And yet, here we are, where the guy heading the biggest comic properties in the world doesn't.
Proof that Hollywood is kind of creatively bankrupt.
It's not really proof of that at all. It's proof that Warner Brothers hired a director who doesn't get story, and has never been good at it. That's not creative bankruptcy. Leveling that charge at WARNERS of all studios, really doesn't fit, not when we're less than a year removed from their paying for and releasing stuff like Creed and Mad Max.
Now you could argue that those films are sequels to 30 year old properties and therefore stick to the "creative bankruptcy" argument, but look at the creativity on display
in those movies even
as sequels. Look at the freedom afforded its storytellers by the studio. And that's not even looking at all the other films the studio released in that year, or the wide array of films produced and released by all the other studios in Hollywood.
We talk about "creative bankruptcy" on the part of Hollywood like it wasn't Hollywood that originated and paid for the precious originals of our childhood in the first place, like that stuff wasn't just as much product as this stuff is.
Batman v. Superman doesn't appear to be an example of creative bankruptcy at all. It appears to be an example of horrifically
misplaced creativity.
