Captain Marvel

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Not sure what you're trying to argue here. This isn't the 70s. Marvel and DC have both taken their properties really seriously, actors and directors, since they started this push into mainstream movies. Nearly everybody is A-list at this point. Carano was fine for something like a secondary villain role in Deadpool, but there's no way she could've carried a tentpole spring/summer movie on her own.

I think she'd have done just fine. Obviously there's no way of knowing for sure. These movies are popular primarily because of the CGI and action scenes, not the actors displaying their alleged chops between CGI action scenes. Seriously, how many of the stars of these films are truly talented actors when you take all that shit away? It's not like everybody is Robert Downey Jr.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by Frazod

I think she'd have done just fine. Obviously there's no way of knowing for sure. These movies are popular primarily because of the CGI and action scenes, not the actors displaying their alleged chops between CGI action scenes. Seriously, how many of the stars of these films are truly talented actors when you take all that shit away? It's not like everybody is Robert Downey Jr.

Nearly the entire Marvel Avengers cast or actors, and even some minor characters, are pretty well-respected actors.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Sully

Nearly the entire Marvel Avengers cast or actors, and even some minor characters, are pretty well-respected actors.

I mean Mark Ruffalo is playing the hulk, FFS.

Dude's politics are annoying as hell but he's a respected actor playing a slobbering monster.

Any 'anchor' character has been portrayed by someone who is at least a solid actor. Evans was fantastic in Snowpiercer, Hemsworth has actually shown solid chops outside of the MCU, Cumberbatch, Johansson, Renner, Boseman, Saldana; even less 'refined' actors like Rudd, Pratt and Samuel L. Jackson have held their own outside of the MCU. Even the secondary characters tend to be playing down; Michael Douglas, Glenn Close, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Mads Mikkelsen, Chiwetel Ojiofer, Rachel Adams, Kurt Russell, Michael Keaton, Kate Blanchett, Michael B. Jordan, Angela Basset, Forest Whitaker, Lawrence Fishburn, etc, etc....

If they have a Drax the Destroyer individual property helmed by Dave Bautista the idea may have some merit. But every actor that has been a primary player in the MCU of late has had solid acting chops at the very worst.

I don't know what makes anyone think that these $100 million properties are just throwaway items for these production groups these days. No, they're not going to dilute their product by just throwing a bunch of B-Listers at it and pretending like these are Sci-Fi Originals going direct to cable.

It took a ton of effort (and raw dumb luck) to get these movies considered along the lines of 'serious' fare and they aren't going to send some wooden blockhead like Gina Carano out there to lead their major 'female empowerment' property. There's a threshold level of acting skills that they expect, especially from their primary characters, and Gina doesn't get there.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I mean Mark Ruffalo is playing the hulk, FFS.

Dude's politics are annoying as hell but he's a respected actor playing a slobbering monster.

Any 'anchor' character has been portrayed by someone who is at least a solid actor. Evans was fantastic in Snowpiercer, Hemsworth has actually shown solid chops outside of the MCU, Cumberbatch, Johansson, Renner, Boseman, Saldana; even less 'refined' actors like Rudd, Pratt and Samuel L. Jackson have held their own outside of the MCU. Even the secondary characters tend to be playing down; Michael Douglas, Glenn Close, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Hopkins, Idris Elba, Josh Brolin, Benicio Del Toro, Mads Mikkelsen, Chiwetel Ojiofer, Rachel Adams, Kurt Russell, Michael Keaton, Kate Blanchett, Michael B. Jordan, Angela Basset, Forest Whitaker, Lawrence Fishburn, etc, etc....

If they have a Drax the Destroyer individual property helmed by Dave Bautista the idea may have some merit. But every actor that has been a primary player in the MCU of late has had solid acting chops at the very worst.

I don't know what makes anyone think that these $100 million properties are just throwaway items for these production groups these days. No, they're not going to dilute their product by just throwing a bunch of B-Listers at it and pretending like these are Sci-Fi Originals going direct to cable.

It took a ton of effort (and raw dumb luck) to get these movies considered along the lines of 'serious' fare and they aren't going to send some wooden blockhead like Gina Carano out there to lead their major 'female empowerment' property. There's a threshold level of acting skills that they expect, especially from their primary characters, and Gina doesn't get there.

Oh for ****'s sake, let's stop pretending that this comic book bullshit is Citizen Kane just because it has expensive CGI. This stuff is popular because the ritalin-chewing millennial zombies that it's aimed at love the 'splosions.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Oh for ****'s sake, let's stop pretending that this comic book bullshit is Citizen Kane just because it has expensive CGI. This stuff is popular because the ritalin-chewing millennial zombies that it's aimed at love the 'splosions.

I think you discount the impact that bad acting can have on a series. See the DC universe until recently.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I think you discount the impact that bad acting can have on a series. See the DC universe until recently.

There's not one of these $200M turds that I've enjoyed more than the original Conan the Barbarian, and when he made that Arnie could barely speak.

I think you guys are mistaking bad writing for bad acting.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Frazod

There's not one of these $200M turds that I've enjoyed more than the original Conan the Barbarian, and when he made that Arnie could barely speak.

I think you guys are mistaking bad writing for bad acting.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Oh for ****'s sake, let's stop pretending that this comic book bullshit is Citizen Kane just because it has expensive CGI. This stuff is popular because the ritalin-chewing millennial zombies that it's aimed at love the 'splosions.

Michael Bay movies were popular because of CGI and 'splosions but they had nowhere near the staying power.

The MCU (and to a lesser extent DC) could've made a few big movies adhering to the approach you're championing here, but they'd have flared out like the Transformers movies did.

The reason the MCU has staying power is because the performances are generally credible. Not Oscar worthy, but not relying on little more than Megan Fox's abs and 'splosions to keep the film going.

That's why the Transformers franchise has faded away to obscurity while MCU can simply print money.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Michael Bay movies were popular because of CGI and 'splosions but they had nowhere near the staying power.

The MCU (and to a lesser extent DC) could've made a few big movies adhering to the approach you're championing here, but they'd have flared out like the Transformers movies did.

The reason the MCU has staying power is because the performances are generally credible. Not Oscar worthy, but not relying on little more than Megan Fox's abs and 'splosions to keep the film going.

That's why the Transformers franchise has faded away to obscurity while MCU can simply print money.

The biggest problem with Transformers is that it's just dumb. Cars that turn into big flying robots. WTF? It was dumb in the 80s and it's still dumb. The entire concept always reminds me of the "I don't get it" scene from Big.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Frazod

The biggest problem with Transformers is that it's just dumb. Cars that turn into big flying robots. WTF? It was dumb in the 80s and it's still dumb. The entire concept always reminds me of the "I don't get it" scene from Big.

Sure it is.

But the first 2 movies did exceptionally well - why? As you said, CGI and 'splosions will get eyeballs. For awhile.

But because it was ONLY CGI and 'splosions, their last 3 movies have done dick.

That's precisely the point - the premise of Transformers isn't all that much more ludicrous than your basic Superhero template and both properties experienced similar initial success for similar reasons. But the superhero properties have grown and gotten more successful while the transformers movies have fallen apart precisely because the Superhero folks took them more seriously and didn't lean into the camp.

In other words, they cast an actress who could play Diana Prince rather than one who looked like Wonder Woman. And they made a LOT of money because of it.