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.

 Vulcan wrote:
In the final analysis, the proof that Star Wars was NOT intended to end there was Vader's survival. The shot that killed the portside escort could just have easily hit Vader's ship instead, and there was no time for either of the others to line up the shot on Luke. This leaves the main villain of the piece dead and all the loose ends tied off.

But Vader survived, in a clear 'this isn't over yet!' moment.

I can see how one might overlook it. But it's a clear "Checkov's Gun" moment if you're at all familiar with moviemaking, or even just storytelling.

Still bummed, if not actually surprised, we didn't get a He-Man sequel!

MoS moving to BvS was cohesive, BvS expands on the themes and mood of MoS. In turn SS started with the same elements as a starting point, it actually expands the notion of a government floundering to regain some level of power in a world where superhumanly powerful beings suddenly appeared. But due to the extremely strong audience reaction against BvS they changed gear. They added the superfriends elements and a bunch more one-liners. Then they continued that with JL, stripping out any exploration of how the greater world reacts to the presence of super powered beings, and instead just tells a very small story of five heroes punching a villain.

But claiming that BvS made no attempt at world building is plainly wrong. It may not have been world building that you liked or were interested in, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Luthor's corruption of government looking for any answer to the thread of meta-humans, the exploration of Superman treated both in fear and adulation, the multiple scenes and sub-plots showing collateral damage from the Kryptonian fight, that was all stuff that explored how the greater world reacted to the arrival of super powered beings.

Corruption of government by big business is not eactly novel or world buidling and what very very little they did with this was ruined by the miscast of Luthor - who came across as pathetic joker wannabee and whose influence was as unlikely and badly portrayed as the acting. There was nothing to compare to the reaction in MCU with the UN Accords, instead it was a much more parochial depiciton with no real sense of what the rest of the world outside the US thought of the attempt to terraform the world which was far more devestating than anything that thus far happened in MCU.

I perfer a bit more than a single Senate hearing where the capering fool that is Lex blows it up.

A more ambitious film could have used the court scenes to actually examine the issues they raise briefly rather then discard it in favour of of more of Luthors idiot clown routine and his truely stupid plot.

Whether you prefer a film that looks at the greater world around the heroes, or a film that focuses in on the relationships between our group of heroes is not the point. Whether you prefer a darker, heavier tone, or a quicker, pacy film is also besides the point. What I explained was that DC started with one outlook, but after poor to middling returns they rapidly started making changes. Marvel has also made changes, but there is a big difference between trying new things from a position of success, and making changes from a position of failure.

Marvel does both, and better. - they have darkness and light in films, rather than just gloom - you need the light stuff to make the dark more effective. The DCU was failing becuase they were making bad films, Marvel, because in the main they made good films. They have now understood that they can't just make dark films about nothing and need to work a bit harder on what the filmis actually about - maybe the idiots who excreted the Last Jedi will do the same but I doubt it as they seem to blame any and all negativity on the audience.

You see simply people hitting each other - I see people being portrayed with a heart and soul - again something that was much less present in the Nolan films and their slavish descedants in MOS and BvS. Thankfully sanity has prevailed and WW and JL understand that audiances want more than paper thin plots and darkness.

Also both WW and JLA do lots of world building in the sense of the history of their universe, the gods, darkseid (or however you spell it), Amazons etc - you know the stuff that you need if you are going to make a coherent series about something other than ohh look how dark it is in Gotham. This stuff is also important if like me you know very little about the DCverse

Lets not forget that MoS was never meant to be the first movie in a cohesive universe. It was retroactively made that because DC was in a rush to catch up.

DCs plan was to have a justive league part 1 and part 2 back to back. Their first "plan" was to rush to darkseid before marvel could meander their way to thanos.

Except the slow build marvel has done is extremely important and efective. We have see these heroes and what they can do. When thanos shows up his actions will have all the more impact because of what we've seen before.

DC doesn't just have no fething idea what their doing, they are rushing to do it so quickly that everything that makes the mcu good has to be tossed to the wayside in that mad dash which sacrifices character developement, enemy impact, character motivation etc etc etc...

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

I feel that issues with Jonathan were more in the execution than the thinking.

It rings absolutely true to me that parents of a child like Clark would be terrified about the repercussions should people learn his secret. As a alien, would Clark even have civil rights? Although there's not much the Kents could do if the government came for Clark anyway. What would they do...take it public that they found a baby from space and the government took him away?

The scene after the bus accident is the issue IMO. But that could be fixed by changing just a few words.

"What was I supposed to do? Let them die?"
"I don't know. (beat) NO, OF COURSE NOT. But..."

I know the bridge scene sticks in a lot of people's craws, but to me the issue there is the contrivance and not with characterization.

