That 26% means that around 1 in 4 critics liked it. It's not a grade.
The Rotten Tomatoes average grade for Suicide Squad is 4.7 out of 10, or 47%.
>David Goyer, who served as writer/producer on WB’s “Dark Knight” trilogy, “Man of Steel” and the upcoming “Batman Vs. Superman” revealed the puzzling hesitation the studio was experiencing toward developing a similar plan, “I know Warner Bros. would love to make their universe more cohesive. There have been a lot of general conversations about that, but it’s really, really early… It’s just been vague conversations so far.”
This isn't what Goyer said. He was talking about having the TV side of things in continuity with the movies, not a general plan for just movies.
Edit: Here's the question he was responding to
> DC's certainly got a huge presence in TV right now. What are the conversations about how these shows in development are going to tie into the movies? Is that something you think about?
This is from average movie goers http://www.fandango.com/movie-news/moviegoers-say-rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-is-the-most-anticipated-movie-of-2016-750300 batman v superman is third beating out civil war in anticipation and wonder woman is the most anticipated comicbook character so you're wrong on that
The Art of War has chapters dedicated to choosing an environment that you are familiar with for battle and tailoring it to your needs, as well as have your opponent come to you.
Batman did all those things...
> Bruce knew the rock was found three months ago, but he's been waiting for it to come to Gotham?
For a guy who was just complaining Batman didn't follow The Art of War, you seem to be pretty bad with strategy yourself.
The Kryptonite has been under heavy guard in another country for the past few months. Not only is it the strategic choice to make an attempt to steal it while it is in transit, but also it's more strategic for Batman to have home turf advantage.
>And kryptonite can't be common knowledge because Lex has to explain it to the senator, and Superman doesnt seem to understand whats happening to him. Maybe he knows about kryptonite by spying on AMRiid since he's obviously not spying on Lex, even though it was his company that found it.
Batman is neither common nor simply a senator; he's one of the smartest people on the planet.
Superman not knowing what Kryptonite is really bears no relevance. He's not omniscient, he didn't know it was discovered and wouldn't know what it can do since Lex experimented on Zod's body to discover it's effects.
>And lastly, that just makes Batman even more of an asshole. "The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel" doesnt apply to Bruce if he knows theres a silver bullet. So why the brutality? Cause he's no longer the BMOC?
There being a silver bullet doesn't make Superman any less powerful, nor does it's existent change what Superman's existence means for Batman. "The feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel" still applies, a silver bullet doesn't change the fact that Superman's existence makes Batman's crusade and all his sacrifices look trivial, nor does it change really the threat Superman poses.
It's an incredibly rare material that'd you have to get in close proximity to use. Had Superman actually been evil and not hold back, he could just heat vision people to death before anyone could ever hope to use it.
There are lots of them...even Jeremy Jahns gave it a good review (which shocked the hell out of me, as I usually agree with that guy).
It was during that period when he was refusing to work with any of the big publishers. Around the time he did "From Hell".
He wanted to do some grand new thing that would expand the limits of comics and prove the big labels had been holding him back. He determined the most innovative thing he could do in comics was "intelligent pornography". Sooooooo we got this:
Alice, Dorothy, and Wendy (Yep, the ones from Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, and Peter Pan) all get together in a big victorian house. They proceed to spend the next 3-4 volumes regaling each other with tales of all the fucking and sucking they've been doing since last they met.
And.... that's it. No real plot or anything. Just the little girls from some popular children's books telling graphic, lushly illustrated stories about cunnilingus, and threesomes, and pissing on Peter Pan.
Many, probably most, stores refused to carry a book that was just children having sex. Especially when there wasn't even a story or allegory you could use as an "excuse" to carry it. Toss in some substantial production delays and it pretty much disappears as soon as it was released. But it's actually still in print and you can pick it up on Amazon if you're curious.
Years ago, I flipped through it out of curiosity. It's Alan Moore, so it's well-written, and the art is spectacular. But, this isn't one of those times when folks are focusing on the sensational bits and glossing over the rest. It really is JUST porn stories.
That is pretty dumb, seeing as how every VFX artist has to sign a confidentiality agreement when they sign for their contract for the project, knowing that if they turn out to be the source of a leak that means the end of their career.
This guy seems to be a modeler, and he's only been working in VFX for 3 years. That tells me he's rather inexperienced and will get his hand slapped at the very least.
Source: Former VFX Coordinator
>In medias res, ( Latin: “in the midst of things”) in narrative technique, the recommended practice of beginning an epic or other fictional form by plunging into a crucial situation that is part of a related chain of events; the situation is an extension of previous events and will be developed in later action. The narrative then goes directly forward, and exposition of earlier events is supplied by flashbacks. quarrel between Achilles and Agamemnon during the Trojan War.
