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:
Justice League was a team-up concept...it introduced new characters, but the MCU team-up films have done that also.

Most of them had already appeared. The movie needed to spend little introducing them, not just to the audience but to the writers. There's an in built advantage to writing a character who is already well established. You know what you're working with. You've already dealt with the kinks of writing the character, working with the actor, and can just write them. Justice League suffered heavily from unworked out kinks with it's entire cast.

Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey are ensemble cast concepts, just like Guardians of the Galaxy...which also had no additional 'work' put into it.

On this your right, except Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey weren't ensemble cast concepts in practice.They were movies written predominantly for the perspective of the lead actor and their character (Smith/Deadshot in the first, Robbie/Quinn in the second) with everyone else being superficially shoveled into the plot haphazardly so that the trailers could seem cool.

The act of shoveling all the characters in the final product left every other character feeling superficial, underdeveloped, and like a hanger on mostly irrelevant to the plot. Birds of Prey only ever really worked when it was about Quinn and Suicide Squad round 1 was just bad. Doubly bad because it wasn't bad enough to be so bad it's good. It was just bad. None of the pieces in that movie worked together. The best I've ever managed to do to get a laugh out of it is lampoon the concept of 'supernatural ancient Gods attacking the world, send in people with guns we don't have enough of those in the Army'.

I'm not attacking the concept at all. I'm attacking the execution. We know the concept works.

That leaves us with Batman v Superman. And yeah, that's overstuffed in ways beyond characters.

I mean, I'd say BvS is overstuffed with characters in a deceptive way. You've got Batman being introduced, Luther, Steppenwolf and the entire idea of Darkseid, and them they just shoveled in Doomsday on top of that. The movie doubled down, not only overstuffing the plot with actors but overstuffing the plot with plotlines that didn't really line up all that well or distracted from each other to the detriment of each.

I look at their more recent efforts and the overstuffed comment doesn't make sense to me.

I think they definitely learned something. Wonder Woman was good. The worst I can say about it is that it felt uninspired and predictable but it was better than the rest of the lot. Aquaman was kind of wonky but still better. Both took a more reasonable approach to how many plots and characters they were trying to juggle. EDIT: And now I feel bad cause I forgot about Shazam until reading the comment below this one and Shazam was great, largely I think because it managed to escape the meddling of boardroom committees and was actually fun. Completely dodged the grimderp DC seems to want to build itself on for some reason. It's so much better than the rest I think I struggle to even connect it to the dumpster fire.

Seems like he might know what he's doing?

Gunn might, but given the history of the execs to interfere with the DCU and botch things, I'll be less cynical when the final product works. Right now, I'm getting total deja vu to Suicide Squad round 1, especially after Birds of Prey backslid into repeating past mistakes.

 gorgon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Works fine for Marvel, right? I mean, cramming in other characters even with “solo” films is like the whole gameplan.

Marvel put in the work.

Marvel also doesn't pack multiple big name characters into one movie from the get go. Most of their films feature 1 big name hero, 1-2 big name villains, and then supporting cast. They don't say "let's have a movie with 8+ big names" every time. It's notable that the better DCU films follow the former formula, while the worst follow the latter. DCU keeps doing this thing where it seems to think that shoveling as many names into one movie as possible will make it better, but it's produced their worst movies.

So what DC films did what you describe?

Justice League was a team-up concept...it introduced new characters, but the MCU team-up films have done that also. Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey are ensemble cast concepts, just like Guardians of the Galaxy...which also had no additional 'work' put into it. SS may be pretty awful and BoP may be just okay, but the concept isn't to blame for that.

That leaves us with Batman v Superman. And yeah, that's overstuffed in ways beyond characters. But that was 2016 under a certain director and different execs. I look at their more recent efforts and the overstuffed comment doesn't make sense to me. And the subject of this thread is a film written and shot by the guy who created GotG. Seems like he might know what he's doing?

Justice League is a team up built on the back of poor characterization from the previous 2 movies (man of steel and BvS) that then chucked in 4 more characters 3 of which were more poorly characterized. The MCU had a team up movie that didn't just come off the backs of good establishing of characters but "mostly" followed through if not a bit shallowly. Blame Joss. He's a hack.

Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey are both movies that tried to introduce characters by saying they have a long history that we don't get to see. In GotG we SEE Gamora's relationship with her father and sister. Or at least enough of it to establish the character. We SEE rocket torn up about his origin. We SEE how Groot and rocket take care of each other. And we Know Peters relationship both with his mother and Yondu. We can give a gak about these people because we get to know them. That doesn't happen in SS. Who the feth is captain Boomerang? What does he care about? How about Croc? Katana? Who btw has a soul steeling sword that never steels swords. Who else was on the team? Birds of Prey did better. We saw bits of each character to establish who they were.

And yeah. BvS.

The DCEU movies don't lay down the ground work before the movie and they don't lay down the ground work INSIDE the movie. The very few exceptions are the stand outs. Aquaman. Wonderwoman. Shazam. Everything else is and has been gak.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Spider-Man became an Iron Man sidekick...

Which movie was that?

Probably a inaccurate description of Civil war or first Spiderman film.

The MCU definitely took its time.

Look back to the Phase One era. Yes, the B cast didn’t get their own films, but, by the time of Avengers Assemble? We, the audience, had some kind of handle on each character involved.

The same happens in Single Character Sequels. The Lead we know, and let’s face it none are particularly complex*. So we know what they might do in a given situation, allowing the Support Hero time to shine.

DCEU? Not so much. We the audience are just meant to know who Supes (fair enough), Bats (fair enough) Wonder Woman (kinda fair enough?), Aquaman (now you’re stretching it) and Cyborg (whoooooooooopoooo?) are, and their moral compass.

I’m kinda fair weather I suppose. I’ve a passing knowledge of most super heroes, but barring Dredd, not in-depth.

Yes, I’d heard of the Justice League Characters before, but not much beyond that, again barring Supes and Bats. That, to me, reduced 60% of the cast to plot devices.

And it didn’t have to be that way. Warner’s just got too lazy, and jumped the gun. If they’d given each character their own movie, with clear “lovely dangly plot hooks an Angler Fish would envy”? It likely would’ve turned out better. Mostly because I’d have given more of a fig about Aquaman and Cyborg in particular.

*simple characters are underrated. We know Tony and Cap’s moral compass. And they never really vary from that. Simple characters are the solid foundation of the MCU.

and their moral compass.

Yes... and the DCEU concept of 'moral compass' is quite screwy.

The least heroic Superman, the most murderous Batman and a WW that basically spent ~100 years hiding, barring a possible exception in 1984

 Ahtman wrote:

Voss wrote:
... is King Shark a Great White?

No, he is an IT Specialist and low level Hackerman.

Spoiler:

Harlie's Crew on that show is awesome. I like how he occasionally just bites people in half...

Voss wrote:

and their moral compass.

Yes... and the DCEU concept of 'moral compass' is quite screwy.

The least heroic Superman, the most murderous Batman and a WW that basically spent ~100 years hiding, barring a possible exception in 1984

With genuine respect to the actress (and indeed the actors, none of their fault it was interfered with to buggery), I feel that WW being praised as a high point in BvS (and she was), is being confused with being “the least worst thing” rather than actually being good.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Spider-Man became an Iron Man sidekick...

Which movie was that?

Probably a inaccurate description of Civil war or first Spiderman film.

I was exaggerating.

But the MCU definitely put Spidey in the Iron Man sphere. Stark is his mentor and father figure, he gets his gear from him, etc. Even after Stark is dead, they spent a movie on Peter dealing with his 'ghost'. Meanwhile, Uncle Ben's ghost is nowhere to be seen. And I do think that's a misstep, albeit a misstep that was made throughout the MCU just because of the popularity of RDJ. I understand the rea$on$, but I don't think it served the characters. IMO. Everything shouldn't be about fething Iron Man, and yet it seems like it continually is.

Of course, I'm coming at it as a comics fan. And the MCU films aren't actually built for people like me. They change quite a bit about the characters...not just nerdy details ("Cap's shield isn't pure vibranium!!1!1"), but the motivations and underneath stuff. I'm a big Cap fan. In the comics, Captain America is a living symbol of an idealized America...while he has certain old-fashioned values and roots in the past, he's happily adapted to the present and is 'current', dealing with the issues of the day. But MCU Cap is a man stuck in the past...ultimately unwilling to live in the present and move forward with his life. He's kind of a dusty old 48-star flag sitting in the corner. They're fundamentally different people -- with different political connotations -- even if both wear the stars and stripes and call people 'son'. It feels shorthand and lazy and 'wrong' at a deeper level, just like a Peter Parker whose guiding light is Tony Stark and not Uncle Ben.

