Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SUPERMAN PRE-RELEASE (202X)
Maybe he'll a a "producer" like Nolan was a "producer" on Justice League??
Reply
Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

He has nothing to do with those movies outside of the third.
Reply
I guess that's why he has a producer credit on Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation and Fallout.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:32 PM)atomtastic Wrote: I guess that's why he has a producer credit on Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation and Fallout.

He also has a token producer credit on The Last Jedi.
Reply
He's only an Executive Producer on Last Jedi.
Reply
I like that DC isn't just trying to do some shared universe thing anymore. There's enough versions of this and that character when it comes to DC that not being nailed down into one shared universe is alright with me. If DC movies were basically just Elseworlds, and used or didn't use the same actor as they wished that's cool.

The timing of these choices does feel funny though. Like WB and DC seemed to abandon the idea of the shared universe, at least somewhat, right when the shared universe movies start really doing well. Also in the comics they're doing one of the dumbest thing I think they've ever done, (which is saying something given I also said in this thread Captain America in the comics is now just an idea of Captain America that was created by the Cosmic Cube...the Cube was a little girl at the time) which is, the Linearverse. In the Linearverse it turns out all DC stories happened in one linear universe, which is kind of what Marvel does, but there's a twist: Everyone ages slower. So now in the comics Batman has been Batman since the '30s. Turns out as DC and Marvel head into the omniverse with their movies and tv shows, DC comics has come up with the dumbest way ever to say all DC stories happened in one universe.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

He directed a pretty good soft reboot, but I have never read anything to make me believe he was actively involved in the later films in any meaningful capacity, including actively producing (as opposed to extending a hand and having a check placed in it due to the contract he negotiated for III).

Have you seen different?

Reply
I mean, he has the credit. You guys can hem and haw about how involved he was, but he produced those movies.

He only has an executive producer on the next one, which suggests a level of involvement in the previous entries that he won't have in that one.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

Funnily, the movie he directed in that franchise happens to be the one that was the least successful at the box office.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:57 PM)mr. stockslivevan Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

Funnily, the movie he directed in that franchise happens to be the one that was the least successful at the box office.

Sequels, even damn good ones, often pay for the sins of their predecessor.

Reply
Well, let's see... Simon Pegg is in the M:I movies starting with the one JJ directed, so I assume JJ gets a producer credit on the subsequent films because the franchise is still using at least one character that he introduced in the series.

For TFA, he created a host of characters, so that's why he's an EP on the sequel. Now, why did he get a producer credit on M:I and Trek but an EP credit on TLJ? I can't say for certain, but I would imagine that JJ has a better deal with Paramount than with Lucasfilm. I heard Bad Robot gets $10 mil for each Trek flick, and probably something in that neighborhood for M:I. I doubt that Disney's as generous with cash or, heh, credit.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:59 PM)Overlord Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:57 PM)mr. stockslivevan Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

Funnily, the movie he directed in that franchise happens to be the one that was the least successful at the box office.

Sequels, even damn good ones, often pay for the sins of their predecessor.

Doesn't help it was right after Cruise's couch jumping shenanigans.
Reply
I think enough time had passed (6 years) that it was less about a reaction to MI2 (although I’m sure that played a role) and more a reaction to Cruise’s aggressive Scientology PR barrage combined with couch jumping about Katie Holmes that was happening around that time

dammit stocks
Reply
And then he played a Nazi in a movie directed by a pedophile!
Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:57 PM)atomtastic Wrote: I mean, he has the credit. You guys can hem and haw about how involved he was, but he produced those movies.

He only has an executive producer on the next one, which suggests a level of involvement in the previous entries that he won't have in that one.

Well, I mean there's some truth to that.  His name is there in the production credits and absent evidence to the contrary I suppose we should take it at face value.

The sum total of my general recollection, however, is that nobody talks about Abrams being the guiding hand behind film productions the way you often see him discussed in regards to his television projects.

Reply
Point is, producers don't do anything.
Reply
BATMAN FOREVER opens with

A
TIM BURTON
PRODUCTION

Yeah, sure!
Reply
How much actual input he had on the films, I wasn't totally sure but I absolutely love the Mission Impossible movies from 3 onward. Whether that's attributable to him...I won't pretend to know. But I approve very much of the direction those films are going in and have been going in for 15+ years.

I like Star Trek '09....imperfect as it may be. But if I waited around for perfect movies to be happy, I'd be a pretty miserable person. Star Trek Into Darkness is to Star Trek what Rise of Skywalker is to Star Wars. Jesus CHRIST some of that movie is terrible and makes me want to throttle him. But it's also got some scenes that are so good (to me) that I can't just write the film off as much as "cold fusion bomb" makes me want to. Khan and Kirk flying from one damaged ship to another is the type of thing that makes me throw good sense to the winds and just enjoy it. Beyond is a good movie...we need more like that. But we REALLY need more that are Master and Commander in space.

Super 8 is an entertaining movie that, again, is imperfect as hell but does enough good to justify its existence.

Cloverfield is the only found footage movie I've ever loved.

Star Wars....hoo boy, Star Wars. So many bad decisions that I lost count and what makes me more salty is somehow JJ weaseled out of the blame he rightly deserves and (happily) passed it on to Rian Johnson who he put in that position in the first place. Somehow Rian gets blsmed for ruining the trilogy when the other guy did two films to his one, is a producer and his film is stuck in the middle with no control over how it began or ended. I wish Rian had done Episode IX. And through all that, I still like all three because there's more going on than just JJ bullshit and I end up liking them, as I said, just through the sheer wonderfulness that is Star Wars despite JJs best attempts to crush the life out of it all. It's fucking jarring to watch Rogue One...a film he had nothing to do with and you can just feel the difference. It feels so much more authentically Star Wars and handily trounces the entire sequel trilogy in my opinion.