Sounds like it goes either way. Sometimes flashbacks, sometimes none.
That's Erma Williams, star of the webcomic r/Erma by Brandon Santiago. He does cite the stars of The Ring and The Grudge as inspirations for the character, if you mistook her for one of those two as many do. You can read the whole thing from the beginning here, it should take you about twenty minutes: quite frankly the best ongoing webcomic today, period, I highly recommend it.
So, what do you think about it?
If Kurtis from Three Angry Nerds is a reliable source, he posted a non-spoiler review. May get taken down because I think the embargo is still in effect.
Creator note: this idea came about during a discussion on my podcast, Superbomb. I try not to shamelessly plug on here too often, but if you wanna give it a listen here’s the link: https://anchor.fm/superbomb/episodes/Meteor-Man-w-Cathy-Herbert--Alec-Vandersteen-e38l1b
> He's not wrong, though.
He's objectively wrong. He calls DOFP dull when it has a 91% on RT, a higher score than Civil War.
>Look at other movies made around 1978. There were different standards for story-telling back then. For better or for worse, we're better at making movies now. The 1978 Donner superman, as released, wouldn't be as successful in today's market.
That is an extremely naive comment to make. Unless you have watched all the films from that era and this one then we'll talk.
The people who hated Superman Returns because Superman was perfect were the same people who hated Superman 1978 because Superman was perfect. So then what accounts for the people who love the character? What accounts for the people who complained that MOS was not the correct version of Superman? There is a lot more that make up these films rather than just flawed or not flawed character.
>I mean, just look at superman returns. It was made in the exact same vein, and pulled in half the money (adjusted for inflation).
I'm just going to give this review by Ebert.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/superman-returns-2006
Notice these sort of complaints.
>One problem is with the casting. Brandon Routh lacks charisma as Superman, and I suppose as Clark Kent
>It's strange how little dialogue the title character has in the movie. Clark Kent is monosyllabic, and Superman is microsyllabic.
>This is a glum, lackluster movie in which even the big effects sequences seem dutiful instead of exhilarating.
This is the same critic that adored the original. Notice how those criticisms I pointed out before are prevalent right here in this review as well. Little emotion, not enough conversation.
I mean if you think a flawed Superman would have made Superman Returns a much better film, I don't know if you've read reviews. I'll just give you letterboxd, and honestly tell me are most of the complaints just because Superman is too perfect? https://letterboxd.com/film/superman-returns/
Definitely not, but it wasn't without its moments.
I think trying to tow the line between action and comedy was a little too broad at times - but I couldn't tell if they were just trying to keep up with the cheese of the original show; regardless, the tone was all over the place & frankly, I would have preferred one or the other.
Has your Dad ever read Batman 66 meets Green Hornet? Might be a suitable filler!
Well, I don't think he's killing because it's "wrong". I mean they did kidnap a woman and were going to murder her. It's justifiable for police to shoot them in that situation. That said - I read a lot of early Batman recently, and while he doesn't flat out kill, he sure does let them die. Literally the first Batman comic - He knocks a guy over a railing, the innocent he saves says "He's falling into that vat of chemicals!" and Batman says "A fitting end for the likes of him." "End", like he knows the dude's a goner. A couple of issues later, he wraps gun barrels around multiple guys arms and torso and throws them off a dock. To drown. This was, of course, before the Comics Code Authority stamp, which was self-imposed censorship done by the producers in the 1950s to avoid government censorship of violence, gore, cursing and sex stuff. Marvel dropped it in 2001(think their MAX imprint). DC dropped it in 2011. This is a hugely important part of comic book history, and the reason why most heroes(invented after 1954) don't kill. It's why that era's Superman is known as Asshole Superman, and why Wonder Woman and Cap could slay legions on the battlefield(plus the art wasn't nearly as detailed regarding gore, and it was wartime). As for Snyder's capabilities as a director, I think there's plenty of good stuff in Watchmen, 300, Dawn of the Dead, BvS, etc. Comics are never heavy with "subtlety and nuance". It's not like Ant-Man was high drama. But he's like the Michael Bay of comic directors - you love or you hate him.
I've wondered about Fantastic Four? We know Fox has the film rights in perpetuity as long as they release at least one new film every 8 years. If they don't make a film the rights revert back to Disney. But do Fox have the option to sell the rights to another studio while they maintain them? Like could Fox sell the rights to Warner Bros., and now WB can make a Fantastic Four film, and have them appear in films with their other characters. There was a Superman/Fantastic Four crossover comic years ago, what if they made that into a movie?
I know, very unlikely, I'm just imagining...
Here's one link, but the price is too high imo.
Thanks :)