Home Your Ad Here

Go Back   IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum > The Biz > Hollywood

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2017, 01:00 PM   #16
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
You really hit a nerve, All-Star.

I agree with you. WarnerBros/DC has been struggling to copy the
success of Marvel and failing. They have reached their built-in
fans to a degree but they aren't bringing in new ones. But their
fans are passionate – even calling those who do not like the DC
movies “trolls”. The darker take doesn't seem to resonate with new
fans.

The main issue I have is lack of interesting characters, poor
storytelling and uninteresting villains. I'm not a comic fan but Marvel
has taken characters I had never even heard of and made movies
I enjoyed. DC has characters I know and makes movies I find tedious.

I think Marvel did “invent” the Universe thing. From 1977 to 1985
there were three “Star Wars” movies. Even through the prequels we
didn't call these movies a Universe – they were sequels. No spin offs
until the Ewok TV movies in 1985. Then nothing until 2016. Sure,
Lego did a few sanctioned short films starting in 2005, there was an
animated series in 2003 and there were books and comics but no film
Universe. I saw no attempt to create a film Universe until 2016 – after
Disney took control of LucasFilm and after Marvel had created the
idea of a Universe. Splitting hairs perhaps, but I think it's Marvel that
deserves the credit for inventing the idea a a film Universe for their
characters.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today   #1A
film guy
Basic Member
 
Posts: 17

 
Old 11-20-2017, 01:06 PM   #17
indietalk
IndieTalk Founder
 
indietalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,046
The shared universe goes back pretty far. Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Wolf man is considered a universe. Interesting link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...and_television
indietalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 01:19 PM   #18
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Great link. Isn't it interesting that "Star Wars" isn't listed....

When did we start calling these a "Universe"? When I was working
on the Elm Street films we called them a franchise. I worked on
several of the Empire films. I don't recall anyone calling them a
"Universe". Was Universal putting together a monster "Universe"
with these films or were they following a popular, money making
trend?

I admit I'm delving into semantics, but the interconnected film
"Universe" does seem to start with Marvel. Before that we called
TV series "spin-offs" and movies "franchises". And when characters
from two franchises were joined we called them a "crossover".
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 01:38 PM   #19
All-Star Productions
Basic Member
 
All-Star Productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 74
I like to consider the recent "universe" movement as largely a post-2008 thing. There were franchises and shared universes before, but when talking about the DCEU, it's obvious they didn't get the idea from Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Marvel starts doing a shared universe in 2008, and based on the Hulk film that came out after Iron Man, and how it has a slightly different tone than the standard they've reached today, it seemed they were still developing the idea, and finding their own style.

Every shared universe/franchise after Marvel seems to largely just want to bring in the $$$ Marvel is, and sell the toys.

DC does not seem sincere, they don't want to appeal to fans or tell a story, they just want that Super-Hero franchise money.

Again, I feel the need to point out the 1978's Superman and 1989's Batman are two of my favorite superhero films. The Nolan trilogy was an incredibly well made, well crafted piece of superhero cinema. It's just the last few years everyone is just putting all their eggs in one basket and banking on one big shared universe to bring in the yearly profit.
All-Star Productions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 01:41 PM   #20
indietalk
IndieTalk Founder
 
indietalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by directorik View Post
Great link. Isn't it interesting that "Star Wars" isn't listed....

When did we start calling these a "Universe"? When I was working
on the Elm Street films we called them a franchise. I worked on
several of the Empire films. I don't recall anyone calling them a
"Universe". Was Universal putting together a monster "Universe"
with these films or were they following a popular, money making
trend?

I admit I'm delving into semantics, but the interconnected film
"Universe" does seem to start with Marvel. Before that we called
TV series "spin-offs" and movies "franchises". And when characters
from two franchises were joined we called them a "crossover".
It could go back to:

"Universal Monsters" is a phrase used to describe the horror, suspense and science fiction films made by Universal Studios during the decades of the 1920s through the 1950s.

Of course they were referring to their studio, but that could be the genesis. I've heard it used in film before, more conversationally than as a title, you may be thinking about the term too hard. You know, like a universal screwdriver, not the Milky Way.
indietalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 01:51 PM   #21
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,406
In the Star Wars community 'Universe' has been used a lot as a phrase to talk about the whole franchise. Franchise is/was a word that belongs\ed to marketeers who look at it from the outside.