But keeping a veneer of an existing story while simplifying and sanitizing the rest is a Disney thing going back to their fairy tale movies. It is simply what they do and have always done, and Marvel started doing it even before the purchase. *shrug* It's been hugely successful for them, but I've never understood why people hold up those films as being so 'true to the comics'.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Spider-Man became an Iron Man sidekick...

Which movie was that?

Probably a inaccurate description of Civil war or first Spiderman film.

I was exaggerating.

But the MCU definitely put Spidey in the Iron Man sphere. Stark is his mentor and father figure, he gets his gear from him, etc. Even after Stark is dead, they spent a movie on Peter dealing with his 'ghost'. Meanwhile, Uncle Ben's ghost is nowhere to be seen. And I do think that's a misstep, albeit a misstep that was made throughout the MCU just because of the popularity of RDJ. I understand the rea$on$, but I don't think it served the characters. IMO. Everything shouldn't be about fething Iron Man, and yet it seems like it continually is.

Of course, I'm coming at it as a comics fan. And the MCU films aren't actually built for people like me. They change quite a bit about the characters...not just nerdy details ("Cap's shield isn't pure vibranium!!1!1"), but the motivations and underneath stuff. I'm a big Cap fan. In the comics, Captain America is a living symbol of an idealized America...while he has certain old-fashioned values and roots in the past, he's happily adapted to the present and is 'current', dealing with the issues of the day. But MCU Cap is a man stuck in the past...ultimately unwilling to live in the present and move forward with his life. He's kind of a dusty old 48-star flag sitting in the corner. They're fundamentally different people -- with different political connotations -- even if both wear the stars and stripes and call people 'son'. It feels shorthand and lazy and 'wrong' at a deeper level, just like a Peter Parker whose guiding light is Tony Stark and not Uncle Ben.

But keeping a veneer of an existing story while simplifying and sanitizing the rest is a Disney thing going back to their fairy tale movies. It is simply what they do and have always done, and Marvel started doing it even before the purchase. *shrug* It's been hugely successful for them, but I've never understood why people hold up those films as being so 'true to the comics'.

Each to their own ......

I think for the most part they are a improvement on the comics - the characters are not at the whim of whatever writter /artist is working on them that week, they have personalities and stories that can evolve consistantly. Whilst they do have to fit with the rest of the MCU there are also don;t have to change to suit the tone and style of whichever comic they appear in. There is no real being true to the comics as they are so inherently inconsistant.

Again I see Cap A differently - he changes through the films and comes to terms with the world in his own way.

I don;t see it as lazy but a different - and in my opinion better story. I really dislike all pevious incarnations of Spider man and Iron man was who but I enjoy the MCu versions.

A lot of why these characters are different characters in the comics just comes down to the fact that they've been the MCU version of the characters at some point and kept going, and getting retconned, and being reinvented, and retconned again. Cap has changed more than most specifically because he's often reshaped to the political whims of the author, but to a degree, I think if his story was allowed to end, it would have ended on a fairly similar note.

This idea that superheroes can't have happy endings has always bothered me. Growing up, Spiderman being married didn't alienate him to me, it gave him some happiness that humanized him. The modern mix of perpetual misery and removal of supporting cast has drained a lot of my interest in the characters. Seeing them in a format that's forced to let them go really makes the MCU feel definitive in a lot of ways.

 gorgon wrote:
Even after Stark is dead, they spent a movie on Peter dealing with his 'ghost'. Meanwhile, Uncle Ben's ghost is nowhere to be seen. And I do think that's a misstep,
...
Of course, I'm coming at it as a comics fan. And the MCU films aren't actually built for people like me.
...
It feels shorthand and lazy and 'wrong' at a deeper level, just like a Peter Parker whose guiding light is Tony Stark and not Uncle Ben.

I am not a comic guy - the medium does nothing for me. I'm also not a big MCU fan - some of the films have been good, some terrible, most of them adequate but forgettable. I like the MCU spiderman though. I learned who spiderman was watching the cartoons in the 90's and learned about Ben. Then I watched the Maguire movies and learned about Ben. Then the Garfield movies and learned... oh bloody hell, I'm ok with repeats but this is getting stupid.

I had no clue who Miles Moralez was until Spiderverse, but I saw a different and entertaining Spiderman than what I'd seen before - just because an Uncle Ben didn't die doesn't make him a lazier or wrong Spiderman. The same is true of Holland's Spiderman. He may not be your comic book Spiderman, and you even acknowledge this, but just because he doesn't live up to your vision doesn't make it lazy or wrong.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The movie has too many characters. It looks like a disaster.

