MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Oopserman vs Broodman Trailer

33 Responses to “Oopserman vs Broodman Trailer”

  1. leahnz says:

    everything is so depressing

  2. Stella's Boy says:

    Man of Steel is a terrible movie. Seriously laughably stupid from start to finish. No reason to believe this will be any better.

  3. Mike says:

    Granted it’s been a while, but I remember liking Amy Adams’ Lois Lane in the first one. I’m sure this one will do a lot more character development to flesh out the Clark Kent versus Superman personas.

  4. Pete B says:

    As the only resident here that loved Man of Steel, I was more ready for Man of Steel 2 than Batman v. Superman, but this trailer makes it interesting. Looks like they’re using some of the backlash against the destruction in MoS to fuel the anti-Superman sentiment for this film, and Batman is the one to bring the pain.

  5. John E. says:

    I made the mistake of watching Man of Steel a second time, and it went from a thumbs-sideways to thumbs-down. Especially for that third act. I’m intrigued by Affleck’s Batman, but I’m discouraged by Zack Snyder directing again.

  6. Hcat says:

    So superman is the catalyst for all the heroes like batman was the catalyst for the villains in his films? It’s crazy that in the attempt to distance themselves from superman returns they overcorrected in such a way they lost all they got right with that one and ended up with something only marginally better.

  7. leahnz says:

    irony: mclaran walks after being told not to be silly and make a nice little character drama for $2 (i heard her treatment was loosely the animated justice league ep of Diana’s war with the gods, which was pretty fucking good, but that could be just rumour) while this embarrassing, pedestrian-looking mediocrity rolls on, price-tag: 6 zillion dollars (translation: your untrustworthy vagina can’t be allowed near our cash, it might vacuum it up into a black hole! it must remain stationary and talk about feels, and what if it gets stuck on a tree stump or something? lawsuit! wahhhh wahhhh wahhhh — meanwhile, back at headquarters, the penis sprays out a microfine invisible brain-clouding mist that stupifies the other penises into handing out another kazillion dollars to make middling mediocrity after middling mediocrity. nice system! BURN IT ALL DOWN go hard or go home fuckers

  8. Pete B. says:

    Wasn’t Untrustworthy Vagina one of the bands to perform at Coachella?
    If not, somebody needs to snatch that name up fast.

  9. YancySkancy says:

    leah: I guess WB considers Patty Jenkins’ vagina to be more trustworthy than McLaren’s? :)

  10. Stella's Boy says:

    And ironically Jenkins was booted off of what, the Thor sequel?

  11. leahnz says:

    ‘untrustworthy vagina & the stupefied penises’ coming soon to a dive near you

    well no yancy, because jenkins – who has no experience doing action, which kind of says a lot in the context of WW – comes in to tow the much lower budget ‘character piece’ studio line (i hear focused on Diana/steve rogers, blech), come on, you’re not silly. mclaran wanted to make a big action flick worthy of the WW character that cost some coin, god forbid.
    i feel for jenkins, hopefully she can make something out of the absurd limitations being imposed on the iconic ACTION figure Diana/WW, she’s got skills so here’s hoping she can get funky and imaginative and make all the pennies count somehow. (what a pity they couldn’t have reversed the budgets for this embarrassing Bat v Sup shitshow with WW; snyder (who gets to helm ANOTHER of these after his dire ‘man of steel’ debacle? says EVERYTHING about the state of play), a mediocre action director at best, has his zillions taken away to make a character piece while amazon WW gets to go epic warrior, fts)

  12. Monco says:

    Since when is a character piece a bad thing? So you are in favor of a big dumb action movie rather than a potentially character driven story? Ok.

    Edgar Wright got booted off Ant-Man because his vision conflicted with the studio. It happens all the time.

