What's new

Batgirl (1 Viewer)

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
8,261
I hope it will be better than the weird situation on Age OF Ultron. Depended on what day Joss was asked on what it was like making that movie. Some days he would say everything was great, but other times he said it was a miserable experience making it. I think the negative comments outweighed the positive(like getting to work with a great cast again) overall. I think he was micromanaged to the extreme, and resented it.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,998
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I think part of the problem with Avengers: Age Of Ultron (judging from the film itself, Whedon's press comments, and a Q&A I saw him give at the Tribeca Film Festival last year) is that Whedon and Marvel were never on the same page about the movie was supposed to be, and the script was overlong and perhaps not ready for shooting on the date they were committed to beginning on.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to start shooting a movie when the conception of what that movie should be hasn't been finalized.

To me, the biggest problem with Age Of Ultron might not have even been the movie itself, but what I was expecting from it. I was expecting an Avengers movie to mean that it would be like a "season finale" for the entire Phase 2 set of movies that came. I wanted it to build on the plot threads left dangling in previous installments, and to act as a sort of summation of the past couple years of Marvel movie-going. That's what the first Avengers did - the Tesseract had shown up a couple times before, and now we learned what it actually does and it gets to be the MacGuffin. We get the resolution to Steve Rogers waking up in another time at the end of the first Captain America movie. We build on Tony Stark's difficulty playing with others but his ultimate need to do so. Loki, introduced as more of a minor threat in the first Thor movie, evolves into a more powerful villain. I could go on and on, but the point is, everything in the first Avengers movie felt like a payoff. Compare that to Age Of Ultron, where most of the problems and solutions are invented within the film and aren't really building on what came before or setting up groundwork for what should come later. The first Avengers movie could only have taken place right where it is in the sequence of films; Age Of Ultron seems almost out of place by comparison. The movie is expected to tie together several years and films into one project, but it wants to be a stand-alone adventure. I think that's one of the biggest problems. It wasn't a bad movie, it just wasn't at all what I was expecting. Ultimately, Captain America: Civil War was closer to being what I expected from an Avengers movie.

I am personally very disappointed that the Whedon-Marvel relationship ended; I don't want the Russo Brothers (talented as they are) doing Avengers 3 and 4. That's Whedon's turf. I'm disappointed that, for whoever made the decision, that he's not making those movies. It feels like unfinished business. I'm disappointed that Whedon said at the Q&A I attended that he couldn't do the next Avengers movie because he had personal stories he was dying to tell that couldn't wait... and yet, we haven't gotten any of those, and he's moving on to a different franchise.

If this new Batgirl film is meant to be its own thing, I'm sure it'll be fine. But there have already been so many bad decisions made in the building of the DC Universe that I am concerned that Whedon will be stuck with a bunch of things that just go against what I enjoy about these characters.
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
8,261
Joss ready to strike a deal with WB is a dream come true(Marvel's loss). If this translates into more Whedon writing for say a Superman,
Wonder Woman, or Batman film in the future it will be awesome.
I'll cross my fingers for that.

Unrestricted, Joss Whedon can make a hell of a compelling story, with true character development.
I just finished season 5 of "Angel" again. And it immediately got me thinking 'why is he not working right now? Waste of time and a true talent'. Then I wake up to the news about Batgirl, and everything is good:)
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,998
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Re: Whedon on television:

