Iron Man 3 vs Man Of Steel

[Tacit Ronin]

Avengers was made for kids, TDKR was the better film for adults.

Hilarious.

Avengers made so much because of the kids. Avengers won the box office, TDKR won the critics

Avengers made so much because it appealed to both kids and adults. You don't make one and a half billion on kids alone. and Avengers won critically as well. IMDB collects general moviegoer consensus, not critical consensus.

Actually, Avengers is an action movie, TDKR is a drama.

They are both action movies. Watch an actual drama, then may you know that TDKR isn't a drama.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Hilarious.

They are both action movies. Watch an actual drama, then may you know that TDKR isn't a drama.

They are. They've got a completely different style and tone, but still are action movies.

And the discussion about The Avengers vs The Dark Knight Rises is why this thread doesn't really have a reason to exist yet: Man of Steel has still to be released.

With that being said, Iron Man 3 was a stroke of genius (and as un-"Marvel Studio"-y as it could be, it has Shane Black written all over it), and while Man of Steel is looking good, I have yet to be convinced that this movie can be better. At the moment I'm kinda torn about it. I'm confident that with Nolan producing and David Goyer (who's hit or miss, but has better movies under his belt as a writer) on board to write, this could be interesting, but at the same time find that Zack Snyder has been style over substance, and has been struggling with story and characters so far. I agree with the user who said that the characters in his movies feel like they're in a vacuum; it's almost like every character has his/her own personal bubble he/she lives in, instead of having the space to breathe inside the story, and interacting with other characters in a sincere and organic way. We'll see. I've talked to a guy who works at Warners (in the technical department), who too thinks that Snyder's been style over substance so far, but he also told me that he faired better here under the discipline of Nolan. I can only hope it'll be as good as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Favreau's original Iron Man and Black's entry (just citing recent comic book adaptations).

P.S.: IMHO there's no such thing as one movie "winning" over another; come on... The Avengers has both outgrossed and has a higher RT percentage than The Dark Knight Rises and (presumably) Iron Man 3. Yet I didn't enjoy Whedon's movie as much as the other two. Does that mean I'm on "the loser's side" and STFU when talking movies? Hell nah...

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

Hilarious.

Indeed it is. As far as I'm concerned, if you have to resort to being dismissive about a film by saying that it's for kids, then you don't have an argument. As for so-called kids movies, I don't personally know many adults, from those in their 20s to those well into their 60s who wouldn't regard The Lion King as a contemporary classic. Is it a kids movie? You bet. Pixar is another example. They're quite possibly the most consistent big budget studio in Hollywood in the last 20 years or so; they've rarely made a bad film. When I hear people try and frame an argument in this manner, so as to suggest that kids movies are in some way beneath them, it reeks of a rather juvenile elitism. I can't take it seriously.

In any case, the Marvel films all tend to lend themselves to cheap shots pretty easily, but all of that nonsense is provably untrue at one level or another. We've all heard(and made) the same jabs before, with the two most commong being 'it's for kids!' & 'it's a campy, cheesy comedy!'

Already touched on the former, but a couple of things regarding the latter. First of all, I notice that it's becoming more common for people to dismiss any and all humor that they simply don't enjoy as being camp or cheese. That's foolishness. Camp, when done well(like all things), is hysterically funny. I have to wonder if these folks who dismiss camp have ever seen films from the Bill & Ted, Porky's, Police Academy, or...Evil Dead franchises. That being said, humor you don't like isn't necessarily camp. Call it bad, call it lame, call it boring, but don't call it camp if that's not what it is.

My last point is heavy on generalization, so bear with me(or not)

Seriousness and 'maturity' are another one of the criticisms I see getting tossed around as of late, and it suggests to me that people are beginning to fall in love with the tone of certain movies more than subject matter itself. I won't bother to list them; I'm not looking to open up that can of worms, but far too many light-hearted, humorous, or 'feel-good' films have a certain prejudice levied against them, as if they are in a class below movies filled with angst, bleak moods, pathos, and dire circumstances. When I think of a movie like Bridesmaids, IMO it's a very clever, well written and intelligent comedy that's throughly entertaining...but even with the positive reception, I don't see it being revered as a great film in the long run due to this very prejudice. A far cry from a CBM, but just an example. /rant

[Anno_Domini]

I wouldn't say Avengers was a film just for kids. Only that it was a far inferior film to TDKR

[Visualiza]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I wouldn't say Avengers was a film just for kids. Only that it was a far inferior film to TDKR

And that's a perfectly fair thing to say; at the end of the day it's all a matter of preference. I just think that when people start trying to poison the well, that's when their reasoning seems contrived.