So....his being involved with Superman just makes me roll my eyes..

Reply
(02-26-2021, 10:08 PM)mr. stockslivevan Wrote: BATMAN FOREVER opens with

A
TIM BURTON
PRODUCTION

Yeah, sure!

I believe he approved the film's original writing team and then ghosted.
Reply
I remember the only interaction he had with Joel Schumacher was "do whatever you want, I don't care".
Reply
(02-26-2021, 10:06 PM)bradito Wrote: Point is, producers don't do anything.

Someone has listened to Biff's song.

Reply
(02-26-2021, 09:57 PM)mr. stockslivevan Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 09:29 PM)atomtastic Wrote: Maybe the 2 billion dollars the Mission Impossible franchise started making after he came aboard?

Funnily, the movie he directed in that franchise happens to be the one that was the least successful at the box office.

This was absolutely a result of Cruise being viewed as a total nut around that time. And it was paying for the general consensus on the previous Mission Impossible which wasn't recieved nearly as well as the original..

Reply
Quote:This was absolutely a result of Cruise being viewed as a total nut around that time. And it was paying for the general consensus on the previous Mission Impossible which wasn't recieved nearly as well as the original..


I think it had everything to do with Mission Impossible 2 being, from top to bottom, a creative disaster.  I think my comment walking out of the theater to my gal pal at the time was "What the fuck was that?"

Reply
(02-26-2021, 10:15 PM)Overlord Wrote: [quote pid='4776430' dateline='1614392012']

Quote:This was absolutely a result of Cruise being viewed as a total nut around that time. And it was paying for the general consensus on the previous Mission Impossible which wasn't recieved nearly as well as the original..

I think it had everything to do with Mission Impossible being, from top to bottom, a creative disaster.  I think my comment walking out of the theater to my gal pal at the time was "What the fuck was that?"
[/quote]

Which one lol? If you mean the first one...I agree. Somehow, it was a critical and commercial success despite being unnecessarily dense and for no good reason. Not being very suspenseful. Not having any real action. Having like two good scenes....and blowing the money shot of the whole film in the trailer..

Reply
I love the first movie just for the fact that it actually feels like a genuine spy thriller rather than just another action film. That whole CIA sequence was more exciting for me than all the motorcycle chases in the sequels combined.
Reply
The first one is the best! It's pure De Palma!

Job 3:14.
Reply
At any rate, I wouldn't worry about JJ fucking up the next Superman movie if he's only producing it. Warner Bros is a director-friendly studio. Just ask Zack Snyder who was micromanaged into quitting JL; wait, bad example.

But seriously, JJ's name being on the project will help it get a greenlight, since WB spent a zillion dollars on luring him away from Paramount. They're eager to see a return on that investment.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 10:15 PM)Overlord Wrote:
Quote:This was absolutely a result of Cruise being viewed as a total nut around that time. And it was paying for the general consensus on the previous Mission Impossible which wasn't recieved nearly as well as the original..


I think it had everything to do with Mission Impossible being, from top to bottom, a creative disaster.  I think my comment walking out of the theater to my gal pal at the time was "What the fuck was that?"

The original or M:I2?
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
Probably 2, because people hate fun.
Reply
given the criticism of the first movie audiences had (too confusing!), does the immense success of MI2 owe it to the perceived sins of the first?**

Or was it just the super aggressive marketing with the slick visuals?

The thing about MI3 was that those who saw it generally really liked it and found it to be what MI movies should be (at least that’s what I perceived from discussions at the time). But somehow, word of mouth didn’t give that one a boost. It’s a movie that’s highly dependent upon people wanting to see the movie star on the poster, and at that point in time, I got the impression that people had their fill of Cruise.

However, don’t think the effect of MI2 is totally negligible. After the first two movies, audiences seemed to get the sense that Cruise was using the brand as a vanity project for himself. Combine that with the publicity overload, I can see people deciding to dismiss MI3 sight unseen

As for Abrams’ influence on MI movies as a producer, I believe he plays more of a role than he does in something like Last Jedi. I think he played a key role in getting Brad Bird onto Ghost Protocol along with Cruise.


**i love depalma’s movie
Reply
DePalma's M:I is great.

M:I 3 is a mediocrity at best, just like every other Abrams directorial effort. 

That said, I think the guy's got some good instincts outside his hackwork behind the camera. I'm okay with giving some credit for the last 3 excellent M:I movies to the Bad Robot banner.
Our sanitariums are full of men who think they're Napoleon... Or God.
Reply
(02-26-2021, 10:25 PM)MichaelM Wrote:
(02-26-2021, 10:15 PM)Overlord Wrote:
Quote:This was absolutely a result of Cruise being viewed as a total nut around that time. And it was paying for the general consensus on the previous Mission Impossible which wasn't recieved nearly as well as the original..


I think it had everything to do with Mission Impossible being, from top to bottom, a creative disaster.  I think my comment walking out of the theater to my gal pal at the time was "What the fuck was that?"

The original or M:I2?

D'OH!

MI: 2.  I fixed the original post.  I like the original a lot.

Reply
Ping me when we're back on topic.
Reply
I have invoked M:12.

Waiting for the screenshots, Nooj.

You know you want to.
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)