On one hand, I'd hate to see Whedon do a Netflix-type show, because I really hate their method of delivery, that is, releasing all of the episodes on a single date. (I believe the best television needs to premiere on a week-to-week basis and that that's an important part of the experience, both for viewers and for showrunners. I can think of so many examples of shows that improved because in the process of making episodes and having them air while other episodes were still in progress, the showrunners started understanding which elements worked and which didn't, which things were clear to the audience and which weren't, and could make adjustments as necessary. I think our brains process a show differently when we get one episode a week and then have a week to think about what we just saw, than it is when you watch ten episodes in a day or two and they all blend together like a giant movie. Frankly, the Netflix shows I've seen, which boasted great production values, didn't feel much like TV to me - they felt like long movies with semi-arbitrary breaks every hour or so. They rarely have structure, and so the pacing feels tremendously off to me. As a cultural experience of watching something, I enjoy it less because we lose out on the sense of discovery. It feels more like an obligation to me - "here's ten hours of something I have to watch" rather than "I've been waiting all week for this new episode". And it's nearly impossible to have any meaningful conversations about a new show where all episodes are put online at once, since everyone is on their own pace, but most people end up binging. I had that experience with House Of Cards. When the second season came out, my coworkers came in the next morning and had watched the first five episodes, so I was unable to participate in any conversations about the show (I had only had time to watch the first one). A couple days later, they finished the show. A week later, it was as if the whole thing was over, or had never happened in the first place - everyone had finished it and moved on, and there was no water cooler type discussion to be had. And that's what I notice each time there's a new Netflix show - the first couple days it comes out, I can't participate in any discussions about it because no one's talking about the first episode, they're already up to like episode 7, and by the time I catch up, no one's talking about it at all. Since the episode breaks are rarely memorable and since most people binge, no one can really say "Let's just talk about episode 1" since no one remembers exactly where episode 1 starts. I also think, to quite Nicholas Meyer, that "art thrives on limitations" - some of the very best television has come as a result of dealing with the limitations of time slots, amount of time each act has before a commercial break, what can and can't be said or shown on broadcast, telling a story over an extended period of time, etc. I think the Netflix model throws away so many important parts of making and watching shows that don't even seem to get noticed or discussed. I think this way of distributing shows will bring about the end of television as we know it.)

Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to make it completely clear how I feel about the Netflix style of shows and why, to give context to my next statement: I would like to see Whedon work on one of those type of shows. I'd prefer he work on one that delivered week-to-week so that the structure that Whedon excels within was still there, but I'd love to see him free of worries about cancellation, or without having to deal with a studio or network that bought his idea and then tried to change it.

Then again, Dollhouse is my favorite show of his, and he probably faced more difficulties on that show than on any of his other ones.
 

dpippel

Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems
Premium
Joined
Feb 24, 2000
Messages
10,419
Location
Sonora Norte
Real Name
Doug
I wonder if Snyder has enough clout to force Whedon to use the same gloom and doom color pallette the other DC films are burdened with? Seriously though, this announcement doesn't excite me at all. I think I've officially reached the point of superhero overload.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,998
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I wonder if Snyder has enough clout to force Whedon to use the same gloom and doom color pallette the other DC films are burdened with?

I suspect Zack Snyder's involvement with the DC films will start winding down after the release of Justice League. Notice that he wasn't asked to direct Man Of Steel 2, even though he made the first film in the series. He wasn't asked to direct their Batman movie, even though this version of the character originated in a film he directed. Suicide Squad, a movie he oversaw but didn't direct, received terrible reviews and more importantly to the studio, under-performed at the box office. Batman V Superman, the first onscreen pairing of arguably the two most iconic superheroes of all time, failed to gross a billion dollars at the box office, despite films with more obscure characters crossing that threshold. They were too far into Justice League to just get rid of the guy, but I suspect that once that's out, his role is going to be scaled back if not outright eliminated. It might be worth noting that Justice League was originally announced to be a two-part movie, and after the BvS underperformance, it was turned into a single film.
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
8,261
Re: Whedon on television:

On one hand, I'd hate to see Whedon do a Netflix-type show, because I really hate their method of delivery, that is, releasing all of the episodes on a single date. (I believe the best television needs to premiere on a week-to-week basis and that that's an important part of the experience, both for viewers and for showrunners. I can think of so many examples of shows that improved because in the process of making episodes and having them air while other episodes were still in progress, the showrunners started understanding which elements worked and which didn't, which things were clear to the audience and which weren't, and could make adjustments as necessary. I think our brains process a show differently when we get one episode a week and then have a week to think about what we just saw, than it is when you watch ten episodes in a day or two and they all blend together like a giant movie. Frankly, the Netflix shows I've seen, which boasted great production values, didn't feel much like TV to me - they felt like long movies with semi-arbitrary breaks every hour or so. They rarely have structure, and so the pacing feels tremendously off to me. As a cultural experience of watching something, I enjoy it less because we lose out on the sense of discovery. It feels more like an obligation to me - "here's ten hours of something I have to watch" rather than "I've been waiting all week for this new episode". And it's nearly impossible to have any meaningful conversations about a new show where all episodes are put online at once, since everyone is on their own pace, but most people end up binging. I had that experience with House Of Cards. When the second season came out, my coworkers came in the next morning and had watched the first five episodes, so I was unable to participate in any conversations about the show (I had only had time to watch the first one). A couple days later, they finished the show. A week later, it was as if the whole thing was over, or had never happened in the first place - everyone had finished it and moved on, and there was no water cooler type discussion to be had. And that's what I notice each time there's a new Netflix show - the first couple days it comes out, I can't participate in any discussions about it because no one's talking about the first episode, they're already up to like episode 7, and by the time I catch up, no one's talking about it at all. Since the episode breaks are rarely memorable and since most people binge, no one can really say "Let's just talk about episode 1" since no one remembers exactly where episode 1 starts. I also think, to quite Nicholas Meyer, that "art thrives on limitations" - some of the very best television has come as a result of dealing with the limitations of time slots, amount of time each act has before a commercial break, what can and can't be said or shown on broadcast, telling a story over an extended period of time, etc. I think the Netflix model throws away so many important parts of making and watching shows that don't even seem to get noticed or discussed. I think this way of distributing shows will bring about the end of television as we know it.)

Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to make it completely clear how I feel about the Netflix style of shows and why, to give context to my next statement: I would like to see Whedon work on one of those type of shows. I'd prefer he work on one that delivered week-to-week so that the structure that Whedon excels within was still there, but I'd love to see him free of worries about cancellation, or without having to deal with a studio or network that bought his idea and then tried to change it.

Then again, Dollhouse is my favorite show of his, and he probably faced more difficulties on that show than on any of his other ones.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I remember watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer first run WB, and UPN, or non-Whedon show Lost on ABC(used to go to my mom's house every Wednesday to watch this with her. We loved this show) These shows were the defining "what will happen next week?..I can't wait to see" type of programming that left a huge impression, and always had me(and family + friends) excited with the anticipation of what was in store in the next episode. "Event television".
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,998
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
You nailed it Bryan.

For "Lost", I came to the party late, and started watching near the end of the run. In that case, I was binge watching with purpose - I needed to watch the first four seasons quick, so I could jump on board with everyone else in the fifth season. To me, that kind of binge watching hard a purpose, because there was still the chance to catch up with everyone else. If the show had simply been complete at that point, I might have went, "Damn, six seasons, I'm not ready to make that commitment" and put it off. But knowing all my friends were watching it, and that I had the summer to catch up so I could join in with them, made it worthwhile.

Whereas with a Netflix show like Daredevil, I could catch up on all of the episodes before the next season, but people aren't going to watch the next season any differently than the others, so it'll be the same problem.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
38,696
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I still haven't read season 9. I don't think Joss was involved though?
Whedon is still credited as executive producer and I believe he's involved when they sit down and decide the arc of the season and the big story points at the beginning. In other words, I'd guess he still tosses in his two cents and they don't do anything big without his OK but I doubt he's involved on an issue to issue level.

As an aside, the Angel & Faith spin-off comic book was really good. Most fans preferred it to Buffy that year (season 9).
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
8,261
Cool, I plan on getting it Omnibus style.
I like Angel comics too, although it has been years since I have read any of them. I will catch up at some point.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
24,719
Location
Albany, NY
I'd be more excited if it was a true standalone instead of part of the DC Snyderverse. That said, the dreary established aesthetic is better suited for Gotham City than any of the settings.

I wonder where this will fall in the chronology, pre-BvS or post-BVS. Was there any hints in BvS that the events of The Killing Joke are part of this world's established history?
 

