Violence Jack
Member
George Miller wouldn't put up with WBs shit, so I'm guessing they left him alone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
An Open Letter To Warner Bros CEO Kevin Tsujihara (Contains: Ether)
- Thread starter George Oscar Bluth II
- Start date
- Status
George Miller wouldn't put up with WBs shit, so I'm guessing they left him alone.
Future Foundation
Member
I've seen that letter going around a couple of times today. It's rough, but it's not the soul-crushing, game-changing ether people are making it out to be either. It's an interesting look at the opinions of (what we assume to be) a former employee.
"Fucking PAN, you jerks." Had me dying, though.
EDIT: Also, why is everyone calling the author a guy? Unless we think it's a dude using Kim Cattrall's old character.
"Fucking PAN, you jerks." Had me dying, though.
EDIT: Also, why is everyone calling the author a guy? Unless we think it's a dude using Kim Cattrall's old character.
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
I can see it being really meh. This assumption stems mainly from my impression that Gal cannot carry a movie, not at all. I don't think she'll be any fun to watch outside of action sequences. It'll have nice visuals and a good setpiece here and there, but overall, an extremely average, forgettable movie.
afternoon delight
Member
Every major is wallowing in 95% commercial eight-to-eighty year old consumer shit though so can anyone blame them? That's what they're competing against, correct?
Because most people won't read the actual article (and thus the byline) and people tend to assume writers are male unless they mention otherwise because that's the way it tends to be in our culture (it's a kind of casual sexism)
I did it myself until I read some of the comments
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
Disney's killing it this year, I'd give them a 60/40 or 65/35 hit/miss ratio right now.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
I saw this on HBO. Was alright.Not Fury Road... THIS
The question should be expanded to "How the fuck does Snyder still have a job on the DC universe after Batman vs Superman, Owls of Gohull (sic), Watchmen, Man of Steele and Sucker Punch? "
afternoon delight
Member
I don't believe any movie Disney creates is "filmmaker driven".
n0razi
Member
Tanking a company is not making money
Did nobody else notice that the name used is from a character in Big Trouble In Little China? Hence the .gif!
Yeezus H. Christ
Banned
Well sure, but I'd rather take a good movie overall than a shit 'filmmaker-driven' film.
Beer Monkey
Member
I actually watched BvS this week. I kinda liked it. But when I read all the stuff that got cut out for the theatrical release, I realized the movie wouldn't even make any sense any more. But on the other hand, releasing the 3 hour cut in the theaters would have been disastrous.
Zach and company could have made a two hour movie that made sense, but they didn't. They made a 2.5 hour movie that doesn't make sense, and for home video 3 hour movie that is too bloated and long, though decent. And he ruins character alignments of legends. He needs to go. DC needs to crisis/flashpoint this shit and put us in the timeline where the characters don't suck.
Zach and company could have made a two hour movie that made sense, but they didn't. They made a 2.5 hour movie that doesn't make sense, and for home video 3 hour movie that is too bloated and long, though decent. And he ruins character alignments of legends. He needs to go. DC needs to crisis/flashpoint this shit and put us in the timeline where the characters don't suck.
akilshohen
Member
Another Jungle Book?
afternoon delight
Member
I was responding to the idea of WB floundering because they don't make "filmmaker driven" films with ingenuity and creative risks, but also, let us agree to disagree about what constitutes a "good movie overall". Call me crazy, but I don't watch Pixar, comic book movies, franchise wannabes, or event tentpole films. I'll watch and support ten Neon Demons if it gives us a Bronson and Drive.
GravityInsanity
Member
Another Jungle Book?
Believe it or not.
It's really silly. I hope Disney some how finds away to get the rights before WB starts filming.
Inferno313
Banned
Inferno313
Banned
Believe it or not.
It's really silly. I hope Disney some how finds away to get the rights before WB start filming.
It's a mo-cap film. It's been in production for a long, long time. And it's not a matter of rights. The Jungle Book is public domain at this point, it was published in 1894 for fuck's sake.
afternoon delight
Member
But Scorsese has to struggle for years to get The Departed, Shutter Island, and Wolf of Wall Street made because they're R-rated dramas and executives don't think he has the pull with audiences.
GravityInsanity
Member
I know it's public domain. I just wish some how some way Disney actually own the rights to the movie. Seeing two Jungle Book films by two different company's is weird don't you think?
Why? For one, it's a public domain property. Besides, the approach Warner Bros. is taking with it sounds really promising, even to someone who somewhat enjoyed Disney's approach. The vitriol -- both in here and in the letter -- is a little ridiculous. Warner Bros. is in a creative rut and Disney has had a tremendous year. Doesn't mean a WB Jungle Book can't be good, especially when it has much more talent both in front of and behind the camera and isn't beholden to being a family-friendly adaptation of the animated musical.
Inferno313
Banned
I'd prefer to err on the side of artistic freedom than letting corporations lock up the rights to things they have no right to, personally.
If Serkis' Jungle Book is great, then cool, we get two awesome Jungle Books. If it's bad? Oh well, we can all ignore it. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
broncobuster
Banned
It is weird but wanting Disney to get the rights? Nah. Naaaaah. Nobody should want Disney of all companies to further mess with public domain.