[Slushy]

Superman will not be a success again.

[king666]

Originally Posted by CaptainStacy

Oh no, it got resolved. Avengers kicked the snot out of DKR.

Both movies are fine. TDKR was an entertaining mess and Avengers was fun, but nothing spetacular.

Man of Steel looks like a good movie. I hope it is as good as it seems to be.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Slushy

Superman will not be a success again.

What if Man of Steel became something other than what society intended? What if Man of Steel aspired to something greater and achieved that goal?

[Spider-Fan]

Marvel vs DC debate is fine guys, but do so without provoking the other posters. You can debate without insulting people. Please keep conduct this thread in a civil manner. Thank you.

[ThePowerCosmic]

[Tacit Ronin]

If being a movie that entertains kids is automatically of less importance and standing, then you might as well discredit Steven Spielberg's 70's and 80's work. But thankfully almost all of us see the fallacious logic in that perception. Making a movie that is accessible to kids takes as much as craft as making 'adult' movies. Nor is 'art' diminished by making kiddie movies. Pixar being the ultimate example. "The Incredibles", a so called "kid's movie" is better than 99% live action comic book movies ever made.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

If being a movie that entertains kids is automatically of less importance and standing, then you might as well discredit Steven Spielberg's 70's and 80's work. But thankfully almost all of us see the fallacious logic in that perception. Making a movie that is accessible to kids takes as much as craft as making 'adult' movies. Nor is 'art' diminished by making kiddie movies. Pixar being the ultimate example. "The Incredibles", a so called "kid's movie" is better than 99% live action comic book movies ever made.

I agree

[Snow Queen]

EDIT: Removing this in case it's qualifying as provoking. Not my intentions.

[Spider-Fan]

Once again, I can't believe I need to post this a second time. No provoking the other posters means NO PROVOKING THE OTHER POSTERS!!!!! I am now handing out awards. Next time I hand out time off. Thank you.

[The Batman]

I wouldnt exactly brag about Avengers 'beating' TDKR, considering the circumstances.

[C. Lee]

These threads.....so intellectually stimulating.....

My daddy can beat up your daddy.

No...my daddy can beat up your daddy.

Your daddy is a big doo doo head.

No....your daddy is a big doo doo head.

Your daddy is a stinky skunk.

No....your daddy is a stinky skunk.

[smallville fan]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

I'm curious what makes The Dark Knight Trilogy (TDKT from here on out) a thing of the past in your eyes now. Man of Steel is continuing what TDKT started, not moving away from it. Of course, MOS incorporates powers (it's Superman it's not like you can avoid them) but, unlike Marvel's films bar perhaps Iron Man, it looks to be diving into the hero's psyche, much like TDKT. So, I'm curious, what is it to you that makes MOS a stepping stone away from TDKT? Is it powers? Since those are unavoidable in a Superman movie but unnecessary for Batman. I'm sorry, that's all I can really think of. Man of Steel looks to continue TDKT's dramatic storytelling and is more of continuing what TDKT started rather than going a different direction.

What I meant was the fact that DC's cinematic heroes are no longer isolated from each other. They are going to follow what Marvel historically started from now on in the future. For so many years, especially from 2000-2008 we had too many standalone superhero movies each in their own continuities, I always wished that "wouldn't it be great if they were all together in a single movie continuity? " Now my wish came true. We now live in a world where it could be possible that Hulk could wrestle with The Thing or Wolverine could fight alongside Captain America in WW2 or Spider-Man saying hi to Nick Fury (for all that to happen Marvel needs to make unrefusable offers to Fox/Sony). Bottom line is a shared world is possible and I love it and I'm not afraid to yell it out.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Excelsior.

If being a movie that entertains kids is automatically of less importance and standing, then you might as well discredit Steven Spielberg's 70's and 80's work. But thankfully almost all of us see the fallacious logic in that perception. Making a movie that is accessible to kids takes as much as craft as making 'adult' movies. Nor is 'art' diminished by making kiddie movies. Pixar being the ultimate example. "The Incredibles", a so called "kid's movie" is better than 99% live action comic book movies ever made.

The idea is a bit silly, imo, to say Avengers is a "movie for kids" or a "children's film".

