You might enjoy Defendor (spelled that way on purpose). It’s in a similar vein to Super, but the wannabe hero (played by Woody Harrelson no less) is developmentally disabled and really believes himself to be superhero. It’s more heartwarming and less nihilistic.
1 Like
I also read this article from The Guardian this morning that opened my eyes as to how Marvel and DC screw over the very people who they rely on:
I would have thought it should be obvious to anyone in the industry that the writers are the most important asset.
3 Likes
One thing I haven’t seen anyone make the connection with yet, and it’s a surprising blindspot among reviewers, is how the “Harley Vision” scene must have been heavily influenced by Team Fortress 2’s “Meet The Pyro” and Pyro Vision:
3 Likes
all I really enjoy about John Cena? is this kid’s brilliant mad skills playing the John Cena Theme… interestingly
1 Like
Me too! It was my first time back in cinemas after more than a year and a half (I’m in Canada and fully vaxxed), and I was glad to spend that slightly momentous occasion with this movie. I thought it was fun from top to bottom.
It’s almost like Peacemaker was on the mission for a different reason. 
It’s a shame they didn’t reveal what that reason could be before the end of the movie. 
Ditto!
I mean that the references in the Marvel movies are only to previous Marvel movies. So T:R involved characters introduced in previous films, referenced events and the development of relationships that happened in the previous films, etc. Maybe you could figure out who this “Hulk” guy was, and why it was significant he was green all the time without having seen the previous movies, but it helped.
1 Like
They also recognize that writers a) really need the upfront money of work-for-hire, even if they’re established authors, and b) they can’t resist being able to play in such a culturally-significant sandbox. And given that the vast, vast majority of comic books won’t end up being the basis for a Marvel movie, the pay is reasonable in the context (i.e. comic book publishing, with relatively low sales numbers), and only becomes unreasonable when the context changes (i.e. the story turns into a movie).
Still, even knowing Disney/DC can get away with it, it seems absurd that they don’t hand out a decent chunk of change as a completely (legally) unnecessary “thank you” to the writers whose work they use. Given the size of the movie and ad budgets, it’s a drop in the ocean, and you’d think the good will/PR benefit would be worth it… But I guess you don’t get to be a $200 billion corporation if you hand out money to people you’re not contractually obliged to give to (or, in Disney’s case, even when you are contractually obliged).
1 Like
I don’t disagree with you, but isn’t it worth remarking that the most notable DC cartoon is 30 years now? You named some others, but nothing has reached the acclaim or even attempted artistry of that cartoon. I loved the show and have a huge dislike of the Batman character in general. (Marvel shows that were contemporaries of that series were Spider-Man and X-Men. Not as good but also not too shabby either.)
Also, if you haven’t watched it yet, Young Justice is probably worth your time. And everyone else’s.
2 Likes
y’know, ratcatcher 2 did kinda make me think of squirrel girl
If Marvel messes up Squirrel Girl when they finally bring her into the MCU I think that just might ruin the whole franchise for me.
3 Likes
In a sense the show was just the first installment in the DC Animated Universe that ran through several long-running, interconnected series that concluded with the final episode of Justice League Unlimited in 2006, plus a bunch of animated films set in the same continuity including Batman and Harley Quinn as recently as 2017.
So I’d argue that DC basically pulled off the same once-in-a-generation feat of superhero storytelling that Marvel did with the MCU, they just did it through their 2D Animation offerings instead of their live action adaptations.
5 Likes
Bit of a delayed response, but one of the things I really like about it is Brendan Fraser’s performance. His career is seeing something of a welcome comeback recently, and I view Doom Patrol as being at the forefront of that resurgence.
The collaboration between him, providing the voice for Robotman, and Riley Shanahan being the man in the suit, is fantastic.
It’s actually probably more of a compliment to Riley really, as when I’m watching, I completely believe it’s Brendan in the suit.
But the constant frustrated stream of expletives coming out of Brendan Fraser’s mouth is joyful.
Saying that, all of the performances are great, and every single one of the characters is given the chance to shine.
It also feels like an indulgent treat to see Timothy Dalton on such a regular basis. He’s such a wonderful actor, and it feels like we don’t see enough of him.
3 Likes
It’s an easy scape goat, and a lot of people in the industry aren’t exactly about deep analysis. Just look at the chorus of dumb assery around the pandemic. Tons of people flipping out about how theaters must stay open, releases must go forward.
The culprit there is industry consolidation across studios, distribution, and theaters.
The studios largely control distribution and there’s only 3 or 4 major ones left, theaters you just have a few chains that represent the vast majority of the market.
Studios are in enough of a power position at the moment, and theaters enough on the edge that studios can effectively dictate a slate to the theaters by dangling the tentpoles that drive most ticket sales. You want the Avengers, it runs on 3 screens 5 times a day. And you run the following movies on at least one screen 6 times a day. You run the slate for 6 weeks, you use our projectionists.
