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.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think the biggest flaw I see with DC and their films is that they're honestly trying too much to replicate Marvel's marketing strategy when they haven't even figured out how to make a good adaptation of their source material. It's like trying to run before you can walk. I guess the author kind of hints at that when he says the need a soft ball, but I'm not sure that's really the issue; DC just doesn't know how to have any fun. That has nothing to do with the character's it tries to lead with. It's not a problem with Batman or Superman. It's a problem with how DC makes movies.

I’m not sure that’s completely fair. Nolan’s Batman trilogy wasn’t in this universe, but it was still WB, and Nolan is an executive producer on the new films. And in that trilogy there were two good movies, and two movies that broke $1 billion in worldwide box office – though not the same two in each group It is a decent track record, though.

And that Batman trilogy was pretty dark. There were bits of humour here and there, but for the most part they were pretty grim and pretty serious affairs. So I think when you look at that trilogy, which achieved a pretty rare triple feat of pleasing critics and fans and also make a lot of bank, I think it becomes clear that it isn’t the new franchise's approach that’s the problem, but the execution of it.

Man of Steel took itself too seriously for its own good, and it didn't play around with the more human side of Super Man's character (Clark Kent). Likewise, BvS takes itself far too seriously I think. It doesn't engage at all its own goofiness, nor does it have any real charm. It's a long series of spectacle scenes that demand we take them seriously, and it all just feels so empty.

I think you’re completely right – there was much too little Clark Kent in MoS. And not only was there too little Clark Kent, but most of it was Superboy stuff, all played out in flashbacks to show why he was so reluctant to use his powers. There was very little of Clark in Metropolis, which robbed the film of much of the humanity it needed.

No. Not superman. I'm talking about Martin Manhunter here, who I'll remind Zack Snyder derided years ago as a stupid character on the most base and dumb logic I've ever seen. I think that mentality is everything wrong with DC's film attempts, and with Snyder. They refuse to accept the goofiness of being a comic book franchise, and in that the Cracked article I think is dead on.

I think using fantastical elements to explore serious matters is a pretty tried and tested kind of storytelling. And just because the comics were goofy for large portions of their very long runs, that doesn’t mean the films have to be.

But I do think there's an argument for the characters to be having more fun, not necessarily jokes but just a smile or a look of excitement. Driving fantastical supercars and flying through the sky is meant to be fun

That article seemed fairly poor. Conflating all the Marvel films together, from Blade to FF to Captain America, and treating them as a single corpus, seems rather daft.

@LordofHats: I fundamentally disagree about the 'inability to adapt the source material' claim. Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!), Cavill's Superman is pretty dead on for the N52 version, and I don't see what's wrong with his Clark either. Wonder Woman hit all the right notes as well, so really, I don't think there's a problem there at all.

As for 'taking itself seriously', that's exactly the point of BvS. Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line, whereas BvS is centred on that whole, massive issue; when someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet in an afternoon if he wanted to, that has to be taken seriously, in-universe, so it makes sense to take it seriously from the audience perspective as well. It might not be what portions of the audience who went in expecting Avengers: The One With Batman, but to say it doesn't make sense or isn't faithful to the source material is not right, I don't think.

If DC can keep doing these movies that have a load more weight to them than Marvel's fun, colourful productions then that's great, gets some variety in the subject (I won't say genre as it's not) of comic book movies. You want a silver-age style fun adventure? See an MCU film. You want a character-driven, small scale story? Most of the X-men stuff. Looking for something that will make you think, have more gravity to it and not necessarily be a happy movie? DC. I'd much rather that than have DC just make MCU films with DC characters.


That Martian Manhunter plot would be great, but in asking questions about humanity, being something more than 'I'm an alien so I have powers so I'm a superhero', it's no different to BvS or MoS; it would have that same kind of depth and weight to it. MM would fit perfectly into this style DC are developing (though I wouldn't want to see him dropped from Supergirl to make an appearance, he's been done amazingly in that).

 Paradigm wrote:
Marvel's movies are fun, but in most cases, you don't stop to think about the consequences of having a literal god running round under no one's control, or one man having technology to take on an entire army It's touched on in the odd throwaway line,

whereas BvS is centred on that whole, massive issue; when someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet in an afternoon if he wanted to, that has to be taken seriously, in-universe, so it makes sense to take it seriously from the audience perspective as well.

Actually, Marvel has been pretty consistent "save the cheerleader, save the world". That is probably the one running theme in just about every Marvel Studios movie, and Marvel consistently shows that the "hero" part is that they put their lives on the line to do so. Hawkeye making the point to Scarlet Witch in AoU; Starlord to the team in GotG. And so on. It's not a throwaway when Marvel makes a point to includes it in every single film.