Originally Posted by The Batman

I wouldnt exactly brag about Avengers 'beating' TDKR, considering the circumstances.

The theatre shooting?

[Snow Queen]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

What I meant was the fact that DC's cinematic heroes are no longer isolated from each other. They are going to follow what Marvel historically started from now on in the future. For so many years, especially from 2000-2008 we had too many standalone superhero movies each in their own continuities, I always wished that "wouldn't it be great if they were all together in a single movie continuity? " Now my wish came true. We now live in a world where it could be possible that Hulk could wrestle with The Thing or Wolverine could fight alongside Captain America in WW2 or Spider-Man saying hi to Nick Fury (for all that to happen Marvel needs to make unrefusable offers to Fox/Sony). Bottom line is a shared world is possible and I love it and I'm not afraid to yell it out.

Fair enough. I personally don't mind it for Marvel but I'm going to hate it with DC if they do it. I feel the characters DC has access to are able to have far more compelling stories if they focused on just giving one hero at a time a great trilogy (or 4 or 5 or 6 part series, whatever) rather than having a Justice League film that is probably going to end up rushed.

......but I'll still go see it at midnight since I'm weak.

But, yeah, to each their own on that.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

These threads.....so intellectually stimulating.....

My daddy can beat up your daddy.

That really is what it sounds like sometimes.

[Anno_Domini]

Let's be honest, if someone's daddy was Superman...he could actually beat up someone else's daddy, lol.

[Shikamaru]

Originally Posted by smallville fan

What I meant was the fact that DC's cinematic heroes are no longer isolated from each other. They are going to follow what Marvel historically started from now on in the future. For so many years, especially from 2000-2008 we had too many standalone superhero movies each in their own continuities, I always wished that "wouldn't it be great if they were all together in a single movie continuity? " Now my wish came true. We now live in a world where it could be possible that Hulk could wrestle with The Thing or Wolverine could fight alongside Captain America in WW2 or Spider-Man saying hi to Nick Fury (for all that to happen Marvel needs to make unrefusable offers to Fox/Sony). Bottom line is a shared world is possible and I love it and I'm not afraid to yell it out.

You're going by the assumption that TDKT will definitely not be in the same universe as MOS. We don't know yet if WB will bring back Nolan's Batman to just capitalize off of him or if they will have enough decency and respect for Nolan and the fans to not do that and just reboot. Hopefully they'll go for the latter but we shouldn't to a conclusion so soon. Chances are that they may in fact ruin your dream by shoehorning in a version of Batman that doesn't fully fit in naturally.

Also, I don't think it is fair to count and criticize the Nolan films as a thing of the past just because they will presumably not be in the shared universe. The thing is that the "heart" or "spirit" or "legacy" of the Nolan films or whatever you wanna call it will live on with the shared universe. I explain in further detail what I mean by this over here:
http://forums.superherohype.com/show...&postcount=246

[Anno_Domini]

I sorta blame Marvel Studios with the idea that the product should all be in an expanded universe simply because I am in the biased view that believes a hero doesn't need to be part of an universe when they have a rogue gallery large enough that the respective superhero can be on his own. Batman, Superman and Spider-Man can be on their own and should be.

The ironic thing is that...Nolan didn't use that potential with Batman when we only get eight villains in his trilogy(counting Falcone and Maroni and not Catwoman).

[Shikamaru]

They don't need to be in a shared universe but it is a nice bonus .

From the way I see it, the proper way to do a shared universe is by focusing on each individual superhero and his/her part of the universe with no sort of Avengers or Justice League setups whatsoever. The solo movies should come first and be their own stories while the big superhero team-up should be the big bonus at the end if all of the solo films are successful.

I blame Marvel for creating the idea that you can't have a shared universe with self-contained stories and that shared universes somehow limit originality. This is false. A shared universe simply means these stories exist in the same universe. There is no reason why you can't have a Batman or Superman movie that focuses just on their respective side of the DC mythos but still take place in the same universe. Technically speaking, all 3 stories that occurred in the Nolan films could have occurred in a shared universe (and I'm talking about just the stories here - I'm ignoring the realism). You wouldn't really have to do any major changes other than discarding the 8 year gap and the ending of TDKR.

I really hope WB realizes this and doesn't just turn all their solo films into JL setups. They will have a far superior universe to Marvel's if they put the solos before JL, let them tell a whole story as opposed to turning them into JL promos, and then have the big JL film as the big bonus at the end.