WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

I've only seen Captain America once, and Thor twice, but I liked Thor better. Wasn't really too impressed with Cap.

_________________


http://vimeo.com/korireaymackey

7/10

Contains the same pacing problems that seems to show up in nearly every single DC animated film. As a mindless action-fest, it's fun watching every hero--well mostly every hero, Cyborg was so awkwardly placed here--get their moment to shine; the film animates nicely, giving some nice hero-on-villain action. However, as a feature film designed to tell a story, it falls flat on its face. The movie could have pooled some much needed drama and tension over whether or not Batman had any right to develop a contingency plan against the league, yet, this supposed plot point feels more like a means to get to the next battle than to develop any of these characters (Characters development in my superheroes??? LOL!!!!).

Actually enjoyed Cap more since I was impressed at how well they sold a concept that´s really hard to sell...

That being said, I think that Thor was pretty smooth too. Heck, Hiddlestone as Loki makes the movie worth it in on itself...

I never see any of these, but I'm always hoping to hear that one is good so I can be tempted to check it out. How come they're always mediocre?

_________________
I've only had one dream in my life with kids in it that didn't involve me gnawing my feet off, and it had to do with kids doing my laundry.

I feel that they aren't mediocre, I think that DC does just as good a job on their animated films as Marvel does on their live action ones

_________________
Say, Doc, did I ever tell you I'm the only metal that's liquid at room temperature?

Primarily because they attempt to condense comic-book story-lines into 60 minute features--to rather middling results. If you plan on watching any of these films, I'd highly recommend starting with "Under the Red Hood" It's the most successful DC adaptation to date, and it's a rather emotional film that explores the relationship between Batman and Jason Todd.


Funny enough, I agree.

Was under the red hood the one where superman looked old as shit and it made me really uncomfortable?

_________________
I've only had one dream in my life with kids in it that didn't involve me gnawing my feet off, and it had to do with kids doing my laundry.

As much as I think "Batman: Under The Red Hood" is probably the best animated feature ever made on comic book property, I still feel that sometimes these movies are nothing but masturbation.

I ask this, because for the life of me, I don't know why DC can't open it's big vault of money, and make an investment on a studio like Blur and put a wide release on theaters with a full-lenght feature of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7Nf-m6WGl4

_________________

I'm pretty sure that was Superman: Doomsday (which was awful).



Because they'd make far more money putting out two or three releases a year than to focus on one, truly cinematic feature. All these movies amount to are extended cartoon episodes; and even then, a single episode of a DCAU show does far more in terms of story and characters than any of these movies put together.

But those go to DVD stores and netflix, can you make as much money with three of those a year than with a single WIDE RELEASE feature ? Something different and new from DC in theaters apart from the live-action movies they have to share with Warner Brothers ?

Just look at the caliber of the Blur animations, it's fucking sick, I think those could easily draw more people than a DVD release which only loyal fans and kids will buy.

_________________

I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about what we're talking about, but I'll say this: that intro for DC universe looks awfully expensive; imagine how much a feature film of that quality would be. I just figure that DC would rather want these films done in a timely, and relatively cheap, manner.

Obviously I speak on the same level as well, I can only guess at what something like that might cost, and naturally as you say, it's a safer move to give money to Bruce Timm and his crew and make another animated film.

But consider the first Gears Of War, which was a VERY expensive undertaking for a videogame, and it had a budget of ten million dollars.

Would it be so bad to invest a similar amount on a movie like this, invest some more in online viral marketing and release on theaters around the country ? I can't imagine it failing.

_________________

The only DC Animated films I've enjoyed are the Batman ones, and DC Showcase: The Spectre. Or at least enjoyed enough for multiple viewings.

_________________

Honestly, I think a gritty, third-person video game has more world-wide appeal than a superhero movie. Even if that weren't the case, I quite like DC's commitment to traditional animation.

Gears of War - 5.88 million units sold

The Dark Knight - $1,001,921,825

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Ok, let me put it this way: I think a gritty, third-person action game has more world-wide appeal than an animated superhero film.

Remember Mask of the Phantasm?

That's a.....weird....as well as unfair comparison, you can't compare units with box office gross (sp). Also, a movie ticket in the US costs what ? 12 bucks ? A videogame costs 60 bucks, if your numbers are correct, then that's a domestic 350 million dollars alone, we're not even counting other regions. Finally, that's the fucking Dark Knight, any videogame you compare against the fucking Dark Knight is going to look like it sold nothing next to it.

_________________

I'm just saying that Superhero movies do have pretty decent appeal, Even if we bump GoW's 3 to $350,000,000 that's still about 36% of what The Dark Knight did.

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

It's still the fucking Dark Knight, it's an unfair comparison, not every superhero movie makes that amount.

_________________

Fair enough, but not every video game sells like Gears of War

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery