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.

 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

This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.

 Paradigm wrote:
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)

Not entirely sure what reviews you're reading, as almost all of them say that you won't know which side to take, and that people going in firmly on one side are either being swayed to the other or coming out unsure.

Civil War the comics boiled down to Cap = Right and Tony = Moustache-twirling villain. The same is not true with the Civil War film.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.

Indeed and in a more realistic manner - in the MCU we have Shield and other Government organisations formed and jockeying for position as supers arise. We have committee hearing with national governments and the UN - all sorts of consequences

Fox's X Men is all about what happens when you have people with powers in the world - from the reaction of the man in the street to the world powers

DC has what? A couple of senate hearings..........I wish people would not keep pretending that DC films are somehow so much deeper than other comic based films, despite all the evidence to the contrary - making something a bit darker does not mean deeper.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.

 Paradigm wrote:
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)

Not entirely sure what reviews you're reading, as almost all of them say that you won't know which side to take, and that people going in firmly on one side are either being swayed to the other or coming out unsure.

Civil War the comics boiled down to Cap = Right and Tony = Moustache-twirling villain. The same is not true with the Civil War film.

Hence why I said 'in most cases'. Civil War obviously brings it all to a head, but it's taken a dozen movies to confront the issue, whereas DC are leading with it and setting the whole tone of their universe around it. I'm not saying one approach is inherently better than the other, just that DC's more 'serious' and 'grounded' direction is no bad thing and makes perfect sense.

I've only seen one or two CW reviews, and only briefly scanned them as I generally try to avoid reviews and spoilers... I'll be pleased, but very surprised, if it can achieve the same balance that BvS did.

Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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

This is a major part of Civil War. Marvel aren't ignoring that. They're dealing with it head on.

Indeed and in a more realistic manner - in the MCU we have Shield and other Government organisations formed and jockeying for position as supers arise. We have committee hearing with national governments and the UN - all sorts of consequences

Fox's X Men is all about what happens when you have people with powers in the world - from the reaction of the man in the street to the world powers

DC has what? A couple of senate hearings..........I wish people would not keep pretending that DC films are somehow so much deeper than other comic based films, despite all the evidence to the contrary - making something a bit darker does not mean deeper.

'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, most of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case.

I haven't seen MOS, but BVS has only the illusion of depth. Sure, the writer was groping blindly for deeper meaning, but like in Prometheus, failed to develop any of it. At best, BVS is Blair Witching the depth, hinting at it but never actually delivering.

'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, mos of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case

.

Having watched all these films - i am interested in what the actual reality of the this elusive "Deepness" of the DC films is - All three comic based film universes have great characters, massive battles and destruction, but I can't recall anything specific in the recent DC films that shows a special attention to any of the aspects you are looking at or are sure that DC specifcally address so much more than the others?

So in terms of the impact of powered indivduals on society - all of them want to use the modern world as their backdrop so they can't mess with it too much - but both Fox and Marvel have had the full blown reponses to the "threats", which the latter alos follows through more in Agents of Shield (now its actually grown up a bit)

DC - not so much - look at Bats vs Sups - we have a bit of concern in the Senate (as usual in DC they ignore the rest of the world) about Sups and what he can do - but its all vague and unfocussed. In contrast Marvel has the Shield / Hydra plotlines, Senate and UN investigations, the first Avengers film being an alterntive to the build a huge arsenel response. Fox has the Sentinals front and centre and the consequences to everyone of the varied response to mutants. We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.

What am I missing in the recent DC films that you are seeing?

 Mr Morden wrote:

'Evidence' here meaning opinions. I could cite as many scenes in MoS and BvS to suggest they have more depth than Marvel's offerings as you could to suggest otherwise, mos of the time we'd probably even be talking about the same scenes. There's no right or wrong here, and I'm not saying there is, but equally, that means I'm not 'pretending' DC make deeper films, I genuinely believe that to be the case

.

Having watched all these films - i am interested in what the actual reality of the this elusive "Deepness" of the DC films is - All three comic based film universes have great characters, massive battles and destruction, but I can't recall anything specific in the recent DC films that shows a special attention to any of the aspects you are looking at or are sure that DC specifcally address so much more than the others?