I don't know about that. There's 13 villains in total for the squad by my count (probably off here). I can think of another film which managed to juggle 13 characters in a motley squad who get sent on a suicide mission, The Dirty Dozen (12 convicts plus their CO). And that film managed to do it with the aforementioned 13 characters being dressed in army green rather than each having their own unique outfit.

Having a lot of characters as your main cast is not an issue if you are able to make each character distinct enough for the audience to remember and limit the number of secondary characters you're throwing in there. Looking at the cast they have enough great actors and personalities in there to do that with ease, especially when you then factor in costuming to make each visually distinct.

They didn't do Uncle Ben in the MCU Spidey movies because they'd already done that in the previous two versions of Spider-Man. Sometimes you can't just retread the same ground.

As far as the DC films go, they're a classic example of running before you've learnt to crawl.

Also it's unfair to say that Uncle Ben was not spidermans guiding light.

The very first time we see Peter he sits in a room with Tony Stark and spells out exactly what Uncle Ben has instilled in him. "Sure I would love to play football, but I couldn't then so I shouldn't now. And when you can do the things that I can do and you don't. And THEN the bad things happen... Then they happen because of you."

Tony Stark is a celebrity super hero who showed up on a 16 year old kids door step while hes trying to be a hero on his own and looking for any kind of guidance to show him the ropes that his friends and family never could.

Uncle Ben is the reason he's trying to be a hero in the first place.

 Lance845 wrote:
Also it's unfair to say that Uncle Ben was not spidermans guiding light.

It was said that the film didn't show Uncle Ben being killed again, which isn't the same thing as saying it never happened or that it had no impact on Peter.

If I remember right from fandoms, Gunn did specifically call out the Dirty Dozen as part of his inspiration for the movie. Also Platoon and other equivalent era war movies.

I think the idea of thinking of it as a war movie but with people in unique outfits instead of army greens is the way to go.

 Compel wrote:
If I remember right from fandoms, Gunn did specifically call out the Dirty Dozen as part of his inspiration for the movie.

The logo is also using the same font as the Dirty Dozen if it wasn't already obvious enough.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Also it's unfair to say that Uncle Ben was not spidermans guiding light.

It was said that the film didn't show Uncle Ben being killed again, which isn't the same thing as saying it never happened or that it had no impact on Peter.

 gorgon wrote:
Even after Stark is dead, they spent a movie on Peter dealing with his 'ghost'. Meanwhile, Uncle Ben's ghost is nowhere to be seen. And I do think that's a misstep,
...
Of course, I'm coming at it as a comics fan. And the MCU films aren't actually built for people like me.
...
It feels shorthand and lazy and 'wrong' at a deeper level, just like a Peter Parker whose guiding light is Tony Stark and not Uncle Ben.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Compel wrote:
If I remember right from fandoms, Gunn did specifically call out the Dirty Dozen as part of his inspiration for the movie.

The logo is also using the same font as the Dirty Dozen if it wasn't already obvious enough.

Yeah. Gunn knows what he is doing. He's demonstrated that he can handle an ensemble cast film with the GotG films. The ensemble for this is bigger, though GotG 2 had effectively 9 people by the end as Guardians (Starlord, Gamora, Rocket, Groot, Drax, Nebula, Mantis, Yondu, Kraglin) and was able to devote enough time to each of them to allow their character to shine through even if they did not necessarily have a huge role in the plot (Drax, for example). Gunn knows how to use characters which aren't plot central to enable exposition and characterisation for those that are (Drax and Mantis's interactions, for example). He is also great at working with the theme of his films, where each character is able to fit that theme but from distinct perspectives. Both GotG films are amazing with this with each of the guardians having their own spin on the themes of family and trauma.

This kind of premise (load of villains sent down to destabilise south american dictatorship) is perfect for the Suicide Squad. One of the major problems with the first film was that the squad was supposedly meant to be a counter to "Superman level threats", which is just laughable with the people they collected for that squad. A group of plausibly deniable operatives sent down to south america for a bit of that regime change on behalf of United Fruit? That is a much better fit.

Maybe I'm misreading your point so I'm just going to move on.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Spider-Man became an Iron Man sidekick...

Which movie was that?

Probably a inaccurate description of Civil war or first Spiderman film.

Inaccurate? Oh and they did it again in Infinity War.