Neither is true.
Future Foundation
Member
Nope. It's weirder for a public domain property to be locked up.
Could you elaborate on this, please?
300 is famous for being a movie you watch once and then turn off part way into your next viewing. So if you mean it's influenced modern films to go style over substance, I could see that.
GravityInsanity
Member
All good fair points about public domain. It kinda reminds me of the FineBros. Disney is a company that's doing one hell of a job with The Jungle Book and are already working on the sequel thanks to the success from the first film. Two companies working on the same project is weird to me but, if WB can knock it out of the park I'm on board. I hope they can.
I think it is fine. Just look at how many Sherlock Holmes products we have seen over the years, many of which were actually awesome. I think having a successful Disney film a year before it most certainly hurt WB's plans, but the concept of different companies doing the same properties in itself is not a bad thing in my opinion.
ArgyleReptile
Banned
Don't worry guys, when I become CEO of WB's film division, I'll straighten everything out.
Eh, as far as mainstream tentpole films go, among the big hollywood studios, Warner Bros. produces the most of the more appealing films to me by a large margin. They generally cover a wider slate of genres and I think you can still see that lots of their films are more director-driven rather than producer-driven. They don't play it safe and predictable imho.
Speaking of WB, I saw Tarzan last week and I enjoyed it tremendously. Great cinematography (beautiful, grand scenery), great pacing/editing.
So I don't really get the complaints, personally.
And obviously good critical reception doesn't equal to commercial success or vice versa (but it's certainly a factor, just definitely not always the most important factor).
I haven't seen any of the DCEU films yet, because that kind of movies doesn't interest me that much, so I don't know about that, but generally speaking I'm not a big fan of superhero movies.
Why would you want that? Isn't it more interesting to have the option to watch multiple different takes on a classic tale? You can always just watch the Disney one and not the other one if you desire..
Definitely not weird imho.
Speaking of WB, I saw Tarzan last week and I enjoyed it tremendously. Great cinematography (beautiful, grand scenery), great pacing/editing.
So I don't really get the complaints, personally.
And obviously good critical reception doesn't equal to commercial success or vice versa (but it's certainly a factor, just definitely not always the most important factor).
I haven't seen any of the DCEU films yet, because that kind of movies doesn't interest me that much, so I don't know about that, but generally speaking I'm not a big fan of superhero movies.
Why would you want that? Isn't it more interesting to have the option to watch multiple different takes on a classic tale? You can always just watch the Disney one and not the other one if you desire..
Definitely not weird imho.
Killing_Joke
Member
Snyder's movies have either broke even or made a shit ton of money. Yeah, lets fire him just because rotten tomato scores. And Suicide Squad at the end of the day is going to do a lot of money, It will even make more then a good chunk of DC/MCU non sequel movies.
Unlike the Wachowski's who have been the true sinking ship for WB for years.
I agree the CEO needs to get his shit together though. They've been fucking up royally with ridiculous budgets. 100mil for Point Break. lol
Unlike the Wachowski's who have been the true sinking ship for WB for years.
I agree the CEO needs to get his shit together though. They've been fucking up royally with ridiculous budgets. 100mil for Point Break. lol
Make Kingdom Hearts great again.
L
Lord Virgin
Unconfirmed Member
Nolan in the safe zone for eternity and beyond.
The question is how is WB/DC gonna make money off their unknown characters? A Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, Cyborg movie??
If these big movies suck, nobody would go see the small ones.
Nolan never sinned with 3D. Thus attained God status.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
You can write an open letter using a pseudonym?
thezerofire
Banned
Better question is how Snyder has a job at all
The thing is that Snyder's movies have made a tonne of money (with the exception of Sucker Punch, which should have REALLY been a warning sign for Warner), even if (like me) you could argue they still underperformed... but the brand damage they've done is going to last for a while. Man of Steel went over so poorly that they had to go into full damage-control mode for Batman v Superman and then Dawn of Justice was badly received as well.
I guarantee you that there are people working out how to minimise Snyder's exposure ahead of Justice League because his name is poison at the moment. The fact that he was involved in rewrites on Wonder Woman is already causing people to panic.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Thinking like this is the reason Corporation's can now indefinitely hold the rights to IP's. It used to be the rights would become public 50 years after the death of the creator. But corporations can now legally be named the creator of works, which means they can hold the rights forever.Believe it or not.
It's really silly. I hope Disney some how finds away to get the rights before WB starts filming.
Well, being the best movie this summer means very little to be honest. I should probably get on that Nice Guys thang, which I assume you're talking about.
So you just want Disney to monopolize public domain material for reasons?
WB's Jungle Book was announced first.
Well, being the best movie this summer means very little to be honest. I should probably get on that Nice Guys thang, which I assume you're talking about.
It's pretty rad. If you at all liked Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, you're probably going to like this one.
It made $668 Million, minus $375M is $273M Profit? From what I can tell that doesn't include home market sales or merchandising. What am I missing here?
- Status