Fancied a topic about the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe, just in case!), and how they've managed to pull off what other studios genuinely struggle with.
I don't want to wax lyrical at the moment. Suffice to say that I'm a fan of the MCU, and whilst internal consistency hasn't been particularly reliable, I think people would genuinely struggle to say there's an objectively bad movie in amongst them - as in one you genuinely cannot see any redeeming feature in, such as the frankly woeful Catwoman with Halle Berry (who at least had the good graces to collect her Razzie. Always nice to see that sense of humour and indeed humility).
How did Marvel get away with it? Why do other studios seem to falter early on? And considering the very much mixed response to The Last Jedi, how come the same studio has, to some, stalled with Star Wars?
Well, to begin with, it's not the same studio handling Marvel and Star Wars. Both studios are under Disney, sure, but it's more like the situation you have with videogames - Marvel Studios and Lucasfilm are the "developers", while Disney is the "publisher", and the disparity is chiefly because Disney are remarkably "hands off" for a HUEG megacorp in that kind of situation...so long as you're doing well enough that the money keeps rolling in.
As to why the MCU does well, I'd say it's a big ol' mix of things. The films are accessible enough for complete newcomers while still packing in a fair amount of nod-wink references for fans of the source material. The "[genre] but with supey-heroes" format keeps things reasonably fresh despite all the obvious similarities in tone, style etc that permeate the franchise. The films, as you say, don't usually drop below "solid but not earthshaking popcorn blockbuster" in quality level so people will rarely feel like they didn't get their money's worth. They're generally well written with good actors who're often evidently having as much fun playing the parts as the viewer is watching them. Basically, the MCU is good because...well, it's good, hah.
Star Wars is a different beast. They're still trying to figure out what "Star Wars but owned by Disney and releasing films regularly" really looks like, but I think the major flaw is whoever's calling the shots over at Lucasfilm right now is giving too much freedom to their directors for the sorts of films those directors are assigned to. They also seem to be picking the wrong director first time around at least a couple of times now and have to bring in someone else to fix things up. The result is wild tonal shifts, going from JJ's high-octane, low-braincell "I'm gonna make your childhood nostalgia punch you in the face" take on things, to Rian Johnson's purposeful but often sloppily executed dismantling of the whole concept of fond nostalgia and the hero's journey.
I think the key difference between them is audience expectations. I can know with a very, very high degree of certainty that if I walk into a cinema and cough up to see an MCU movie, I will leave having had at a bare minimum my money's worth in entertainment, and I have a fair chance of seeing something genuinely special. But what can I expect if I go and pay for a ticket to a Star Wars movie? I might get a pretty awesome film(Rogue One); I might get a fairly empty lightshow(TFA); I might get a fairly savage takedown of a lot of the core parts of the franchise I went to watch combined with some pretty shonky Grauniad thinkpiece material about "toxic masculinity", frustratingly wrapped around a core that feels like it could have been really really great but gets dragged down to irritatingly flawed(TLJ); or whatever Solo ends up being.
Considering this was meant to be the triumphant return of Star Wars after the Prequels(which are mostly not as bad as they're made out to be, but certainly don't live up to the originals), that level of uncertainty isn't a good thing. It's all very well for critics to indignantly opine that there's no point in going to the cinema if it never surprises you, but Joe Public doesn't get to watch movies for free, and fans of things typically want more of the same with a bit of a twist to keep it fresh, not a gleeful hatchet job by an auteur.
So yeah, TL;DR is MCU usually gives people what they expect at a level of quality that never falls below "good enough", while Star Wars(and, indeed, several other attempted "cinematic universes", for varying reasons) is a bit of a crapshoot and if you get one of the ones you dislike you'll tend to really dislike it.
The mcu works because they have a plan and someone in xharge making sure all the pieces fall into place. Infinity war has been on its way since iron man 1. They took their time to build the characters and make everyrhing work.
Dc on the other has no fething idea whT they are doing.
Stopped Clocks and lowered standards has a lot to do with it
As for no bad movies, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 and 3 kind of sucked, Ultron was far too long, Civil War was distinctly mehh, Guardians 2 lost something, but they seem to get a pass because the Distinguished Competition are pooping out far worse
Haven't seen Black Panther but suspect virtue hyping a la Wonder Woman has been a factor in taking a decent movie and getting a smidge too over excited and declaring it the best Super thing eva
Black Panther is pretty solid, and plenty to enjoy within it.
My main criticism is that during the pagga at the end, the background fighters look a little too choreographed. But there's no wasted characters, and no deus ex outcome.
It's a by-the-numbers Marvel origin (including facing Evil You as the foe), but one that's clearly learned from the predecessors.
As for virtue signalling, I think it's easy for many of us to underestimate just how mega the approach taken here was. Whether you feel it's gained favourable reviews because of that? Well, that's a whole different, probably swiftly locked thread. But to see the cultural impact it's had gives me warm and fuzzies. To me, it's the equivalent of 'use the Force' coming into common parlance as a result of ANH.
"Lando Calrissian got to fly the millennium falcon"
I'm all for fairness, inclusion, and wotnot but more a fan of the slow blade penetrates the shield approach rather than the "progressive" foghorn currently en vogue, but like you say its somewhat of a minefield to negotiate
Turnip Jedi wrote: Haven't seen Black Panther but suspect virtue hyping a la Wonder Woman has been a factor in taking a decent movie and getting a smidge too over excited and declaring it the best Super thing eva
I'm all for fairness, inclusion, and wotnot but more a fan of the slow blade penetrates the shield approach rather than the "progressive" foghorn currently en vogue, but like you say its somewhat of a minefield to negotiate
Eh. Anecdotally, my immediate colleagues, who are by no means nerdy, loved Black Panther. My manager, and I quote 'it makes me proud to be African'. It seems to be a kind of Braveheart effect. Ultimately a fairy tale, but has an appeal that can't be described.
Won't go into more detail as it's not really relevant to this topic
I agree with Lance. Marvel had a rough outline of where they wanted to go if Iron Man was successful. The MCU is seeming to hit the right balance between action, light-hearted humor, & accessibility. The fans of the comics know where the story is headed, but the average movie goer can still follow what's happening in the context of the 1 movie. All of the threads are leading to the same place.
The DCEU is trying to recreate the tone of the Dark Knight trilogy. While it worked with Batman, the rest of the heroes & villains tend to be OP. This contrasts starkly with gritty, "realistic" world they are trying to build. Additionally, they are shoe-horning the overall story into the movies. This makes everything seem disjointed, IMO.
I'm not really sure what counts as part of the MCU... but yea I think the expectations are different as people go into a superhero film just wanting a bit of silly fun. If it turns out to be more than that then even better!
The recent mummy film and Batbloke vs Superdude took themselves far too seriously :-p
Star Wars seems weighed down by the expectations of fans with rose tinted spectacles, so unless it absolutely blows them away then it is not considered good enough!
I'm all for fairness, inclusion, and wotnot but more a fan of the slow blade penetrates the shield approach rather than the "progressive" foghorn currently en vogue, but like you say its somewhat of a minefield to negotiate
FWIW, I never particularly felt I was being lectured, or that the movie forgot to be fun in order to deliver a Message. And really, the only message I can really think of was "many people in or with roots in Africa have had a really rough time in recent centuries", which is hard to dispute.
Maybe it's not always making a Statement to have stories where people other than white American / European men get to have cool starring roles and save the world? Maybe it's just recognising that aiming for other demographics isn't just a positive social force, it's also a mostly-untapped market.
I think there's a few things. For one, the MCU was built on stand alone movies first with inter connectivity being a thing that they were going for, but only really teased in the beginning. Rather than get an initial hit and build upon what works in it, most studios are starting with Iron Man 2 and giving us movies that are way more interested in selling the universe than being a good movie on their own merits.
Marvel also had a good amount of initial flexibility. I assume they always wanted Loki to be the Avengers villain given his role in the Avenger's comic origin but if Thor had been a flop they could have audibled in Red Skull pretty easily. There's a lot of little narrative freedoms built into these films by virtue of them largely NOT being interconnected outside of the little cameos in the post credits. For the most part, nothing has to happen in one film to make another work and that gives each film the flexibility to adapt itself to be what it needs to be.
Most of all though, I think the best explanation I've heard to what makes the Marvel movies different is that they believe in the source material. Where most movie studios seem to be slightly ashamed of where this stuff comes from, Marvel seems more willing to trust that whatever works for people in the comics will probably work on film. Guardians is probably the best example of what Marvel does differently. It's not particularly faithful to the comics in the traditional sense, but can you imagine what would have happened if any other studio tried to adapt the space adventures of a talking Racoon and his friend the giant tree?
I think that part of it is that the pre-Avengers films focused on being good, stand -alone films which focused on one major character. Iron Man and Hulk saved the crossover elements for the post-credits, while Cap, Thor, and Iron Man 2 only had crossovers using SHIELD agents.
In contrast, DC goes for an ensemble cast of big names starting from the second movie, and 60% of their films so far have been ensemble movies. Rather than slowly introduce us to the characters and supporting cast, they dump us straight in, meaning that we care less about everybody. I think that actors and directors may also struggle to deal with so many high-profile characters needing development all at once.
Then there is Universal, where they spent a large part of the Mummies runtime visibly sowing the seed for their expanded universe.
Finally, there is the fact that Marvel did it first, bringing together a huge ensemble for the Avengers. Everyone else will be seen as trying to copy the success of this film. So Marvel get to be seen as creative and ambitious, while DC and othersget perceived as knockoffs.
MCU: They take time to establish characters, plots and interactions and build films that the audience will enjoy. Characters and plot mostly make sense within the narrative structure and setting of the film universe. It all works.
The Force Awakens was a simple remake of Star Wars
Rogue One was much braver and had an excellent second half that fitted the style of the original films
Sadly the Last Jedi was carelessly excreted onto the screen and relied on a known and vast built in audience and buying off the critics. No attempt was made to make any kind of narrative structure or even a coherent plot or pacing.
Wonder Woman and Justice League were a breath of fresh air after the Lex Luthor turd that was Bats vs Superman.
Black Panther was great fun.
Tom Cruise's Mummy film was too serious - really? It had quite a few comedy moments.
I think LunarSol and Crazy make some excellent observations.
It wasn't that Marvel had their master plan carved in stone. It was their planned looseness and nimbleness that got the thing rolling. The earliest films *weren't* highly interconnected, and they had manageable budgets. If something hadn't worked, it would have been easily dropped without much damage to the studio, and the course easily corrected. They also hedged their bets by using different directors and seeing what worked. And although Incredible Hulk, Captain America and Thor weren't great films and weren't great at the box office, they mostly worked and built momentum toward the Avengers, when everything changed.
Certainly Marvel had strong centralized control, and sought out directors agreeable to executing the studio's vision more than their own. And what they had most of all is a star actor who somehow managed to be the glue for the whole thing through the force of his charm and charisma. Movies are still star-driven things and always will be.
WB's issues weren't really because they rushed, and definitely weren't because they didn't have a plan. Their issues started with them going all in (with *huge* budgets) on their plan...which was one director's vision. Three of their first five films tell one highly connected story. This is very different from what Marvel did with the MCU, and now it's pretty easy to see what the risk was. If the story or vision didn't resonate, course changes were going to be *painful*. WB is likely still kicking themselves for not firing Snyder after BvS like some execs wanted. That would have hurt at the time, but potentially spared them from much more pain down the road like we saw.
It's also important to note that the MCU characters were mostly unknown by general audiences, and had little pre-existing live-action baggage to speak of. They also aren't slavishly true to the comics. What they've done IMO is create a kind of veneer of the comics version but let the movie version become its own thing. Because I'm a Cap fan, I think their treatment of Captain America is a good example.
The Star Wars and DC characters are in a very different place. There are lots and lots of expectations and comparators and headcanon for audiences.
On the point of expectations regarding Star Wars characters specifically - if you're referring to the common criticism that people who were annoyed by the direction Johnson chose to go with Rey's backstory were unpleaseable because they spent ages speculating, I've never seen that view as fair even if it's not an issue with the film that bugged me all that much personally.
It's not the fans' fault they chose JJ "mystery box" Abrams to direct TFA. It's also not the fans' fault they then allowed Johnson to come in and throw JJ's plan for the Sequels - Rey's origins included - out the window so he could "make a point". The filmmakers created and encouraged speculation and expectations, and then the filmmakers intentionally dashed those expectations to show how super-duper clever and edgy they were. The only people to blame for the bad reaction(at least, the part of it that falls within rational discourse, because of course these days you have to confirm you're not defending the tiny, tiny, microscopic minority of idiots who set their toy collection on fire or threaten to murder people's families) to that kind of thing are the people making the films.
Fancied a topic about the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe, just in case!), and how they've managed to pull off what other studios genuinely struggle with.
I don't want to wax lyrical at the moment. Suffice to say that I'm a fan of the MCU, and whilst internal consistency hasn't been particularly reliable, I think people would genuinely struggle to say there's an objectively bad movie in amongst them - as in one you genuinely cannot see any redeeming feature in, such as the frankly woeful Catwoman with Halle Berry (who at least had the good graces to collect her Razzie. Always nice to see that sense of humour and indeed humility).
How did Marvel get away with it? Why do other studios seem to falter early on? And considering the very much mixed response to The Last Jedi, how come the same studio has, to some, stalled with Star Wars?
Lets 'ave yoor finking, pls
I think Marvel took the time to understand what resonated with the fan base and made sure to keep that intact while transferring the stories to a new medium. Comic books usually had relatable characters with cyclical arcs, with enough fun interactions, drama, wish fulfillment and a sprinkling of genuinely interesting ideas, to keep average readers interested for at least a year or two. The same formula seems to work for soap operas and pro wrestling. The phase one and two Marvel movies stuck very close to a formula for a reason, and now that they have latched the audience to their characters they are able to expand from the one formula into different genre formulas and not have to worry about shedding the core audience. Marvel's got strong fundamentals, which allows them more freedom to discover new successes at the periphery of their franchise.
By contrast, Star Wars has very weak fundamentals in the core trilogy now, having pulled the rug out from many of the core audience, essentially taking a comforting soap opera power fantasy and trying to deconstruct it as a critique of soap opera power fantasies, a bold strategy. Star Wars also failed to get the incidental details right, the little "nitpicky" things that might have sold the new direction of the franchise by adding coherency with what is known and loved. The result is a film that pleases the people who had attachments to Star Wars for some aspects of the franchises and disappoints people who attached on for the other parts.
Also, Marvel is great at hitting a consistent level of quality. They may not make the absolute best movies, but they know how to avoid making disappointments, which gives them a safe cushion of goodwill with the audience and a pool of feedback data to refine their approach. DC is flailing all over the place, unable to figure out what works and having to win over the audience anew with each new film.
gorgon wrote: It's also important to note that the MCU characters were mostly unknown by general audiences, and had little pre-existing live-action baggage to speak of. They also aren't slavishly true to the comics. What they've done IMO is create a kind of veneer of the comics version but let the movie version become its own thing. Because I'm a Cap fan, I think their treatment of Captain America is a good example.
I def agree with Iron Man and Cap A, and Marvels Thor - who I knew little about before the films - but Hulk was different I think.
MCU doesn't work for everyone. But it does work for most of the audience, and therein lies the answer: four-quadrant film making. They don't have to be good; they just need to address the lowest common denominator. And by the way, Warner Bros has largely gotten away with this, too, despite struggling for critical appeal.
I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
gorgon wrote: It's also important to note that the MCU characters were mostly unknown by general audiences, and had little pre-existing live-action baggage to speak of. They also aren't slavishly true to the comics. What they've done IMO is create a kind of veneer of the comics version but let the movie version become its own thing. Because I'm a Cap fan, I think their treatment of Captain America is a good example.
I def agree with Iron Man and Cap A, and Marvels Thor - who I knew little about before the films - but Hulk was different I think.
Hulk was absolutely different, and I think it's interesting that it's also probably the weakest of their early films. It certainly had baggage. On one hand, there was the 'requel' baggage as it tried to find a happy place between being a sequel to the Ang Lee film and a full reboot for the character on film. On the other hand, you had a host of nods to the TV series.
It's also an example of Marvel's nimbleness, as they apparently did a course change with the character after that film. Incredible Hulk definitely laid groundwork for future Hulk films (origin of The Leader being one example), but clearly they decided the character works better alongside other heroes. And I think this is probably a wise assessment.
LunarSol wrote: where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it
No need to worry about that. The success of TFA demonstrates that all Kennedy needed to do with TLJ was develop the fun new characters by letting them have fun, relatively linear adventures. Let's not blame the abject failure to do so on fans.
Similarly, nobody producing official Star Trek has cared what fans want since at least 2009. So there again, the constant failures have nothing to do with fans. Why not blame the people who actually make the decisions?
Turnip Jedi wrote:
Haven't seen Black Panther but suspect virtue hyping a la Wonder Woman has been a factor in taking a decent movie and getting a smidge too over excited and declaring it the best Super thing eva
Turnip Jedi wrote:
I'm all for fairness, inclusion, and wotnot but more a fan of the slow blade penetrates the shield approach rather than the "progressive" foghorn currently en vogue, but like you say its somewhat of a minefield to negotiate
Black Panther is an excellent film. I think its easily in Marvel's Top 5 overall, but I think a lot of the hype makes people forget that its still a big budget sci fi action blockbuster first and foremost and are disappointed when its not substantially more than that.
This is mildly spoilerish, but I actually think what makes it a great movie is actually that it is essentially an argument for "the slow blade penetrates the shield" over the foghorn approach. It's not in any way a preachy movie, but its core conflict comes down to the villain seeking the path of acceptance by force, while the hero comes down the side of acceptance by showing the world what they have to gain from it.
LunarSol wrote: I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
EXALTED!
I started typing a reply, but no...I'll just say EXALTED again!
It's also an example of Marvel's nimbleness, as they apparently did a course change with the character after that film. Incredible Hulk definitely laid groundwork for future Hulk films (origin of The Leader being one example), but clearly they decided the character works better alongside other heroes. And I think this is probably a wise assessment.
This has little to do with Marvel/Disney's overall plan for the franchise and more to do with studio contracts. Universal owns the distribution rights to the Hulk even though Marvel Studios has the rights to the character. So any stand alone Hulk film would involve another major studio, and Disney doesn't like to share it's profits.
LunarSol wrote: I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
ST Discovery is great - really enjoying......
In the same way if Last jedi had actually tried to do something, say build on Rogue One or TFA it ,ight have been recevied better by actual viewers - however this would required actual effort by the Director and his team.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
LunarSol wrote: I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
TOS: TO boldly go, mid level politcal commentary, bright hope for the future.
Next Gen: To boldly go, low level political commentary, bright hope for the future, different story every week with no real repercussions for the last weeks themes.
DS9: Static cast, mid level political commentary, bleak hope for the future, continuing overarching story with repercussions for characters choices, deep character development.
Voyager: To boldly go, low level political commentary, back to basics, mix of continuing story and normal lack of repercussions.
Enterprise: Tried to be TOS and mix in the best parts of all the previous treks, failed terribly due to bad cast and rinse and repeat trek stories.
Discovery: Tried to mix in modern "SJW" political commentary with a bleaker look at the trek universe, it failed horribly at that, Trek at its heart has always been about diversity, so thankfully it didnt get bogged down with any of that, but showed a more interesting trek universe where the Feds are seen at the bad guys (because they are to the Klingons), all in all its still trek but with a nice twist.... shame the ending of series 1 was so crap.
All of the new films have been universally crap.
So I must disagree with your assessment that its was slowly bled to death, it was going strong until Enterprise and then it was beaten to death with the new films, so badly that even I couldnt watch them (and i love sharknado), its easy to blame the fans, but its not the fans, its the general public that makes and breaks these films, with major influence from the producers, the will totally rape a franchise to make a few bucks with no thought to how and why people liked them, the new trek films and new wars films prove this quite solidly.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.
Formosa wrote: its easy to blame the fans, but its not the fans, its the general public that makes and breaks these films, with major influence from the producers
I agree, it has nothing to do with fans. But neither is the general public to blame. Producers have taken over a lot of the decision making from directors. They are the ones ultimately responsible. They may make decisions because of what they think general audiences want but these are still their decisions.
The idea of blaming fans is just same old-same old bullying. "Stupid nerds, amirite?"
It appeals to the lowest common denominator (with the exception of Deadpool) while having a competent writing team. The DC Movie Universe has one of those, I'll leave you to guess which one they lack.
None of the MCU movies are what I would call "good". Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.
BaconCatBug wrote: Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.
That sums it up pretty well. The best MCU movie I have seen is Thor Ragnarok. It was worth the ticket price but I will probably never have a conversation about the contents of the film or really ever think about it again.
MCU doesn't work for everyone. But it does work for most of the audience, and therein lies the answer: four-quadrant film making. They don't have to be good; they just need to address the lowest common denominator. And by the way, Warner Bros has largely gotten away with this, too, despite struggling for critical appeal.
I get that you aren't personally a fan of Marvel, but calling them lowest common denominator films is unjustified. They appeal to a very large niche, essentially, and what they do in that niche is done well, with care towards the quality of the finished product. Transformers is LCD filmmaking that aims to maximize profits with minimal effort while going over no one's head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
The problem is essentially the same: no matter what fans say they want, what they really want is a good product. Star Trek spent decades not delivering on that...and Star Wars is certainly having issues there. Marvel may not give the fans exactly what they ask for, in fact it might dismiss decades of canon from the comics, but it doesn't have the same issue of fan backlash because the Marvel movies are still good, and that makes people happy. So, please stop blaming the fans for the creators' failures. The angry fans didn't make the beloved franchise fail, they're just angry that the creators didn't give a crap enough to do a decent job.
It's also an example of Marvel's nimbleness, as they apparently did a course change with the character after that film. Incredible Hulk definitely laid groundwork for future Hulk films (origin of The Leader being one example), but clearly they decided the character works better alongside other heroes. And I think this is probably a wise assessment.
This has little to do with Marvel/Disney's overall plan for the franchise and more to do with studio contracts. Universal owns the distribution rights to the Hulk even though Marvel Studios has the rights to the character. So any stand alone Hulk film would involve another major studio, and Disney doesn't like to share it's profits.
If Disney saw a big enough cash cow, they'd be okay with sharing the dough. But they don't...which is both my point and the second half of the article you linked to.
None of the MCU movies are what I would call "good". Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.
You reminded me of the classic Siskel and Ebert show where they decided that no horror movies are actually good, therefore studios should stop making them. Just because something isn't your cup of tea, it doesn't make it a bad thing. I am sick of people pooping on pulp collectively as if there isn't any way that some pulp can be good or skillfully accomplished or have any value to society. That attitude is rooted in ignorance and an unwillingness to countenance perspectives other than your own.
Bob, you are finding malice where none (necessarily) exists, both as to myself and BCB. Marvel movies are aimed at the broadest, least discriminating band of tastes. This is most fundamental aspect of the strategy in making them.
BaconCatBug wrote: Brainless fluff to relax for an afternoon, but my no means good movies.
That sums it up pretty well. The best MCU movie I have seen is Thor Ragnarok. It was worth the ticket price but I will probably never have a conversation about the contents of the film or really ever think about it again.
I thought the third Thor film was the weakest - great fun, brilliant in places - but again the narrative was much weaker.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.
I was tempted to walk out half way through partly through boredom, partly due to how bad the direction, plot and acting had become. I thought it was as bad as the prequals - although in a different way. I wasn;t really uncomfortable - - well no more than for any film that goes on too long but there was nothing that made me think about anything in that way.
How did it make you uncomfortable? Intrigued?
The prequals had the same issue with characters (or lack of them) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but TLJ did not have Jar Jar, occassionally however the prequalsi had some good fun action to distract from the tedium - TLJ had one short sequence at the start and one at the end - the rest was just poorly written filler IMO.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.
I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.
I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.
LunarSol wrote: I get why people don't love the new Star Wars films, but I do feel/worry the the fanbase has essentially gotten to the place Star Trek was 25ish years ago where the sense of personal ownership in the brand and need to vet anything new makes it impossible for the franchise to stay relevant and produce anything really worth all the fandom that surrounds it. Star Trek has spent years slowly bleeding to death by timidly going where the fans thoroughly explored before and I can't help but feel that if Ep9 turns into a fan appeasement film, Star Wars will essentially be doomed to the same fate.
TOS: TO boldly go, mid level politcal commentary, bright hope for the future.
Next Gen: To boldly go, low level political commentary, bright hope for the future, different story every week with no real repercussions for the last weeks themes.
DS9: Static cast, mid level political commentary, bleak hope for the future, continuing overarching story with repercussions for characters choices, deep character development.
Voyager: To boldly go, low level political commentary, back to basics, mix of continuing story and normal lack of repercussions.
Enterprise: Tried to be TOS and mix in the best parts of all the previous treks, failed terribly due to bad cast and rinse and repeat trek stories.
Discovery: Tried to mix in modern "SJW" political commentary with a bleaker look at the trek universe, it failed horribly at that, Trek at its heart has always been about diversity, so thankfully it didnt get bogged down with any of that, but showed a more interesting trek universe where the Feds are seen at the bad guys (because they are to the Klingons), all in all its still trek but with a nice twist.... shame the ending of series 1 was so crap.
All of the new films have been universally crap.
So I must disagree with your assessment that its was slowly bled to death, it was going strong until Enterprise and then it was beaten to death with the new films, so badly that even I couldnt watch them (and i love sharknado), its easy to blame the fans, but its not the fans, its the general public that makes and breaks these films, with major influence from the producers, the will totally rape a franchise to make a few bucks with no thought to how and why people liked them, the new trek films and new wars films prove this quite solidly.
While I strongly disagree on STD(tl;dr - I think it's bad, all of it), we won't get into that since the broader sentiment you're stating is absolutely right.
It's worth also noting that among fans probably the three best regarded Star Trek films are Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, and First Contact, which all make concessions to the medium relative to their TV incarnations(action, comedy environmentalism, action respectively). Fans were capable of understanding that, much as they'd enjoy it, a full-on feature-length TNG(or even TOS) episode would probably not make for a successful enough movie and were willing to accept the necessary alterations so the core characters and themes could transition to the big screen - but the absolutely key point is they maintained the core characters and themes. In much the same way that the MCU is generally well regarded even by most comic book fans despite not being 100% faithful to the comics; they are faithful enough and faithful in the right ways.
Fans are perfectly willing to "compromise" when the film versions are faithful in a broad, general sense(rather than in the sense of a perfect blow-by-blow adaptation of the course material in every detail) and when the resulting film is good.
There's a fine line to walk between keep the "soul" of something intact to please the fans, while also providing something that feels fresh enough to draw in casual fans, and has enough broad-spectrum appeal to draw in your average moviegoing audience, no question, but if the producers aren't willing to try and walk that line they shouldn't be trying to adapt beloved stories & settings with existing fanbases.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.
I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.
I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.
The main problem with TLJ is that it was the middle movie in the main trilogy of Star Wars' big blowout comeback tour, following on from an opening installment that was really(IMO a bit too much) heavy on the nostalgia...and it purposefully tried to subvert as many of the implications of that as possible. That's the kind of thing movie critics(and, apparently, Twin Peaks fans) love, but "average" cinemagoers and fans of things that are being subverted very much do not. For my money, I don't go to see a Saga-line Star Wars movie to be surprised, or intellectually challenged, or have my expectations subverted, any more than I read Hard SF novels riddled with cosmological philosophy or political allegory for comforting popcorn entertainment.
You could have taken everything TLJ was trying to "say" about Star Wars, made it an Anthology film, and I think it would have got a much more positive reaction - in fact, I'm pretty sure of it, considering everything TLJ was trying to "say" about Star Wars has been said before, often to great acclaim from the fandom, in the old EU. It's only because of the fact that it was firmly intended to upset people's expectations that people have been upset by it.
Its not tthat TLJ tries soemthing new - it doesn't. - its bad because it has truely terrible plot, characters, pacing and narrative, its lazy and I felt shockingly bad considering how much money was flung at it. IMO of course
If the Director had tried to do something new it might have been good. If he had the talent which base don that film - he doesn;t.
Opinions and all that. I left TLJ a bit uncertain how I felt about it; it certainly goes out of its way to keep the viewer uncomfortable. As I've rewatched it since the home release its rapidly creeping up my ladder. I'm not sure its fair to compare anything to the original trilogy, but I think its rapidly becoming my favorite film since the originals. If nothing else, it leaves me with the feeling I was looking for in the prequels and has me interested in what they could build from here.
I liked it in theaters, and have heard others say they like it more after rewatching it. But I don't mind a more disruptive approach. My Twin Peaks Training (TM) really did change my mindset about the entertainment I experience.
I do understand that TLJ leaves the trilogy in an odd place, though. Usually the second part of a trilogy advances and focuses the storyline instead of blowing it wide open. But then I think TFA narrowed possibilities far more than a first installment should have. It will certainly be interesting to see what Abrams does with the next installment. Will it be in the 'Goldilocks' zone that makes fans happy (TFA being too cold and TLJ being too hot in this analogy)? Or will it be something wildly different to either? I'm open to all possibilities.
Part of me wants something like a 20 year time gap between Ep 8 and 9, but I can't see that happening. Kylo being in charge makes for a super interesting sandbox to play in though. The longer they can keep that going the better as far as I'm concerned.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: How do?
How did Marvel get away with it? Why do other studios seem to falter early on? And considering the very much mixed response to The Last Jedi, how come the same studio has, to some, stalled with Star Wars?
1) Marvel knows their characters. A lot of movie companies who license characters don't.
2) The actors
3) Most of the directors.
4) The vision at Marvel HQ to tie it all together.
But they also got lucky with RDJ. Had they gone with someone else for Iron Man, it would have done as well as The Hulk.
But Captain America, Thor, even Doctor Strange, I love them all. Its amazing how awesome just a small cameo can be.
And I am stoked for Infinity War.
And at this point I am thankful for Marvel as I hate what has happened to Star Wars. To me, MCU is the new Star Wars.
Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation. But it sure seems like the FO won, or is in a position to win, despite its material losses. Does Poe rally the non-radicalized Imperial remnant to fight the FO? OT storm stroopers versus Disney troopers?
As for character arcs, nothing much happened in TLJ. The major movement was on character relations, where Rey went from wanting to kill Kylo on sight to having some empathy for him. But that seems moot considering his behavior at the end of TLJ.
The movie spends a lot of time not giving you what you want. The two obvious early examples are how Poe's heroics get reprimanded instead of celebrated and Luke's extreme rejection of the wise old mentor figure we want him to be. These things go beyond defying expectations; they are actively hostile towards them. A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.
Manchu wrote: Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation.
I think this is more the fault of TFA than TLJ, but its absolutely the biggest weakness of the new films. It's too complicated of a setup to not address in the films for sure.
Yes they did. They just gave him speech therapy, blackface, and named him Finn.
Yeah, I said it. Finn was used as nothing more than comic relief. A character that could have been SO much more... wasted by bad writing.
Pretty much sums up the whole movie, though. That's where MCU and DisneyWars differ. One has good writing, and one has bad, or at the very least inconsistent, writing.
LunarSol wrote: A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.
So to restate the analogy: You go to a restaurant that serves you bad food. Then you go back to that same restaurant and order the same dish, reasoning you only have yourself to blame if it's still bad. Sounds like "auto gaslighting." I mean, you're right to blame yourself for going back for more. But the food (or in this case, movie) is bad independently of your masochism. Contrast this to the MCU: it's like popcorn. You don't ask for much from your popcorn. You just want it to taste like popcorn. If you drizzle some funky musky imitation truffle oil over it, maybe 5% of people in the concessions line will like it better versus how many who will wonder what the hell is going on. The MCU people, like the McDonald's and the Domino's people, understand that consistency is its own quality.
Manchu wrote: Neither TFA nor TLJ is very clear about the galactic political situation.
I think this is more the fault of TFA than TLJ, but its absolutely the biggest weakness of the new films. It's too complicated of a setup to not address in the films for sure.
TFA should have explained it or gone with something that required less explanation. But that's not a pass for TLJ. TLJ could have invested time on this but wasted it on pointless new characters and plot circles. Once again, the MCU provides the correct approach: engaging character relationships over simple backdrops.
Yes they did. They just gave him speech therapy, blackface, and named him Finn.
Yeah, I said it. Finn was used as nothing more than comic relief. A character that could have been SO much more... wasted by bad writing.
Pretty much sums up the whole movie, though. That's where MCU and DisneyWars differ. One has good writing, and one has bad, or at the very least inconsistent, writing.
Ha - yeah thats a good point.
MCU does not usually force the comedy - its part of the ride, its clever writing - something I just don't see in the TLJ.
The movie spends a lot of time not giving you what you want. The two obvious early examples are how Poe's heroics get reprimanded instead of celebrated and Luke's extreme rejection of the wise old mentor figure we want him to be. These things go beyond defying expectations; they are actively hostile towards them. A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.
Hmm interesting - I thought most of that was really formularic and hence dull - the hot shot gets repremanded - like very other action film ever made, the guru does not act like one - again massive trope - its just a minor rework of the Yoda scenes - but bad.
If they had done something with the Rey and Ren relationship that would have been interesting - if anything about the pointless chase after the Ship of Fools had made sense or the day trip to Casino world had not happened during it.....
LunarSol wrote: A part of me definitely wanted to send back what I didn't order, but I think a lot of what makes it more enjoyable when watching the movie again is that I can no longer say this isn't what I asked for and I have to remove some of what I want from the experience.
So to restate the analogy: You go to a restaurant that serves you bad food. Then you go back to that same restaurant and order the same dish, reasoning you only have yourself to blame if it's still bad. Sounds like "auto gaslighting." I mean, you're right to blame yourself for going back for more. But the food (or in this case, movie) is bad independently of your masochism. Contrast this to the MCU: it's like popcorn. You don't ask for much from your popcorn. You just want it to taste like popcorn. If you drizzle some funky musky imitation truffle oil over it, maybe 5% of people in the concessions line will like it better versus how many who will wonder what the hell is going on. The MCU people, like the McDonald's and the Domino's people, understand that consistency is its own quality..
The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.
I understand that what a film is about, or how it is made, is a separate question from what I want a film to be about, or how I would prefer it was made. It's important to look at what a movie is offering independently from one's expectations, sure.
The problem is, everything about the SW IP and, specifically, how Rian Johnson handled it, undermines that principle. TLJ is not an independent story. It is just the latest installment of an ongoing tale. It has an obligation, therefore, to "fit." At a higher level, the studio's objective is to make something that "feels like" Star Wars and on a more specific level the director here absolutely relied on toying with audience expectations - indeed, that's his only trick.
From a yet wider perspective, which is crucially relevant to "why the MCU works," the point here is to reach the widest demographic. And so we come to the flip side of the point of putting aside our own expectations: it is always fair to judge a film according to its own goals. And on this score, TLJ has created more division where there had been more unity.
If the point of film making is to create subtle, meditative art that stimulates reflection then the MCU does not "work." But TLJ still doesn't "work" in that world, either. "What The People Want" is key to the actual success of the MCU and ignoring that is huge part of why TLJ (which should have been a piece of cake) badly stumbled.
The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.
And this was part of my takeaway from the Twin Peaks revival. Too often we view our entertainment as something to be consumed. Made to order, gobbled up, and then flushed away. And when that's our mindset, all these demands are a natural result. Things need more seasoning or lightsabers or RDJ quips.
But that's kind of a terrible way to approach a creative work. I'm well within my rights to like something or not, but it shouldn't be based on the degree to which the artist catered to me. Art should challenge and confound and surprise. I was wrapped up in the consumption of this stuff like so many others, and then David Lynch slapped me across the face and made me remember what I should never have forgotten as a creative professional. It's not all about ME and my egotistical demands...I should be giving artists room and respect when presented with their creative works
Since then I've tried to do a better job of letting my entertainment be what it is, and stop worrying about how it meets my 'taste'. I think Frank Herbert wrote a line something like "we must stand silently and point at the new thing." It's kinda like that.
The difference is this. I shouldn't be going to a movie to "order something". The presumption that I can or even should be able to is the fundamental flaw with the analogy. I did not go into Star Wars saying "please give me a movie with space wizards and laser swords that blow up an evil moon"; I went to the movie and those are things it gave me that I liked. The problem I initially had with TLJ is that I asked it to give me a carmel latte and didn't get it. On further viewings I'm liking it more on the basis of what it actually is once I stop pretending the movie should cater to my specific demands.
And this was part of my takeaway from the Twin Peaks revival. Too often we view our entertainment as something to be consumed. Made to order, gobbled up, and then flushed away. And when that's our mindset, all these demands are a natural result. Things need more seasoning or lightsabers or RDJ quips.
But that's kind of a terrible way to approach a creative work. I'm well within my rights to like something or not, but it shouldn't be based on the degree to which the artist catered to me. Art should challenge and confound and surprise. I was wrapped up in the consumption of this stuff like so many others, and then David Lynch slapped me across the face and made me remember what I should never have forgotten as a creative professional. It's not all about ME and my egotistical demands...I should be giving artists room and respect when presented with their creative works
Since then I've tried to do a better job of letting my entertainment be what it is, and stop worrying about how it meets my 'taste'. I think Frank Herbert wrote a line something like "we must stand silently and point at the new thing." It's kinda like that.
I don't think it's that simple.
If someone walks in to an avant garde indie film, or something from a well-known auteur director, or even just something from an entirely new IP, I think you're right to a degree, the audience has to put aside any expectations they might have.
But I don't think your characterisation of "egotistical demands" and other assorted manbunnery is even remotely fair when it comes to established settings, and it certainly doesn't apply when those settings are part of a long-established mass-market property. The fact is, with that kind of situation, the artist is the one under an obligation, not the audience, and if the artist doesn't want to work within the established themes and tone then they shouldn't be working on an established IP.
If you want to cook haute cuisine, don't take a job in MacDonalds and then act like a snob when people come in expecting you to make them a Big Mac.
Lance845 wrote: The mcu works because they have a plan and someone in xharge making sure all the pieces fall into place. Infinity war has been on its way since iron man 1. They took their time to build the characters and make everyrhing work.
Dc on the other has no fething idea whT they are doing.
This.
The MCU works because of the right combination of talent, knowing your market, and very careful and patient planning. Conveniently all things conspicuously lacking from DC's films, and arguably I think the recent Star Wars films are severely lacking in the planning department in so far as the development of the films seems to need a bit more control to ensure cohesion of the effort.
The biggest thing going for Marvel is success. It's allowed them to make decisions from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. So when the Marvel formula has started to feel a little stale, they've taken positive risks, experimented with new directors and new talent. It's also meant Marvel have been able to recover from small stumbles along the way without feeling pressure to doubt their overall plan or approach.
In contrast DC started with an interesting idea. But average returns and hostile audience reactions has created doubt in the plan they were following. This led to a lot of decisions driven by fear and caution, abandoning bits of their original vision piece by piece. Not a good way to produce consistent quality.
Iron Man was objectively good, the first wave that followed was a much more mixed bag. Thor was entirely forgettable, Captain America was okay, and Incredible Hulk was a complete misstep - the film was mediocre but more than that Edward Norton's casting didn't work at all. But in part through the strength of Iron Man and in part through the novelty of the expanded universe the films performed well and buzz grew, Marvel stuck with the plan and made The Avengers, which was a huge commercial hit and widely loved. This success allowed Marvel to ignore some subsequent misteps, like the mediocre Avengers sequel or another bad Thor movie), and instead experiment with interesting variations on their formula (Ant-Man as a heist movie, or an actually good Thor movie by changing the formula to comedy adventure).
DC came in second so there was no hype for novelty for their plan and they were building based off Man of Steel, which was not a particularly popular movie. When BvS performed okay but suffered strong negative reaction, well DC could have responded like Marvel did after Thor and continue with the tone and themes they had planned for their film series. But it was much harder for DC to do that because it didn't have that base of success or the goodwill of being the first in. Instead they panicked a little with Suicide Squad and ordered reshoots to give it a lighter tone. Whether this helped Suicide Squad or made it worse is up for debate, but either way the film they put out was pretty bad. So the pressure only grew, and the dysfunctional decision making got worse- even more radical changes were made to Justice League, it was cut down to a shorter length. DC reacted to the criticism of BvS and SS slow pacing, but missed that length is needed in some movies to bring in more complexity, more of the real world surrounding the heroes. The result was a Justice League film that entirely ignored the themes and world setting that BvS had worked to create, in its place we got a string of snappy one liners and big action set pieces, with no theme or sense of place to give it any meaning.
tldr - Marvel had an interesting idea, and early success gave them freedom to double down on their strengths and experiment. DC started with an interesting idea, but they were second in and failed to execute their first few attempts, which led to self-doubt and drift away from their interesting idea.
Manchu wrote: The problem is, everything about the SW IP and, specifically, how Rian Johnson handled it, undermines that principle. TLJ is not an independent story. It is just the latest installment of an ongoing tale. It has an obligation, therefore, to "fit." At a higher level, the studio's objective is to make something that "feels like" Star Wars and on a more specific level the director here absolutely relied on toying with audience expectations - indeed, that's his only trick.
This right here is describing why Star Wars fails: because it isn't an ongoing tale. The Star Wars story had a path, and it ended. After ROTJ there was nothing left to tell, as demonstrated by the endless mediocre-to-awful milking of the cash cow with the EU. TLJ does not exist because it's the next chapter in an ongoing story, it exists because Disney paid the GDP of a small country to get the Star Wars IP and they're going to cash in on that investment. The only way to make any sense out of the new movies is to treat them as independent stories vaguely related to the Star Wars theme. TFA milks the nostalgia cash cow and rehashes the existing material, TLJ toys with expectations and goes against them. Who knows what the next movie is going to do, but it's still going to be a new interpretation of how to milk the cash cow.
The MCU, on the other hand, was established from the beginning as an open-ended setting rather than a story and that gives it a lot more resilience than other IPs. The movies share characters and there's an overall plot if you care enough to pay attention to it, but the movies largely stand on their own. If you don't like one movie or character there's another one coming soon that might be more to your taste. And there's room to keep introducing new characters and making "origin story" movies, which have a sales advantage in being new material but still get to cash in on the MCU name. Obviously this only works if the overall quality of the IP doesn't fall too low, but as long as the MCU brand as a whole has a good reputation it can survive a failure or two.
Third Star Wars movie will probably be about the Resistance getting help from an unexpected indigenous species and a surprisingly exploitable weakness take out the First Order, meanwhile Marvel will knock things out of the park with movies like Black Panther and Infinity War.
sebster wrote: The biggest thing going for Marvel is success. It's allowed them to make decisions from a position of strength, not a position of weakness. So when the Marvel formula has started to feel a little stale, they've taken positive risks, experimented with new directors and new talent. It's also meant Marvel have been able to recover from small stumbles along the way without feeling pressure to doubt their overall plan or approach.
In contrast DC started with an interesting idea. But average returns and hostile audience reactions has created doubt in the plan they were following. This led to a lot of decisions driven by fear and caution, abandoning bits of their original vision piece by piece. Not a good way to produce consistent quality.
Iron Man was objectively good, the first wave that followed was a much more mixed bag. Thor was entirely forgettable, Captain America was okay, and Incredible Hulk was a complete misstep - the film was mediocre but more than that Edward Norton's casting didn't work at all. But in part through the strength of Iron Man and in part through the novelty of the expanded universe the films performed well and buzz grew, Marvel stuck with the plan and made The Avengers, which was a huge commercial hit and widely loved. This success allowed Marvel to ignore some subsequent misteps, like the mediocre Avengers sequel or another bad Thor movie), and instead experiment with interesting variations on their formula (Ant-Man as a heist movie, or an actually good Thor movie by changing the formula to comedy adventure).
DC came in second so there was no hype for novelty for their plan and they were building based off Man of Steel, which was not a particularly popular movie. When BvS performed okay but suffered strong negative reaction, well DC could have responded like Marvel did after Thor and continue with the tone and themes they had planned for their film series. But it was much harder for DC to do that because it didn't have that base of success or the goodwill of being the first in. Instead they panicked a little with Suicide Squad and ordered reshoots to give it a lighter tone. Whether this helped Suicide Squad or made it worse is up for debate, but either way the film they put out was pretty bad. So the pressure only grew, and the dysfunctional decision making got worse- even more radical changes were made to Justice League, it was cut down to a shorter length. DC reacted to the criticism of BvS and SS slow pacing, but missed that length is needed in some movies to bring in more complexity, more of the real world surrounding the heroes. The result was a Justice League film that entirely ignored the themes and world setting that BvS had worked to create, in its place we got a string of snappy one liners and big action set pieces, with no theme or sense of place to give it any meaning.
tldr - Marvel had an interesting idea, and early success gave them freedom to double down on their strengths and experiment. DC started with an interesting idea, but they were second in and failed to execute their first few attempts, which led to self-doubt and drift away from their interesting idea.
I don't think that DCU was ever very cohesive - instead they kept trying to replicate their success with the Nolan Batman films - which themselves had built massively on the first Burton Batman film (and IMO far suprerior). Their other source of success was the older Superman films with more recent ones being adequate at best. They became obessesed with Dark and Gloomy at the expense of charcteristation and plot and Bats vs Sups was the result - a mess on its own but fately weakened by the truely awful portrayla of Lex Luthor which constantly tried to destroy the film.
Suicide Squad had a great start but hit a wall about half way through - it tried to be a marvel film and did not quite manage it.
Wonder Woman and Justice League are just far superior films - they are well crafted with stories themed around the characters and their emotions, relationships etc - not just "lets make it dark and pretend that that means something"
BVS made no attempt at word building - same as the Last Jedi destroyed what very little had been done before - becuase the directors do not seem to care about the universe they should be creating
Marvel continue to make the same sort of films - about people NOT pretending they are about high concepts that allow critcis to sneer at anyone else.
Length of fims has no relation to quaity - many films are over long because of lazy or weak editing or lack of confidence that the audiance can understand whats going on.
I thought Wonder Woman was ridiculous. I love Gal Gadot, she is smoking hot, and I'll watch her do anything, but that movie was lame.
I do like Man Of Steel, until we get to all the destruction at the end. That kind of wholesale slaughter should appear towards the end of a combined story, not start right out the gate with it. However I loved the Kryptonians, and especially Zod. Thought his motivations were legit.
But I have a problem with Superman just being too powerful. His skin can stop bullets yet he falls back from punches? He needs to be updated and not so powerful. Then there would be more of a struggle.
I am also a huge fan of Ben Affleck as an older Bruce Wayne. His size, shape of his face, and demeanor is perfect. I wasn't a fan of Bale, and I think we saw too much of his face and not enough Batman. The Trilogy should have been called: Bruce Wayne Begins, The Dark Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne Rises.
I actually think Suicide Squad is awesome, and I can't stand Will Smith. I will watch Suicide Squad re-runs more than I will watch any other DC movie. I wish they would bang half a dozen of those movies out.
BvS was cool. I thought the opening with Bruce running through Metropolis was brilliant. I loved the Dark Knight Returns since childhood, so it was cool to see the match up. But to throw in the lame Doomsday and have Superman killed and then brought back the way they did, they have just crossed too many paths in that universe and I just don't think I can buy into whatever will be at stake anymore.
I might be one of the few who seem to love Jared Leto's Joker. I think he was perfect. While we all love Heath Ledger's Joker, I didn't find him flying rodent gak crazy enough. He just wasn't psycho enough for me, and I have to admit, I love the Harley Quinn dynamic.
AND WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARGOT ROBBIE??????????????
But in the end, there is no real plan for the DC universe, just a bunch of different movies loosely tied together. And at this point what are they going to do? Another reboot? Another round of origin stories? People are tired of them. And I am not sure they have locked these actors enough for more movies to even plan out a whole bunch. Marvel has hundreds of characters that fans can be excited about, while DC just does not. DC is limited to a dozen or so. That's just the blunt truth. And there isn't a lot of more story to tell of them, and that limits there universe. Everything is bent on defending the Earth from some massive threat, where Marvel is ok with smaller threats and some of those are the most interesting.
Which is a shame, as they have done a good job with casting.
Two whole pages of this and not a single person has said the name Kevin Feige.
Why does the MCU work? Because of Kevin Feige. The driving force, the focal point, the navigator, the helmsman - he is the reason the MCU breaks records with almost ever release, and why his third Avengers film will be a bigger cinematic event than the movie that featured three of the five* most well known super heroes in history.
Kevin Feige is a man who has worked his way through the industry, starting as Lauren Shuler Donner's assistant (a name you should recognise from a lot of Marvel films, also Richard Donner aka the director of Superman's wife). Interestingly future DC Big Wig Geoff Johns was Richard Donner's assistant!
He went up and up through the ranks, working as low level producer jobs and eventually executive producer jobs on everything that Marvel had licensed out at the time. He eventually got put in charge, made Iron Man, and the rest is history. He is a comic book fan through and through, has learnt the producing side of Hollywood through tireless work, and now commands one of the biggest movie empires of recent history.
So, again, why does the MCU work? Because of Kevin Feige.
*The other two being Spider-Man and, due to the X-Men films, Wolverine.
gorgon wrote: ... being a sequel to the Ang Lee film...
It was not a sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk.
That Hulk movie has nothing to do with the MCU. And, as pointed out, Marvel can't make standalone Hulk films without Universal getting involved as they own the distribution rights.
gorgon wrote: If Disney saw a big enough cash cow, they'd be okay with sharing the dough. But they don't...which is both my point and the second half of the article you linked to.
Why would they play ball with Universal? What does it gain them? They're doing just fine with Hulk as a character, and he's been one of the most popular since his breakout performance in the first Avengers film. What they have works, so why share?
"But Spider-Man!"
Yes, they shared with Sony because:
1. Sony is floundering as a company, so they're happy for the help. 2. Sony's own attempt at a Spiderverse was falling apart, presenting Marvel with an opportunity to gain something big. 3. Spider-Man is the most profitable super-hero on the planet (yes, moreso than Batman and Superman), so why wouldn't Marvel want to put that into their already hugely successful universe?
Hulk may be popular, but he's no Spider-Man, and right now Marvel don't need him to be Spider-Man. He can keep being Hulk and being a massive draw without them ever needing to talk to Universal.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought the third Thor film was the weakest - great fun, brilliant in places - but again the narrative was much weaker.
Thor 3 was a deeply educational film. It taught me a new word: Bathos.
Formosa wrote: Discovery: Tried to mix in modern "SJW" political commentary with a bleaker look at the trek universe, it failed horribly at that, Trek at its heart has always been about diversity, so thankfully it didnt get bogged down with any of that, but showed a more interesting trek universe where the Feds are seen at the bad guys (because they are to the Klingons), all in all its still trek but with a nice twist.... shame the ending of series 1 was so crap.
I'll always be one of the first to call out "SJW crap", but Disco is not a show like that. The revisionist history hype around it was ridiculous - some people declared it the first Trek with a black main character, ignoring Sisko, others claimed it to be a Trek with the first female lead, ignoring Janeway - but as someone who's never been big into trek (I like most of the movies and DS9's pretty cool), I found it entertaining and different enough to be worthwhile. The only real "SJW-ish" grandstanding they did was with Anthony Rapp's character, who was gay so that the writers go go "Look! A gay! Aren't we ever so progressive!". It was so obviously tokenistic.
Manchu wrote: They don't have to be good; they just need to address the lowest common denominator.
That's such nonsense. I mean that goes beyond backhanded compliment to full-on sucker punch there Manchu.
Movies like MCU films do not reach the heights they get to simply by appealing to the lowest common denominator.
The phrase "lowest common denominator" must sound a lot worse than it is. I'm not sure what could be more clear about the MCU films than the fact that they are constructed to appeal to the widest possible audience.
To the point about Star Wars being "over with" after RotJ, I know people who propose Star Wars was "over with" after ANH and ESB was just milking the cash cow. People can (and have and will) draw that line wherever they please.
sebster wrote: DC came in second so there was no hype for novelty for their plan and they were building based off Man of Steel, which was not a particularly popular movie.
I *firmly* believe that had they followed up MoS with a normal sequel -- perhaps from a different director -- it would have been warmly received. The first movie in a reboot has to break some eggs...after that, it gets easier. Remember that Batman Begins had good-not-great reviews. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but it was still set up for success by BB. While I think that baking certain negative reactions about MoS into BvS as part of the story was an interesting approach, I think it was an overreaction and ultimately just lent those criticisms more energy. And it didn't help that the movie doubled or tripled down on tone (MoS really wasn't a dark film, and certainly wasn't as dark as BvS).
There are individual sequences in BvS that I think are amazing. And although I think the film certainly has other problems (the director's cut is definitely superior, but still has problems of it own), personally I still respect that the director had a clear vision. But I also fully understand that audiences didn't want to see their heroes rolling around on floors of filthy bathrooms of abandoned buildings, smashing sinks over each other's heads in an ugly brawl. When the financial stakes were as *massive* as they were for BvS, they would have been smart to take a page from Marvel's book and make a more conservative, crowdpleasing movie.
Regarding JL, which went through TWO overhauls -- would it have been better for audiences to see Snyder's original vision if it involved Steppenwolf killing Cyborg by tearing him to pieces, as was rumored? How about evil Superman, controlled by Darkseid through the Anti-Life Equation? That certainly would have felt like a continuation of BvS. I probably wouldn't have liked it, but I would have accepted that it was that filmmaker's vision. It probably would have killed the DCEU for general audiences, though.
Again, I think that WB's decisions with the creation of the DCEU forced them into situations where there was no good solution. They weren't wrong that the reaction to BvS demanded immediate changes to SS and JL to protect their business. But they were in that place because they were so committed to one story, one vision, and massive budgets. Marvel played it safer and built in more flexibility.
KTG17 wrote: I thought Wonder Woman was ridiculous. I love Gal Gadot, she is smoking hot, and I'll watch her do anything, but that movie was lame.
I do like Man Of Steel, until we get to all the destruction at the end. That kind of wholesale slaughter should appear towards the end of a combined story, not start right out the gate with it. However I loved the Kryptonians, and especially Zod. Thought his motivations were legit.
But I have a problem with Superman just being too powerful. His skin can stop bullets yet he falls back from punches? He needs to be updated and not so powerful. Then there would be more of a struggle.
I am also a huge fan of Ben Affleck as an older Bruce Wayne. His size, shape of his face, and demeanor is perfect. I wasn't a fan of Bale, and I think we saw too much of his face and not enough Batman. The Trilogy should have been called: Bruce Wayne Begins, The Dark Bruce Wayne, and Bruce Wayne Rises.
I actually think Suicide Squad is awesome, and I can't stand Will Smith. I will watch Suicide Squad re-runs more than I will watch any other DC movie. I wish they would bang half a dozen of those movies out.
BvS was cool. I thought the opening with Bruce running through Metropolis was brilliant. I loved the Dark Knight Returns since childhood, so it was cool to see the match up. But to throw in the lame Doomsday and have Superman killed and then brought back the way they did, they have just crossed too many paths in that universe and I just don't think I can buy into whatever will be at stake anymore.
I might be one of the few who seem to love Jared Leto's Joker. I think he was perfect. While we all love Heath Ledger's Joker, I didn't find him flying rodent gak crazy enough. He just wasn't psycho enough for me, and I have to admit, I love the Harley Quinn dynamic.
AND WHO DOESN'T LOVE MARGOT ROBBIE??????????????
But in the end, there is not real plan for the DC universe, just a bunch of different movies loosely tied together. And at this point what are they going to do? Another reboot? Another round of origin stories? People are tired of them. And I am not sure they have locked these actors enough for more movies to even plan out a whole bunch. Marvel has hundreds of characters that fans can be excited about, while DC just does not. DC is limited to a dozen or so. That's just the blunt truth. And there isn't a lot of more story to tell of them, and that limits there universe. Everything is bent on defending the Earth from some massive threat, where Marvel is ok with smaller threats and some of those are the most interesting.
Which is a shame, as they have done a good job with casting.
Agree that Jareds Jokker and Margots Harley were great - I thought HL Joker was ok but yeah he simply was not not nuts enough compared to jareds or Nicholsons - both much better,
Sups, Batman and especially Wonder Woman were all good in Bats vs Sups - the beyond stupid plot and every single horrble moment Lex was on screen killed that film for me.
Lowest Common Denominator is often understood to mean something like this:
A particular type of obnoxious person one encounters in extremely large groups, or where everybody is universally included. Because there are so many people, there is a significantly higher probability of idiotic people
It doesn't make sense to interpret the phrase like that in this context. How could appealing to "a particular kind of obnoxious person" explain the MCU's success?
-Controlled direction (Kevin Feige)
-Flexbility due to initial success (Kevin Feige)
-RDJ (This can't be stressed enough).
-Grabbing several people outside of RDJ and locking them into solid contracts. The key though is that they grabbed, on purpose or accident, some truly talented actors that were either beginning their break or looking to break their current casting niche (Hemsworth the former and Evans and Johansen as the latter). Be real, RDJ is the foundation but the two big guys turned into the initial supports. This gave them the baseline where people likely would come to them to be super heroes instead of them having to find them.
-The actors enjoy the movies. Even with what they put Evans and Hemsworth thru physically (and they did seem to dial that back after their initial movies) they enjoy making these movies and working with the studio. And it shows.
-They pay some service to the comics but aren't afraid to shift things around to make it more palatable to the general public.
-They don't take themselves seriously in the sense that they don't beat you over the head with the theme and message.
-They're just fun. Some might not be amazing and set the bar but I've never walked out of one like I did Man of Steel thinking "Wow, that was 30 minutes to long because of a pointless fight scene".
gorgon wrote: ... being a sequel to the Ang Lee film...
It was not a sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk.
That Hulk movie has nothing to do with the MCU. And, as pointed out, Marvel can't make standalone Hulk films without Universal getting involved as they own the distribution rights.
Nice selective editing of my post? I explained what I meant and even used the word 'requel' to explain that it was part-sequel, part-reboot. And it was definitely made with the idea that we've already gotten the origin story, have been introduced to Betty and General Ross, etc. in the Lee film, even as the MCU film pursued a new path. Superman Returns was the same thing. Whenever (if ever?) WB gets around to making another Green Lantern film, that'll be the same thing too...wait and see.
gorgon wrote: If Disney saw a big enough cash cow, they'd be okay with sharing the dough. But they don't...which is both my point and the second half of the article you linked to.
Why would they play ball with Universal? What does it gain them? They're doing just fine with Hulk as a character, and he's been one of the most popular since his breakout performance in the first Avengers film. What they have works, so why share?
"But Spider-Man!"
Yes, they shared with Sony because:
1. Sony is floundering as a company, so they're happy for the help.
2. Sony's own attempt at a Spiderverse was falling apart, presenting Marvel with an opportunity to gain something big.
3. Spider-Man is the most profitable super-hero on the planet (yes, moreso than Batman and Superman), so why wouldn't Marvel want to put that into their already hugely successful universe?
Hulk may be popular, but he's no Spider-Man, and right now Marvel don't need him to be Spider-Man. He can keep being Hulk and being a massive draw without them ever needing to talk to Universal.
Again, if there was a larger cash cow waiting for them in solo Hulk films, they'd pursue it. They're a business, not a spiteful schoolgirl.
Manchu wrote: It doesn't make sense to interpret the phrase like that in this context. How could appealing to "a particular kind of obnoxious person" explain the MCU's success?
Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person. Think about all the times that phrase is used and how many of them have a positive air about them? You could say the same thing you mean to say with "appeal to the masses"
and it wouldn't seem nearly so dickish
See i think the best mcu films are winter soldier and civil war. They get a lot of characters in there but everyone feels like a whole person instead of some kind of support for the lead. Great action. Good stories. Small comedic beats that dont disrupt the narritive.
Iron man 3 is the worst, but a servicable buddy cop film. Followed by avengers 1 and 2 because joss wheddon is a hack who does the exact opposite of winter soldier and civil war by piling in a bunch of characters and making them all feel like cardboard cut outs instead of real people.
I don't disagree Lance. For actual quality those two are my favorite and most rewatchable films. Fun wise though I do enjoy the first Avengers and I LOVE Guardians 1 and Thor Ragnarok. I haven't seen black panther yet and I'm stupid excited for Infinity War.
Hulksmash wrote: Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.
That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.
Hulksmash wrote: Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.
That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.
Except Spiderman. He is pretty much just dropped into Civil War without much explanation, and he doesn't really need it, because Spiderman. As mentioned above, he is the most recognisable superhero of all.
Hulksmash wrote: Lowest common denominator is generally seen as the stupidest person.
That's certainly part of it, if by "stupid" you actually mean ignorant. The MCU movies assume no knowledge about anything, including their own source material. Even the famous interlinking references embedded across these movies are just an optional "extra" layer of enjoyment rather than being necessary for enjoyment.
No, I mean stupid. Because the phrase "Lowest common denominator" doesn't generally imply ignorant. It generally implies stupid. But either way when you say they make the movies to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" you saying even in your words the ignorant and in most people's view the stupidest. You wondered why people were annoyed with your phrasing and I was pointing out how it came off as dickish. You could have actually gotten your point across far more easily if you'd just said (like many others) that part of their success is that you can be ignorant of the source material and enjoy the movies.
DC's problems definitely stem from the success of the Dark Knight and its influence on Man of Steel. Zack Snyder is a good pick for that direction, but the direction itself has serious problems that basically repeat the problems that crashed comics in the first place.
Snyder has a love for a specific style of fatalist storytelling that has regularly produced seminal but unsustainable works. Both Watchmen and DKR are dead end universes. Largely that's the point. After their success, DC tried to use them to inform their own universe and created one of the shortest spikes of cultural relevance in comic history.
Snyder is basically repeating this problem but in some ways, he's creating a worse version of it. Those comics seem to be his introduction to the medium, leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended. I also don't think Snyder is particularly interested in building an ongoing universe with this stuff and the end result is a bunch of movies that don't really know what they want to be other than whatever appeared to make a bunch of money during their time in production hell.
Whatever it supposedly implies, what it actually means is that aiming wide means aiming low. MCU films are specifically and intentionally not intellectually demanding. That's not a cheap shot at people who enjoy them - unless of course you're implying that I'm trying to insult myself. No one (except you) is talking about people of being stupid. To the contrary, general audience members certainly understand what Marvel is offering and respond very favorably. Most folks want a reasonably good chance of enjoying the film they are paying to see at least while they are watching it. And with Marvel, they get a very high chance of being satisfied. By contrast, who knows what the next SW film will be like. Is it going to me more pretentious garbage about "subverting expectations" or can we just have a fun adventure?
LunarSol wrote: DC's problems definitely stem from the success of the Dark Knight and its influence on Man of Steel. Zack Snyder is a good pick for that direction, but the direction itself has serious problems that basically repeat the problems that crashed comics in the first place.
Snyder has a love for a specific style of fatalist storytelling that has regularly produced seminal but unsustainable works. Both Watchmen and DKR are dead end universes. Largely that's the point. After their success, DC tried to use them to inform their own universe and created one of the shortest spikes of cultural relevance in comic history.
Snyder is basically repeating this problem but in some ways, he's creating a worse version of it. Those comics seem to be his introduction to the medium, leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended. I also don't think Snyder is particularly interested in building an ongoing universe with this stuff and the end result is a bunch of movies that don't really know what they want to be other than whatever appeared to make a bunch of money during their time in production hell.
Yeah. I think Snyder is an underrated filmmaker. There are few directors that can match his talents for visuals, and he simply knows how to stage action sequences. I also think some of his films are more thoughtful than people give them credit for. HOWEVER...yes, he was a very poor choice to create and godfather the DCEU.
MoS was *chockful* of Superman and DC easter eggs that a lot of self-described Superman fans didn't notice or understand. There was plenty of universe-building in that movie, especially considering it was originally meant to work as a standalone and not necessarily the introduction to a universe. Remember that film was the idea of the Nolans and Goyer, and Christopher Nolan is famously against shared universes.
But (weirdly) starting with BvS, the DCEU architect seemed to be eager to take wrecking balls to things that the universe might later want or need. What was with making Jimmy Olson a CIA agent and then capping him? Why would he think that having Cyborg horribly killed in JL (purportedly the original plan) would serve the universe well? Why have Dick Grayson dead at the hands of the Joker? (He recently hinted the dead Robin in BvS isn't Jason, but Dick.) In retrospect, killing Zod in MoS was also a major mistake, although again they weren't fully planning for a shared universe at that time.
We'll never know what the conversations were between Snyder and WB, but it's like he was either told to be an auteur filmmaker and do whatever he wants (studio's fault), or he didn't understand the role he was in and the billions that WB had riding on him (Snyder's fault). The studio's real mistake was not laying down the law at the beginning, or stepping in with BvS if that's what it came to.
LunarSol wrote: leaving them as an example of what comics should be rather than the deconstruction of the medium as intended
Excellent point. And also sheds insight into why the MCU succeeds. The key takeaway from comic books was not the specific characters and scenarios; it's the endless sweep of its dimensions - comic book narratives are only very loosely rooted in specific places and times, they intersect with each other at some points and not at others, they go on forever, are inherently rebootable, etc, etc.
Whatever it supposedly implies, what it actually means is that aiming wide means aiming low. MCU films are specifically and intentionally not intellectually demanding. That's not a cheap shot at people who enjoy them - unless of course you're implying that I'm trying to insult myself. No one (except you) is talking about people of being stupid. To the contrary, general audience members certainly understand what Marvel is offering and respond very favorably. Most folks want a reasonably good chance of enjoying the film they are paying to see at least while they are watching it. And with Marvel, they get a very high chance of being satisfied. By contrast, who knows what the next SW film will be like. Is it going to me more pretentious garbage about "subverting expectations" or can we just have a fun adventure?
I agree, and then they sneak an interesting message or theme in from time to time.
Reminds me of Fury Road (and all Mad Max films) in that way. Sure, you can count on them for fun adventure stuff, but there is a bit of something more lurking right there int he subtext if you just reach for it and embrace it. However, you don;t have to if you do not want to.
I was actually watching Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 when I first saw this thread. I remember when it came out most people thought it wasn't as good as the first, but after seeing both over 20 times now, I have to say that the character arcs and development, and even humor for me, is superior in vol 2. Vol 1 is a great, great movie, but it was kind of typical. The first time I watched Vol 2 I had no idea where it was going. And I think the first 15 minutes of vol 2 are my favorite scenes in both movies combined (from the first fight to the arrival of Ego).
And that's the great thing about Marvel, The universe is fun. Its not really fun in DC or Star Wars. And I do love dark movies. As a matter of fact, I love The Watchmen - Extended Edition. I have watched that many many times. I think its near perfect. But I wouldn't want a dozen Watchmen movies. Marvel has me craving for more. And each time I think I am not going to care (Dr Strange, Black Panther, Thor 3), I am surprised how much fun I had. As a matter of fact, the movie I thought was the greatest letdown yet had one of the best bad guys was Spiderman: Homecoming (which was still better than most of Sony's films). But the fact you could throw Iron Man in it for a few minutes and make it part of everything else that is going on is just amazing.
And I just don't see anyone else pulling this off.
And Marvel is just getting started. Like I said, they have hundreds of characters and places to introduce.
Iron Man: We owe RDJ for the MCU, and this is a solid movie.
Incredible Hulk: I am an Edward Norton fan, but not as Bruce Banner. I am glad he was replaced. I am not even sure I have watched the entire movie.
Thor: Kind of a weak movie, but Thor is one of my fav Marvel characters so I don't care. I'll watch it when its on.
Captain America: I don't know why this movie doesn't get more credit. From beginning to end, its an amazing looking movie. Maybe a little slow, but it tells a better origin story than any other in the MCU as far as I am concerned.
Avengers: Aside from Captain America's ridiculous looking uniform, the movie knocks it out of the park. The alien dragon-snake looking things are one of the coolest monsters I've seen in film. I still crack up over "I'm seeing it, still working on believing it."
Iron Man 2: My least favorite Iron Man I think. Whiplash is just lame, and with all the alcoholism going on, I think putting the real Mandarin in this movie would have been cooler. But I don't hate the movie. But Whiplash makes all these powerful drones yet gives himself no long range weapons himself? Ugghh. And the attack on the racetrack is silly.
Thor 2: I seem to be one of the few who thinks this is the closest to a perfect Thor movie, if you could just take out Natalie Portman and her band of idiots. But Asgard, Odin, Warriors Three, Sif, they all look perfect and how I imagine they would right out of the comic.
Captain America 2: Awesome. From beginning to end, one of the best sequels in the MCU. Elevator fight scene is one of my favorite fight scenes in the whole MCU.
Avengers 2: While I love Ultron, in the comic cartoons, and in this film, this was a weak ass movie. Jet setting around the world, ridiculous diving fight moves, makes me roll my eyes. I rate it okay. Ultron steals the show tho.
Iron Man 3: Doesn't feel like Iron Man, but I do think it was a Tony Stark movie that needed to be told. Its nice to see characters struggling with demons and everything not about saving the planet. For awhile I thought the kid was annoying, but he's grown on me. Huge, huge disappointment was what they did with Mandarin.
Guardians of the Galaxy - Having knowing nothing of these guys, I read up on them before the movie came out. I thought they were ridiculous. Then I saw the trailer, and was pumped. Then I saw the movie, and half way through I realized I was grinning the whole time. Loved it. It is, what we hope all movie experiences are like. I hope they make 30 of these movies.
Ant Man - Love it. I hope we get a dozen Ant Man and the Wasp films.
Captain America 3: Awesome in the scope. Its amazing to see so many characters on screen. I am a Nemo fan from old comic book days (what a ridiculous costume), and I like Daniel Brühl, but this was a disappointment. Seeing everyone fighting each other was a trip, although as time goes by I feel like the airport fight was a little ridiculous. But the final fight between Cap, Bucky, and Tony, is legendary.
Spiderman: Homecoming - As I said, a let down for me. I didn't like the talking suit. But Vulture stole the film and I guess that has to be expected when Michael Keaton shows up. But it had its moments and I hope to see more, since I think Holland is a perfect choice to play Parker.
Dr Strange - While familiar with the comic, I never read it. I thought this would be okay, but at the end I was really impressed. Benedict Cumberbatch knocked it out of the park. Yeah some people get pissy about the racial make up of some of the actors but that just makes me roll my eyes. He is a great addition to the MCU, and I have enjoyed him in the cameos and imagine he will be awesome in Infinity War.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - Awesome. The level of CGI detail is awesome. And there are a lot of details I think are missed the few times you first see the film. Gamora crossing her eyes while Quill is hitting on the queen, or all of Chris Pratt's facial expressions. I really think this is a great crew of actors, and will really miss Yondu. I would say these are my favorite films in the MCU.
Thor 3 - I wanted to avoid this at first, as I prefer a more traditional Thor, but having now seen this, I acknowledge it was a really fun movie. Talking Hulk was awesome and him and Thor arguing was classic. I wasnt crazy about Ragnorak, and being a fan of the old comics, I though Surtur should have been the star, not Hela. I thought a lot was rushed, but a lot of it was great too. Liked Skurge. I guess I liked the events on the game world more than I did on Asgard. I liked Asgard and its characters too. I hate to see it gone from the MCU.
Black Panther - Gutsy movie. I thought Killmonger was awesome. Hate to see Klaw die (I am sick of them killing the all the bad guys), but the movie brings such a different dynamic, and makes you realize how different all these MCU movies are, as opposed to Star Wars, which all feel the same.
So I really don't have a movie I dislike. I think they are all worth watching repeatedly.
Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are the duds for me. They both suffer from extremely weak villains. I think Thor 2 has bits that are too inspired to ignore (vortex grenades!) but I see these two movies both suffering from problems that plague every other studio's shared universe. Iron Man 2 cares more about world building than its own story and Thor 2 ramps up the comedy in the wake of Avenger's success culminating in an ending best set to the Benny Hill theme.
I think the first Cap mostly suffers from a weak end to Red Skull's story. The movie as a whole is fantastic, but the end definitely feels like it knew where the pieces all had to end up but didn't have a good plan to get them there.
I quite like Ultron. There's nothing I really hate other than Thor's random exposition dump in the middle. I assume that sequence was the template for BvS's security footage scene.
I think Ant Man and Dr. Strange both suffer a bit from too much of a good thing. They are just the bar now in a world that has seen it raised considerably in the last decade.
Manchu wrote: To the point about Star Wars being "over with" after RotJ, I know people who propose Star Wars was "over with" after ANH and ESB was just milking the cash cow. People can (and have and will) draw that line wherever they please.
People can draw the line, but that doesn't make the line reasonable. ANH was always intended to be the first chapter in a story, and on top of the unresolved story elements you can see where Lucas deliberately set it up to have sequels. But after ROTJ what is left? Luke has become a jedi and redeemed his father, Leia's rebellion has brought down the evil empire, Han has become a hero and won the girl. From a narrative point of view everything that was set out in ANH has been resolved. The prequels add a different framing of Star Wars being the story of the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker, but that story is also over at the end of ROTJ. And I don't think it's any coincidence that for ~30 years Lucas was happy to let the story end at ROTJ and leave the post-ROTJ events to the EU, and the idea of making more movies after ROTJ didn't come up until Disney paid the GDP of a small country for the IP and promptly started working on more movies to recover their investment.
I don't think ANH was ever conceived of as the first chapter. Even before it was retroactively labeled Episode IV, the point of the scenario is that a bunch of stuff is already going on and these events are situated in an already-ongoing plot.
As for money as motivation, this has always been present. That's the point of my friend's argument about ESB. From his POV, ANH told a complete story and ESB is a desperate appeal to soap opera tropes and self help/new age hokum to justify what Mel Brooks called The Quest For More Money.
Manchu wrote: I don't think ANH was ever conceived of as the first chapter.
You think wrong. We know from things like the original story notes/concept art/etc that Star Wars was a much longer story that was cut down to make ANH, with the cut elements evolving into the rest of the trilogy. We know that early drafts of the script contained "Episode X" in their titles. We know that work on ESB started ~6 months after ANH was released, strongly suggesting that the idea was in place already. And we see things like Vader's ship being knocked into space instead of destroyed, in an obvious "I'll be back" foreshadowing moment. It's a film that can stand on its own and be enjoyable, because funding for sequels was not guaranteed, but from the beginning it was meant to be one chapter in a larger story.
You quoted my post, declared it wrong, then explained why it is right.
Lucas's notes from the 70s are an unwieldy mess that bears little to no relation to any of the movies. The surviving idea from that period was that audience was hearing a story from the Journal of the Whills as if it had been opened up in the middle of the tome rather than from the first page.
Even so, there is nothing to be resolved at the end of ANH. The evil fascists' bid for absolute tyranny hinged on their super weapon, as they carefully explained in the script. Likewise, there is nothing that needs to be resolved prior to ANH - not why Anakin turned bad and not why there is a surface exhaust port leading to the main reactor of the Death Star.
Lucas' notes are a mess and his revisionist history is absurd at times, but the point is that Star Wars was always intended to have sequels. That was a constant, through all of the evolution the story went through from 1975 to 1983. Unless the first chapter failed financially Lucas was going to continue the story. And once he had the financing to continue he turned the rough ideas into its final form, an ending he was satisfied with for 30+ years and multiple statements of "the story ends after ROTJ, the EU is not my story". He was content to let the company handle the cash cow milking through licensing deals, but as far as he was concerned the story ended at the end of ROTJ. Even once he decided to get back into the movie business with the prequels he said what he felt needed to be said and then he stopped, leaving the story to end at the end of ROTJ.
Contrast this with the new movies, where there is no such intent to continue the story until Disney buys the IP and needs to start making movies to recover their investment. For 30 years Lucas says "my story ends with ROTJ", and then a third party decides to add on more movies with no involvement from the original creator. That's a decision driven 100% by capitalism, not by art. If Disney doesn't buy the IP we likely never see another Star Wars movie.
What is this talk of art. SW has always been a commercial proposition. One of George's biggest struggles in 1976 was finding a company willing to pay for the Star Wars toy license. His major legacy in film making is creating the era Disney has come to dominate through its MCU. The guy is a producer-turned-CEO who wanted to be a director. His fully realized artistic vision is the Phantom Menace, a film designed to sell merchandise.
The problem is that Marvel has had a well-executed plan from the get go, while in all seriousness, if the new Star Wars movies (not Rogue one, which was great )would have been books 10 years ago, they would have been considered by most to be at the bottom end of the EU for quality, and on top of that they suffer from the same scizophrenic directing that holds the DC universe back.
In the final analysis, the proof that Star Wars was NOT intended to end there was Vader's survival. The shot that killed the portside escort could just have easily hit Vader's ship instead, and there was no time for either of the others to line up the shot on Luke. This leaves the main villain of the piece dead and all the loose ends tied off.
But Vader survived, in a clear 'this isn't over yet!' moment.
I can see how one might overlook it. But it's a clear "Checkov's Gun" moment if you're at all familiar with moviemaking, or even just storytelling.
But no one has argued that SW was intended to end with ANH. Rather, the point is that ANH tells a complete story - unlike, for example, ESB. ESB was made because ANH was a megahit and it was clear there was a lot more money on the table. If for some bizarre reason it had flopped, and there was never another SW movie, it wouldn't have stopped on a cliffhanger.
MoS moving to BvS was cohesive, BvS expands on the themes and mood of MoS. In turn SS started with the same elements as a starting point, it actually expands the notion of a government floundering to regain some level of power in a world where superhumanly powerful beings suddenly appeared. But due to the extremely strong audience reaction against BvS they changed gear. They added the superfriends elements and a bunch more one-liners. Then they continued that with JL, stripping out any exploration of how the greater world reacts to the presence of super powered beings, and instead just tells a very small story of five heroes punching a villain.
Wonder Woman and Justice League are just far superior films - they are well crafted with stories themed around the characters and their emotions, relationships etc - not just "lets make it dark and pretend that that means something"
BVS made no attempt at word building - same as the Last Jedi destroyed what very little had been done before - becuase the directors do not seem to care about the universe they should be creating
Wonder Woman was excellent, far and away the best of DC's recent efforts.
But claiming that BvS made no attempt at world building is plainly wrong. It may not have been world building that you liked or were interested in, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Luthor's corruption of government looking for any answer to the thread of meta-humans, the exploration of Superman treated both in fear and adulation, the multiple scenes and sub-plots showing collateral damage from the Kryptonian fight, that was all stuff that explored how the greater world reacted to the arrival of super powered beings.
In comparison, in Justice League there was literally one scene that involved people outside our main characters, the fight at the memorial. In response to this lengthy fight in the middle of a city, we have one police car turn up and kind of mill about in the background.
Whether you prefer a film that looks at the greater world around the heroes, or a film that focuses in on the relationships between our group of heroes is not the point. Whether you prefer a darker, heavier tone, or a quicker, pacy film is also besides the point. What I explained was that DC started with one outlook, but after poor to middling returns they rapidly started making changes. Marvel has also made changes, but there is a big difference between trying new things from a position of success, and making changes from a position of failure.
Marvel continue to make the same sort of films - about people NOT pretending they are about high concepts that allow critcis to sneer at anyone else.
High concept means the opposite of what you think. Its a common mistake, but it has nothing to do with high brow or serious films, quite the opposite. High concept means films that can be quickly explained. Jurassic Park would be a good example - what if dinosaurs were brought back to life and started eating people is a perfect high concept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: I *firmly* believe that had they followed up MoS with a normal sequel -- perhaps from a different director -- it would have been warmly received. The first movie in a reboot has to break some eggs...after that, it gets easier. Remember that Batman Begins had good-not-great reviews. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but it was still set up for success by BB. While I think that baking certain negative reactions about MoS into BvS as part of the story was an interesting approach, I think it was an overreaction and ultimately just lent those criticisms more energy. And it didn't help that the movie doubled or tripled down on tone (MoS really wasn't a dark film, and certainly wasn't as dark as BvS).
It's an interesting point, and I agree for the most part. I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be. That bizarre advice is actually the cause of the BvS problem, I think. Because MoS had set up Superman as the 'do it alone' machismo hero, there was no real conflict with Batman, who is inherently a 'do it alone' machismo hero. They either had to start with a Superfriends version of Batman (bleh) or make another Superman movie establishing him as the guy who wants/needs other superhumans to come in to the fold.
But by just launching straight in to BvS with Superman established as he was, the central conflict ended up being nothing more than machismo and some vague stuff about Luthor's manipulations.
There are individual sequences in BvS that I think are amazing. And although I think the film certainly has other problems (the director's cut is definitely superior, but still has problems of it own), personally I still respect that the director had a clear vision. But I also fully understand that audiences didn't want to see their heroes rolling around on floors of filthy bathrooms of abandoned buildings, smashing sinks over each other's heads in an ugly brawl. When the financial stakes were as *massive* as they were for BvS, they would have been smart to take a page from Marvel's book and make a more conservative, crowdpleasing movie.
Possibly, but remember we weren't far from the Batman trilogy making lots of money, after those movies took a very dark, grounded vision of superheroes. WB probably decided it was smarter to go with a distinct style that was already established with MoS which had given them great returns in the past, than to copy Marvel too closely and end up being the little brother product.
And yeah, there's a lot of individual parts of BvS that are excellent. It's a real shame that it didn't come together as a whole. I think that lack of meaningful conflict between Batman and Superman is the primary factor.
Regarding JL, which went through TWO overhauls -- would it have been better for audiences to see Snyder's original vision if it involved Steppenwolf killing Cyborg by tearing him to pieces, as was rumored? How about evil Superman, controlled by Darkseid through the Anti-Life Equation? That certainly would have felt like a continuation of BvS. I probably wouldn't have liked it, but I would have accepted that it was that filmmaker's vision. It probably would have killed the DCEU for general audiences, though.
Yeah, I would have hated that. Not just because Cyborg is pretty interesting, but introducing someone and then killing them off in the same movie always feels a bit cheap.
To me, the problem wasn't the tone, or the heroes winning the day without suffering. It's that we shifted from two films that were heavily about how superhumans lived in a world with humans who both loved and feared them, and also how the world adapted. Then in JL that was entirely dropped, instead our heroes just went from set piece to set piece fighting entirely isolated battles, with no real involvement from the whole rest of the planet.
To bring that point back to the original question - I think the change to drop those elements was done because DC was addressing the failures of their early films by taking negative choices, basically changing their product in to a crappier version of a Marvel movie.
Vulcan wrote: In the final analysis, the proof that Star Wars was NOT intended to end there was Vader's survival. The shot that killed the portside escort could just have easily hit Vader's ship instead, and there was no time for either of the others to line up the shot on Luke. This leaves the main villain of the piece dead and all the loose ends tied off.
But Vader survived, in a clear 'this isn't over yet!' moment.
I can see how one might overlook it. But it's a clear "Checkov's Gun" moment if you're at all familiar with moviemaking, or even just storytelling.
Still bummed, if not actually surprised, we didn't get a He-Man sequel!
MoS moving to BvS was cohesive, BvS expands on the themes and mood of MoS. In turn SS started with the same elements as a starting point, it actually expands the notion of a government floundering to regain some level of power in a world where superhumanly powerful beings suddenly appeared. But due to the extremely strong audience reaction against BvS they changed gear. They added the superfriends elements and a bunch more one-liners. Then they continued that with JL, stripping out any exploration of how the greater world reacts to the presence of super powered beings, and instead just tells a very small story of five heroes punching a villain.
But claiming that BvS made no attempt at world building is plainly wrong. It may not have been world building that you liked or were interested in, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Luthor's corruption of government looking for any answer to the thread of meta-humans, the exploration of Superman treated both in fear and adulation, the multiple scenes and sub-plots showing collateral damage from the Kryptonian fight, that was all stuff that explored how the greater world reacted to the arrival of super powered beings.
Corruption of government by big business is not eactly novel or world buidling and what very very little they did with this was ruined by the miscast of Luthor - who came across as pathetic joker wannabee and whose influence was as unlikely and badly portrayed as the acting. There was nothing to compare to the reaction in MCU with the UN Accords, instead it was a much more parochial depiciton with no real sense of what the rest of the world outside the US thought of the attempt to terraform the world which was far more devestating than anything that thus far happened in MCU.
I perfer a bit more than a single Senate hearing where the capering fool that is Lex blows it up.
A more ambitious film could have used the court scenes to actually examine the issues they raise briefly rather then discard it in favour of of more of Luthors idiot clown routine and his truely stupid plot.
Whether you prefer a film that looks at the greater world around the heroes, or a film that focuses in on the relationships between our group of heroes is not the point. Whether you prefer a darker, heavier tone, or a quicker, pacy film is also besides the point. What I explained was that DC started with one outlook, but after poor to middling returns they rapidly started making changes. Marvel has also made changes, but there is a big difference between trying new things from a position of success, and making changes from a position of failure.
Marvel does both, and better. - they have darkness and light in films, rather than just gloom - you need the light stuff to make the dark more effective. The DCU was failing becuase they were making bad films, Marvel, because in the main they made good films. They have now understood that they can't just make dark films about nothing and need to work a bit harder on what the filmis actually about - maybe the idiots who excreted the Last Jedi will do the same but I doubt it as they seem to blame any and all negativity on the audience.
You see simply people hitting each other - I see people being portrayed with a heart and soul - again something that was much less present in the Nolan films and their slavish descedants in MOS and BvS. Thankfully sanity has prevailed and WW and JL understand that audiances want more than paper thin plots and darkness.
Also both WW and JLA do lots of world building in the sense of the history of their universe, the gods, darkseid (or however you spell it), Amazons etc - you know the stuff that you need if you are going to make a coherent series about something other than ohh look how dark it is in Gotham. This stuff is also important if like me you know very little about the DCverse
Lets not forget that MoS was never meant to be the first movie in a cohesive universe. It was retroactively made that because DC was in a rush to catch up.
DCs plan was to have a justive league part 1 and part 2 back to back. Their first "plan" was to rush to darkseid before marvel could meander their way to thanos.
Except the slow build marvel has done is extremely important and efective. We have see these heroes and what they can do. When thanos shows up his actions will have all the more impact because of what we've seen before.
DC doesn't just have no fething idea what their doing, they are rushing to do it so quickly that everything that makes the mcu good has to be tossed to the wayside in that mad dash which sacrifices character developement, enemy impact, character motivation etc etc etc...
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
I feel that issues with Jonathan were more in the execution than the thinking.
It rings absolutely true to me that parents of a child like Clark would be terrified about the repercussions should people learn his secret. As a alien, would Clark even have civil rights? Although there's not much the Kents could do if the government came for Clark anyway. What would they do...take it public that they found a baby from space and the government took him away?
The scene after the bus accident is the issue IMO. But that could be fixed by changing just a few words.
"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?"
"I don't know. (beat) NO, OF COURSE NOT. But..."
I know the bridge scene sticks in a lot of people's craws, but to me the issue there is the contrivance and not with characterization.
Jonathan's desire for Clark to hide his abilities and keep a low profile also provides an interesting contrast with Jor-El, who wants him to to express them and lead. Ultimately this culminates in Clark honoring both fathers by adopting two identities. This point seems somewhat obvious to me, but it probably would have been clearer and stronger had it been underlined in Clark's ending voiceover.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.
And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.
I don't necessarily like all of Eisenberg's choices. I would have liked to have seen more of the 'cold' to make it more impactful when he ran 'hot'.
But I think at least part of the reaction to the performance is the limited range of live-action performances we've had of the character. Spacey basically did a more energetic version of Hackman's performance. In boots for some reason.
Luthor's been very different at different times in the comics, but in live action (and cartoons for that matter), he's been pretty static. I thought the concept of the young, brash Luthor might have been rooted in the 'Lex Luthor Jr.' run during the post-Crisis period. (Junior was later revealed to be old Lex in a fresh clone body after his original was riddled with Kryptonite-induced cancer.)
Anyway, the performance didn't seem to resonate. But no...Eisenberg most certainly didn't ruin Man of Steel.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.
And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.
Manic idtoic capering like a drunlen gorilla - check
Stupidity rather than intelligence - check
Schemes that make absolutely no sense - check
They did everything wrrong unless they wanted a cheap inferior version of the joker.
I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.
Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.
Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.
And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.
Manic idtoic capering like a drunlen gorilla - check
Stupidity rather than intelligence - check
Schemes that make absolutely no sense - check
They did everything wrrong unless they wanted a cheap inferior version of the joker.
Hated very moment he was on screen
but hey different strokes.....
Indeed, if you want to have a good idea of what Luthor is like, the DCAU portrayal of him via Clancy Brown is one of the definitive ones IMO.
Lord knows why they didn't bother casting Bryan Cranston in his place instead. Given his amazing role as Walter White, he's basically a shoe-in for what he should have been.
gorgon wrote: I don't necessarily like all of Eisenberg's choices. I would have liked to have seen more of the 'cold' to make it more impactful when he ran 'hot'.
I actually liked Eisenberg's Luther. It will make Luther more interesting upon his return IMO. It can make it so it can be attributed to him "learning" that his letting emotions run up in BvS is the wrong way to deal with Superman; he has to run cool and calculating.
Because let's face it, his schemes? They can be attributed more to emotion than anything else. He didn't have to go after Lois or Martha. He chose to do it to poke at Clark.
Man I thought Jesse Eisenberg was horrifically miscast as Lex Luthor and can't believe some of you guys enjoyed his performance. I thought the peach tea part was great but the rest of it was horrible.
Grimskul wrote: Indeed, if you want to have a good idea of what Luthor is like, the DCAU portrayal of him via Clancy Brown is one of the definitive ones IMO.
I dunno. In the comics, Luthor's been an older genius scientist in a lab coat with hair, a younger bald genius scientist in a costume, a younger bald genius scientist in a battle suit, an older balding/bald cuththroat businessman, and a younger bald scientist/businessman/genius who sometimes wears a battle suit. He's been a childhood friend of Clark, and other times not. He's been motivated by greed at times, and by revenge at others. I struggle with calling anything 'definitive' when it comes to that character.
And the Hackman version doesn't bear any resemblence to any Luthor ever in any other medium, other than being bald. He's just a scheming professional criminal. Hackman was a great actor, but even as a kid I scratched my head wondering how that's Lex Luthor in any incarnation. That character would make a good Batman villain if it was a little more colorful.
I also thought it was unfortunate that the post-credits scene in JL had Eisenberg in a suit reminiscent of the Hackman character. That and the callback to the Williams theme was unnecessary pandering (in a movie that had a lot of it) and just made them look like they're out of ideas. I'd like to see Man of Steel 2, but I hope they don't go the route of Superman Returns with it. It's been 40 years and it's time to let that classic but very dated movie go IMO. Superman is much more than that film and its mediocre to terrible sequels.
If DC turned the Injustice comics into movies, I would watch them.
But, to answer the original question: The MCU doesn't turn on a person with god-like powers being sent to make Earth a better place. All of the MCU's characters have relatable flaws because there is no superman.
One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.
Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.
Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
Isn't he a bit like Cap A - its what he is? A Hero. Despite his stepfathers advice in MOS.
I feel his challenge is what do you do if you are a god amongst mortals. He is in love with a mortal - what happens as she ages, what about when people start actually worshiping him - what does he do? How does he cope when he fails - as he does. There is plenty of stuff to examine as Marvel does with their characters.
Bats Vs Sups looked like it was going to exmaine some of this but instead kept lurching blindly into more pointless Loopy Lex nonsense - guess it was easier than putting some thought into the film. Sad waste really.
Captain America stands out because he started as a weedy kid, who felt it was his duty to stand up to the Nazis.
That’s a helluva motivation. He’d have done it, given the chance, Super Soldier Serum or no. There’s a heart to that character that Superman, who’s always been super, just can’t have.
I know this isn’t a universal thing, but think of how much of a bellend the kids at school that hit puberty were. First touch of bumfluff on the upper lip, and it’s time to find the smallest, weediest, least threatening kid you can to show the world just how hard you are as you and your mates give the poor sod a hard time.
Pa Kent aside, look at the world and culture Supes was brought up in. All about winning. All about machismo. Why didn’t that affect him? Why didn’t he turn out as an ‘all for your own good’ dictator?
It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something in his background. Being a Brit born in the 80’s, we weren’t well served for comic books when I was a kid, barring Beano and Dandy. But without that knowledge, I just can’t see Supes’ motivation for not trying to save humanity from itself by becoming Dictator For Life of the entire world.
Captain America stands out because he started as a weedy kid, who felt it was his duty to stand up to the Nazis.
That’s a helluva motivation. He’d have done it, given the chance, Super Soldier Serum or no. There’s a heart to that character that Superman, who’s always been super, just can’t have.