In the Star Wars community there was quite some discussion when TFA was announced: would the movie follow the canon built in the Star Wars universe or just use the 2 trilogies as 'true canon' and ignore all the books, animated series, comics, etc? (It was the latter.)

I guess, you are right Rik: Marvel succesfully coined 'cinematic universe' first.
WalterB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 01:55 PM   #22
indietalk
IndieTalk Founder
 
indietalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,046
Yeah it's just a word used in other industries as well. Marvel however markets the term which plays off of the comic feel well.

Okay back on topic.
indietalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 02:01 PM   #23
All-Star Productions
Basic Member
 
All-Star Productions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 74
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/he...e-dead-1059674

I would say this article proves my point. The Avengers universe was built up. If nothing else, you could tell work was put into the universe.

DC cut corners.
All-Star Productions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 03:02 PM   #24
directorik
IndieTalk's Resident Guru
 
directorik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: hollywood
Posts: 9,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by indietalk View Post
I've heard it used in film before, more conversationally than as a title, you may be thinking about the term too hard.
Of course I am. I love defining terms and discussing their origin.
It's great to hear what others think and discuss it. I'm not trying
to win anything or be right - just discussing this "Universe" idea
that is becoming more and more popular.

The MGM musicals weren't a connected "Universe". The Warner
Bros. gangster films were not a connected Universe. The Universal
monsters weren't either. As you point out "Universal Monsters" was
from the name of the studio.

It doesn't diminish DC/Warner as they try to create a "Universe" or
Universal to try to start a Monsters Universe. I suspect Disney/LucasFilm
will be successful. So far NBC/Universal seems to have failed and DC
doesn't seem to be connecting with the movie goer.
directorik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 03:11 PM   #25
indietalk
IndieTalk Founder
 
indietalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by directorik View Post
Of course I am. I love defining terms and discussing their origin.
Yup I get it!
indietalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 03:49 PM   #26
buscando
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: L.A.
Posts: 451
Quote:
...speaking of Suicide Squad, it seems incredibly apparent that DC told David Ayer to make things more fun, throw in classic songs, etc.
From what I've read/seen, Ayer had either finished or was working on the edit when WB hired a trailer company to make the trailer. When the trailer became massively popular, WB realized its tone was very different from Ayer's cut, so they asked Ayer to recut his film to make it more like the trailer. Can you imagine being a director & being asked that late in the game?

It takes a while for a massive corporation like WB to change course. Execs are afraid to take chances, they stick with their proven success. A dark tone works for Batman, but less for Superman. A Superman film can be dark, but the reason these 2 characters work well together conceptually is because they are opposites, dark & light. BvS has a lot of great things, but they didn't really explore that, & it doesn't have the humanity of Superman the Movie. The scene with Clark saying goodbye to his mother in the wheat field gets me every time. That movie's not perfect, but that's the kind of heart a Superman movie should have.
buscando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 04:01 PM   #27
Quality
Basic Member
 
Quality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Caribbean
Posts: 678
Do you all know that DC was the first to change from fantasy film and focus on realism in their movies? Batman Begins was what started realism is a superhero film. Then Iron Man copied that realism approach, and it sold like hot cakes. Even the director of Iron Man stated in an interview that he copied the realistic style of Batman Begins. So if anything Marvel copied DC Comics.
Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 04:39 PM   #28
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quality View Post
Do you all know that DC was the first to change from fantasy film and focus on realism in their movies? Batman Begins was what started realism is a superhero film. Then Iron Man copied that realism approach, and it sold like hot cakes. Even the director of Iron Man stated in an interview that he copied the realistic style of Batman Begins. So if anything Marvel copied DC Comics.
hahaha, now you sound like a fanboy

I can really see this is indeed the case, but it doesn't make either one the only original and the other the copycat.
Everyday and all the time studios look at the succes of other movies to see what they can learn and incorporate into their own productions.
WalterB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 04:41 PM   #29
indietalk
IndieTalk Founder
 
indietalk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 10,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterB View Post
hahaha, now you sound like a fanboy
I didn't want to be the one to say it.
indietalk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2017, 04:56 PM   #30
WalterB
Basic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rotterdam Area, The Netherlands
Posts: 3,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by indietalk View Post
I didn't want to be the one to say it.
My instinct told me that, so I put on my cape to save you the effort
WalterB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


©IndieTalk