Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 gorgon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:
Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.

I think WB saw that as the natural next step coming off the success of the DK films, and a differentiator to the Marvel offerings. That's why I think they were probably blindsided by people turning on them so harshly over "tone."

Remember that MoS was never meant to be part of a DCEU. Nolan and Goyer came up with an idea of how to do a Superman film while working on the Batman films. Nolan had other stuff going on and didn't want to direct it, so Snyder got the job while Nolan produced. Nolan's fingerprints are all over that one, though. After MoS, WB wanted Nolan to be their DC 'godfather' once they caught the bug for the extended universe, but he declined and stepped away from it all. So Snyder kinda moved into that role, although it wasn't what he originally signed on for. BvS was only supposed to be MoS 2, and not the launch of a 'universe'.

So it would probably be fair to say that these shifting plans -- and changing cast of characters -- hasn't exactly helped the DCEU. There's also a growing sense that WB is behaving in a reactionary fashion to the criticism, which it doesn't give you a strong sense that WB has their eye on the ball.

I feel a little bad for Snyder, honestly. He's kept his mouth shut, played the company man, executed a plan that wasn't really his and dealt with what seems to be an increasingly involved studio, and now people act like he's the devil incarnate.

That's interesting, and actually makes a lot of sense. I would've been interested to see MoS directed by Nolan and see how they differ.

When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.

I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.

Ill end up going to see it, I saw BvS in theaters inspite of the bad reviews. And I ended up liking it for the most part. Heck, Batfleck has easily become my favorite Live Action Batman and Bruce Wayne (before it was divided between two actors) and my second favorite Batman over all behind Kevin Conroy.

Hey, expectations are everything.

I think this one *might* see a bigger divide between critics and audiences, but only time will tell. Sifting through the reviews, it seems like there's humor and action, and good performances by Robbie and Smith. So it could ultimately be more crowdpleasing than BvS was even if it's a flawed film.

 Ouze wrote:
When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.

I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.

Just because a movie is bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it

Movie critics and movie goers look for different things in their entertainment. Critics love technical precision and well paced concise plotting (which is why JJ Abrams and even Michael Bay can get rave reviews, because they're both very good at technical precision and compelling plotting). I find most movie goers (myself included) are less concerned with technical precision, and more concerned with coherence than anything, and being thrilled.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Like someone touched on earlier, I think it's DC's and Marvel's approach to the tones. DC is trying very hard after the success of Dark Knight to recapture the dark and gritty feel of superhero movies.

Certainly, "tone" is an important thing, and your comment regarding the Dark Knight also ties in with my earlier point regarding legacy. There were pretty much no preconceived notions by the general public when the Marvel films first started. About all anyone might remember is the old Incredible Hulk TV series or Ang Lee's Hulk, but as the Hulk didn't even appear right away, things like Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America largely got to be completely fresh and new. DC has to deal with getting people to know the new Batman and the new Superman, as those characters have already appeared multiple times over the years in other movies and TV shows, with different actors and styles. No matter how good Cavill and Affleck might be, they will still suffer from being compared to Reeve and West/Keaton/etc.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.

I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.

Just because a movie is bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it

Movie critics and movie goers look for different things in their entertainment. Critics love technical precision and well paced concise plotting (which is why JJ Abrams and even Michael Bay can get rave reviews, because they're both very good at technical precision and compelling plotting). I find most movie goers (myself included) are less concerned with technical precision, and more concerned with coherence than anything, and being thrilled.

JJ Abrams is not good at pacing. Not even a little bit. Pacing was one of the biggest problems in STIP and SWTFA.

The criticism of BVS was fair. It really was a crappy movie. It's just that it delivered some great Batman and Wonder Woman scenes for people who like comic book movies...which turn out to be the intended audience. It's kind of like rating all the old Godzilla Versus ____ movies as terrible, because they were, without respecting that some really deliver the goods the fans want while others don't. The Marvel movies tend to have a bit wider appeal and tend to fuse genres, giving them more hooks with which to engage the general audience.

Avengers 2 may have been a worse movie than BVS, but it made people laugh and advanced the story for characters people already love. It's like a bad episode of a good TV show.
BVS may have been better in many respects, but the audience felt bored and embarrassed for the writer, director and Jesse Eisenberg while watching it so they remember the discomfort rather than the good parts.

X-Men Apocalypse had a lot--a lot--going for it in terms of emotional beats and action, but the plot had issues and the resolution would not have been as satisfying for casual fans or general audiences who don't have the same connection to the characters or mythology. For non X-Men fans, I imagine the ending is a bit of head scratcher. I enjoyed XMA more than Civil War, but I wouldn't say it was a better movie.

There's different kinds of pacing. Movie critics in my experience (at least the typical ones), like the story to always be going forward, especially in action oriented films.They like films that cut to the chase so to speak (which JJ Abrams is quite effective at). Audiences tend to more value having time to breath.