I know this isn’t a universal thing, but think of how much of a bellend the kids at school that hit puberty were. First touch of bumfluff on the upper lip, and it’s time to find the smallest, weediest, least threatening kid you can to show the world just how hard you are as you and your mates give the poor sod a hard time.
Pa Kent aside, look at the world and culture Supes was brought up in. All about winning. All about machismo. Why didn’t that affect him? Why didn’t he turn out as an ‘all for your own good’ dictator?
It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something in his background. Being a Brit born in the 80’s, we weren’t well served for comic books when I was a kid, barring Beano and Dandy. But without that knowledge, I just can’t see Supes’ motivation for not trying to save humanity from itself by becoming Dictator For Life of the entire world.
Background effects people differently - I bet people at your school came out of it in all sorts of very different psycological shape? How did it affect you?
I think the whol Superman rules is an interesting angle and its been done before - and again it could have been addressed - in fact BvS seemed to start looking at with the whole alt realty/dream future thingy they hinted at where batman was the resistance? Sadly they didn;t examine it - Loopy Lex was more important....
He has huge power but he is not all knowing or all seeing. He could set up a network to do so - again be interesting to see. If he is unaging does he allow humnaity to devleop intechnology and spread beyond the Earth? Does he help them do so? MoS got a bit confused about if can use his powers outside the atmosphere or not but BvS suggests he can...if so he could be much more important with the space programme.
Man of Steels Kryption was very bizzare - it was verging on Flash Gordan madness in places.
There's a few variations on the theme, but the Injustice series is the ultimate answer to that (as well as just some of the best material DC has ever come out with). Superman suffers a tragedy, kills the perpetrator and realises that by doing that, he's stopped that individual taking dozens or hundreds more lives. And then he turns on Batman, because if Batman had made that same choice when he had the chance, none of this would have happened in the first place. Superman then sets about setting himself up as a dictator, for the good of the planet, throwing aside objectivity to use his (and his allies) powers to change the world, rather than just protect and save it.
As for why regular universe Superman doesn't do this? It's because he's a fundamentally good person. It's not like he's never considered it, of course he has and that's made clear, but he always stops short because he understands the difference between serving and ruling, saving and enslaving. This is probably a more recent thing, in the Silver Age Superman was the hero by default because in that era, the good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and the shades of grey weren't really explored until stuff like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns came along.
But more recently, DC have been working towards a more human Superman, first with the New 52 one who was a bit more down to earth and conflicted about his place in the world, and then with the Rebirth one who returns with a wife and son; Both of these incarnations have a very good reason not to go out and battle Darkseid or Braniac or Luthor, but they do it anyway because it's the right thing to do, and to me at least, that's a more heroic character than the old-school Superman who was the Big Blue Boyscout hero because the format demanded it.
MoS does the same thing, I think. No one is telling Clark that he has to go out and save the world, but of course he does because he's a hero.
Paradigm wrote: There's a few variations on the theme, but the Injustice series is the ultimate answer to that (as well as just some of the best material DC has ever come out with). Superman suffers a tragedy, kills the perpetrator and realises that by doing that, he's stopped that individual taking dozens or hundreds more lives. And then he turns on Batman, because if Batman had made that same choice when he had the chance, none of this would have happened in the first place. Superman then sets about setting himself up as a dictator, for the good of the planet, throwing aside objectivity to use his (and his allies) powers to change the world, rather than just protect and save it.
As for why regular universe Superman doesn't do this? It's because he's a fundamentally good person. It's not like he's never considered it, of course he has and that's made clear, but he always stops short because he understands the difference between serving and ruling, saving and enslaving. This is probably a more recent thing, in the Silver Age Superman was the hero by default because in that era, the good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and the shades of grey weren't really explored until stuff like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns came along.
But more recently, DC have been working towards a more human Superman, first with the New 52 one who was a bit more down to earth and conflicted about his place in the world, and then with the Rebirth one who returns with a wife and son; Both of these incarnations have a very good reason not to go out and battle Darkseid or Braniac or Luthor, but they do it anyway because it's the right thing to do, and to me at least, that's a more heroic character than the old-school Superman who was the Big Blue Boyscout hero because the format demanded it.
MoS does the same thing, I think. No one is telling Clark that he has to go out and save the world, but of course he does because he's a hero.
Is the Injustice world better or worse than ours? Interesting to see how it compares to stories like Watchmen ec.
Oh, it's definitely worse, the whole moral of the story is that someone with as much power as Superman can be so easily corrupted if someone pushes the right buttons. It maybe starts out a bit better, crime is eradicated, the hungry are fed ect, but by the conclusion of the first story (5 years into Superman's reign) it's pretty much a dystopia.
Spoilers for the comic/video game
Spoiler:
A key part of it is that Superman realises that if he lets himself take lives, he can 'solve' problems so much more efficiently. The Joker is responsible for tricking him into killing Lois and their unborn son, and in return Superman just snaps his neck, and accuses Batman of letting all this happen by not just doing that sooner.
An army of Parademons show up and Superman cuts loose and kills them all in a matter of seconds. Criminals can't re-offend if they're summarily executed. Supervillains (and later, heroes) can't challenge him if he just lets himself strike first and kills them before they can react. It's all of Superman's power with none of his fundamental goodness.
Superman is definitely the bad guy in this version. He lobotomises Doomsday and uses him as a threat against rebellion. He murders Shazam and maims Black Canary. He recruits Supervillains like Deathstroke as enforcers and at one point, even joins Sinestro and the Yellow Lanterns.
I'd say it's hard to compare to Watchmen as where Watchmen wants to say something specific about heroes and comic books as a form of storytelling, Injustice is a more traditional Elseworlds-type affair where the story is the thing. Change one event and watch how different the world becomes (in the regular universe, Superman doesn't take that first life, so none of this happens). It is a phenomenal story, definitely worth reading if you have the chance.
It's incredibly coherent in that you can definitely see all of these characters going the way they do under different circumstances. It's not just 'we've got Superman but he's evil', it's 'all of this is already inside these characters, but they're too strong to let it control them'.
Wonder Woman for instance sides with Superman and it's totally believable. Flash and Shazam go with him because up until that point, he's never been anything but an inspiration so if he's doing this, it must be for the best. If it's trying to make a point, it's that heroes aren't heroes by default, they're heroes because they choose to be, and that their principles aren't a given, they're something that must be striven towards.
Just a thought, because I want to join in on the conversation;
You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.
You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.
Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.
So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again
Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.
You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.
Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.
So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again
Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.
Interesting how you feel Cap A was average, when it is one of my favourites from the early films. Perhaps I just like the setting.
I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.
But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.
So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.
You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.
Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.
So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again
Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.
Interesting how you feel Cap A was average, when it is one of my favourites from the early films. Perhaps I just like the setting.
I should say Average to me - I just didn;t find the villian at all interesting or convincing but you might have found the opposite.
One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films,
Interesting as my firends and I enjoyed the Mummy much more than MoS or BvS - biut then we also enjoyed the Dracula one.
One of us loves the post credit things - two of us can't be bothered to wait, sadly he usually drives - worst one was seeing Loopy Lex shamble back into the DCU :(
ScarletRose wrote: I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.
But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.
So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.
Problem with Tom Cruise’s Mummy was.....Tom Cruise. He basically plays an utterly unlikeable dill weed who constantly screws stuff up, putting lives in danger.
He’s got no charm, so doesn’t work as an antihero. He’s just a massive, massive arse.
The setting up other movies? Bit heavy handed, but perhaps needed as an intro to a darker world.
I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.
Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.
Paradigm wrote: I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.
Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.
Problem for me was Hydra was supposed to be somehow more evil than the Nazi's but you can;t show or do that in the sort of film they were making, so to me they just come across as a minor evil thats hanging about with them - it doesn't help that their troops are awful and thier boss just comes across as weak.
Paradigm wrote: I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.
Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.
Problem for me was Hydra was supposed to be somehow more evil than the Nazi's but you can;t show or do that in the sort of film they were making, so to me they just come across as a minor evil thats hanging about with them - it doesn't help that their troops are awful and thier boss just comes across as weak.
Morden, I'm actually going to agree with you somewhat for a change. The Red Skull is a character defined by his Nazism. He was trained personally by Hitler to be the perfect Nazi...at least in the comics. And really that should be more than enough to establish that he's a really, really evil guy. Now, I understand that there are reasons they had to avoid all the swastikas, etc., so a traditional Red Skull was never going to happen. But I don't think they established Hydra well enough as a bunch of super-duper not-quite-Nazis who are really, really, REALLY evil.
This is probably nitpicky on my part, but I would have preferred to see Cap punching out a traditional Red Skull. I also think the character is less interesting as a super-soldier.
One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.
Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
BvS actually addressed this, and it's been addressed before in similar ways at times in the comics.
"You are my world." Lois keeps him grounded. When he's saving or helping people, it's like he's saving or helping Lois.
And I think that WB and Snyder were absolutely borrowing from Injustice. Considering its popularity, they were probably surprised when a darker turn in BvS and JL (as originally planned) was met with such resistance.
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.
He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.
I’m still sad to see DC struggling when I know they can do it. Obviously everyone remembers the animated shows right? And I hear the arrow verse does it right too. Has there been a thread about what Warner is doing wrong and how to fix/restart DC?
I don't think so? Though it may be a can of worms....
I totally agree on DC's animated fare. It completely blows Marvel's animated stuff clean out of the water.
I mean, consider Batman The Animated Series. It took the cues and general feel of Tim Burton's Batman, and somehow made it compelling for all ages whilst staying completely kid friendly. Released in the same year as X-Men, there's just no comparison.
I can still watch Batman The Animated Series with great relish and genuine enjoyment. X-Men Animated? Pretty cringe worthy. YMMV of course!
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.
He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.
To me, that's what makes MCU films work. When they let the character drive the story, and really stay true to their nature- even if it isn't heroic. As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.
The same thing happened with Guardians. The first one is a weird mashup of selfish criminals slightly finding interest and saving the galaxy from problems that they are at least partially responsible for creating. It's unpredictable and deftly done. My personal favorite is when Drax gets bored of the whole thing and calls Thanos to challenge him to a duel. The 2nd is Starlord going all Disney and finding his Dad, while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation. The most compelling work in that movie is Yondu, remaining a weirdly touchy feely mercenary with massive problems expressing his real feelings. They let him do his thing, and had the consequences of his actions play out.
MCU does this with surprising, and awesome regularity.When they're character driven, they are incredible to watch, probably because we've spent years watching these characters grow. When quality stumbles, it's because plot was given precedence.
I totally agree on DC's animated fare. It completely blows Marvel's animated stuff clean out of the water.
I mean, consider Batman The Animated Series. It took the cues and general feel of Tim Burton's Batman, and somehow made it compelling for all ages whilst staying completely kid friendly. Released in the same year as X-Men, there's just no comparison.
I can still watch Batman The Animated Series with great relish and genuine enjoyment. X-Men Animated? Pretty cringe worthy. YMMV of course!
I'd agree with the bolded, except that Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes exists.
I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.
Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.
I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.
Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.
He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.
To me, that's what makes MCU films work. When they let the character drive the story, and really stay true to their nature- even if it isn't heroic. As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.
The same thing happened with Guardians. The first one is a weird mashup of selfish criminals slightly finding interest and saving the galaxy from problems that they are at least partially responsible for creating. It's unpredictable and deftly done. My personal favorite is when Drax gets bored of the whole thing and calls Thanos to challenge him to a duel. The 2nd is Starlord going all Disney and finding his Dad, while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation. The most compelling work in that movie is Yondu, remaining a weirdly touchy feely mercenary with massive problems expressing his real feelings. They let him do his thing, and had the consequences of his actions play out.
MCU does this with surprising, and awesome regularity.When they're character driven, they are incredible to watch, probably because we've spent years watching these characters grow. When quality stumbles, it's because plot was given precedence.
I would agree with most of this - good summary and what i was trying to say earlier and probably failed (although I really liked Thor 2 and thought Guardians wasn't as good)
I think Marvel tell stories about people who happen to be superhero's - espcecially Tony Stark, Hawkeye, I loved the bit in Avengers with Pepper and Tony in their building at the start and then Hakweye and his family in Age of Ultron to me it just shone through that these were real (ish) people.
and I can;t think of somethnig similar in DC films until Wonder Woman where they took much more time over the relationship between Diana and Steve.....
MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.
Blackie wrote: MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.
Seen plenty of action and superhero films recently that I enjoyed - but different strokes
case in point looking at your avatar - did you really like La La Land ? I did not.
Blackie wrote: MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.
I'd argue their continuing level of quality is in spite of a lack of serious competition.
I mean, we're about to hit 20, 20 MCU films by the end of the year.
And none of them is a genuinely bad film. Yes, some are weaker than others, and some exceed the benchmark. But none of them are a confusing waste of celluloid and the audience's time. Some people not unfairly call them 'popcorn movies'. I'd go one further and say they are all good popcorn movies.
In terms of franchises, the only one I can think to exceed that in terms of volume would be Bond - and those are spread over a number of decades.
And all in the face of a marked lack of organised competition. They've very much proven they'll make bank on every single release, so some might expect the law of diminishing returns. But that's just not what we're seeing. They're maintaining their quality, and continue to reap the rewards at the box office and home media releases.
That is highly unusual. Normally when a creative medium has no real competition to spur it in, you lose innovation and quality suffers. Let's consider Bond for a second. By end of Brosnan's stint, we'd had one genuinely solid film in Goldeneye, one middling, and two absolutely god awful efforts. The Bond formula was stale. It hadn't moved with the audience. In 2002, when the last of Brosnan's efforts came out, so did The Bourne Identity. Both are cut from the same broad cloth. Well, the impact of that can be seen in the frankly superb, back-to-basics Casino Royale, released in 2006. That dragged Bond kick and screaming into modernity. Conservative use of gadgets which are actually feasible and plot necessary - without requiring the baddie to set up a specific death trap which only Q's latest gizmo can get anyone out of....
And already, that take on Bond is a bit on the wane. Not quite stale, but definitely getting somewhat 'By The Numbers' - because the market has stalled again.
But Marvel Studios? 20 films, same central story pillars, but a fair variety of themes and tones.
Yodhrin wrote: On the point of expectations regarding Star Wars characters specifically - if you're referring to the common criticism that people who were annoyed by the direction Johnson chose to go with Rey's backstory were unpleaseable because they spent ages speculating, I've never seen that view as fair even if it's not an issue with the film that bugged me all that much personally.
It's not the fans' fault they chose JJ "mystery box" Abrams to direct TFA. It's also not the fans' fault they then allowed Johnson to come in and throw JJ's plan for the Sequels - Rey's origins included - out the window so he could "make a point". The filmmakers created and encouraged speculation and expectations, and then the filmmakers intentionally dashed those expectations to show how super-duper clever and edgy they were. The only people to blame for the bad reaction(at least, the part of it that falls within rational discourse, because of course these days you have to confirm you're not defending the tiny, tiny, microscopic minority of idiots who set their toy collection on fire or threaten to murder people's families) to that kind of thing are the people making the films.
I don't think SW's had anything like that going on. Supposed "mysteries" of Rey's or Snoke's origins were entirely on fans' heads, I doubt Abrams, Kasdan or anyone planned to build on them, first film gives no indication on that. If you watch TFA, nobody cares about those issues except Rey who daydreams that her abandonment had a purpose. Then Maz flat out tells her to get over it - which exactly foreshadows what then happened in TLJ.
Major mistake for new SW continuum IMO is basically that they are trying to crank them out too quickly. There has not been enough time to focus out the story, purpose and role of the characters and the films come out disjointed. Also, selecting JJ Abrams was big mistake because he cares little about plots or backgrounds. He's a great choice if you just want to play it safe and make a glorious looking space action flick, but Star Wars is so much about emotional connection and backstory that his style just doesn't work, especially when combined with completely opposite take of Johnson. I guess this reflects somewhat what you said in your first reply. Now last movie is going to be all Abrams, and I don't have my hopes up.
Basically, with new SW they took very committee-like, "no risks" approach on first flick, then went crazy with the others. MCU on the other hand, began its own thing right from the start and built on that. In a way pretty much what original Star Wars did: if it had failed, no biggie. Dump the whole thing.
That is highly unusual. Normally when a creative medium has no real competition to spur it in, you lose innovation and quality suffers. Let's consider Bond for a second. By end of Brosnan's stint, we'd had one genuinely solid film in Goldeneye, one middling, and two absolutely god awful efforts. The Bond formula was stale. It hadn't moved with the audience. In 2002, when the last of Brosnan's efforts came out, so did The Bourne Identity. Both are cut from the same broad cloth. Well, the impact of that can be seen in the frankly superb, back-to-basics Casino Royale, released in 2006. That dragged Bond kick and screaming into modernity. Conservative use of gadgets which are actually feasible and plot necessary - without requiring the baddie to set up a specific death trap which only Q's latest gizmo can get anyone out of....
And already, that take on Bond is a bit on the wane. Not quite stale, but definitely getting somewhat 'By The Numbers' - because the market has stalled again.
Rule of thumb with Bond films is that every other is good, like it used to be with Star Trek films. See:
GoldenEye - great
TND - crap
TWINE - good
DAD - crap
then move on to Craig films:
Casino Royale - awesome
QoS - crap
Skyfall - good
Spectre - crap
ScarletRose wrote: I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.
But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.
So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.
Problem with Tom Cruise’s Mummy was.....Tom Cruise. He basically plays an utterly unlikeable dill weed who constantly screws stuff up, putting lives in danger.
He’s got no charm, so doesn’t work as an antihero. He’s just a massive, massive arse.
The setting up other movies? Bit heavy handed, but perhaps needed as an intro to a darker world.
The problem with the mummy is it tried to recapture lightning in a bottle by imitating aspects of the Brandon Frasier movies while not keeping any of their charm. If the latest mummy was a full on horror/monster movie she would have made an excellent terrifying mummy. But that movie tried to be serious like a horror movie while never actually trying to be scary.
I couldn't get over just how much I hated Tom Cruise's character.
Its all his fault. All of it. All on him. And in the end, despite having learnt nothing, he 'wins'. And then resurrects the friend he got killed, presumably to ensure his afterlife is as awful as his first life.
Tom Cruise's Character is a modern day Zak Morris.
As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.
The third only works because of the first and the second. The first establishes Thor as a selfish, aggressive, idiot; that's why Odin humanizes him. Then, in a Dark World he does the same thing.
Gitzbitah wrote: ... while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation.
What you just said is the basis of many inferiority complexes. So, yeah that's believable.
Just Tony wrote: I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.
Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.
In Iron Man 1, RDJ had more funny quips than Tony Stark did in the history of Iron Man comics. Tony Stark just wasn't that interesting of a character, and that's a big reason why Iron Man was a 'C'-list character in the comics until the movies REDEFINED him.
Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.
Yeah, I actually rather enjoyed GL just because Reynolds as Hal and especially Mark Strong as Sinestro were well cast. The rest of the movie I can take or leave, but I'd be fine with either of those two reprising the roles if/when DC finally get round to another GL film.
Though I still think Tom Cruise would play an amazing Hal Jordan...
Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.
The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."
But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.
I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.
Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.
I agree about the "definitive character" problem. Any new Superman would be compared to Christopher Reeve. Any new Batman would be compared to, well, take your pick of previous Batmans. Wonder Woman to Lynda Carter, etc. Marvel didn't really have to deal with that problem, as most of their characters weren't really cemented in the public's minds.
It'll definitely be a problem for Marvel 20-30 years from now.
Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.
Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.
That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.
dogma wrote: The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."
But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.
Yeah, DC characters tend to be really op. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Shazam...hell, I thought the GL was one of their more understated characters, and that says a lot.
@ Tannhauser42
True. I only remember Wesley Snipes as Blade and Tony Maguire as Spider-Man. Everyone else in marvel was up for grabs.
dogma wrote: The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."
But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.
Yeah, DC characters tend to be really op. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Shazam...hell, I thought the GL was one of their more understated characters, and that says a lot.
The DC characters have worked fine in other incarnations, from live-action to animation. Yes, they're powerful when compared to Marvel's characters, but then DC villains tend to be more powerful as well.
Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him. His greatest villain has the ability to out-think and out-maneuver him. Brainiac combines raw power and intellect. He's had multiple Kryptonite-powerful villains. And although he's a comic relief character and not actually evil, Mr. Mxyzptlk is enormously powerful and able to reshape reality.
The DCEU was going to have a cosmic-level villain until BvS blew up on Snyder and JL part 2 was cancelled. The Legion of Doom/Injustice League thing that they teased in the JL credits won't represent the same kind of threat (if another JL movie even happens). But then the Marvel movies have had one tin can villain after another -- almost all of them with a set of disposable drones in tow -- and seem to be doing fine.
Yeah, the comparison generally goes that DC are gods playing at being men, while Marvel is the reverse.
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
Bran Dawri wrote: Yeah, the comparison generally goes that DC are gods playing at being men, while Marvel is the reverse.
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
Exactly. That’s the point I was driving at. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman and Aquaman (I think?) were never humans to begin with. But I suppose that good story writing gets past that.
Also, my knowledge of comics isn’t too deep (they’re hard to find around my way) so could somebody more knowledgeable tell me if the MCU deviates from or takes artist license with its source material or do they follow it to the letter?
Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.
Green Lantern's biggest issue in general is that most of his classic mythos is fairly terrible. The greatest run the character has ever had is largely rooted in a massive retcon to one of the worst stories they've done and almost everything great about him talks about the past in ways that make them sound way more profound than they actually were. The other big challenge is that most of his Earth based conflicts have been pretty silly, but Hal as a character really needs the background with Carol and his family to be more interesting than the gimmick of his powers that are otherwise easily transplanted to other characters.
The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.
Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.
Green Lantern's biggest issue in general is that most of his classic mythos is fairly terrible. The greatest run the character has ever had is largely rooted in a massive retcon to one of the worst stories they've done and almost everything great about him talks about the past in ways that make them sound way more profound than they actually were. The other big challenge is that most of his Earth based conflicts have been pretty silly, but Hal as a character really needs the background with Carol and his family to be more interesting than the gimmick of his powers that are otherwise easily transplanted to other characters.
The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.
If only this had happened. I would have loved that. And look, in one post you’ve done better than Warner Brothers have done so far. Which shows that it’s not actually that hard to do when you space the movies out and stick to the material!
Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.
Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.
That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.
Disagree,
Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.
If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it
Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.
LunarSol wrote: The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.
While I think that they *may* have mishandled Sinestro, we don't know exactly what would have happened in the follow-up. The post-credits scene doesn't have to be taken a literal thing -- i.e., that as of the beginning of the second movie, Sinestro is already wearing yellow. I agree that the story needed to be simpler and less rushed overall.
I'm not sure if I'd like Tom Cruise as Hal or not, but it's interesting that Christopher McQuarrie's name has been going around as a potential director for the GL Corps film, which will apparently be Training Day in space.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Morden wrote: Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.
The history in the comics is of course much more complicated than that.
Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him.
That's called power creep. Power creep where your hero stands atop the tower and can't be kicked off because his status is a core component of your brand. Superman can't lose because of something better than plot armor: brand armor.
Also: Doomsday is a being that was forged on Krypton, Zod is a Kryptonian with armor, Bizzaro is a bad clone, and Cyborg Superman...is Superman with machine parts. So everyone that can stand up to Superman is some variation of Superman. Except Batman because he has a deus ex machina.
