Thursday, June 2, 2016

Cinematic Universes Possibly Could be an Issue AKA Can We Please Not Be Idiotic?

The cinematic universe that (for the most part) works well.
We see more and more talk about, "Cinematic Universes," and it worries me. Not everyone needs a cinematic Universe for their flicks, or to be even more complicated, television shows set in their movie's world. Some have said about cinematic universes, "They aren't working anymore," but I would argue that is a bit incorrect. They have never worked, at least not for many things, but possibly work in certain scenarios. Comic books featuring super-heroes naturally make sense considering how in their publishing history various comics and characters would intermingle. It also makes some sense with science-fiction properties that have proven an ability to focus on certain stories or characters--Star Trek on the big-screen and television screen to give an example, and the ability of, "Star Wars," to make money in various formats.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe works, people may want a, "Star Wars," one but that might already be in trouble according to new rumors, and "Star Trek," is chugging happily along. Cinematic universes can sometimes work, we've established that.The questions becomes: Do we need a cinematic universe of Hasbro properties, the Robin Hood concept I read about a couple of years ago, spin-off films of the already up-to-7, "Fast and Furious," films and the like? Let's speak honestly here: People want money, and Marvel's cinematic universe has made money. However, unless it makes sense, you're being an absolute fucking idiot to pursue a cinematic universe. Why? I said why--because it often doesn't make sense! I mean, just because fancy computer special effects get people excited, that doesn't mean you need them for your romantic drama set within the 1800's, just as you don't need a cinematic universe for some movies about the fucking Invisible Man and Dracula.
Even if this is good, does it need a cinematic universe?
Let's speak even more frankly, DC's best-performing and highest-reviewed movies weren't set in a cinematic universe (Christopher Nolan's Bat-flicks) and their desperate efforts to get one going with, "Batman VS Superman," received a severe critical drubbing. DC is having trouble with super-hero characters who it--here are those words again--makes sense to put in a cinematic universe, and some people telling us we need all the movies to do them now? I don't think we need a Ghostbusters cinematic universe (as I heard rumblings of if this movie does well), or all the Hanna-Barbera characters in one reality. I'll give you that a cross-over between the, "21 Jump Street," flicks and, "Men in Black," sounds cool, but even that's pushing my patience no matter how awesome Jonah Hill and Will Smith shooting-up aliens could be. Look at this list of titles I've mentioned and some other ones and tell me how many of them actually need a cinematic universe. The answer is, "Probably/possibly none," isn't it?

Just makes your damn movie, if it does well gives us some sequels if they're warranted, but please quit trying to make everything a cinematic universe because it looks like the newest hot thing. Remember when everyone thought making their film a 3D event was ingenious? Yeah, let's not have another horrific debacle of that magnitude.

No comments:

Post a Comment