  13. leahnz says:

    oh please. yeah, Wonder Woman gets a character piece, while superman and batman get big budget action spectaculars (again and again and again)! do explain.
    Diana is a god on earth, an amazon warrior with actual powers. this of course screams ‘lower budget character piece’. but but but ladyparts! and why does mclaran’s action movie have to be dumb, she gives great character. your argument is lacking.
    yes ant man is a PERFECT analogy here… not.
    wright left because his vision conflicted, mclaren left because her vision required money and they’re not about to give a woman a big budget. WOMEN CAN NOT BE TRUSTED WITH MONEY, big budget opportunities are non-existent. sexism and double-standards denial in the film industry (by people who have no idea what they’re talking about) is so adorable!

  14. Stella's Boy says:

    Since when are these comic book movies character pieces and not action extravaganzas? And how could anyone who has seen her TV work doubt MacLaren’s ability to handle action?

  15. Mike says:

    Couldn’t we make them all lower budget character pieces? I can’t tell you how much a low-budget, street-level Batman crime movie would be awesome. Just look at what Marvel’s done with Daredevil on a tv budget.

    That said, the idea of doing a WW movie this way is beyond stupid. WW is the equivalent of Thor – you have to show her world. That’s the most interesting thing about her.

  16. Bulldog68 says:

    Pete, you’re not the only one that liked Man of Steel. I do too as well. I’m usually in the minority with my friends as well.

  17. Pete B. says:

    @Bulldog68
    Nice to know I’m not alone here, we just tend not to be as vocal.
    Since Man of Steel made $668 million worldwide, we aren’t the only admirers.

  18. Hallick says:

    “oh please. yeah, Wonder Woman gets a character piece, while superman and batman get big budget action spectaculars (again and again and again)! do explain.”

    Explanation: nobody at the studio developing this movie has a clue what they’re doing with the thing, they don’t know where to go with it, and thus they’re probably going to botch it all to hell. MacLaren is lucky to be away from that stygian mess.

  19. leahnz says:

    fwiw i always feel bad dissing ‘man of steel’ (but it’s just so bad… and not quite ‘so bad it’s hilarious/good’ but rather that middle ground of ‘aw, that’s unfortunate’, sigh. but i appreciate that you guys like it and i’m glad, because i dislike not liking movies and i’d much rather i liked it than think it’s shit)

    re: big action flicks vs smaller character movies, of course the right answer is it needn’t be either/or, the classics are both: big action flicks with well-developed characters that we care about, in a clever story, so that when they are put in peril via the action WE GIVE A SHIT. this is how it works. maybe one problem is that it’s become such a binary paradigm in this age of mainstream cinema mediocrity and its mostly middling, generic directors, esp action directors, how some of these guys get (and keep getting) work is a joke. a fresh injection of talent is sorely needed.
    mclaran has shown an affinity for both character and action – both small scale and larger set pieces – and has an interesting eye so i was quite interested to see her likely ovaries-out, gnarly interpretation of Diana’s (origin) story, what a bummer. (McL could be the new ‘fledgling holy-trinity McT’, i feel bad saying that since McT is still around, but not exactly still setting action cinema alight, here’s hoping she get’s the chance).
    and here’s hoping jenkins kills it in her way, she has a visceral style, more intimate but maybe she can make something with intensity and flair to get the ball rolling (maybe McL can come back and direct the second ‘war on Olympus’ WW!)
    sorry for heinous typos tablets suck

  20. Pete B. says:

    As long as McL stays closer to McT, and doesn’t become McG, right?

    (Although McG helped give us Supernatural, so for that I’ll always be grateful. )

  21. leahnz says:

    “Explanation: nobody at the studio developing this movie has a clue what they’re doing with the thing, they don’t know where to go with it, and thus they’re probably going to botch it all to hell. MacLaren is lucky to be away from that stygian mess.”

    this is an interesting comment hallick, because i put it to you that you’ve just kind of summed up what the problem is in a nutshell with much of studio fare these days: the easy peasy solution to this problem is, when someone like mclaran comes in – fresh and hungry and clearly possessing of a vision and very likely the talent to back it up – you say to her, “right on Michelle, let’s do this thing, lets go hard out and break the sound barrier, what do you need?”
    fucking hell, isn’t that obvious? who CARES if the suits and bean counters don’t know what to do with Wonder Woman because they’re fucking pathetic and apparently stymied by lady parts or some such moronisism, when someone comes in who DOES see something there and knows what to do, YOU HAVE THEM DO IT, not cower in the corner with your blanky