Civil War covers the governance issue at length - originally in the comics, coming soon to a theatre near you. From all reviews, Civil War tackles the issue far more deftly and cleanly than BvS did. Marvel has also been looking at responsibility / governance in AoS, every week. AoU specifically address Tony's desire to be prepared when (not if) "someone shows up who could literally destroy the entire planet," and the Ultron Initiative was very serious.

Oh yeah... X-men are small scale? Did we not watch the same X-men movie where the X-men were working to stave off a mass mutation bomb? Where every non-mutant was marked for death via Xavier / Cerebro? And now Apocalypse is literally coming? Huh?

By " something that will make you think, have more gravity to it " I'm assuming you're talking about Green Lantern and Batman Forever, right?

 Paradigm wrote:
Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)

The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)

The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.

As I told Paradigm:

That is completely untrue. Go watch Burton's Batman again. He literally explodes a goon into a red mist.




Best Batman kill, ever.

Totally deliberate and cold-blooded murder there.


Let's be very clear - Batman deliberately attached a BOMB with 3 sticks dynamite to a living person, and pushed that person into a confined space when exploded. 3 sticks of dynamite. Directly attached to a person. In a concrete box. And Batman smiled.

Murderverse Batman murders people and enjoys it.

I saw that in a previous post, but that's not what we're talking about. He has been known to kill, but not to the escalation presented in BvS. And the point I'm arguing is that it was said that Affleck's version of Batman is the most faithful on screen yet, to which I'm saying is not accurate based on the high number of dead people there are in the movie from Batman's hand.

Please point me to one of his comic book iterations where there are so many deaths by his hands specifically in a single story arc.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Affleck has easily been the most faithful Batman yet (finally, one that does some damn detective work!)

The body count alone in BvS discounts this statement. Even at his most gritty in the comic books, (The Dark Knight Returns for example) he has a much higher value on human life. He uses Rubber Bullets on the Mutant Gang and doesn't kill any cops. He does have some murderous moments(like to save a young child and finally ending The Joker), but otherwise, his murderous spree in BvS is a little over the top to me. Definitely not a faithful Batman to me.

Murder does seem to be omnipresent through Batman's movie history, the difference in BvS is that you can justify it in the context of the narrative; he's trying to bring down a god, the lives of mere men stop mattering at that point, that's why he'll do whatever he has to to achieve that end. In many ways that's the whole point of Batman's arc in this film, his hatred, his obsession, his anger and frustration lead him to cross the lines he swore never to, before ultimately realising just how far he's fallen and thus swearing to be a better man in the future. 'I failed him in life.... I will not fail him in death.' That's what that line is about.

Compare that to the Burton movies where he's just killing people willy nilly without that context, or the Dark Knight where The World's Greatest Detective lets Alfred do most of the detectiving...

Ultimately, then, it comes down to Adam West (no killing, occasionally does detective work, but is terrible) or Batfleck (gets the character, acts out of character but that's delierate and if not justifiable then at least explanable)... Besides, I'd take Affleck's body count over West's bat-dancing any day!


Which brings me back to the idea that BvS is a lot more nuanced than Marvel's touching on the same subjects. I fully expect Civil War to boil down to Cap=good, Iron Man=bad (as well it should, it is a Cap movie and I'd be disappointed if that doesn't come through, which early reviews seem to be saying it does), with BvS you see the destruction of Metropolis, you see Supes slam a guy through a wall at the speed of sound in the desert scene, and you start to come around to Batman's way of looking at it; Superman is dangerous, and needs to be taken down.. but wait a minute, Batman just straight up murdered a load of guys because they got in the way of his vendetta, why am I rooting for this guy? But then you have the courthouse scene where Supes completely fails to save lives because he wasn't doing his 'job' properly, and you're back on team Batman.. until the next time Batman does something despicable, so on and so forth.

At the end of the film, you're left wondering why you were ever rooting for MurderBat when Supes sacrificed himself in the most heroic way possible and saved the world, but throughout the film the argument is never that simple. I don't expect anything like that in Civil War, which is absolutely fine! If Marvel and DC are constantly doing the same thing, it'd be far easier to get bored, when they take such drastically different but in my eyes equally enjoyable approaches, it's great!

I guess I'm just not explaining myself well. I am commenting that this screen version of Batman is not faithful AT ALL which was the initial comment I was addressing.

Nolan's Batman was the closest there has been in my view.

According to the reviews, it's Cap = Good, Tony = Good -- for different meanings of "Good". Which is the entire point of Civil War - that good man can disagree over how things should be done in the pursuit of a worthy goal.

Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.