The theater chains were fully on board, enthusiastic participants in this (among other things). Because it pressed out smaller concerns, and let them consolidate the market. Studios likewise used this to fuel their own consolidation and vertical integration.
Now that the chains are mostly the only game in town the studios muscle them, they’ve been able to demand an ever larger portion of ticket sales. And occasionally even tried to go after concessions money. Putting theaters in a position where the only way to keep the doors open is high attendance blockbusters and concessions.
So the situation with “medium sized” movies (which tends to be referring to a very particular type of awardy, arty but not too arty picture), is that unless they’re part of a studio slate. They have a difficult time getting on more than a few thousand screens, and thus don’t make much money. Which means outside investors will no longer fund them.
A lot of the people complaining about this. Used to make these mid market films for studios. Part fund by the studio, run through their associated distributors, be part of the slate. But a vertically integrated studio system does not want that. And since they bought and shuttered the indy system, there’s no back stop.
ETA: to underline it. It doesn’t need to be a superhero film used this way. Fast and the Furious is a big one, the Transformers films still are. Disney does this with their animated pictures. Crazy Rich Asians started as the thing they were pressing in, then became the thing they used to press other things in when it was a surprise hit. Harry Potter was WB’s big pressure series for a long time.
If family melodrama or westerns reliably made a billion dollars, studios would be throwing half billion dollar budgets at them. And Spielberg would be complaining about divorce movies preventing him from making his next historical film.
3 Likes
Yeah, the theaters are an enthusiastic participant in the dynamics of superhero movies that are destroying the mid-budget movie. But those aren’t just “arty but not too arty” films - it’s big-name rom-coms, pretty much everything Scorsese does (which must be a big part of why he’s salty about superhero movies). And yeah, it’s not anything that’s specifically inherent to superhero movies, though they do tend towards requiring big budgets and the thrill-ride nature has cross-cultural appeal.
2 Likes
When you see big studios spending multiple billions of dollars on content every year. The problem is not blockbusters soaking up all the money. It’s the small number of players spending money, and the scale of those that exist.
The creep in blockbuster budgets has more to do with concentration of revenue in ever larger companies. If you can more reliably make a billion dollars off a film if you spend at least $250 million on it. And you have tons of room in your budget for $250 million dollar films. You do it.
And the big victim is less rom coms, than comedy in general. Fewer comedies are made every year, and those that are fit within a pretty narrow formula. Along with horror, and other genre material that’s been pressed into the low budget category. A lot of the same genre stuff that people complaining about this brand as not really cinema.
I don’t know that rom-coms are the thing to pick out, as they had largely devolved to a REALLY rigid formula and low mid budget bracket by the same pressures in the 90s. And their former prominence had as much to do with assumptions about female audiences and limited options for women in the industry as anything else.
Quite a lot of mid budget stuff does get made. It’s just either coming out of the same big studios, or it lands on streaming. Or does the road show, sub 1500 screen short release thing.
And when I said enthusiastic participants i was talking about the consolidation cycle. The theater chains actually pretty much triggered that, when the whole chain multiplex thing first arrived in the 80’s, and began pressuring independents and dictating to distributors and studios. There after they were fully on board on efforts to nuke secondary distribution of prints, sought help in breaking the Projectionists Union, were fully in on the forced projection upgrades of the 90’s and 00’s. They weren’t just on board with but instigated the slates back when it got them a better revenue split than smaller competitors.
It’s a much older situation, one that’s been growing more extreme for decades, than just “superhero movies”. Which have only been as dominating as they are for 10-15 years. With really only 2 players (WB/DC and Marvel/Disney/Sony), which works out to like 3 of the 5 biggest movie and TV companies.
For all the noise Scorsese ultimately had little trouble cutting a deal with Netflix. And ultimately guys like him were beneficiaries of the earlier part of the cycle when things were less vertically integrated. They slotted nicely into the release schedule, and were able to get relatively big budgets through the 90’s and 00’s.
Hell Stephen Spielberg could probably self fund practically any scale of film he’d like to, and find a way to release it. Guy’s got nearly $4b in the bank.
It’s younger creators, who basically only have work for hire as an option. More interesting or weird projects regardless of scale. And new properties that get closed out. You won’t see something as bonkers as Back to Future, or even Alien, was at the time come out these days.
You tend to hear the medium sized movie complaint out of a very particular group of older, already set people in the business. Along with particular ends of the industry press. Often the same people who say steaming is “not real movies” or is what’s killing theaters. Just for contrast when younger creatives and workers criticize streaming it’s not over access to awards or the state of cinema. It’s cause major streaming platforms don’t pay residuals, don’t pay union scale, and often don’t run union productions at all.
It’s just a perspective on the business that completely misses the forest for the trees, and is completely alien to the experiences of anyone I know in the industry or who attempted to get a career going there.
3 Likes
Yeah, that’s pretty much my feeling too.
Although there were a couple great moments. I really think the Weasel can hold down his own franchise- 2 or 3 movies and a holiday special at least.
I legit want a version of the game where you can play with that skin on everything.
You’re in luck!