Compare to Zack Snyder, who's recent DC films have had very slow pacing, spending copious amounts of time getting anywhere. It's not a style of pacing critics like (and honestly audiences generally don't like it either ime, but some people obviously do enjoy BvS and MoS or weren't turned off by its pacing).

So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him. Following that was Civil War, then BvS, then X-Men, then TMNT. I'm a huge X-nut, and they have been my favorite growing up. I recognize how weak the movie was. I'm actually nervous to see SS now. If the reviews are worse than FF (which was an abomination to man), and make GL look good (I found it okay; nothing memorable, not anywhere near as bad as FF), then I fear for its success.

I know there's a lot of fans out there hoping it's as good as the comic boo, but based on the ads and previews it looks terrible.

They lost me at WIll Smith. I hate his movies and I won't watch anything he's in, even if it's playing a second string role

 LordofHats wrote:
There's different kinds of pacing. Movie critics in my experience (at least the typical ones), like the story to always be going forward, especially in action oriented films.They like films that cut to the chase so to speak (which JJ Abrams is quite effective at). Audiences tend to more value having time to breath.

Compare to Zack Snyder, who's recent DC films have had very slow pacing, spending copious amounts of time getting anywhere. It's not a style of pacing critics like (and honestly audiences generally don't like it either ime, but some people obviously do enjoy BvS and MoS or weren't turned off by its pacing).

I think this comes back again to the idea that, like with 'tone', there is a perceived 'right way' to handle it, which in the mind of most critics is The Marvel Formula. In most Marvel movies (IM1 and maybe Cap 1 aside), things are blowing up, being shot at and tossed around within about half an hour, followed by a lull towards the end of the second act before the big finale. BvS and MoS on the other hand are deliberately slow to get going, the first hour at least is building plots, getting things into position and to me that wait and the subsequent pay-off in the third act is one of the best things about that approach. BvS goes along fairly slowly for the first two thirds, interspersed with the odd action sequence like the Batmobile chase or the Africa scene, but the last hour or so is just so intense by contrast, it doesn't let up from the moment the Batsignal lights up over Gotham and I love that!

I think a lot of the drubbing BvS got comes from the fact that audiences and critics alike were expecting it to just be 'The Other Avengers', same setup, same story and same feel, and felt short-changed when they didn't get that. But the issue there is not with the film itself, just with the expectations and preconceptions. Had it been released in an MCUless world, the reception would've been very different indeed, I think. DC in both film and comic form take a different approach to telling stories, and the perception has come about that it's somehow the 'wrong' way to do it on screen.

Still going to see it Saturday.

 Compel wrote:
That was my point. Apocalypse is free game for reviewers to go after because it's not Disney. (Indeed, rumours have it that Marvel/Disney are trying to torpedo the fanbases for it and Fantastic Four, by, for example, removing the licenses for making new Fantastic Four products.)

Couple of things to get straight:

1. Reviewers don't give Disney a free ride. There is no conspiracy. Don't believe the hype.
2. Marvel comics, and Marvel proper, under the leadership of perennial tight-ass and elusive mystery man Ike Perlmutter, has asked the writers to de-emphasise the X-Men, push the Inhumans forward, and cancelled the F4 book completely. He's the one that caused the pissing contest with Fox. Marvel Studios, independent of Marvel proper (and even Marvel Television), has nothing to do with him any more.

Paradigm wrote:I think a lot of the drubbing BvS got comes from the fact that audiences and critics alike were expecting it to just be 'The Other Avengers', same setup, same story and same feel, and felt short-changed when they didn't get that.

I'm pretty sure it had more to do with the fact that it wasn't very good. It was a highlights reel of a much longer and more cohesive film. I've seen people who can't stand the theatrical release of BvS say how much they like the extended version because it evens out the pacing, re-orders scenes, gives itself time to breathe, has establishing shots and generally comes together far better than the hot and hopeless mess was BvS in the cinemas.

And Doomsday was stupid.

I think I can agree that DC has had to struggle a lot with preconceived expectations, but I still stand by the opinion; DC's recent movies are bad. Even when they're being enjoyable, its usually towards the end of a 2 hours plus experience that has mostly been jarringly self indulgent with some really absurd moralizing, and building on odd characterization.

I can't remember where I heard it, but Snyder's treatment of Superman in particular fits it very well; "For some reason DC has become obsessed with asking "does the world need a Superman" which might be a good question save for the invasion of alien robots confirming that yes we do need a superman, and continuing to ask the question just becomes an empty facade of intellectualism."

It was something like that anyway.

And yes. The whole Doomsday bit was stupid. Honest Trailers was right. They burned through 4-5 movies worth of good material in a single film (about 30 minutes of a single film at that), and the single film came out a mess for it.

