Originally Posted by The Batman
I love how people like Batmannerism criticize me for "Slagging off fan opinions", but people get to tell me "I hope you don't seriously believe that". I don't lose any cred saying my opinion, especially if you're the one deciding what's credible to say. You, like me, are an internet fanboy giving an opinion at the end of the day. You're no specialist and neither am I.
That's true, you don't lose any cred expressing your opinion. I have
said a bunch of times that I actually respect your opinion, and there
are a few things that we agree on re STM vs MOS. Also, I think you're right about Dark Knight transcending the genre -which it certainly did
in it's appeal to the wider public.
What does lose you credibility is when you make statements like the one above.
You're absolutely right, I've asked you not to slag off people's opinions,
but the person who's criticizing yours, isn't me.
That's kind of like getting hit with a snowball by person A, and complaining that person b's telling people not to throw snowballs. There's a certain lack of logic there.
But let's move on.
I think you may very well be right that Snyder's contribution to Superman movies, might be best remembered for putting Supes and Bats together in one movie - now that hasn't been done before (not live action anyway). (of course, as an MOS fan, for me it'll be Snyder's work on MOS, but I can accept that that sentiment isn't universal)
Putting the two together is bold, but I think also has a lot of potential to go wrong. Although having said that, they have MOS to draw on as a basis for comparison, but also to learn from:
a) MOS broke some ground with the public, so that people will have some idea of what to expect from BM/SM, in terms of its tone. As such, people won't compare it to STM (because I still believe a lot of critics based their views of what Superman on film should be like, based on STM).
Instead, people will compare BM/SM to MOS, which can only help it.
(In hindsight, Iron Man 2 wasn't probably that bad, but in comparison to Iron Man, which was amazing, it sucked, IMO.
I guess that cuts two ways, I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness more than Star Trek, and Thor The DArk World, more than Thor, but there are plenty of folks who see it the other way.
Some have claimed critics didn't compare the two films, or found MOS wanting because it wasn't like MOS - I'm not convinced, partially because going into MOS, I based my own views around what Superman on film should be like on STM, which suggests that others might too- although I doubt they'd be as biased as me.
But, also many reviews refer to STM and the Donner films in passing, so you know its in the back of their minds.
b) Perhaps, having learned from MOS, some subtle adjustments might be made that can make BM/SM both a wider success but also keep faith with the fans (as there are plenty of people on this forum who think it was an amazing film as it is, myself included). There are a bunch of subtle differences between Batman Begins (which was a good movie) and Dark Knight (which was a great movie), clearly Nolan learned something and made some adjustments. I haven't heard many Batman fans say
that Batman Begins was a better film (although I'm sure there are some that feel that way, more power to them).
So I think it is possible to make the next appearance of Superman a stunning success (maybe even in the same order as Avengers or Dark Knight, in terms of public reception), will it ever reach the status of STM ?
hmmmmm I'll wait till I see it, but that's a pretty enormous ask. Still, if I enjoy it as much as MOS, then really it doesn't matter.
peace out super-fans !