Jonathan's desire for Clark to hide his abilities and keep a low profile also provides an interesting contrast with Jor-El, who wants him to to express them and lead. Ultimately this culminates in Clark honoring both fathers by adopting two identities. This point seems somewhat obvious to me, but it probably would have been clearer and stronger had it been underlined in Clark's ending voiceover.

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor isn't in Man of Steel.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.

And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.

I don't necessarily like all of Eisenberg's choices. I would have liked to have seen more of the 'cold' to make it more impactful when he ran 'hot'.

But I think at least part of the reaction to the performance is the limited range of live-action performances we've had of the character. Spacey basically did a more energetic version of Hackman's performance. In boots for some reason.

Luthor's been very different at different times in the comics, but in live action (and cartoons for that matter), he's been pretty static. I thought the concept of the young, brash Luthor might have been rooted in the 'Lex Luthor Jr.' run during the post-Crisis period. (Junior was later revealed to be old Lex in a fresh clone body after his original was riddled with Kryptonite-induced cancer.)

Anyway, the performance didn't seem to resonate. But no...Eisenberg most certainly didn't ruin Man of Steel.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.

And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.

Manic idtoic capering like a drunlen gorilla - check
Stupidity rather than intelligence - check
Schemes that make absolutely no sense - check

They did everything wrrong unless they wanted a cheap inferior version of the joker.

Hated very moment he was on screen

but hey different strokes.....

Edit: nvm

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 sebster wrote:

I think MoS was about as dark, but that might just come from how sociopathic I consider Jonothan Kent's advice to be.

Of all the critiques I've heard about MoS over the years, I generally find them overblown not because I liked the movie, but because NOTHING about it is as wrong and poorly thought out as Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent.

Nope - two words - Lex Luthor.

And how, pray tell, do you figure Lex Luthor was portrayed wrong? Ego? Check. Resources? Check. Intelligence? Check. Network of convoluted schemes? Check. Honestly the only thing they did "wrong" would be not making him bald from the start, and that wasn't a dealbreaker. I don't get a Joker vibe from his performance at all, I get a splash of frenetic mixed in with a traditional Luthor.

Manic idtoic capering like a drunlen gorilla - check
Stupidity rather than intelligence - check
Schemes that make absolutely no sense - check

They did everything wrrong unless they wanted a cheap inferior version of the joker.

Hated very moment he was on screen

but hey different strokes.....

Indeed, if you want to have a good idea of what Luthor is like, the DCAU portrayal of him via Clancy Brown is one of the definitive ones IMO.






Lord knows why they didn't bother casting Bryan Cranston in his place instead. Given his amazing role as Walter White, he's basically a shoe-in for what he should have been.

 gorgon wrote:
I don't necessarily like all of Eisenberg's choices. I would have liked to have seen more of the 'cold' to make it more impactful when he ran 'hot'.

I actually liked Eisenberg's Luther. It will make Luther more interesting upon his return IMO. It can make it so it can be attributed to him "learning" that his letting emotions run up in BvS is the wrong way to deal with Superman; he has to run cool and calculating.

Because let's face it, his schemes? They can be attributed more to emotion than anything else. He didn't have to go after Lois or Martha. He chose to do it to poke at Clark.

Man I thought Jesse Eisenberg was horrifically miscast as Lex Luthor and can't believe some of you guys enjoyed his performance. I thought the peach tea part was great but the rest of it was horrible.

It's all been downhill since Gene Hackman, IMO.

 Grimskul wrote:
Indeed, if you want to have a good idea of what Luthor is like, the DCAU portrayal of him via Clancy Brown is one of the definitive ones IMO.

I dunno. In the comics, Luthor's been an older genius scientist in a lab coat with hair, a younger bald genius scientist in a costume, a younger bald genius scientist in a battle suit, an older balding/bald cuththroat businessman, and a younger bald scientist/businessman/genius who sometimes wears a battle suit. He's been a childhood friend of Clark, and other times not. He's been motivated by greed at times, and by revenge at others. I struggle with calling anything 'definitive' when it comes to that character.

And the Hackman version doesn't bear any resemblence to any Luthor ever in any other medium, other than being bald. He's just a scheming professional criminal. Hackman was a great actor, but even as a kid I scratched my head wondering how that's Lex Luthor in any incarnation. That character would make a good Batman villain if it was a little more colorful.

I also thought it was unfortunate that the post-credits scene in JL had Eisenberg in a suit reminiscent of the Hackman character. That and the callback to the Williams theme was unnecessary pandering (in a movie that had a lot of it) and just made them look like they're out of ideas. I'd like to see Man of Steel 2, but I hope they don't go the route of Superman Returns with it. It's been 40 years and it's time to let that classic but very dated movie go IMO. Superman is much more than that film and its mediocre to terrible sequels.

If DC turned the Injustice comics into movies, I would watch them.