So in terms of the impact of powered indivduals on society - all of them want to use the modern world as their backdrop so they can't mess with it too much - but both Fox and Marvel have had the full blown reponses to the "threats", which the latter alos follows through more in Agents of Shield (now its actually grown up a bit)

DC - not so much - look at Bats vs Sups - we have a bit of concern in the Senate (as usual in DC they ignore the rest of the world) about Sups and what he can do - but its all vague and unfocussed. In contrast Marvel has the Shield / Hydra plotlines, Senate and UN investigations, the first Avengers film being an alterntive to the build a huge arsenel response. Fox has the Sentinals front and centre and the consequences to everyone of the varied response to mutants. We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.

What am I missing in the recent DC films that you are seeing?

One of the major things that sticks out to me is how much more time DC spends on its characters out of costume, you can see this a lot in the Dark Knight trilogy (Dark Knight has something like 20 minutes of actual Batman) and equally in BvS and MoS (in the latter, the first hour or so doesn't even have Clark as Superman at all). They seem to spend a lot more time setting up their arcs, their motivations, their internal struggles than Marvel's films do. Iron Man aside, all the MCU films are far more about the costumed persona than the character under that mask, and as I've said so many times before, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever! The DC films have the characters themselves inform the actions of their costumed counterparts, Marvel reverse this and have the superheroic events influence their 'regular guy' alter-egos.

Case in point; Batman makes the decision to take on Superman because he sees, as Bruce Wayne, the damage that Supes does and has the potential to do. Conversely, Tony Stark build Ultron because of what has happened while he is Avenging as Iron Man.

To address your points about reactions, I think you're perhaps being a little unfair in comparing what Marvel has done with 8 years worth of movies and TV shows with what DC's current universe has had 2 films to deal with. 'A bit of concern in the Senate' is all they've had time for thus far, and even then, it is central to the narrative in a way that Marvel's references to it mostly haven't been. There will be more in future, of course; Suicide Squad will introduce ARGUS, basically DC's answer to SHIELD, and I'm sure the debate will continue in the wake of the destruction caused in BvS... it's pivotal to Luthor's character, and there's a whole load of other characters that can tie into this as well. Amanda Waller we're getting in Suicide Squad, but they could just as easily bring in someone like Maxwell Lord or Gordon Godfrey down the line to take it further. This theme isn't going to go away any time soon, it's a huge part of the setting this new universe is taking place in. Give it time.

'We don't get any feeling as to what people believe about Batman in BvS at all - he is just that guy in Gotham.'... apart from the way the cops at the start speak about him like some kind of terrifying legend, the press attention he gets/doesn't get, the fear over his new, more violent methods. It's all there, even if it's not centre stage, and it'll absolutely feature more in the upcoming Batman movie.

Finally, I'd mention the directing, writing and acting that contribute to this a lot. To take some examples from BvS, the scene with Bruce and Alfred in the ruins of Wayne Manor... it gives insight into the character very indirectly, it is a scene where 'nothing happens' but you can read into it a huge amount about Alfred, about Bruce, about their relationship, their motivations, their history. The same can be said for the scene in which Clark returns to Smallville to talk to Martha before the senate hearing... Little scenes like that that are slow, quiet, just a few minutes in a two and a half hour film, all add a great deal. Marvel's films do have those character moments, but not nearly so frequently or powerfully.


I don't expect any of this to change anyone's mind, just as no-one will change mine, I'm just trying to illustrate where I'm coming from here. You probably interpret all these things entirely differently, which it totally fair enough.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works - its something that is missing from many on screen couples.

This. RDJ and GP are just a delight to watch on screen together. IM is actually a far better character when he's with her in some way, than when he's without her. Even from afar:


The nuke scene works so amazingly because the instant before it happens, Marvel shrinks the scale down 1:1 to Tony and Pepper, with a call that doesn't go through... Just think about those 5 seconds, and what they do to the film, where they put the viewer right before the payoff... Pepper isn't some random person he's calling. We know exactly why he's calling, and we know exactly why Jarvis started the call. And the reason it works is because Marvel spent 4 hours on screen building up that relationship.

