Red Right Hand: WHY SO IMPATIENT?

 

WHY SO IMPATIENT?

Today, let us briefly turn to the realm of cinema. In specific, cinema which features certifiable, though good-hearted, insane vigilantes.

In this post from The Guardian's (UK) film blog, a young man, we'll call him Ben Child (largely because that's his name) has chosen to scold Warner Brothers for not coming out and announcing a third Batman flick. In so making this admonishment, he says:
"All of this serves once again to make the company – and its wholly-owned division, DC Comics – continue to look like a slow-moving behemoth, incapable of making decisions, compared with the new kid on the block, Marvel Comics, which set up its own studio in 2004..."
To him, I say this.
"Shut your festering gob, you tit!"
While I do forcefully agree with his assertion that Marvel knows (for the most part) how to exploit their characters in the realm of film and have done so with plenty of success (even the sucky movies still made money). DC and WB, despite having been part of the same corporate monothingy for...ever, have a track record of (despite The Dark Knight) utter failure in this regard (though improving, with The Losers and Green Lantern coming forth).

Regardless of what you may think of Superman Returns, the true failure is that Superman III and IV were allowed to exist and that it took twenty years to get a reboot/relaunch under way. For SUPERfuckingMAN. Especially when Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher were allowed to do molest Batman four times over.

And then there's Wonder Woman. The third of DC's trinity. Yeah, she had her own TV series...30 years ago. Jonah Hex is getting a movie before she did (and from the looks of it, I think they fucked up Jonah Hex). Even with Joss Whedon, no go. And there was a fantastic spec by Matthew Jennison and Brent Strickland that bought by Joel Silver (largely as a kill fee). Silver didn't want it to be a period piece. Why the fuck not? If it's good, make the godamn movie. Then bring her forward in the sequel if it's that important.

OK, I'm off point. Back to the subject at hand.

Warners hasn't announced a new Batflick. Good. For one thing, he's taking the word of Gary Oldman at Comic Con as gospel. Oldman said they'll start filiming next year. No one else, anywhere, has said a goddamn thing.

Actors will say all manner of stuff. Rarely should any of it be taken seriously.

But this is Gary Oldman.

Yeah.

That actually makes it less trustworthy, because I see Oldman as exactly the sort that will have it on with the 6000 people in that room and the rest of the damn internet...because he can. I like Gary Oldman. (But that's a whole other post).

And assuming all the pieces are in place, how is not announcing it even relevant. It's gonna be at least two years before it even hits the screens. Minimum. Announcing it just doesn't mean shit. The only that matters in bums in seats. They could shoot it in absolute secrecy for all I care. Just give it a good P.R. push when they're ready and all will be well. It's done when it's done and not a 'mo before.

Let's not push Warner into making a Batmovie until everyone is ready. After all, I don't just want a Batfilm. I want a really fucking good one, and that last one raised the bar pretty damn high.

I seem to recall that Fox was in a big damn hurry to cash in on some mutie money and forced a release date on X-Men 3, a film which had, at that time, no director and two completely different scripts which were about to be mashed up (questionable in every way shape and form).

While it made some cash and still spawned yet another sequel (in the form of the Wolverine movie), the fact is...compared to X-Men and X2 (and even just on it's own)...it sucked. It suffered creatively by non-creative concerns.

So shut up, Ben.

Zip it.

Shhh.

stifle, edith

Oh, and with regards to Superman Returns...
"Even JJ Abrams's much-maligned script could surely not have done more to damage the character."
Yes, it would. It was an abomination. Just...be quiet.
©2013 Michael Patrick Sullivan