  22. leahnz says:

    As long as McL stays closer to McT, and doesn’t become McG, right?

    haha yes, and ideally just holy-trinity McT – predator/die hard/October – so it’s really sub-section McT (though i do have a little soft spot for Die hard 3, sam and bruce, so i’ll include that as a footnote)

  23. Hallick says:

    “who CARES if the suits and bean counters don’t know what to do with Wonder Woman because they’re fucking pathetic and apparently stymied by lady parts or some such moronisism, when someone comes in who DOES see something there and knows what to do, YOU HAVE THEM DO IT, not cower in the corner with your blanky”

    That would be all well and good if you’ve hired a strong writer/director who can put together an asskicker script and execute the shit out of it for you, but great as MacLaren may be as a director, she’s still not screenwriter of any apparent note yet. If IMDb is anything to go by, she only has a one-fifth co-writing credit on a Hallmark Channel TV movie made 16 years ago.

    McTiernan still needed other people to deliver solid scripts in order to make his best movies. Reports on Wonder Woman lead me to believe that the project STILL doesn’t have an actual story or screenplay locked down, and that would have undercut MacLaren’s ability to do what she does best in her feature debut.

  24. Hallick says:

    “haha yes, and ideally just holy-trinity McT – predator/die hard/October – so it’s really sub-section McT (though i do have a little soft spot for Die hard 3, sam and bruce, so i’ll include that as a footnote)”

    I’m big on “The 13th Warrior”, and his version of “The Thomas Crown Affair” was a silky smooth pas-de-deux in my book.

  25. Hallick says:

    “the easy peasy solution to this problem is, when someone like mclaran comes in – fresh and hungry and clearly possessing of a vision and very likely the talent to back it up – you say to her, ‘right on Michelle, let’s do this thing, lets go hard out and break the sound barrier, what do you need?'”

    And for this you need a titanium-strength producer on the project that can hook it up, but all she really had was Zack Snyder’s crew. Que lastima.

  26. storymark says:

    “Since Man of Steel made $668 million worldwide, we aren’t the only admirers.”

    Because they refunded the ticket price to people who didn’t like it??

  27. Hallick says:

    I’ve never understood people who try to get their money back when they don’t like a movie:

    “I didn’t like this movie. Gimme a refund.”

    “Well…nobody promised liking it. You buy the ticket to get into the theater. That’s why it’s called ‘admission’.”

    You gambled, you lost, oh well. Same goes for Lotto tickets, slot machines and disappointing escorts.

  28. cadavra says:

    “Since Man of Steel made $668 million worldwide, we aren’t the only admirers.”

    And Nixon carried 49 states. People often do foolish things they wish they could take back.

  29. Pete B says:

    Like your post? (I kid! I kid!)

  30. Hallick says:

    “And Nixon carried 49 states. People often do foolish things they wish they could take back.”

    Wait a minute – the ginger from “Sex & The City” did what now?

  31. leahnz says:

    hallick, i think you’re kind of rationalising and making excuses. i don’t know what you’ve read (i haven’t read anything about it – online i presume – and i don’t intend to so i don’t know what’s being said) but one thing about McL (i’ve heard some funny stuff about her – that she’s a whirling dervish who seems like she’s always just done a rail in the ladies toilet stall, amped all the time and nauseatingly energetic) is, she also has a shitload of experience as a producer – apparently she’s very organised, fastidious, efficient and ‘dollars conscious’ from her experience producing high-end big-budget location-heavy tv production (which in the digital age and with similar tech used as in much of cinema production these days, is not hugely different in some cases). i don’t know, you kind of sound like you’re insinuating she’s ‘just a director’ and bound to get trampled in the machine, i think that’s a little dismissive of her skill set.

    also a script/story does not need to have been written/ locked down, it’s actually probably better that it’s not in an instance such as this, the script would be developed in accordance with McL’s purview as the one who’s, you know, making the movie; she does not have to BE the writer, many many talented directors don’t write their own films, they do, however, decide what gets filmed and how. you mentioned McT, he was notorious for getting rid of aspects of the script that he didn’t think worked with what he was going for and doing it his way, esp in his early career, this is what directors worth their salt do, it’s blood sweat and tears stuff for sure but i don’t think it’s right to assume that mclaran would have been boarding a doomed ship.