Lobo doesn't count because he's basically DC Deadpool...I have no idea who Imperiax or Mongul are.
I got to agree. If I remember correctly, in the beginning Superman was basically just Mr. Incredible; super strong (as in lifting up a car, not moving planets) and super tough (as in immune to bullets, not completely indestructible) and that’s that. He couldn’t even fly. He could just jump really high. The flying, eye beams, freeze breath and all that stuff came later during the wacky Silver Age. It was literally new powers as the plot demanded, and they went wild with it.
Also, you know the way DC have multiple people being the same character (there’s what, 3 Robins, 3 Flashes and 3-4 Green Lanterns)? Do marvel do that? Again my knowledge of comics is very superficial.
Blackie wrote: MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.
Seen plenty of action and superhero films recently that I enjoyed - but different strokes
case in point looking at your avatar - did you really like La La Land ? I did not.
Yeah, I enjoy going to the cinema with friends and I watch pretty much every dumb fantasy-sci fi movie that is released, if I miss something I watch it on bluray at home... in the last 10 years I think I really liked a lot only Mad Max Fury Road, X-Men Days of Future Past and the two Pacific Rim movies. I'm fond of tons of 80s and 90s action movies, not these recent things, which are usually fun enough to see but nothing special. MCU films have one huge quality: they're never pure gargabe like some episodes (or even all of them) of other franchises. And sadly pretty much every movie that belongs to this category is part of a franchise now.
About La La Land, you're right, not only I liked it but it's already become one of my favorite movies of all times and I've watched it 4 times so far. But this is said by someone that absolute adores musicals from the 30s, 40s and 50s with actors and actresses like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Fred & Ginger, etc...
gorgon wrote:I'm not sure if I'd like Tom Cruise as Hal or not, but it's interesting that Christopher McQuarrie's name has been going around as a potential director for the GL Corps film, which will apparently be Training Day in space.
Michael Weatherly, even though he's a touch old.. Would make a perfect Hal Jordan.
Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.
Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.
That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.
Disagree,
Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.
If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it
Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.
Except bucky, falcon, and like 3 other people have been captain america. Miles morales is a great spiderman. Iron heart is a good ironman. And lady thor is she who wield the hammer best.
Also rhody has been iron man before. When tony faked his death rhody wasnt warmachine, he carried on the ironman mantle. It wasnt until tony came back that he continued as warmachine.
There has also been like 4 captain marvels. Like 7 versions of the fantastic 4.
Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.
Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.
That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.
Disagree,
Iron Man's armour is just a suit the person wears - thats been a major part of the story througout the MCU movies and even into the spiderman movie. Tony and Rody are not the same even when they wear basically the same suit - same with pepper when she wears it. Its just a tool.
If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it
Thor is Thor - not because he has a magic hammer. - see his most recent film.
Except bucky, falcon, and like 3 other people have been captain america. Miles morales is a great spiderman. Iron heart is a good ironman. And lady thor is she who wield the hammer best.
Also rhody has been iron man before. When tony faked his death rhody wasnt warmachine, he carried on the ironman mantle. It wasnt until tony came back that he continued as warmachine.
There has also been like 4 captain marvels. Like 7 versions of the fantastic 4.
I am really talking comics not films as not very fmailiar with these characters in the comics
Tony Stark wears various suits of armour but he is still Tony Stark wearing some armour, Thor is Thor in the films with or without his hammer, Peter Parker is not all about the suit. I see this as a central tennent of the MCu films?
In the films when Rhddy wears the Suit he does not suddenly become Iron man, nor does Pepper.
It'll definitely be a problem for Marvel 20-30 years from now.
At which point The Mouse will have made it's money.
Just wait, in 25 years when we're all grumpy old farts (or grumpier older farts, for some of us already there now) and Marvel starts a new series of superhero films, we'll all be complaining about how these new heroes aren't RDJ, Chris Pratt, or Hugh Jackman, and so on.
Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him.
That's called power creep. Power creep where your hero stands atop the tower and can't be kicked off because his status is a core component of your brand. Superman can't lose because of something better than plot armor: brand armor.
His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics. The DCEU Superman's power level seems to be lower than the current comics. In the animated series from the '90s, he was even lower...probably at a late Bronze Age level. So it's really hard to say that his power level is a problem when it's been so different at different times and in different mediums. And it's not like Marvel doesn't have heroes at a cosmic power level. I guess you think Captain Marvel can't work for the MCU? She's basically Marvel's answer to Green Lantern.
Besides, all mainstream superheroes have healthy amounts of plot armor. All of them always win, because you couldn't continue their books into infinity if they didn't.
Also: Doomsday is a being that was forged on Krypton, Zod is a Kryptonian with armor, Bizzaro is a bad clone, and Cyborg Superman...is Superman with machine parts. So everyone that can stand up to Superman is some variation of Superman. Except Batman because he has a deus ex machina.
Lobo doesn't count because he's basically DC Deadpool...I have no idea who Imperiax or Mongul are.
Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe. And Lobo and Mongul count whether you think they're relevant or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: About La La Land, you're right, not only I liked it but it's already become one of my favorite movies of all times and I've watched it 4 times so far. But this is said by someone that absolute adores musicals from the 30s, 40s and 50s with actors and actresses like Judy Garland, Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Fred & Ginger, etc...
You don't have to apologize for liking a terrific film that was up for 800 Academy Awards and received sparkling reviews from critics and audiences.
His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics.
He kills multiple, really powerful, superheroes in the Injustice comics., and the whole point is "Only Batman can stop him!"
Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe.
Yes, it does. When one of your flagship characters can only be opposed by a character genetically connected to your flagship character, or your other flagship character; there is a problem.
Just like the steaming pile of excrement that is the Last Jedi - I didn't enjoy La La Land, but it wasn't as bad as that film, can't think of a worse film I have watched in the last few years.
Just wait, in 25 years when we're all grumpy old farts (or grumpier older farts, for some of us already there now) and Marvel starts a new series of superhero films, we'll all be complaining about how these new heroes aren't RDJ, Chris Pratt, or Hugh Jackman, and so on.
Gotta say, love musicals and musical theatre and couldn't get thru LaLa Land. But Greatest Showman on the other hand I've already watched twice since we bought it last week and watched all the extras.
On topic though I still stick with what I said earlier and add in just no movies that I came out of going "Christ, that could have been 30 minutes shorters".
His power peaked 40-50 years ago in the Silver and early Bronze Age though, and he's been at a tiny fraction of that power level since the Crisis in the comics.
He kills multiple, really powerful, superheroes in the Injustice comics., and the whole point is "Only Batman can stop him!"
Okay...so that issue in some alternate reality comics matters for all other comics and media how, exactly?
Villains having some Kryptonian connection or not has nothing do with the point that there are plenty of characters that can oppose Superman in the DC universe.
Yes, it does. When one of your flagship characters can only be opposed by a character genetically connected to your flagship character, or your other flagship character; there is a problem.
And Lobo and Mongul count whether you think they're relevant or not.
I know who Lobo is, I even compared him to Deadpool. I still don't who Mongul or Imperiax are.
My earlier post listed Brainiac, Darkseid, Mxyzptlk, etc. All non-Kryptonian characters powerful enough to defeat Superman in different ways. You can throw in the Anti-Monitor, Krona, and Parallex as cosmic-level DC villains more powerful than him. Nekron too. There are also various alien characters like Lobo -- such as Maxima and Ultraa -- that have traded blows with him.
His power level isn't a problem in a universe with no shortage of entities with his power level or more. If you don't know who Mongul is -- a villain that's been around for 35(?) years and involved in some very big DC stories -- then it's pretty hard to take your assessment of the DC universe seriously.
Superman is probably the character that suffers the most from the migration of comics from self contained city universes to singular, crossover driven worlds. The more that happens, the more comics build up character dynamics between heroes and their super powered peers and the more supporting ordinary people drop out of the spotlight.
This is part of the reason for Batman's success. It's long been established that Bruce Wayne and by extension, any of his relationships are largely a mask and Batman is the real character. That means that most of his meaningful relationships are actually with his villains who have similarly lost themselves in their alter egos and the children he teaches to follow the same path. It's relatively easy to tell stories about fighting crime driven by real characters when all the character is in the crime.
For others though? They need to be about the character under the mask. Superman is boring, but Clark sure isn't. Part of the reason I find MoS's Smallville disastrous is that it makes Clarke as boring and cliche as his alter ego. Clarke needs to be driven by human desires. He needs to be a little awkward and afraid of rejection, particularly from the worldly reporter he's infatuated with that sees him as a sheltered kid with a small view of the world around him.
Hal's got similar problems. The more you focus on him being a space cop, the more you lose the ability to explore things like how his father's death and subsequent loss of familial ties leaves him fairly wreckless and unable to build for the future. These things really matter, because when it comes time to punch the all powerful badguy in the face, you don't have any motivation or stakes outside of "the world" which has been thrown on the table far too many times to have any meaning at this point.
Marvel loses sight of this from time to time as well, though its characters are a little more grounded and capable of existing in a pretty closed social circle. That said, there's a reason that Civil War was such a huge event and it wasn't for the novelty of heroes fighting each other; it was because what they were fighting for mattered to the audience and to some degree, its probably the last big even that felt like the outcome mattered. DC really needs stakes to make its characters work, even more than Marvel, but they really do better when those stakes are rooted in the human underneath over the powers they wear.
If you don't know who Mongul is -- a villain that's been around for 35(?) years and involved in some very big DC stories -- then it's pretty hard to take your assessment of the DC universe seriously.
Excellent anyalis. Incidentally, that’s precisely why I like plastic man so much. Former criminal trying to go straight, estranged from his family, worried that he’s not really human anymore...and he’s funny too. He’s got that character that humanises him.
If you don't know who Mongul is -- a villain that's been around for 35(?) years and involved in some very big DC stories -- then it's pretty hard to take your assessment of the DC universe seriously.
I know who Mongul is, I have an internet connection. The point I'm trying to make is that Mongul isn't a name you can drop to a layperson in the course of selling a movie.
If I hear Mongul I think Ghenghis Khan, not Superman villain.
LunarSol wrote: Superman is probably the character that suffers the most from the migration of comics from self contained city universes to singular, crossover driven worlds. The more that happens, the more comics build up character dynamics between heroes and their super powered peers and the more supporting ordinary people drop out of the spotlight.
There's a whole arc in the Injustice comics about exactly that.
Mysterio wrote: This more thread as wandered enough off topic that it has me interested in reading the INJUSTICE story-line.
Worth it?
Easy to do via trades?
Yes to both. It's one of the finest Elseworlds-type things DC have done, and while it ultimately leads up to the story of the first (and then second) Injustice video games, it goes some really unexpected places on the way. It really is a recreation of the whole DC universe, with one event that changes everything, which has to be done well and in this case it is. The artwork and writing is also consistently top notch, and the storyline thick with clever and unexpected twists and turns as the new world order falls into place.
The Trades are sold in 'Years', with 2 Volumes to a Year, though you can get both Volumes collected in one for at least the first couple of years. There are 5 years (10 Volumes) leading up to the first game, then a new run that continues from where that leaves off and will presumably cover the gap between the games. I'm not sure if the events of the game itself are covered in the books, or whether you'll have to look for that elsewhere (though if you like fighting games, they are really worth playing anyway), but in any case, definitely worth a look if you want a very different, consitent and self-contained look at an alternate version of DC's universe.
Excellent anyalis. Incidentally, that’s precisely why I like plastic man so much. Former criminal trying to go straight, estranged from his family, worried that he’s not really human anymore...and he’s funny too. He’s got that character that humanises him.
Its why the tedd kord blue beetle was also great. The new one is pretty good too. Because its not HIM thats powerful and the scarab causes issues. Also the whole bat family. Their all human with human problems.
If DC wants to play in the big leagues with movies, they need to pull their heads out of their butts and set up a multi-franchise story arc like Marvel did with Avengers 3. Everything has been leading up to the meeting with Thanos. Years and years of work. There have got to be some directors out there just chomping at the bit for this kind of action in DC.
The sad part, DC has fantastic story lines they can work with. What I wouldn't give for a Darkest Night/Brightest Day story arc. Cmoooooon. Lets see some of that! Need some fresh new Superman villains for the big screen? Bring in Superboy Prime and lets do Crisis on Infinite Earths!
DC has so much to work with and honestly at this point, I have no hope they will every do it.
Crisis on inifinite earths would be a good story to bring to the screen. Eventually, once they set the rest up correctly. Because one thing I think we can all agree on is that what marvel did right (and what dc are doing wrong) is learning to walk before learning to run. Marvel went slow and steady and focused on the characters to begin with. DC has come out running and almost immediately tripped and fell flat on their faces.
Gave the thread a name change to better reflect the change in discussion - which has been organic, rather than OT nonsense!
I think DC need to delve into their C-List the way Marvel did. Audiences already know what to expect from Superman and Batman. Yes, they're cash cows, but they need a rest.
Nightwing could be of interest. I know the tiniest modicum of him - former Robin, all grown up, not necessarily taken on board all that Batman taught him? Probably wrong, but that's my understanding.
I can't rightly think of others - but then, that's the whole point. The less I know about a given character, the lower my expectations. I think this was writ large when I went to see Guardians of the Galaxy. I was lucky enough to get into a press screening. I knew nowt, other than Dan Abnett had some level of involvement. I was really expecting that to be the straw that broke Marvel's back. Too leftfield. No obvious connection to the ongoing plot. I loved it. Seriously, seriously loved it, and I still do. I didn't know what to expect, and was blown away by it.
Take Universal's Dark Universe. Sure, couple of Tent Pole names to trundle it out at first, but then how about lesser known gribblies? Invent new ones, if you must. Deity Of Your Choice knows the world is replete with Tales To Chill The Blood.
Then there's the other, much more maligned comic approach.....The Anthology. Been watching Tales From the Darkside recently. Absolutely love that sort of stuff. Twilight Zone, Outer Limits I'll watch it all. Fun, often silly, occasionally gruesome moral tales in fairly bite sized chunks. The bread and butter of many a World of Darkness campaign too. Why make it a movie, when you could bring something updated to the small screen? I know one network turned down a remake of Tales From the Darkside, which is a shame. But that could simply be because what was pitched was crap, rather than a lack of faith in the format.
Indeed, I'd argue that the modern preference for season long story arcs is very much suited to intertwining vignettes. Imagine if Fear The Walking Dead hadn't focussed on just one group, but instead showed the fall all over the world. Lots of different groups, some of whom may bump into each other in time. If they'd done that, I'd probably have perceived beyond the first season and a half (and not have had to put up with Junkie O'Useless' god awful acting)
I think WB/DC's best hope now is to give up on the DCU and just scattershot cheaper non-interconnected one shot films, trying to play catch-up has just been a waste of time and effort
Also a Transmet or Invisibles telly show would be nice
That seems like a good pairing of director and material. Sure wish we could have seen a Spielberg-directed Captain America movie.
I won't lie. I am very interested in this.
Yeah, but they have this habit of announcing things that will likely be in development hell for years. So they get this short-term burst of excitement and positivity, but then it comes around on them when some of these projects fizzle out (as projects in development hell often do). Personally I think they should be more buttoned-up until projects are truly happening, but it's their studio. Supposedly WB is working a news show that will make movie announcements and try to keep the narrative from getting away from them.
Dreadwinter wrote: If DC wants to play in the big leagues with movies, they need to pull their heads out of their butts and set up a multi-franchise story arc like Marvel did with Avengers 3. Everything has been leading up to the meeting with Thanos. Years and years of work. There have got to be some directors out there just chomping at the bit for this kind of action in DC.
Well, as we were discussing earlier in the thread, that's what got them in trouble in the first place...too much interconnectivity left them unable to change course when Snyder's vision didn't resonate. WB has always been a director's studio, and ultimately it just doesn't seem like them to go the Marvel route, with a Kevin Feige pulling all the strings from the studio. The path forward is less interconnectivity and more focus on individual character treatments from good directors with a vision for the material. It's just a much better fit for the studio's way of doing things.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Gave the thread a name change to better reflect the change in discussion - which has been organic, rather than OT nonsense!
I think DC need to delve into their C-List the way Marvel did. Audiences already know what to expect from Superman and Batman. Yes, they're cash cows, but they need a rest.
Nightwing could be of interest. I know the tiniest modicum of him - former Robin, all grown up, not necessarily taken on board all that Batman taught him? Probably wrong, but that's my understanding.
Chris McKay (Lego Batman) is attached to a Nightwing project. But it's still in the very early stages, and the scuttlebutt is that the Batman-related projects are being held up by Matt Reeves' Batman movie. Reeves is taking his time with it, which is good...but it also means that they can't go full speed ahead on the other related characters. WB is downplaying interconnectivity, but they still want shared universe lite(TM). So they want to at least avoid any major inconsistencies, such as Dick Grayson being dead in the Batman film but alive in the Nightwing film. To some extent WB is trying to have its cake and eat it too, so they also need to find directors who can be team players while pursuing their visions.
Basically, WB is never going to tell Steven Spielberg that he needs to shoot a scene with Aquaman having visions in a pond, or a scene with Bruce Wayne dropping by Barry Allen's mom's house, and that you have to shoot the movie this way, with this kind of color palette and lighting. That's the Kevin Feige approach. But they'll probably ask Spielberg to keep them posted about the story and what easter eggs or characters he's interested in using.
On the C-list front, indy director Cathy Yan is attached to a Birds of Prey project. Apparently Margot Robbie really pushed for a female director.
The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
Lance845 wrote: The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.
Lance845 wrote: The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
Honestly I think this sums the difference between them up pretty well. Marvel started by setting up a foundation of movies that let people become involved with the individual characters in the MCU. Each introduction movie was distinct and relatively solid on its own (except Hulk, whose movie I can barely remember) and this foundation let Marvel create a certain level of continuity throughout the MCU. DC skipped this stage, so they’ve had to rush introductions to get ready in time for their combined movies. BvS had to introduce several protagonists and set up multiple plots for future films, and this stretched a script that was already going in a lot of directions at once. Justice League has to introduce even more characters. DC-associated spinoffs and shows that we know about also haven’t done a good job connecting with the planned DCU and generating the same level of continuity that Marvel has.
Yeah, Sony took the characters they did because those were the ones considered to be Marvel's A-list properties.
What happened with Iron Man is pretty incredible. IM was absolutely C-list at Marvel Comics, but just add some RDJ and you get what is probably more accurately called the Iron Man Cinematic Universe. Star power is real.
The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.
They finally got Batman back into a true-to-the comics suit and out of black rubber after seven movies made by three directors over 23 years. Baggage is real too.
Confession time; I didn't even know Iron Man existed until the first rumors of the movie surfaced.
Also, I couldn't help but think about ways DC should have started their movies. LunarSol I think you were really onto something with your suggestion for how the Green Lantern movie should have went and how the second one should have went down. Wonder Woman is actually a decent flick so that holds up, but I would have been sure to keep its release after GL (on account of mentioning GLs in the beginning). I would have also released a stand alone Flash movie that basically follows the story of the show (partical accellerator explosion creates The Flash and other metahumans). That can be Flash's place in the universe, dealing with all the metahumans popping up in Central City (leading up to Reverse Flash by the third movie).
What I would have avoided (at least to begin with) was a Batman movie. Everyone knows the story of Batman, and assuming this was all occurring at the start of the decade, we would have 2 separate movies detailing it all produced within 20 years of this one. Batman should be a background influence, saved for very minor mentions and post credit scenes in other characters movies (example; Diana thanking Mr Wayne for acquiring those records and photos for her in WW), only coming into serious play in the first JL movie, which would be several years down the line after the other characters have been established. His backstory could be told in the form of nightmares and flashbacks he's still having. And Superman and Aquaman...actually, I don't know.
Due to the nature of GL and him being away from Earth, I think he would definitely need two movies before the first JL one (first one establishing his character and having him getting the ring and taking down Atrocious on Earth, second one Training Day in Space leading up to the Sinestro Corps Wars). Everyone else could probably get by with one movie before JL.
Sorry for my rambling. I just like playing out hypothetical situations.
gorgon wrote: Yeah, Sony took the characters they did because those were the ones considered to be Marvel's A-list properties.
What happened with Iron Man is pretty incredible. IM was absolutely C-list at Marvel Comics, but just add some RDJ and you get what is probably more accurately called the Iron Man Cinematic Universe. Star power is real.
The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.
They finally got Batman back into a true-to-the comics suit and out of black rubber after seven movies made by three directors over 23 years. Baggage is real too.
The more interesting thing about Iron Man is how the production of the film coincided with Marvel figuring out the character's appeal on all fronts. We've seen countless attempts at comics adapting to try and be more like a popular film, but most of Iron Man's comic revamp and surge in popularity happened before the movie even started production. The whole Extremis revamp was basically laying tracks for the film as it was driving down them culminating in Civil War giving the character a definitive characterization and world view in the comics that showed writers how to use him. The movie threw him to the top of mainstream appeal, but his A list standing in the comics was built up without much reliance on the movie's success.
The more interesting thing about Iron Man is how the production of the film coincided with Marvel figuring out the character's appeal on all fronts. We've seen countless attempts at comics adapting to try and be more like a popular film, but most of Iron Man's comic revamp and surge in popularity happened before the movie even started production. The whole Extremis revamp was basically laying tracks for the film as it was driving down them culminating in Civil War giving the character a definitive characterization and world view in the comics that showed writers how to use him. The movie threw him to the top of mainstream appeal, but his A list standing in the comics was built up without much reliance on the movie's success.
Don't forget that RDJ's redemption was a significant story in Hollywood media. That his whole personal arc dovetailed into Tony Stark's character arc was a pretty nice confluence for Marvel.
The 'public knowledge' of DC characters is a bit of a curse for WB. Look at how many people can't get past a Superman movie made 40 years ago. It's not like it even had great sequels.
At the moment their curse is being owned by TimeWarner.
I wouldn't say any of them are individually bad either. Mainly because they stick to relatively predictable and safe plot recipes, and are somewhat repetitive. Which is what has half killed my interest in them. And they're fairly spammed -I lost interest in Spiderman when they rebooted it before the original film was even 10 years old. Now its been rebooted AGAIN? It's gotten beyond a joke.
There is still the occasional gem -Guardians was very entertaining, Thor got a good few laughs and Logan blew me away, one of my all time favourite films
Hulksmash wrote: Gotta say, love musicals and musical theatre and couldn't get thru LaLa Land. But Greatest Showman on the other hand I've already watched twice since we bought it last week and watched all the extras.
On topic though I still stick with what I said earlier and add in just no movies that I came out of going "Christ, that could have been 30 minutes shorters".
Oh man saw Showman last week. Now that was awesome.
dogma wrote: Don't forget that RDJ's redemption was a significant story in Hollywood media. That his whole personal arc dovetailed into Tony Stark's character arc was a pretty nice confluence for Marvel.
Well, his redemption was more the reason he was chosen for the part than anything. Favarau was very much "recovering alcoholic, you say?" when casting him.
At the moment their curse is being owned by TimeWarner.
I think its easy to understate how much of a problem this really is. It's not like they haven't tried. Justice League wasn't forced out the door from nothing. It happened after WB failed to get a hit out of Man of Steel or Green Lantern and weren't sure how many more tries they would get. Looking at their history, you have to ask yourself just how many good super hero films have they made? How many without Batman? Maybe 1 and 2 halves?