But, to answer the original question: The MCU doesn't turn on a person with god-like powers being sent to make Earth a better place. All of the MCU's characters have relatable flaws because there is no superman.

Dogma more or less covered it for me.

One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.

Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dogma more or less covered it for me.

One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.

Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

Isn't he a bit like Cap A - its what he is? A Hero. Despite his stepfathers advice in MOS.

I feel his challenge is what do you do if you are a god amongst mortals. He is in love with a mortal - what happens as she ages, what about when people start actually worshiping him - what does he do? How does he cope when he fails - as he does. There is plenty of stuff to examine as Marvel does with their characters.

Bats Vs Sups looked like it was going to exmaine some of this but instead kept lurching blindly into more pointless Loopy Lex nonsense - guess it was easier than putting some thought into the film. Sad waste really.

Dunno.

Captain America stands out because he started as a weedy kid, who felt it was his duty to stand up to the Nazis.

That’s a helluva motivation. He’d have done it, given the chance, Super Soldier Serum or no. There’s a heart to that character that Superman, who’s always been super, just can’t have.

I know this isn’t a universal thing, but think of how much of a bellend the kids at school that hit puberty were. First touch of bumfluff on the upper lip, and it’s time to find the smallest, weediest, least threatening kid you can to show the world just how hard you are as you and your mates give the poor sod a hard time.

Pa Kent aside, look at the world and culture Supes was brought up in. All about winning. All about machismo. Why didn’t that affect him? Why didn’t he turn out as an ‘all for your own good’ dictator?

It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something in his background. Being a Brit born in the 80’s, we weren’t well served for comic books when I was a kid, barring Beano and Dandy. But without that knowledge, I just can’t see Supes’ motivation for not trying to save humanity from itself by becoming Dictator For Life of the entire world.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dunno.

Captain America stands out because he started as a weedy kid, who felt it was his duty to stand up to the Nazis.

That’s a helluva motivation. He’d have done it, given the chance, Super Soldier Serum or no. There’s a heart to that character that Superman, who’s always been super, just can’t have.

I know this isn’t a universal thing, but think of how much of a bellend the kids at school that hit puberty were. First touch of bumfluff on the upper lip, and it’s time to find the smallest, weediest, least threatening kid you can to show the world just how hard you are as you and your mates give the poor sod a hard time.

Pa Kent aside, look at the world and culture Supes was brought up in. All about winning. All about machismo. Why didn’t that affect him? Why didn’t he turn out as an ‘all for your own good’ dictator?

It’s entirely possible I’ve missed something in his background. Being a Brit born in the 80’s, we weren’t well served for comic books when I was a kid, barring Beano and Dandy. But without that knowledge, I just can’t see Supes’ motivation for not trying to save humanity from itself by becoming Dictator For Life of the entire world.

Background effects people differently - I bet people at your school came out of it in all sorts of very different psycological shape? How did it affect you?

I think the whol Superman rules is an interesting angle and its been done before - and again it could have been addressed - in fact BvS seemed to start looking at with the whole alt realty/dream future thingy they hinted at where batman was the resistance? Sadly they didn;t examine it - Loopy Lex was more important....

He has huge power but he is not all knowing or all seeing. He could set up a network to do so - again be interesting to see. If he is unaging does he allow humnaity to devleop intechnology and spread beyond the Earth? Does he help them do so? MoS got a bit confused about if can use his powers outside the atmosphere or not but BvS suggests he can...if so he could be much more important with the space programme.

Man of Steels Kryption was very bizzare - it was verging on Flash Gordan madness in places.

There's a few variations on the theme, but the Injustice series is the ultimate answer to that (as well as just some of the best material DC has ever come out with). Superman suffers a tragedy, kills the perpetrator and realises that by doing that, he's stopped that individual taking dozens or hundreds more lives. And then he turns on Batman, because if Batman had made that same choice when he had the chance, none of this would have happened in the first place. Superman then sets about setting himself up as a dictator, for the good of the planet, throwing aside objectivity to use his (and his allies) powers to change the world, rather than just protect and save it.

As for why regular universe Superman doesn't do this? It's because he's a fundamentally good person. It's not like he's never considered it, of course he has and that's made clear, but he always stops short because he understands the difference between serving and ruling, saving and enslaving. This is probably a more recent thing, in the Silver Age Superman was the hero by default because in that era, the good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and the shades of grey weren't really explored until stuff like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns came along.

But more recently, DC have been working towards a more human Superman, first with the New 52 one who was a bit more down to earth and conflicted about his place in the world, and then with the Rebirth one who returns with a wife and son; Both of these incarnations have a very good reason not to go out and battle Darkseid or Braniac or Luthor, but they do it anyway because it's the right thing to do, and to me at least, that's a more heroic character than the old-school Superman who was the Big Blue Boyscout hero because the format demanded it.