    (weirdly i just watched ‘the 13th warrior’ again on cable the other night after not having seen it in many years – what does it say that many of the action movies that i thought were just ok back in the day seem like exercises in fairly effective storytelling and clean, intense action compared to the incoherent, OTT shitshows on offer now? rhetorical question of course, i know what it means but it’s too depressing)

  32. Hallick says:

    Maybe so, but I really believe the “don’t worry about a script, it’ll all work itself out as we go” approach to filmmaking 99 times out of 100 results in mediocrity and SHIT in studio productions because you don’t have the strong filmmaker running the show with their vision leading the way. Plus, in the decades since McTiernan helmed those movies, the studio’s hired guns have been even more frustrated and hamstrung by corporate groupthink.

  33. leahnz says:

    er, ftr i didn’t say ‘don’t worry about a script, it’ll all work itself out as we go’, where do you get that from what i said above? i said pretty much the opposite, that having a director with a clear vision on board during the development of the script can be a good thing, directors do not have to write a screenplay themselves to make a movie with a clear vision leading the way, as evidence by the multitudes of good big flicks made by good directors who did not pen their own scripts, this is my point.
    are you saying McL couldn’t be a strong film-maker running the show with her vision leading the way simply because she doesn’t personally pen the script? (so the same goes for all the many, many men who direct flicks that they don’t write, all the time? no strong film-makers or visions there?) you seem to be making excuse after excuse for why mclaran shouldn’t or couldn’t have done her gnarly thing with Diana/WW if given the opportunity and resources required (funny how big $$$ is readily handed over to make movies about every single other stupid superhero except WW, how mysterious, i wonder what the difference could be?)
    certainly it is harder to make well-conceived, creative big movies now because the marketing machine dictates so much of what gets made and the pathetic fear-based mentality that’s taken hold in the mainstream, but it can and does still happen, it has to be fought for. you seem to be looking at everything backwards, ignoring the fundamental issue here really, the crux, which is that the studios keep HIRING THE WRONG GUNS – this is THE major issue – giving mediocre, pedestrian directors (who simply HAVE little vision or the ability to manifest it in a unique, fresh way) big resources and opportunities, again and again and again, of course their movies are more easily diluted and moulded by a committee of accountants. it starts from the ground up. directors who are ambitious storytellers with vision and the bold skills to back it up tend to get it up on the screen a hell of a lot better than middling directors who are ‘competent’.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“What Quibi trying to do is get to the next generation of film narrative. The first generation was movies, and they were principally two-hour stories that were designed to be watched in a single sitting in a movie theater [ED: After formats like the nickelodeon]. The next generation of film narrative was television, principally designed to be watched in one-hour chapters in front of a television set. I believe the third generation of film narrative will be a merging of those two ideas, which is to tell two-hour stories in chapters that are seven to ten minutes in length. We are actually doing long-form in bite-size.”
~ Jeffrey Katzenberg

“The important thing is: what makes the audience interested in it? Of course, I don’t take on any roles that don’t interest me, or where I can’t find anything for myself in it. But I don’t like talking about that. If you go into a restaurant and you have been served an exquisite meal, you don’t need to know how the chef felt, or when he chose the vegetables on the market. I always feel a little like I would pull the rug out from under myself if I were to I speak about the background of my work. My explanations would come into conflict with the reason a movie is made in the first place — for the experience of the audience — and that, I would not want.
~  Christoph Waltz