At the core of things, DC needs to look into its characters are see what really makes them work. They get Batman, mostly, but Man of Steel showed they have absolutely no idea what's appealing about Superman. He doesn't need to be reimagined; he needs to be explored. Much of what made him work for Donner is just that Donner understood that Clark doesn't see himself as an alien, his parents certainly don't see him as an alien, and he really doesn't want the world to see him as an alien either. That's what makes him interesting and vulnerable in a way that's far more interesting than Kryptonite.
They largely "got" Wonder Woman. The flaws in the film are largely towards the end and generally are more in the form of missed opportunities than mistakes. Green Lantern mostly suffered from excess. It tried to do too much and didn't end up with a story that could properly build relationships with the cast. It's also tonally off, but that's in no small part to WB not having a clue what kind of tone they should be looking for.
Flash definitely suffers from a TV series that told the best story they could probably make an origin story out of. On that note, I think one of DC's biggest problems is that most of the Justice League characters don't make for very good rookie hero origin stories. None of those eras of those characters have aged well and the times when DC returns to them have never clicked. I think seasoned versions of DC heroes makes the shared universe really work and are a big reason Gal and Ben are so appealing despite being launched in a downright terrible film.
Frazzled wrote: Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.
And became the cornerstone of a wildly successful franchise? I'm not sure what your point is.
And this comes to one of the bigger issues.
Superman turned 80 years old as a property this Wednesday. That is a long time for him to be in the public's consciousness--especially when you talk about things like the Donner film and Reeves' father having played the characters back in the 1950s where he's been portrayed as nothing but a "big boy scout".
In any case, it says a lot that most of the complaints about "Man of Steel" could be reconciled with more recent turns with the character--even those prior to "Man of Steel" premiering.
Frazzled wrote: Um Man of Steel made $668mm. That's serious bank.
And became the cornerstone of a wildly successful franchise? I'm not sure what your point is.
And this comes to one of the bigger issues.
Superman turned 80 years old as a property this Wednesday. That is a long time for him to be in the public's consciousness--especially when you talk about things like the Donner film and Reeves' father having played the characters back in the 1950s where he's been portrayed as nothing but a "big boy scout".
In any case, it says a lot that most of the complaints about "Man of Steel" could be reconciled with more recent turns with the character--even those prior to "Man of Steel" premiering.
Christopher Reeve isn't related to George Reeves.
I think the MoS thing is complicated. There are two beats that some fans just can't accept -- Jon Kent's comment about the bus, and Clark killing Zod. I'm somewhat sympathetic to those, but think I understand the latter. More on that in a bit. Then there are other elements that are really just representative of a post-Crisis Superman, who has been around for over 3 decades. But the Donner Superman -- rooted in the Silver and Bronze Age tradition -- is just seared into some people's minds. If we'd gotten Superman Reborn in the '90s, then that egg would have been broken there, and the *next* take on the character would have had less baggage. Superman Returns never broke the egg, for obvious reasons.
Because I'm old and was weaned on the Bronze Age character, I really don't need to see more of that kind of Superman. I like a fallable Clark -- who sees Clark as his real identity, not Kal-El of Krypton -- and makes mistakes and sometimes doubts himself. It just seems a lot more grounded and human to me. The post-Crisis Superman also killed a General Zod by exposing him to kryptonite and watching him die horribly. Somewhat like the MoS situation, he decided that Zod was just too powerful to contain or even let live.
The situation is to me very much a commentary on the character up through the Bronze Age. A Silver or Bronze Age Superman would have solved the problem by some ridiculous application of his super-powers. They wrote the character such that he was never faced with a difficult decision or problem that couldn't be powered away. Superman: The Movie goes right to that same place at the climax -- with the ability to change the past without repercussions (Jor-El's warning was wrong), there's nothing he can't undo, and nothing bad really has to happen ever again. It's a classic movie, but the ending is fairly stupid. (It also doesn't make a lick of sense that he has the speed to break the time barrier yet isn't fast enough to down two missiles, but whatever.) So to me, the Zod scene was about putting the character in a no-win situation and forcing him to choose. Desire not to kill vs. need to protect. Krypton vs. Earth. Etcetera.
The problem with this is that while I think I get what Snyder, Goyer and Nolan were going for, it's just too *much* and too jarring for general audiences to sort through. *shrug* But I still say a MoS 2 without such controversial beats would have done very well, just like how Batman Begins' box office was good-not-great but set up TDK for success.
Lance845 wrote: The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.
This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.
Just Tony wrote: And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.
The idea of a more unhinged Luthor was pretty interesting, I think. The problem was they took it so far, and did it in a movie where the other drama (the titular Batman v Superman) was completely flubbed, so Luthor's scenery chewing really stood out.
One thing they touched on which might have worked much better is if Luthor began the film entirely sane. An absolute genius, and supremely arrogant and sociopathic, but sane. Then have him continue his digging in to weapon to kill Superman, but he delves too deep, sees what's out there in the dark of space, and starts to go nuts building stuff to kill Superman and kill all the rest. It'd be a more interesting arc for Luthor, and it would have done more to build towards the latter movies.
Which would have been wasted when the first of those vast, mind breaking evils turns up and its just Steppenwolf who wanders about punching things, but whatever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.
He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.
One of the strengths of Iron Man is they didn't take Tony from sinner to saint in a single movie. At the beginning he was an arrogant, rude prick with little sense of responsibility and no concern about the effects of his inventions. By the end he was an arrogant, rude, prick with little sense of responsibility who was now concerned about the effects of his inventions.
It gave them places to go in the follow on movies. They mostly screwed up those further developments, but not entirely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bran Dawri wrote: It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.
So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.
Its also worth noting that Marvels TV shows are hit (Agent Carter), Average (Agens of Shield) and huge miss (Inhumans) - not sure about Runaways but enjoyed first episode.
I don;t like Arrow but its done very well as have the others - enjoyed Legends of Tomorrow however,
Bran Dawri wrote: It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.
So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.
Weren't the X-men and Spider Man movies pretty successful?
Bran Dawri wrote: It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.
So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.
Weren't the X-men and Spider Man movies pretty successful?
Its amazing how much criticism goes into how people spend an hour and a half or so of their time. I am guilty of it too. Disappointed that a particular movie didn't end the way that I wanted, or not executed a certain way.
But what sets Marvel from most others is two things, I am regularly surprised by the stories and where they go, and how often I am happy with leaving the re-runs on my TV playing in the background. Even the Iron Man sequels, I am more than happy to have that on than most of the other crap on TV.
Marvel has exceeded Star Wars for me. I just don't think Star Wars lives up to the hype anymore. But Marvel does. Even when doing the same things (feminism, diversity, etc). It doesn't feel forced or PC. They are just fun movies, and that's all I ask for.
Lance845 wrote: The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.
This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.
In rereading that, my last sentence definitely is overly dismissive of the comic itself. I'm mostly thinking from the standpoint of Marvel's high profile events through the mid-80's early 90's which outside of the Infinity stuff (which is universal enough that I never considered it solely an Avengers thing) pretty much everything was X-Men or Spiderman. Even Heroes Reborn was in a lot of ways rooted in X-Men's popularity more than the Avengers itself (and is also one of those.... things.... that happened in the 90's) I guess I mostly just mean that it didn't feel like the Avengers were in any way the face of the brand until Disassembled, which was the point where the Avengers seemed to take the same kind of prominence in Marvel that the Justice League has for DC.
As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.
Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.
So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?
Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.
Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.
I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.
We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.
I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.
While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.
As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.
Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.
So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?
Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.
Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.
I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.
We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.
I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.
Yodhrin wrote: While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.
For those genuinely in the middle political ground, I’d say it’s near essential.
As a species, Mankind is known to respect strength, and authority.
Whilst it’s seen us do truly despicable things, it’s also seen out potential harnessed to improve our lives.
So why is there the general lack of drive to see Superman actually rule us? I mean, I get the man himself may not be keen on that role, but where’s his cult?
Consider some of the more beneficial figures in history, those that have dedicated their lives to causes, and those they’ve attracted.
Gandhi particularly springs to mind. He preached non-violent resistance, as did Martin Luther-King and a great many others.
I would genuinely like to see how Superman or any other superhero would deal with that.
We’ve seen glimmers of it in The Dark Knight, and the aftermath of Avengers Assemble, people either apeing their idol, or eventually becoming disillusioned.
I would love to read such a comic. I’m not saying such a thing doesn’t exist, just that my knowledge there is woeful (recommendations are of course welcome!). But I’d love to see that on the big screen, though it may be better explored in a TV series. A proper, sober, apolitical deconstruction of how people of all political bents would embrace or rail against such a figurehead.
Hasn't the Supergirl telly show touched on this ?
That I genuinely do not know.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The other end.....Dredd.
No, not the Stallone ‘random but fun SciFi which is only branded so’ film, but the frankly amazing Karl Urban take.
That my friends? That is how you realise a character. I’m a long, long time Dredd fan, and that film absolutely nailed the character.
Yodhrin wrote: While that would be interesting, it's not something I'd want to see them tackle right at this moment in time because, lets be real, it would almost certainly descend into the kind of petty "hurr durr Trump an' Pepe an' poors are the dumb and also lefties are just as bad for having standards and basically hate women or something shut up Berniebro" mudslinging that's going around right now, and I'd rather not see a good idea wasted on that kind of snide, smarter-than-thou fnar fnar our villain said Trump's catchphrase aren't we clever drek.
For those genuinely in the middle political ground, I’d say it’s near essential.
It's the people in the middle political ground who're typically responsible for the kind of nonsense I'm referring to, so I'd rather we leave it until they've managed to gather up a touch of perspective.
Lance845 wrote: The marvel characters were not really their c listers though. I mean the public didnt know who iron man was, but besides hank pym and janet they started with the original avengers roster.
Thor ironman and cap are the avengers trinity the way batman superman and wonderwoman are for the justice league.
Marvel had exactly who they needed. They just needed a few good stories to let the general public know why they should care.
Dc on the other hand already had the publics knowlage. They just needed a few good stories to lay the groundwork. Instead they shat the bed.
True, but the Avengers themselves have always kind of been Marvel's C-listers. It shouldn't be, but with Spiderman and X-Men Marvel already had their strong street level solo and team angles covered. The Avengers were largely a place where characters went so they wouldn't be forgotten while someone tried to make their solo series work again. It wasn't even all that big with comic fans until New Avengers, and that's almost entirely due to throwing Spiderman and Wolverine on the team.
This isn't accurate. The Avengers book ran from the early 60's continuously until the moment they did the Heroes Reborn fiasco. Kurt Busiek's Avengers relaunch after that event was constantly in the top 10 comics per Wizard at the time it was released. The creative team from that book was used to do the JLA/Avengers crossover 4 parter based on the popularity of the writer and artist. There've been Avengers cartoons AND video games that predate New Avengers. Hell, there were even spinoff books from Avengers. Remember West Coast Avengers? That ran for over a decade, if memory serves.
In rereading that, my last sentence definitely is overly dismissive of the comic itself. I'm mostly thinking from the standpoint of Marvel's high profile events through the mid-80's early 90's which outside of the Infinity stuff (which is universal enough that I never considered it solely an Avengers thing) pretty much everything was X-Men or Spiderman. Even Heroes Reborn was in a lot of ways rooted in X-Men's popularity more than the Avengers itself (and is also one of those.... things.... that happened in the 90's) I guess I mostly just mean that it didn't feel like the Avengers were in any way the face of the brand until Disassembled, which was the point where the Avengers seemed to take the same kind of prominence in Marvel that the Justice League has for DC.
90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.
90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.
Whilst I agree about the fupwitted xtreme grim gritty xtreme swing in the superbooks, the 90's also had Vertigo, the rise of Dark Horse and a lot of decent books only a short distance from the main stream,
Thats fair. Vertigo has some really good stuff and Hellboy is top notch.
We were just talking about the superheros so I was talking about the super heroes. It wasn't until we were pulling out of the 90s into the 200s when things got actually good in a broad general sense.
Again, Avengers Disassembled was the first step in a long line of events that were all REALLY great in concept if not in execution for Marvel.
Disassembled led directly to House of M. And the line "No More Mutants" was the first major blow to the marvel super hero community leading all the way up to Secret Invasion.
Mysterio wrote: This more thread as wandered enough off topic that it has me interested in reading the INJUSTICE story-line.
Worth it?
Easy to do via trades?
Yes to both. It's one of the finest Elseworlds-type things DC have done, and while it ultimately leads up to the story of the first (and then second) Injustice video games, it goes some really unexpected places on the way. It really is a recreation of the whole DC universe, with one event that changes everything, which has to be done well and in this case it is. The artwork and writing is also consistently top notch, and the storyline thick with clever and unexpected twists and turns as the new world order falls into place.
The Trades are sold in 'Years', with 2 Volumes to a Year, though you can get both Volumes collected in one for at least the first couple of years. There are 5 years (10 Volumes) leading up to the first game, then a new run that continues from where that leaves off and will presumably cover the gap between the games. I'm not sure if the events of the game itself are covered in the books, or whether you'll have to look for that elsewhere (though if you like fighting games, they are really worth playing anyway), but in any case, definitely worth a look if you want a very different, consitent and self-contained look at an alternate version of DC's universe.
The injustice comics are fantastic. I have every single graphic novel, in hardback. It’s the only series I keep in hardback. Make sure to pick up both “ground zero” issues too, because they cover what takes place in the video game, but shown through Harley Quinn’s eyes. There are 11 volumes for Injustice now, and 2 volumes of ground zero. I think they pulled each year together in TPB form, so it might be down to just 5 issues that way, plus ground zero (which I believe is only HB so far).
90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.
Whilst I agree about the fupwitted xtreme grim gritty xtreme swing in the superbooks, the 90's also had Vertigo, the rise of Dark Horse and a lot of decent books only a short distance from the main stream,
Bran Dawri wrote: It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.
The problem with this argument is that Marvel's much bigger level of success is only true for its MCU series of films. Before then comic book sales were largely even and only DC had shown any box office success.
So whatever the success of Marvel might be, I really don't think its due to it having any kind of inherently better set of characters.
That's assuming the audience for the movies and the comics 100% overlap. For the average comic reader, those nuances might not matter so much as brand loyalty or the general love of comics.
For the average movie goer, they probably do. Also, nitpick: "more relatable" is not the same as "inherently better", or even as "more interesting", except where getting bums in seats is concerned. Maybe.
Example: Neil Gaiman's the Sandman is one of the best, most interesting comic characters I can think of, but he's not exactly very relatable.
The thing about Morpheus is he starts fairly unrelatable, but as the stories roll on he becomes far more 'human', becoming friends with Hob, concedes his treatment of Nada was wrong, helping Delirium, and granting Orpheus' last wish even though he knows what that will cost him
But I think it would need a TV show rather than a film to work, same applys to a lot of Vertigo 90's / 00's, but Preacher and American Gods seem to indicate theres a veiwership for slightly strange shows
How far would you guys take batman’s gear in a movie? What I mean he would you keep it limited to a regular suit and the bat utility bet (and the bat mobile of course) or would you take it up to proper armour or even power armour level? I always felt like the power gap between batman and the others would be reduced if he went all out with his gear. Which I guess he does do on occasion.
I suppose having him in power armour all the time kinda takes away from that whole self reliance on own skills stic he’s got going on. The reason I’m asking this is because I feel like there’s been such a noticeable divide in power between batman and the other DC heroes. It doesn’t seem as bad in the marvel universe (apologies if I’m wrong). I’m probably missing the point but I think it’s something that a DC series needs to be aware of.
Future War Cultist wrote: How far would you guys take batman’s gear in a movie? What I mean he would you keep it limited to a regular suit and the bat utility bet (and the bat mobile of course) or would you take it up to proper armour or even power armour level? I always felt like the power gap between batman and the others would be reduced if he went all out with his gear. Which I guess he does do on occasion.
I suppose having him in power armour all the time kinda takes away from that whole self reliance on own skills stic he’s got going on. The reason I’m asking this is because I feel like there’s been such a noticeable divide in power between batman and the other DC heroes. It doesn’t seem as bad in the marvel universe (apologies if I’m wrong). I’m probably missing the point but I think it’s something that a DC series needs to be aware of.
Batman only has those armors in case of emergency when he can bring the fight to him. Thats rare.
In a justice league movie im fine with the idea if they are mounting a defense or planning a siege. But it shouldnt be coming to that most of the time.
In a solo batman movie i want him low gear. Also i want the whole city to not be at risk. I basically want a long holloween or a gotham by gaslight. A good murder mystery with batman detectiving and some good action when the confrontations start.
People love the nolan movies but they are the WORST representation of batman on screen. Hes the biggest idiot. In every movie the bad guys have to explain their plan to him because he can never figure out wtf is going on.
Future War Cultist wrote: How far would you guys take batman’s gear in a movie? What I mean he would you keep it limited to a regular suit and the bat utility bet (and the bat mobile of course) or would you take it up to proper armour or even power armour level? I always felt like the power gap between batman and the others would be reduced if he went all out with his gear. Which I guess he does do on occasion.
Batman's gear has been taken pretty far before.
Spoiler:
Thing is, though, if movie Batman were to bust out the power armor now, it would almost be seen as an attempt to copy Iron Man by some.
Future War Cultist wrote: How far would you guys take batman’s gear in a movie? What I mean he would you keep it limited to a regular suit and the bat utility bet (and the bat mobile of course) or would you take it up to proper armour or even power armour level? I always felt like the power gap between batman and the others would be reduced if he went all out with his gear. Which I guess he does do on occasion.
I suppose having him in power armour all the time kinda takes away from that whole self reliance on own skills stic he’s got going on. The reason I’m asking this is because I feel like there’s been such a noticeable divide in power between batman and the other DC heroes. It doesn’t seem as bad in the marvel universe (apologies if I’m wrong). I’m probably missing the point but I think it’s something that a DC series needs to be aware of.
Batman only has those armors in case of emergency when he can bring the fight to him. Thats rare.
In a justice league movie im fine with the idea if they are mounting a defense or planning a siege. But it shouldnt be coming to that most of the time.
In a solo batman movie i want him low gear. Also i want the whole city to not be at risk. I basically want a long holloween or a gotham by gaslight. A good murder mystery with batman detectiving and some good action when the confrontations start.
People love the nolan movies but they are the WORST representation of batman on screen. Hes the biggest idiot. In every movie the bad guys have to explain their plan to him because he can never figure out wtf is going on.
I've been saying that about Nolan's Batman for a while now. I don't think we've ever really had a movie nail down the detective part of Batman's persona.
Honestly, I think Batman is far more suited to a Dardevil/Jessica Jones-style serialised TV series. It gives him and the villain/s he faces in each story the time necessary to breathe a little and use thinking to solve things rather than punching(not that there needs to be no punching at all of course). Save his film outings for "team up" movies where being "power armoured sardonic grimdark dude" is all he really needs to be.
Not that it'll happen of course, WB are really wedded to the idea that Batman is a "star vehicle" franchise for the silver screen, and as long as people keep showing up to watch Batman punch stuff and growl that's how they'll keep depicting him.
Honestly, Gotham is so good and such a perfect representation of the craziness of Batman's mythos that I honestly wouldn't mind if they just skipped forward a few years for the next series and made it a full-on Batman show!
Won't happen, but it'd be awesome, those guys would handle proper Batman so well.
I’m enjoying seeing Bruce’s journey so far, especially as it’s brilliantly ancillary to how the underworld is developing.
When you get to see how Penguin came to power (and indeed how he steals every scene he’s in!), you get a better idea of why Batman became necessary, and at least tolerated by the GCPD.
This is actually one of my favourite things about Gotham. The traditional progression is as Gordon explains at the end of Batman Begins, 'escalation'. Batman turns up, and villains are a response to that as regular criminals can't cut it.
Gotham flips that on its head and says that the city was going mad long before billionaires started jumping off rooftops dressed as bats, which I personally find a much more compelling story; it makes Batman a genuine hero rather than someone who causes more problems than he solves, and that is certainly how I prefer to see him.
I get that it's very easy to portray Batman/Bruce as a sociopath who has no real interest in actually saving people or changing things and just fights his war for thrills,* but I much prefer the versions of him that are shown as a genuinely good person answering a call most would shirk from. I like my heroes to be heroic.
*I believe this was recently explored in the White Knight series, but I've not read that yet so I might be wrong.
Eh, I always saw Batman less as a "hero" and more as a necessary evil and was fine with that, but I do like the Gotham take on things(you're just swapping one set of "problematic" subtext for another, but as long as it's good fun that sort of thing is less important).
I'd be happy enough if they just turned it into Batman - The Show, but I doubt WB will let them, hence why they're doing stuff like aging-up Poison Ivy, so they can tell what should probably be "Batman is properly around already"-era stories while Bruce is still in training wheels mode.
I suspect we won't see a Bat telly show, least not while Arrow is running, due to errrm similarities Arrow shares with the Bat mythos (yes I know thats broadly always been the case but the telly show lays it on extra thick), bit of a shame as Sean Pertwee is by far the best Alfred ever
I suspect Gotham will end similar to Smallville but with a Batman signal (havent seen S4 yet because it's not on Netflix and regular advert infested telly does my head in)
I think for all the talk about this question, there's one really simple explanation that's been missed. Marvel has a set itself to a simple formula that's repeatable and adaptable, and it's a formula that happens to suit what audiences want right now. That formula is to give a character vast power but a whole bunch of character faults, and then watch as the hero overcomes his character faults to best the villain. It's notable that people often point to a lack of decent Marvel villains in their films, despite many of the villains being essential to the quality of the comics, and being performed by A-list talent in the movies. But I think this is less of a bug than an inherent element of the formula - the key question isn't whether our hero is capable of defeating the villain, but watching his character progress to the point where he will defeat the villain.
In contrast, DC has no such formula. It had a bunch of ideas, about reluctant heroes imperfectly dealing with a very imperfect world, and about how humans would deal with the arrival of superhuman powered beings. Not only do these ideas not have the appeal of the Marvels with audiences right now, its also really badly suited to building a brand, a level of audience expectation. I have no clue what we're going to get out of the Aquaman movie, but if Marvel announced a Namor movie I'd already know its tone, its plot beats, and everything except the casting and the one-liners.
Whatever debates anyone wants to make about true film-making and artist's visions etc, there's really no denying the Marvel method is a good way of making a franchise that is consistent in tone and quality, and the DC version is absolutely not.
Bran Dawri wrote: That's assuming the audience for the movies and the comics 100% overlap. For the average comic reader, those nuances might not matter so much as brand loyalty or the general love of comics.
For the average movie goer, they probably do. Also, nitpick: "more relatable" is not the same as "inherently better", or even as "more interesting", except where getting bums in seats is concerned. Maybe.
Example: Neil Gaiman's the Sandman is one of the best, most interesting comic characters I can think of, but he's not exactly very relatable.
The nitpick doesn't work - we're talking about why Marvel films are more successful, both in terms of box office and audience approval. In that conversation 'more relatable' and 'better' mean the same thing. I mean, we can use 'more relatable' if you want, but both terms are making the same argument for the same conclusion.