WB seems to be really gun shy with their films. They're reactionary ("Change everything!") whenever they think something isn't working, or if something is working well (to change everything to be like it) and have no confidence in what they're doing.

I mean when we heard BvS was a heavily cut down version of a much larger film, it made sense, because it felt like chunks were missing. Now we hear that Suicide Squad has the same issue, likely a direct result of the backlack against BvS.

I fear for Wonder Woman, another film with fantastic looking trailers, and what WB is going to do it with the reaction to Suicide Squad.

The jokes about "And here's Marvel with their talking tree movie!" might be old, but they're no less true. Marvel is taking risks and doing weird stuff. WB is afraid of its own shadow sometimes, and needs to get out of its own way.

All that said: Still jazzed to see Suicide Squad on Saturday.

Thank the Emperor I don't care about comics (in general, there is a very small handful of exceptions).

I feel it too when a favoured franchise is ruined by a crap film, so a nod to all the DC fans who are disappointed.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
WB seems to be really gun shy with their films. They're reactionary ("Change everything!") whenever they think something isn't working, or if something is working well (to change everything to be like it) and have no confidence in what they're doing.

Well, you have to consider that the DCEU films have had very big budgets (early Marvel film budgets were much more modest), and they didn't exercise the same kind of control over their filmmakers like Marvel did over theirs. That tends to lead to change (i.e. management involvement) when things get bumpy. Not saying it's a good way to handle things, just that it's kind of a natural response in most businesses.

Regarding other recent points, I agree that there's no critic conspiracy. I do think there's been a ton of negativity in the media toward the DCEU, and I suspect the only real reason is because those articles get a lot of clicks. The IGNs of the world bashed BvS from its announcement all the way through. But it wasn't about malice, it was about money. At least I think so.

And regarding Doomsday, its inclusion in BvS had a lot to do with Wonder Woman and setting up her film. Marvel does that stuff all the time, but perhaps it wasn't handled as well as it could have been in BvS. One thing that I think the DCEU should embrace as a best practice from Marvel is the mid/post-credit sequence. Overall, I think they're a very trite thing...but they make some sense as a means to do some cinematic universe building without clogging your movie.

For instance, it wouldn't have been hard to move the heroes video sequence in BvS to mid-credits. You show Bruce finding the files (and symbols) during the movie, but then cut away. Then have him back in the Batcave at mid-credits, opening them up. Now, simply moving the "Knightmare" sequence there would remove Bruce's main motivation for forming the JL, but that just requires a writing fix. You can get there plenty of other ways.

Oh, and Doomsday has never been and will never be a great villain. It's actually a rather absurd villain, which is why they used it as a throwaway. I have not one single issue with that, and quite frankly Spadertron bothered me exponentially more than Doomsday did.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.

You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.




On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...

So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So far, my favorite comic movies this year have been the following order: Deadpool was top dog. Fact. Anyone saying otherwise had blinders on or was biased against him.

You know, I typically do not post here and I only read the very occasional thread that spikes me interest, but after reading your nonsensical gakstorm of a post I felt obliged to reply.

Spoiler:

It is stupefying to me how much utterly inane these two lines of text are...first you pronounce the following your favorite comic films of the year and then proclaim "Deadpool was best! FACT!!!"...an opinion is not a fact. Oh, and of course anyone who disagrees is biased or has "blinders on." In a single fell swoop you denounced every Deadpool detractor as either dumb or in denial. Wow.

Yeah...so apparently the fact my opinion is that a movie with an unlikable lead that has all the wit of a middle school edgelord telling genital jokes during lunch hour is not only a far cry from being the best comic film of the year, but is also essentially limited to being mediocre at absolute best courtesy of its puerile sense of humor, forgettable antagonists, underachieving fight scenes, and horribly dull plot indicates that I am an ignorant sheep porker. Well great. I am glad I learned something new about myself.

On topic, I am not remotely surprised that Suicide Squad is getting slammed. Mildly disappointed, yes, but not surprised. My only concern is that the film will probably need to clear the $400-500 mark in order to be profitable and the fact it lacks a lead character on par with Batman/Superman makes me doubt this will happen...

So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?

Just gonna reference the second to last paragraph. They mentioned a Ben Affleck Batman solo film, which I think would actually do well. He seems semi competent, and given a good director, I'm sure it'd be just as good as the 90's Batman's were, although I doubt it'd be as rememberable as Dark Knight or as good/awful as the Batman Forever/Batman & Robin.

Affleck is the director of the Batman Solo film.

I'm waiting for the OUZE and GORGON reviews...