@Mdlbuildr: Oh no, I totally get what you are saying, personally I just think Affleck's version gets more right than wrong and seems more like the Batman I know from the comics. if nothing else in tone, feel and general attitude, if not in the specifics of how many bodies he drops.

The lack of doing any real detective work in the DK trilogy is what puts BaleBat below him, though in everything else I agree he's spot on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.

Except this is Superman. He's not going to put anyone else in danger, even if they're superhuman, even if that means sacrificing himself. WW might have had a chance, but she was barely holding her own against Doomsday, and at that particular point holding him in place with the Lasso anyway. Taking the spear, going straight for Doomsday despite knowing he's almost certainly going to die is the most Superman thing this Superman has done to date (not to mention one of the most tragic and painful scenes in history, actually hit me harder than watching Han die).

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.

This. Makes no sense that Supes had to be the bearer of the spear.

I'm kinda on Paradigm's side of the fence. - Though I do headcanon a lot of the 'kills' away as "he wasn't aiming for them drectly, they got out in time."

Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...

 Compel wrote:


Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...

Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?

He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).

EDIT: He did kill the fake Rha's. My bad.

Looking for something that will make you think, have more gravity to it and not necessarily be a happy movie? DC. I'd much rather that than have DC just make MCU films with DC characters.

Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.

People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.

Bats vs sups had potential – the “angry” batman was good, Superman worked for me- needed more with him and Lois but not too bad, Wonder Woman stole the show – guess that’s why she is hardly in it. But they failed on the plot, the actual reasons why people were fighting or plotting – especially the dismal Loopy Lex who was obviously desperate to be the Joker but didn’t have the style. Like Justin hammer to Tony Stark, he was a poor wanabee imitation.

Suicide again has great potential – it appears to be about the squad, the people, not just Nolanesque special effects. If it is it will be great.

Also, as many ask, why didn't WW pick up the spear and us it? She's actually trained in use of spears, and she's obviously strong enough and tough enough... Seems kinda dumb to "die" unnecessarily.

because its not a Wonder Woman film (sadly)

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Compel wrote:


Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...

Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?

He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).

Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked

 Paradigm wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Compel wrote:


Also, if you want to be technical, The Dark Knight trilogy had exactly one out of 3 films where he didnt kill someone...

Who did he kill in the DK Trilogy?

He let Rha's die (he left the train before it derailed). He didn't kill The Joker or Two Face (he fell to his death as Batman was saving Gordon's son) and he didn't kill Bane (Catwoman shot him) or Talia (she drove a truck into a wall iirc).

Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked

Okay, fair enough.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.

People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.

I disagree pretty much entirely with that, actually! Batman has a major character arc in BvS, of descent into madness and ultimate redemption. Clark goes from self-doubt to fully becoming the hero he always had the potential to be. Luthor goes from taking nothing seriously and seeing it all as a game to the emergence of his absolute hatred of Superman.

As for couples/relationships, those are consistently the most superfluous parts of the Marvel movies. You could cut Pepper and Jane from Iron Man and Thor and lose absolutely nothing of value, I reckon.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Hmm not really, want a bit of depth, Marvel or Fox have it - there is I feel more story and especially character development in the Avengers, Iron Man etc than in Man of steel, B vS . Nolan's batman. Marvel films tend to be about people, Dcs – not so much. Fox equally so, they are about people not effects.

People seldom change or evolve in DC films, they seldom have relationships that matter and have the least convincing couples - Nolan is especially poor at this (and female characters in general) - guess that’s why he prefers action and spectacle over actual story telling.

As for couples/relationships, those are consistently the most superfluous parts of the Marvel movies. You could cut Pepper and Jane from Iron Man and Thor and lose absolutely nothing of value, I reckon.

And thats why we don't like the same films..........The Tony / Pepper interplay is genius - again about people not special effects...............

It's not that I'm not interested in characters, it's just that I find them exceptionally boring characters! You'll notice I didn't mention Peggy Carter or Amazing Spiderman's Gwen Stacey, as they're actually interesting, well-written and well-acted characters. Personally, though, I find Pepper tolerable at first but worse as the films go on and Natalie Portman is just a terrible actress, or at the very least gives a thoroughly uninspired performance in both Thor films (and I'm so glad she's not in the third one).

Lois in MoS/BvS is a much more interesting character than either, I think. But this is probably off topic, so I'll leave the tangent there.

To be honest, I could probably see the argument for that in the Marvel films.

EG, I can't really recall what Pepper did in Iron Man 1. Arguably, Thor had better character moments with Selvig than Jane in Thor 1.

Sure, it doesn't work for every Marvel film - Peggy Carter I'd say would be essential for Cap 1. With Jane and Pepper having better roles in the sequels.

To be fair, neither MoS nor BvS are Nolan - both were written by Goyer, who apparently hates the fans. Unlike Snyder who is almost slavish in how he tries to bring iconic panels to life.