MoS does the same thing, I think. No one is telling Clark that he has to go out and save the world, but of course he does because he's a hero.

 Paradigm wrote:
There's a few variations on the theme, but the Injustice series is the ultimate answer to that (as well as just some of the best material DC has ever come out with). Superman suffers a tragedy, kills the perpetrator and realises that by doing that, he's stopped that individual taking dozens or hundreds more lives. And then he turns on Batman, because if Batman had made that same choice when he had the chance, none of this would have happened in the first place. Superman then sets about setting himself up as a dictator, for the good of the planet, throwing aside objectivity to use his (and his allies) powers to change the world, rather than just protect and save it.

As for why regular universe Superman doesn't do this? It's because he's a fundamentally good person. It's not like he's never considered it, of course he has and that's made clear, but he always stops short because he understands the difference between serving and ruling, saving and enslaving. This is probably a more recent thing, in the Silver Age Superman was the hero by default because in that era, the good guys were good and the bad guys were bad and the shades of grey weren't really explored until stuff like Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns came along.

But more recently, DC have been working towards a more human Superman, first with the New 52 one who was a bit more down to earth and conflicted about his place in the world, and then with the Rebirth one who returns with a wife and son; Both of these incarnations have a very good reason not to go out and battle Darkseid or Braniac or Luthor, but they do it anyway because it's the right thing to do, and to me at least, that's a more heroic character than the old-school Superman who was the Big Blue Boyscout hero because the format demanded it.

MoS does the same thing, I think. No one is telling Clark that he has to go out and save the world, but of course he does because he's a hero.

Is the Injustice world better or worse than ours? Interesting to see how it compares to stories like Watchmen ec.

Oh, it's definitely worse, the whole moral of the story is that someone with as much power as Superman can be so easily corrupted if someone pushes the right buttons. It maybe starts out a bit better, crime is eradicated, the hungry are fed ect, but by the conclusion of the first story (5 years into Superman's reign) it's pretty much a dystopia.

Spoilers for the comic/video game


I'd say it's hard to compare to Watchmen as where Watchmen wants to say something specific about heroes and comic books as a form of storytelling, Injustice is a more traditional Elseworlds-type affair where the story is the thing. Change one event and watch how different the world becomes (in the regular universe, Superman doesn't take that first life, so none of this happens). It is a phenomenal story, definitely worth reading if you have the chance.

It's incredibly coherent in that you can definitely see all of these characters going the way they do under different circumstances. It's not just 'we've got Superman but he's evil', it's 'all of this is already inside these characters, but they're too strong to let it control them'.

Wonder Woman for instance sides with Superman and it's totally believable. Flash and Shazam go with him because up until that point, he's never been anything but an inspiration so if he's doing this, it must be for the best. If it's trying to make a point, it's that heroes aren't heroes by default, they're heroes because they choose to be, and that their principles aren't a given, they're something that must be striven towards.

Just a thought, because I want to join in on the conversation;

You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Just a thought, because I want to join in on the conversation;

You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.

Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.

So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again

Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Just a thought, because I want to join in on the conversation;

You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.

Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.

So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again

Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.

Interesting how you feel Cap A was average, when it is one of my favourites from the early films. Perhaps I just like the setting.

I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.

But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.

So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.

 Haighus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Just a thought, because I want to join in on the conversation;

You remember the comedic (I assume) Green Lantern movie starring Ryan Renalds that was a flop? Could that be the reason why D.C started their universe off as being so dark and miserable? They saw the fun movie flop after the serious Dark Knight trilogy was successful and thought right let’s go dark. That’s my theory anyway.

Maybe.... DC's Batman films were almost worshipped (overated IMO but thats beside the point) - so build on success would seem logical. Problem was that there is not that transfers to other characters and limited substance.

So Man of Steel flip flops throughout the from dark and serious to Space Ninjas riding their magic space dragons and then back to serous again

Marvel had some misteps as well - Cap A was a very average movie and the Hulk was worse.

Interesting how you feel Cap A was average, when it is one of my favourites from the early films. Perhaps I just like the setting.

I should say Average to me - I just didn;t find the villian at all interesting or convincing but you might have found the opposite.

One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films,

Interesting as my firends and I enjoyed the Mummy much more than MoS or BvS - biut then we also enjoyed the Dracula one.

One of us loves the post credit things - two of us can't be bothered to wait, sadly he usually drives - worst one was seeing Loopy Lex shamble back into the DCU :(

 ScarletRose wrote:
I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.

But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.

So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.

Problem with Tom Cruise’s Mummy was.....Tom Cruise. He basically plays an utterly unlikeable dill weed who constantly screws stuff up, putting lives in danger.

He’s got no charm, so doesn’t work as an antihero. He’s just a massive, massive arse.

The setting up other movies? Bit heavy handed, but perhaps needed as an intro to a darker world.

I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.

Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.