As for a possible anti-DC/Warner Bros slant, I doubt it ... DC is certainly my favorite of the Big Two and I think most critics were too lenient about the spectacle of absurdity that was Batman vs Superman. And critics were, if anything, slavishly kind to Dark Knight Rises. I do think critics and audiences alike were too precious about make pretend violence when it comes to Man of Steel, however. If there is a bias, I think it is against Superman.

 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Affleck is the director of the Batman Solo film.

Well, I'll stick with the wait and see. I quite enjoyed "The Town" that he did. Never saw Argo, but heard it was good.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
So, where the hell does the DCEU go from here?

Just gonna reference the second to last paragraph. They mentioned a Ben Affleck Batman solo film, which I think would actually do well. He seems semi competent, and given a good director, I'm sure it'd be just as good as the 90's Batman's were, although I doubt it'd be as rememberable as Dark Knight or as good/awful as the Batman Forever/Batman & Robin.

Yeah, if I had to bet on which movies actually get made after JL, Affleck's Batman film is the only one I'd put money on. People accuse WB of being Batman fanboys, but the flip side to that argument is that Batman is the only character they've had that's delivered for them in a big way.

 Manchu wrote:
I do think critics and audiences alike were too precious about make pretend violence when it comes to Man of Steel, however. If there is a bias, I think it is against Superman.

I agree on this point. Although note that Superman Returns scores well, and MUCH higher than Man of Steel on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. This is simply astonishing to me, FYI.

George Miller has been linked to a possible MoS sequel. I think that *IF* the other films get cancelled, and *IF* Miller is on board, it's possible WB greenlights that one.

It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
When I posted this, it was 38% on RT. That has since slipped to 33%, which... well, I guess it doesn't matter, bad is bad.

I'm still going to see it tomorrow, dammit.

Just because a movie is bad doesn't mean you won't enjoy it

This.

I enjoy the heck out of a bunch of crap movies, and I find a bunch of good movies to not be enjoyable.

 Manchu wrote:
It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...

Keep an eye on the second series of Supergirl, they've added Superman to the cast for a few episodes and that show definitely captures the light, hopeful tone of 'traditional' Superman stuff. To be honest, I reckon there is ample room for both interpretations; the more complex, self-examining, deconstructed Supes from the film universe and the more classic, Silver Age-esque version. Both will work in their respective settings, I think, and ultimately don't even need comparing.

 Manchu wrote:
It's no wonder critics and audiences are skeptical of Superman. The studio, the writers, even the actor seems puzzled by the character. Pop culture may just be too grim in tone right now to conceive of, either as as a matter of creation or reception, Superman. Honestly, we do need a Superman to rescue us from all this bleakness in our culture. If someone had the guts to do a colorful, happy, soaring spirit of a Superman picture ...

DC Comics can't figure out the character either. What's going on with Superman right now in comics is just baffling. Some loud, whiny fans liked the post-Crisis Supes better than New 52 Supes, so they killed N52 Supes in order to bring back PC Supes. But isn't it *ALL* Superman? If they felt they needed to make some adjustments to Superman, then just write it that way and show some evolution by the N52 character, right...?

But then of course there are all kinds of mysteries going on, like a powerless Clark Kent (who apparently *isn't* a resurrected N52 Superman) that emerged out of nowhere. So it's also possible that nothing is as it seems and maybe none of them are Superman at all! Or something. I dunno. I'm good with the building out of the "Superman family," but I don't understand what they're trying to do with Kal-El himself.

Oh...and they killed off Krypto too, after the New 52 restored that character. Man o man.

Getting this back more on topic, it feels like the entire DC enterprise is somewhat rudderless and has become very reactionary in both their comics and films. To be fair, Marvel comics seem like an absolute mess too, even as their film business chugs along.

I am so glad I gave up on comics. I have never forgiven Alan Moore for killing Krypto.

 Paradigm wrote:
To be honest, I reckon there is ample room for both interpretations; the more complex, self-examining, deconstructed Supes from the film universe and the more classic, Silver Age-esque version. Both will work in their respective settings, I think, and ultimately don't even need comparing.

I think this is a fine statement. To be fair, the "Superdude" version has been around for a long time. The post-Crisis take emphasized that Clark Kent is his true self, and that Superman is a suit he puts on. Meanwhile, the "Supergod" Silver Age version (which the Reeve films took cues from) have the bumbling, dorky Clark Kent as the disguise, and Superman as his true self.

This may be one of those 'had to cut it for theatrical release' so seems muddled up. I'm more fond of the Ultimate Edition of BvS, when important plot details/background wasn't left out.

I've heard Margot Robbie did brilliantly as Harley Quinn. So glad to hear that, since the comic book counterpart is interesting to read. I was concerned they would just use her as a sex icon while the men filled the screen.

Is Will Smith good as Deadshot? He didn't really stand out to me as an ideal Deadshot in the trailers and was only there because he's A-list material to attract viewers.