Wonderful. I'm looking toward to it. I'll say that experiencing Prey as overlooked must be a factor of who you were talking to, online and irl. In my world, Prey was huge, the discussion marred only by manosphere fans who missed Swarzeneggar and complained about imaginary bad CGI.
I think it landing quietly on Disney+ made it fairly under-the-radar in my circles. But it's certainly grown and grown in respect since that original release.
I think it's also nice with Fantastic Four and Superman they have leaned into the (presumed) pop culture knowledge (and assumptions) about the characters, meaning origins can be skipped or recapped and we can get on with the story. Which is also part of what makes them tight two hours.
As I understand the FF origin is recapped briefly for the exposition, but skipping a half hour of Ben being angsty, so we can get right to his banter with Johnny.
Yeah, it works well. It's a standalone film that also fits perfectly fine into the wider setting. As long as you have even a vague, passing knowledge of Superman or Fantastic Four, you'll be fine. Not even that, actually - you just need to be on board with the broad notion of superheroes, and off we go.
Funny how I've seen a fair few critics complaining about Superman feeling like a sequel, or like we missed the first half of the film, etc etc. It's one of the film's strengths.
Marvel and DC seem to both understand now that they have wasted too much time and money backing superhero films made by arrogant auteur directors. Now they seem to be more willing to actually give the audience what they want.
Who are you referring to? The only instance of an 'auteur' director delivering a poor Marvel film, in my opinion, was Thor: Love & Thunder. And even in that case, Taika Waititi had previously made one of my favourite Marvel films with Thor: Ragnarok, so it can go either way.
In all other cases, often the more idiosyncratic the director, and the more they were able to retain their uniqueness, the more successful the films. The Guardians films being good examples.
I'd say it's less to do with auteurship and specific directors, and much more to do with having good writers and strong scripts. We've been lucky this month to have two superhero films come along which both have excellent writing, and that shines through everything else.
Well, Gunn IS an arrogant auteur director, but he has a genuine love for the comics medium and its cheese.
Snyder has given interviews where he said if he'd made Batman Begins he'd have started with Bruce being prison-raped, and that he thinks Superman's battles should have massive civilian casualties. In short Snyder doesn't actually like comics.
Snyder said in a recent interview Krypto is in Man of Steel as an easter egg - there's a small gravestone in the Kent's backyard. That's Krypto. Snyder's backstory is that's Krypto, the puppy PA KENT KILLED to teach Clark about "the fragility of live."
Dafuq? (as the kids say)
He did well with Watchmen, but that's a cynical deconstruction.
Wonderful. I'm looking toward to it. I'll say that experiencing Prey as overlooked must be a factor of who you were talking to, online and irl. In my world, Prey was huge, the discussion marred only by manosphere fans who missed Swarzeneggar and complained about imaginary bad CGI.
I think it landing quietly on Disney+ made it fairly under-the-radar in my circles. But it's certainly grown and grown in respect since that original release.
I think it's also nice with Fantastic Four and Superman they have leaned into the (presumed) pop culture knowledge (and assumptions) about the characters, meaning origins can be skipped or recapped and we can get on with the story. Which is also part of what makes them tight two hours.
As I understand the FF origin is recapped briefly for the exposition, but skipping a half hour of Ben being angsty, so we can get right to his banter with Johnny.
Yeah, it works well. It's a standalone film that also fits perfectly fine into the wider setting. As long as you have even a vague, passing knowledge of Superman or Fantastic Four, you'll be fine. Not even that, actually - you just need to be on board with the broad notion of superheroes, and off we go.
Funny how I've seen a fair few critics complaining about Superman feeling like a sequel, or like we missed the first half of the film, etc etc. It's one of the film's strengths.
Nothing wrong with in media res!
Marvel and DC seem to both understand now that they have wasted too much time and money backing superhero films made by arrogant auteur directors. Now they seem to be more willing to actually give the audience what they want.
Who are you referring to? The only instance of an 'auteur' director delivering a poor Marvel film, in my opinion, was Thor: Love & Thunder. And even in that case, Taika Waititi had previously made one of my favourite Marvel films with Thor: Ragnarok, so it can go either way.
In all other cases, often the more idiosyncratic the director, and the more they were able to retain their uniqueness, the more successful the films. The Guardians films being good examples.
I'd say it's less to do with auteurship and specific directors, and much more to do with having good writers and strong scripts. We've been lucky this month to have two superhero films come along which both have excellent writing, and that shines through everything else.
You have a point.
Well, Gunn IS an arrogant auteur director, but he has a genuine love for the comics medium and its cheese.
Snyder has given interviews where he said if he'd made Batman Begins he'd have started with Bruce being prison-raped, and that he thinks Superman's battles should have massive civilian casualties. In short Snyder doesn't actually like comics.
Snyder said in a recent interview Krypto is in Man of Steel as an easter egg - there's a small gravestone in the Kent's backyard. That's Krypto. Snyder's backstory is that's Krypto, the puppy PA KENT KILLED to teach Clark about "the fragility of live."
Dafuq? (as the kids say)
He did well with Watchmen, but that's a cynical deconstruction.