Now, where is that emotional, personal core in BvS? Or MoS? Or Nolan's work?

Oh, that's an easy one! The closest and most relevant comparison to be drawn here is between that scene and the moment at which Clark picks up the spear, turns to Lois and says 'I have to. This is my world'. The most tragic, heartbreaking and moving line the the whole film, you know exactly what comes next and you can only watch on in horror as he makes the ultimate sacrifice for the people and the planet he loves.

Stark's call is sad, Superman's sacrifice almost moved me to tears or had me yelling 'noooooooo!' at the cinema screen.

Except, he didn't, and it's WW's & Bat's world too...

I'm not sure what you're saying there?

The fact he's coming back doesn't make his death any less tragic (if it does to you, why doesn't the fact Stark survives have the same effect on that scene?). And the line 'it's my world' is a callback to a line earlier in the film about how this isn't his world, which is why it's relevant. Besides, Bats and WW are both from Earth, so that doesn't really factor in to a line about Superman choosing to sacrifice himself for a world he has chosen as his home despite the hostility with which it has treated him.

 Paradigm wrote:
the hostility with which it has treated him.

Yeah, they were all so hostile to Space Jesus...


The only really hostile guys were Crazy Steve and Goofball Luke.

Oh, and the hundreds of people outside the senate waving 'Go home, Superman' placards, the US military that do their utmost to treat him like a threat for most of MoS, the people who came to hate him the wake of the Metropolis incident. Wayne and Luthor were the high-profile cases, but there is plenty of anger and hostility towards him throughout the films. Acceptance, too, in some places, but more than enough ill treatment that his sacrifice is selfless when even his adoptive mother is telling him he doesn't owe Earth and humanity anything.

 Mr Morden wrote:
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.

Look, I'm not coming at this point from a DC vs. Marvel perspective. We haven't seen enough of the DC films to know if they're really going to delve into the personal relationships of their heroes in anything other than a superficial way. They probably won't, other than *maybe* Clark and Lois. Steve Trevor obviously isn't even going to make it into the 21st century unless the gods somehow intervene. This Bruce is married to Gotham.

But if you think a few throwaway lines of banter per movie constitutes a thoughtful portrayal of a relationship or makes a relationship an important part of the movie, we'll just have to agree to disagree like we do on about 18,562 other things. I mean, Hawkeye and his wife? How is that actually developed beyond revealing that he *has* a wife and some short exchanges between the two of them? In comparison, the Rachel character and her relationship with Bruce are far more important in Nolan's TDK -- but again, note that isn't part of the DCEU before this turns into a DC vs. Marvel thing. Personally, I think this suggests that these "universe" films don't have much room for that stuff -- when the heroes aren't smashing, there's universe-building to do -- and that it'd likely receive a better, richer treatment in standalone films containing more room to breathe.

@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them. Call it a heartfelt moment, but it doesn't add or build or enrich our understanding of their relationship, or make it important to the story. You could go back make Pepper disappear from the MCU and it wouldn't miss a beat. Neither would Tony. Give Happy a little more screen time for when Tony needs to banter with someone and it'd be fine.

Steve Trevor will be in the modern day WW stuff and Justice League, the version in WW1 is apparently his grandfather, though still played by Chris Pine.

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works

@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them.

Many good scenes don't require conversation, or for the actors to even be in the same air. The best scene in the new Star Wars movies has Anakin and Padme on different plants...

But it's not surprising that you don't understand chemistry. I bet you think that the couple in 50 Shades were good together.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

But it's not surprising that you don't understand chemistry. I bet you think that the couple in 50 Shades were good together.

This really seems uncalled for.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tony and Pepper have chemistry - that's why the banter works

@John -- that scene doesn't even involve a conversation between the two of them.

Many good scenes don't require conversation, or for the actors to even be in the same air. The best scene in the new Star Wars movies has Anakin and Padme on different plants...

But it's not surprising that you don't understand chemistry. I bet you think that the couple in 50 Shades were good together.

I'm not familiar with that work in any medium beyond that it's Twilight fan fiction. Apparently that's more your style than mine, so please feel free to explain the comment further. Is it that you were a fan who felt let down by the casting?

I think we're done here now TBH.