Natalie Portman is just a terrible actress
.

If you see a large Black Swan standing outside your doorway, I would advise running. Its pissed and may start throwing awards at you.

 Frazzled wrote:


If you see a large Black Swan standing outside your doorway, I would advise running. Its pissed and may start throwing awards at you.

You win the internet today!

The honor is to serve.

 Paradigm wrote:
Ra's isn't on him, that's fair enough. Neither's Bane or Joker. However, I'd say he definitely killed Two-face, he pitched him off a roof to save Gordon's son, and even if he didn't kill Talia (again fair enough), he definitely killed several drivers/gunners in that final chase sequence. Again, in character, as there was literally no alternative if he didn't want Gotham to get nuked

Ra’s death is totally on Batman. Choosing to leave Ra on the train as it was about to crash is no different to putting him on the train himself. Think about if that was an innocent – Batman would have saved him, taken him with him. Instead Batman chose to leave Ra there because he knew he was a bad dude. Batman passed judgement and sentenced the guy to death.

I don’t have a problem with a Batman that does that, it’s a reasonable and interesting interpretation of the character. But I hated that Batman Begins pretended that choosing not to save someone was somehow different to murder, and I’m surprised that a lot of people still make that argument today.

Man freely chooses to jump in shark infested waters with a large cut on his leg. Sharks start circling. You have access to both a gun and a rope. You don't have to kill the guy, but you also don't have to toss him the rope. Did you murder him? No. He put himself into that position of extreme danger. It's not your fault he made a life threatening decision. The gun could kill him, the rope could save him. Neither are a requirement for you to use. Choosing not to save someone who has made a very dangerous decision does not make you a murderer. Accomplice and assistant to suicide, maybe. But not a murderer.

 Paradigm wrote:
Except this is Superman. He's not going to put anyone else in danger, even if they're superhuman, even if that means sacrificing himself. WW might have had a chance, but she was barely holding her own against Doomsday, and at that particular point holding him in place with the Lasso anyway. Taking the spear, going straight for Doomsday despite knowing he's almost certainly going to die is the most Superman thing this Superman has done to date (not to mention one of the most tragic and painful scenes in history, actually hit me harder than watching Han die).

Right. He had the spear because he went to check on Lois. Diana had Doomsday momentarily immobilized, so he made his move to end it right there and not fool around with her trying to duel it to death. Because, again, time was of the essence. DD was growing stronger all the time, and as soon as it had an opening to make one leap into Metropolis, the city was going to die.

If the question is why was it written that way, it's because it's Superman and DD, and that story ends in death. And it'd be an awfully odd step toward JL and make a narrative with issues even more problematic if Diana shows up and just defeats the villain on her own. There are issues in the film, but this is the kind of stuff I file under "people looking for something to complain about."


Regarding the MCU, I think Tony has had quite a bit of character development...easily the most of any hero in that universe. Makes sense, since he's the best actor they have and the guy the whole thing was built on, really.

I don't think the MCU has done relationships particularly well, though. Since IM1, Tony and Pepper's relationship hasn't had much depth to it. Banter doesn't equal depth, although I often think that we have a generation of people who can't tell the difference. What would even be the #2 relationship in the MCU? Thor and Jane? Not much to that one either. They've turned Cap into a guy who can't get a date, even though he went through a series of steady girlfriends even after Sharon died. Obviously Marvel's formula works well for them, but exploring relationships in a deeper way isn't really part of the plan.

Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples and why IMO (and friends) it works so well - its like the whole Mr and Mrs Smith film - they worked brilliantly as a believable couple - in that case because they were.............

Other couples that work in MCU - Hawkeye and his wife, for a character that I did not see the point of before Avengers he is now one of my favourite. Hulk and Black Widow is bitter sweet in a doomed way, Happy with Thor / Jane even, but its not as good as Tony / Pepper.

Nolan simply does not do human relationships so they are always missing from his films, Lois and Clarke are pretty awkward in Man of Steel but getting better in Bat vs Sups. Can't recall a convincing human relationship in DCCU (or whatever its called) and they certainly don't explore them.

Batman is so dysfunctional he cant really have a relationship and this was explored in Burtons films - Michael Keaton was bang on in the first one with it.....the new Batman has in the words of awesome Martin Blank,

"No no no, I went the other road. You know... sports, sex, no real relationships with anyone"

MCU and Fox build their films around people most of the time - I always consider that was the point - they have a heart.

 Frazzled wrote:

Natalie Portman is just a terrible actress
.

If you see a large Black Swan standing outside your doorway, I would advise running. Its pissed and may start throwing awards at you.

That was a fethed up movie. But a good'un.