Nigel P

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 9, 2000
Messages
398
Real Name
Nigel
I suspect Zack Snyder's involvement with the DC films will start winding down after the release of Justice League. Notice that he wasn't asked to direct Man Of Steel 2, even though he made the first film in the series. He wasn't asked to direct their Batman movie, even though this version of the character originated in a film he directed. Suicide Squad, a movie he oversaw but didn't direct, received terrible reviews and more importantly to the studio, under-performed at the box office. Batman V Superman, the first onscreen pairing of arguably the two most iconic superheroes of all time, failed to gross a billion dollars at the box office, despite films with more obscure characters crossing that threshold. They were too far into Justice League to just get rid of the guy, but I suspect that once that's out, his role is going to be scaled back if not outright eliminated. It might be worth noting that Justice League was originally announced to be a two-part movie, and after the BvS underperformance, it was turned into a single film.

I agree with what you say overall, but did Suicide Squad under perform? I don't know what their expectations were, but It made $746M which put it above Man of Steel. It would be 6th out of the 14 Marvel Cinematic Universe films, Guardians of the Galaxy is the only the non RDJ film which did better at $773M. Days of Future Past at $748M is the only X-Men team movie out of 6 which did better. There is no doubt Batman v Superman was a huge kick in the teeth not making it past a billion.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
21,998
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I agree with what you say overall, but did Suicide Squad under perform?

Maybe it didn't to the degree BvS did, but I think expectations were sky high given how well the trailers were playing with the audience. I think the studio genuinely expected to receive positive reviews and a positive audience response, and when both of those groups were negative on the film, I think that had an effect on the box office - I recall the drop from first to second weekend being fairly brutal. But you're right that it wasn't an outright bomb - and the numbers would be incredibly good for a movie that didn't have such expectations attached to it.
 

Brandon Conway

captveg
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
9,471
Location
North Hollywood, CA
Real Name
Brandon Conway
Suicide Squad overperformed at the box office per WBs expectations. They expected $500-600m WW (Ant-Man #s).

Also, to say that Snyder "oversaw it" is a bit of a stretch. He was an executive producer, not a creative one. Aside from Affleck's casting, making sure the continuity fit with what they had planned on the "big board", and helping to bring in Ayer to do the film, I know of no creative influence that Snyder had on Suicide Squad. He was in production/post-production of Batman v Superman and pre-production/production of Justice League the entire time Suicide Squad was in pre-production/production/post-production.

But aside from that, here is what is happening with the DCEU:

Once they decided to abandon moving quickly into Justice League 2 back in April 2016 they have been pretty clear in wanting to establish different "wings" of the DCEU house. The Bat-family wing was always going to be their big one. Between the Bat-family and the strong hints of Superman/Black Adam/Shazam/Green Lanterns being another "wing", it's pretty clear that the post-JL, pre-JL2 era will be 7-12 "solo" films, with "batches" of 2-4 films each for the different "wings". If Snyder returns it will be for JL2 in 2022-25, depending on just how many of these "solo" films they end up doing before going back to a team up.

Maybe we get a little bit of info from WonderCon tomorrow at the DC Films presentation about some of the DCEU plans after Justice League aside from Aquaman, or maybe we have to wait until SDCC in July.
 

Nigel P

Second Unit
Joined
Oct 9, 2000
Messages
398
Real Name
Nigel
Whedon is out.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/joss-whedon-exits-batgirl-movie-1087384

"Batgirl is such an exciting project, and Warners/DC such collaborative and supportive partners, that it took me months to realize I really didn't have a story," Whedon told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. Referring to DC president Geoff Johns and Warner Bros. Picture Group president Toby Emmerich, Whedon added, "I'm grateful to Geoff and Toby and everyone who was so welcoming when I arrived, and so understanding when I…uh, is there a sexier word for 'failed?'"
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Forum Sponsors

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
349,084
Messages
4,868,167
Members
142,476
Latest member
derekbd
Recent bookmarks
0
Top