On the actual point, you're right that the comic book audience and the movie audience are not the same, the comic book audience is a tiny fraction of the movie audience and given its not representative of the larger group. So its possible that what might work to produce roughly equivalent comic book sales doesn't work to produce mainstream box office sales. But first remember the question - what's made Marvel films consistently good. Then look at the stuff that's been made outside the Marvel banner. The X-Men films, which I really like, have had two really good movies, two okay ones, and two stinkers. Spiderman, across two efforts, have had one really good film, a couple of okay films and a couple of absolute stinkers. The Fantastic 4 is three films, three complete misses.
And it isn't as though Marvel kept all the best characters for themselves - before the MEU those characters were Marvel's strongest IP.
So it isn't the characters, it's what Marvel has done with them. While F4 was fumbled repeatedly, Marvel took Guardians and hit it out of the park.
90s was, in my opinion, a really bad time for comics. Everything got Xtreme for nonsense reasons. I think avengers disassembled is when it really picked back up.
Whilst I agree about the fupwitted xtreme grim gritty xtreme swing in the superbooks, the 90's also had Vertigo, the rise of Dark Horse and a lot of decent books only a short distance from the main stream,
I think that's somewhat of a misread of the decade. The '90s definitely had too much comics speculation, pandering to comics speculation, splash paging, and Rob Liefield. But as Grant Morrison sagely put it, the Image guys saved American-style superhero action comics from what I think he described as the 'lace cuffs' crowd (which Morrison considered himself a part of).
The 90's are definitely a complicated history that has a lot more going on than just Adam X the Xtreme X-Man. The whole shift out of... essentially supermarkets to exclusive hobby stores and as gorgon said, trying to make them "worth" something financially has more to do with the collapse than anything creative, but the creative vibe of the era wasn't exactly something I'd call healthy either.
I do find it kind of interesting that both companies really righted ship around 2004 by basically destroying everything and writing something the next year that really worked. Bendis and Johns have their faults but Infinite Crisis and House of M really found a balance between the the overly simplistic classic stories and the juvenile attempts at maturity we saw in the 90's. There are definitely creators who kept the torch burning, but those two events really seem to be the point where superhero comics felt really relevant again.
And to back track a bit, they do need to focus more on the detective aspect of Batman in the movies. I hope they haven't avoided it because they perceive it to be 'boring' or something like that. Some of the best thrillers ever made involved detective work.
I am surprised so many people enjoy gotham. Besides gordon quiting or getting fired from the gcpd like 4 times in 3 seasons, the gotham time line sets it up so that besides black mask, poison ivy and catwoman, batman is just beating the gak out of 50+ year olds.
Also, why the hell does batman need to detective anything. Gordon has already seen venom, the court of owls, hugo strange etc etc....
Gordon already knows the mos of all these people. Batman must be literally reinventing the wheel in another 15-20 years
Lance845 wrote: I am surprised so many people enjoy gotham. Besides gordon quiting or getting fired from the gcpd like 4 times in 3 seasons, the gotham time line sets it up so that besides black mask, poison ivy and catwoman, batman is just beating the gak out of 50+ year olds.
Also, why the hell does batman need to detective anything. Gordon has already seen venom, the court of owls, hugo strange etc etc....
Gordon already knows the mos of all these people. Batman must be literally reinventing the wheel in another 15-20 years
Oh yeah, and fish mooney is the fething worst.
Scarecrow is also Bruce's age, Jerome is only a few years older. Many of the "Villain Title" characters can just pass on the title to another character. There will be other villains they can bring in. Sure its a bit odd that Nygma is that much older than him, but it kinda works. He'll also have Tommy Eliot to deal with in the future. Hugo Strange can also come back at anytime a be a character that has to be found out, he doesn't need to operate front and center.
1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
3) ok. So batman can fight Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow and Blackmask. But Penguin, Riddler, Hugo Strange, Mr Freeze, doll maker, Zsasz etc etc etc... are all pushing or past 50 by the time he first shows up as batman in gotham. Which means by the time Tim Drake is on the scene they are all like... 65ish?
By the time it's Long Holloweenish the Gotham-verses Batman is spending his nights beating up geriatrics.
4) Which is still not AS bad as the fact that again, Gordon and the GCPD police database is going to have massive files on all these guys. Batman won't need to be a detective at all.
and 5) Gordans constant working and then not working and then working again for the GCPD has lost all meaning. Every season is just flipping a switch back and forth between whether he works at that specific desk or not with no actual consequence.
If there's one thing that's made Gotham work, it's that it's not going to become the 'regular' Batman universe. If it was, we'd know exactly where every single plot thread was going, but they've adopted the Esleworlds approach where it's the same characters, but really, anything could happen. The Batman Gotham's Bruce will grow up to be might be taking on an entirely different set of villains to the ones we're seeing now.
As for the age thing, Penguin was always older that Bats, and Hugo Strange very easily can be, Riddler couldn't match him physically anyway and you could probably make the case that Freeze won't really age now he's in the cryo-suit.
It's no sillier than the comics, when you think about it; Grayson, Tim, Jason have all grown up while Batman stays the exact same age... Yes, there have been reboots and resets, but it still doesn't exactly add up. Batman looks the same age when Damian is born as he does now he's about 15...
As for the constant firing-re-hiring of Gordon, yeah, it's kind of grating at this point (the show itself makes that joke early in S4) but it's also par for the course for most cop shows these days, and of them I'd much rather watch the ones with crazy supervillains rather than run-of-the-mill criminals.
Also, Season 4 has only just started airing in the UK, so can we keep anything from there in spoiler tags please? I believe your Joker theory, if correct (please no one tell me if it is or isn't) is a S4 thing, and not one we've reached yet.
Lance845 wrote: 1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.
HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.
re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?
Really really hope they continue their run of form. I was worried about Civil War, and them balancing so many 'A List' characters. But they pulled that off. Infinity War of course is a much greater and trickier task - because its everyone....
As for Jared Leto's Joker? I thought he was absolutely awful. No charisma, no screen presence. Came across as a goon doing CosPlay, because he thinks it'll get him the chicks.
Give me Jack's Joker all day everyday. For me, the perfect mix between clown and cold blooded killer.
Lance845 wrote: 1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.
HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.
re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?
hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...
Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.
Lance845 wrote: 1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
The whole reason I didnt mention his brother was in case people hadn't seen that, different countries get the show at different times. Also I for one am sick and tired of "Force of Nature" Joker, so am glad they are sort of explaining things.
3) ok. So batman can fight Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow and Blackmask. But Penguin, Riddler, Hugo Strange, Mr Freeze, doll maker, Zsasz etc etc etc... are all pushing or past 50 by the time he first shows up as batman in gotham. Which means by the time Tim Drake is on the scene they are all like... 65ish?
By the time it's Long Holloweenish the Gotham-verses Batman is spending his nights beating up geriatrics.
Penguin is generally older than Bruce I thought, Riddler not usually being a physical villain works as an older badguy which also translates well to Strange. Mr Freeze can probably slow his aging for reasons and Zsaz well I guess will just be Bats beating up an old man. Most of the other villains can just have someone else adopt the name.
Spoiler:
Dollmaker as we know him is dead already
4) Which is still not AS bad as the fact that again, Gordon and the GCPD police database is going to have massive files on all these guys. Batman won't need to be a detective at all.
GCPD in the comics has had their Database filled by these villains for a long time in the comics and Bruce still has to do detective work, literally nothing will change.
and 5) Gordans constant working and then not working and then working again for the GCPD has lost all meaning. Every season is just flipping a switch back and forth between whether he works at that specific desk or not with no actual consequence.
That was a plot point for what 1 and a half seasons? They've already mostly moved on from that to him guiltily thinking he shouldnt and Bullock forcing him to stay. This season's cop leaving the department and coming back was Bullock.
I thought that the burning fire truck was a nice touch. It was really ‘creepy’ in a way.
I was also thinking, assuming that batman leaves the power armour for the justice league crossover events, would there be a chance to, ‘update’ his regular suit. What I mean is, he goes around cultivating the idea that he’s not human. That’s he’s some sort of monster. Yet for me personally, with his previous incarnations I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t see him as just a guy in a bat themed suit. What if his suit was changed to look more ‘inhuman’ and scary? Although that might be sacrilege. And unnecessary. Maybe batman isn’t batman unless the lower half of his face is exposed.
I think an update of the Azreal suit post Knightfall could be a decent middleground, not full blown Iron Man but a lot more fighty than the recent incarnations
Turnip Jedi wrote: I think an update of the Azreal suit post Knightfall could be a decent middleground, not full blown Iron Man but a lot more fighty than the recent incarnations
Yes! That’s what I’m thinking of. Not power armour but still armour none the less, with a fully enclosing mask. Go down the Nolan route and have it as a redesigned military gear, but you don’t necessarily have to say it is.
Lance845 wrote: 1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.
HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.
re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?
hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...
Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.
Hmm maybe - I remember him killing some other bad guys and Batmans sorta girl friend but nothing like the murder spree that Jack had - just cos he could.
I found HL's Joker super precog with his plans skills very uncovnicing.- it was worse than 24!
This is how Azrael's armour is looking at the moment:
Spoiler:
To be honest, though, I really don't see a need for a Batman redesign to that extent. Rebirth made some nice aesthetic changes (a touch of purple on the cloak, a slightly sharper cowl) but beyond that, I don't think it really needs to change at all.
You could go with the Injustice look, more armoured and about half way between the current version and Nolan's look, but to be honest, the 'everyone has segmented armoured suits now' look got dated fast after the N52 when suddenly the likes of Superman and The Flash have that kind of style. Back to basics like what Batfleck has is the best, if you ask me.
You raise good points (I like Batfleck myself). And it is easy to get carried away. Superman doesn’t need that. I just think that without any armour Bruce is taking too much of a risk. And again, if he wants to appear inhuman I think he needs to do more. But that’s just me. This is all entirely subjective.
For me, something like this would be the way to go.
Costume design is an interesting point of discussion and one of the strengths of the MCU that's easy to take for granted. It doesn't hurt that the early styles largely worked and newer designs have been able to build on that success. As much as the Ultimates experiment has driven the creation of the films, its interesting that they mostly lifted Caps costume from it while picking up the others from other sources. While its largely fallen on the forgettable side of MCU films, its pretty impressive to consider how much of a blank check Thor enabled regarding costume design. Giant yellow horns? Sure, lets do this.
DC definitely haven't managed to find a way to make their costumes look both iconic and reasonable. Wonder Woman is probably the big exception. Batman has certainly had some success as well, but what works for him doesn't translate to other characters very well. Certainly I think we'd have a different conversation if Green Lantern's costume hadn't been a complete disaster.
It's interesting to note we've never gotten iconic costume designs out of the X-Men franchise either. That might be the one thing I'm curious to see come out of the Fox acquisition.
The X-men get their classic costumes for all of 5 seconds of Apocalypse... hopefully they actually get to wear them in Dark Phoenix, as it seems that'll be the last outing for this particular incarnation.
I do think the X-men are very relevant to this discussion actually, as especially in the latter half of the franchise, they've been consistently good (opinions may differ, but I haven't seen an X-men film I didn't like... I still don't get the hate for Origins or The Last Stand) without attracting the sort of fanfare that the MCU has had.
Especially Days of Future Past, that's got to be one of the best comic book movies going and balances its large cast as well as any Avengers outing, but was a bit of a dark horse and I don't recall much hype around it when it released. Ok, it was up against some pretty big Marvel titles (sandwiched between arguably two of their best, Guardians and The Winter Soldier) but even so, I don't remember it garnering that much attention.
And yet, the X-verse will be 10 films in come September, and as a franchise has outlasted 2 Hulks, 2 Daredevils, 2 Spidermen, 2 Supermen, 2 Batmen and has consistently been good. It's a very different approach to the one Marvel have taken, and you could argue it's not really a cinematic universe since all the films are essentially telling one story (aside from maybe Logan, which could exist in a vacuum and would still be perfect) but even if you aren't a fan of some of the entries, that staying power is impressive, especially when you consider that X-men 2 is often regarded as one of the first truly great comic book movies.
Lance845 wrote: 1) my understanding is "Jerome" is not the Joker, but instead he has a twin brother he infects with "Joker Toxin". It's a crappy Smallville style plot. (I could be wrong)
2) Giving the Joker a definitive origin is bad. Even when they do the failed comedian bit in Killing Joke you never actually learn his name. Or if any of that is even real or just his own delusions. While the Dark Knight movies are bad batman movies, that joker was a great joker. He tells his origin over and over and it's always different. Thats how the joker should be.
Just watched Tim Burton's Batman again last night - the Joker story is fully told and brilliantly so.......and he is completely insane, Heath Ledgers version was ok, but not really insane enough for me and hardly even killed anyone. Jacks Joker kills an entire museum full of people just to have some one to one time with Vicki.
HL's blows up an empty hospital. The one if Suicide Squad seemed better - much more insane.
re Batman ageing - well he doesn't really do so in the main comics does he?
hL joker got everyone in the opening scene to kill each other. Presumably killed the fire dept of the fire truck he stole and then lit on fire. (Making a fire truck... Get it!?) Stabed that guy through the eye with the pencil. Etc etc...
Just saying hl joker has a lot of chaotic blood on his hands. Most of which you would have dificty pinning on him and all of which could not be predicted because his plan was chaotic and mad.
Hmm maybe - I remember him killing some other bad guys and Batmans sorta girl friend but nothing like the murder spree that Jack had - just cos he could.
I found HL's Joker super precog with his plans skills very uncovnicing.- it was worse than 24!
I wouldn't really call it precog, just good planning. Here are some things people often forget about Joker. He is really smart, he is really motivated, and he is obsessed with Batman. He doesn't even care so much about winning or beating Batman as long as he has his attention and he is willing to do anything for that attention. So a very smart Joker who has been following/watching Batman for years would be able to catch him off guard. Lead him in to traps. That is what makes Joker a good villain. You never really feel like Batman is truly in control of a situation just because The Joker can come at you from any direction, some directions you didn't even know existed.
I agree. Its not joker is a elemental force. Its that jokers goals and motivations are so simple and his lack of care about colateral damage so vast that you just cant predict how little or how far he will go to get what he wants.
And as pointed out, what he really wants is his continued relationship with batman. To push and push and try to make batman break his code. And the stronger batman holds to his code the more joker wants to push.
I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.
No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.
Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.
Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?
Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.
I'm going to go with Arkham Origins as my favourite Joker history. Possibly an unconventional choice, but I pick it mainly because it manages to both tell how the Joker is born without ever actually elaborating on where he came from, thus preserving the mystery. But seeing his first meeting with Batman, and how that took him from a regular, if flamboyant crime boss to the insane, obsessive supervillain is done very well there over the space of just a few scenes. Some fantastic voice work from Troy Baker helps as well.
This little excerpt really sums it up:
Joker: Tell me, my dear, have you ever had a really...bad...day?
Psychologist: And what do you mean by that?
Joker: You of all people should know. (laughs) There's nothing so cruel as memory. The pointy, bitey little thunderbolts. Unwanted party crashers, screamers through your synapses. Inescapable, unrelenting...not at all friendly. You can't even escape into madness! And then you meet someone who changes your life. And you feel that you don't even know who you are any more! Isn't it funny how one little encounter can cleave off little pieces of your past, deform your memories and persona until you rethink your whole identity — and as you realize how foolish it all is — your laughter reverberates off the walls of your own emptiness.
What I think is that anyone saying that 'X' performance or version 'is' or 'isn't' the Joker probably doesn't actually much about the character. The Joker has been so many different things in the comics -- terrorist, silly bankrobbing clown, agent of chaos, etc. -- that authors even created explanations for all his different personas.
Grant Morrison (in his classic 'Arkham Asylum') suggested that the Joker had a kind of 'supersanity' that changes and adapts to his current reality. More recently, Geoff Johns dropped the bombshell that there have been THREE Jokers in the DC universe (this is about to be explored in Doomsday Clock).
Seriously, it's probably the very last character in the DC universe that should be considered to have a single defining version. Everyone is allowed to have their favorite version. But the 'is' and 'isn't' talk is pure silliness.
I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.
Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.
That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.
No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.
Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.
Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?
Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.
Definitely a powerful performance, but not Joker.
Heath Ledger didn't play the Joker. He played a hyper capable Charles Manson.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’m also in the camp that Heath Ledger made a truly fantastic villain, but fell someway short of being Joker.
No maniacal laughter. Nothing felt spontaneous about his plans.
Seriously. I don’t mean to detract from his performance as such, but the character just wasn’t Joker. He was insane, but he wasn’t mad? He never felt like he had any kind of punchline, however twisted and demented his plans.
Take the two ships scene. It’s a brilliant premise, barring the ‘why did nobody notice the bombs before’ issue. But it’s just not Joker. Where’s the taunts? Where’s the self aggrandising commentary? Where’s his enjoyment of the prank?
Again, the burning of the money. He just does it. He doesn’t actually seem to take any joy in what is a senseless act.
Definitely a powerful performance, but not Joker.
I look at the Nolan-verse as its own take on Batman. I try not to put it up against others a lot. Heath Ledger made an amazing Joker for that series. It was very serious, it was grimdark. You couldn't really have a traditional Joker in that setting. Powersuit Baleman would probably just wreck him.
Now aside from that, talking about the traditional Joker. I don't think he takes any joy from what he does. None at all. It is all an act. The commentary is used to get under peoples skin. The pranks are a gimmick so he can be "spontaneous". He does something sick and twisted, something really demented, then he laughs. Because that is the last thing you expect a sane person to do. Because that is what will truly mess with a person, something that will cause them to break. Which is what he is trying to do. He breaks people. He warps them and twists them. He wants to prove that all people have darkness in them just looking to come out. But he cannot break Batman and that kills him. Because if there is one person that can hold out, it means he is weak.
See, the Joker really is insane. His "madness" is just an act.
Lance845 wrote: I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.
Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.
That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.
Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.
Lance845 wrote: I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.
Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.
That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.
Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.
It's apparently being explored post Doomsday Clock.
I don't think it's possible to make "ALL" comic book movies work.
You'd have to start with all comic book stories not sucking to start with (I'm not saying that they're all ***** but there's an awful lot of crap out there, and a lot of awful crap - in comics and comics-based movies and TV) that no-one outside a fringe group within a niche group gives two craps about.
You need actors who gel with the material.
You need directors who *grok* the material without necessarily being slavish to it. Get the look and the feel right and it can work quite well.
You also need a studio that allows them to carry on with their vision without interfering with it.
You also need an audience who can enjoy it without needing to be elbow deep in the "lore" - so it has to translate to mass-market without being too "fans only".
Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.
But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.
Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.
I don't know. I had no idea there was a Kick-Ass comic book until well after I'd seen the movie, and I'm a bit of a superhero/comic geek. And yet the movie did reasonably well. Just because a comic is obscure doesn't mean it can't appeal to a wider audience if it fulfills the other criteria you list.
Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.
chromedog wrote: Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.
But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.
Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.
I agree with your point of view. A lot of superhero movies live and die by their star. Iron Man was a huge success thanks to RDJ performance. The same could be said for Wonder Woman whose success pretty reside on Gadot's performance. A good editing job and memorable score certainly helps too.
Vulcan wrote: I don't know. I had no idea there was a Kick-Ass comic book until well after I'd seen the movie, and I'm a bit of a superhero/comic geek. And yet the movie did reasonably well. Just because a comic is obscure doesn't mean it can't appeal to a wider audience if it fulfills the other criteria you list.
On the other hand, Wanted the movie is a steaming pile of hot Garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with the comic.
LunarSol wrote: Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.
Not familiar with the term CLINT worthy, explain please.
LunarSol wrote: Mark Miller comics are kind of a special case. He doesn’t so much write comics as movie scripts with the story boarding mostly finished. Luckily his more CLINT worthy moments usually get left out of the films and in general comics seem to have moved past his gimmicks.
Not familiar with the term CLINT worthy, explain please.
Millar likes to be edgy and crass and gets a lot of mileage out of shock factor. The most direct translation we've probably gotten out of his stuff is probably Hit Girl, but its worth noting that he's responsible for a lot of Marvel's success with significant filtering. For example, the Banner being tossed out of the helicopter to summon the Hulk? Millar originally had Fury do that in Ultimates. Also, that moment when Cap tells Hulk, "Smash" in Avengers? It's similar to a moment in Ultimates when Cap tells the Hulk that the Chitari think he's gay to make him fight them. Likewise, Marvel chose not to lift Cap's iconic Ultimates line when asked to surrender, "What do you think this A stands for? France?"
CLINT worth is just a joke I use to describe this sort of stuff. It's an old comic joke back when people were worried that the name was being used to slip in some derogatory language (combine L and I into one letter...). I use it to specifically refer to Millar's work because back in 2010 at the height of his popularity, he launched CLINT magazine... cause that's the kind of guy he is I guess.
Lance845 wrote: I very much doubt that has has always been 3 jokers. I bet its some infinite earths bs and they are from collapsed time lines.
Instead i like the begining of the new 52 when batman explained that joker had no ID (maybe?) And as a result he keeps reinventing himself. And if joker gets out again hes going to be worse then ever.
That was a good explanation that i really enjoyed.
Eh, the comics seem to have forgotten about that three Jokers thing anyways. It hasn’t been brought up again for a long time.
It's apparently being explored post Doomsday Clock.
The 'three Jokers' thing definitely seems to be part of Doomsday Clock. I say 'seems' just because it's strongly pointing one way but hasn't been confirmed yet.
If you want the explanation with spoilers, here it is:
Spoiler:
In Doomsday Clock, there are two new villains from the Watchmen universe - Mime and Marionette. Like the original Watchmen characters, they're based on Charlton characters - Punch and Jewelee. They've traveled through time and across dimensions to the Earth-Prime main DC universe in search of their lost son. At one point they end up in the abandoned amusement part from The Killing Joke (the clown in the image below is the same clown from TKJ).
In the latest issue, they just encountered some of Joker's goons (went through them like knives through butter) and are now angling to meet the man himself, clowns-to-clown.
They're definitely pointing toward one of the Jokers being their lost son. But which one?
Remember that they traveled from 1992 in their universe, so you're looking at a age 30ish Joker. That might point to the New 52 version, but then there are also references to TKJ as stated above, and the obvious Alan Moore connection. And given that part of Doomsday Clock is about reflecting on Watchmen and its effects on the industry, I'm leaning toward it being the middle, TKJ Joker.
chromedog wrote: Iron Man worked because of RDJ. He was more than willing to take the p*** out of his own life to lend flesh to his portrayal of Stark.
But, it also had all the other ingredients in the mix. You didn't need to know all the background. You had a director who knew what he was doing and how to do it, while being faithful to the material.
Quite a few of the [insert generic superhero film here] movies didn't work because they didn't have all of those things. Script was bad, or budget was inadequate, or casting was an ill-fit, or they were just niche characters that only certain nerds cared about.
I agree with your point of view. A lot of superhero movies live and die by their star. Iron Man was a huge success thanks to RDJ performance. The same could be said for Wonder Woman whose success pretty reside on Gadot's performance. A good editing job and memorable score certainly helps too.
The whole MCU is largely held together by RDJ. Call it the IMU.
Marvel has recently been backing that off, and they need to. But egads, they've made Tony Stark a kind of central figure in Peter Parker's life(!)(?) and the main character in CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War. Tony Stark has far more of a character arc than Steve Rogers in that film. Now, that may be because they don't think Chris Evans can carry a film by himself, and they may be on to something there.
