running time because they believed "Blade Runner 2049" underperformed due to the lesser amounts of screening per day (as if that stopped "The Dark Knight Rises" from making even more money...) all I could think about was that the time had come for WB to just die already... Their Music division has been garbage since the 1990's (to their roster of "artists" and their practice of conning them out of their "loans") and full of retards running the show and the same now for their Movie producing division and sadly they're taking DC down with them... It's a frustrating thing to see WB destroying DC like this and be so shameless about it... They really have no decency... All in all they have the rights to EVERY single DC character created and yet they keep on pushing the same characters all because of "money"... At least pedo Disney has the guts to push nobodies like "Black Panther" and "Ant-Man" to the forefront and introduce them to a new audience, but WB only thinks "Batman" sells, put him in every movie and in the process destroy him like they did in the 1990's when they ordered Schumacher to sell more toys...

Neversin.

This is a paragraph I can agree with wholeheartedly!