BvS All Things Superman and Batman: An Open Discussion - - - - Part 94

[STARMAN]

There's nothing wrong with critical analysis. I just think some of these websites now do it because it's en vogue. Not referring to the last article but in general. There's nothing easier than writing critical articles full of cynicism, snarky asides, and over the top critiques finding faults with even the most obscure plot devices. I would take these writers at face value if I wasn't so sure they would be sitting alongside us opening week for BvS with their wallets open for a film they are confident is a failure.

 

[SpideyFan866]

No, it isn't. It's exactly the same as all the other articles pre-judging a film that, not only has not been filmed yet, but we know almost nothing about it. It's one thing to be skeptical. It's entirely another thing to project your bias onto something.

On the flip side, the very fact that so many of these articles exist, only shows how threatened all the haters are by the existence of this movie.

Agreed with all of this.


It has become painfully obvious that most of these article writers have a shameless bias towards Marvel films. Specifically Marvel Studios.

And whenever DC is mentioned in the equation, people are quicker tk bash it, than defend it. And, will point out what the Warners/DC films have done wrong, than what theyve done right.

 

[zryson]

There's nothing wrong with critical analysis. I just think some of these websites now do it because it's en vogue. Not referring to the last article but in general. There's nothing easier than writing critical articles full of cynicism, snarky asides, and over the top critiques finding faults with even the most obscure plot devices. I would take these writers at face value if I wasn't so sure they would be sitting alongside us opening week for BvS with their wallets open for a film they are confident is a failure.

Before the web people regularly reviewed things to come via fanzines, newspapers or even magazines. All that has really changed is that some people are more overtly aggressive these days when people dare put forth an opinion which is different to their own. But there is a lot of rage in some people. Maybe its the culture, maybe society? Who knows.

 

[SpideyFan866]

I feel that, if Warners/DC is successful with Shazam, Aquaman, and BvS, the idea that people have of what makes a good cbm is gonna be turned on its head.

Because currently, its baffling how a film like Hulk (which, despite not being an ideal Hulk film, is very well acted, wonderfully directed, and damn faithful to the comics) and Watchmen (which is just epic filmmaking from beginning to end) can be called some of the worst and/or lackluster cbms of all time, while a film like Thor can be praised as one of the best.

That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Before the web people regularly reviewed things to come via fanzines, newspapers or even magazines. All that has really changed is that some people are more overtly aggressive these days when people dare put forth an opinion which is different to their own. But there is a lot of rage in some people. Maybe its the culture, maybe society? Who knows.

Yes, but the word "review" refers to critiquing something you've actually seen. I have no problem with other people's opinions if there's a basis for them.

 

[zryson]

I feel that, if Warners/DC is successful with Shazam, Aquaman, and BvS, the idea that people have of what makes a good cbm is gonna be turned on its head.

Actually what defines a superhero movie/a good cbm is already happening, and that film is GOTG. Its showed that yes, you can succeed with D-list characters and transform them into A-list. It also shows you dont have to bow to the conventional wisdom when it comes how to make a superhero movie.

 

[STARMAN]

Copying the ingredients from GOTG and applying them directly to another CBM is just as misguided as doing it with the TDK.

 

[zryson]

Copying the ingredients from GOTG and applying them directly to another CBM is just as misguided as doing it with the TDK.

In the wake of disappointing box office competing studios are bound to try but what GOTG showcased was that you dont have to play by the traditional methods when it comes to crafting these movies. There is also a reason why the movie continues to be number one and why people keep flocking back to see it time and again, its just a fun movie. And moving forward, with so many superhero movies scheduled in the years to come, its refreshing to see something decidedly different, which separates itself from the pack.

 

[Tv's Phil]

I think the big turning point for CBM will be when they start playing around with the tropes and standard concepts of the genre until "comic book movie" doesn't just mean another blockbuster movie.
I think that's why The Dark Knight made such an impact.
It showed that superheroes could be a part of serious filmmaking and not just spectacles.
The same can be said for movies based on video games. They need their Renaissance.

Obviously I'm speaking more from the critical side and I can't be sure if my history is correct. But my general point still stands.
It's specifically why I'm ready for WB to get back into the genre. Sure, I'm biased but it's more about the competition driving directors to try different things with superheroes. In other words, Marvel has their uniform process that gives them a unified world of cinematic characters despite different directors. That's great and it's worked. But you may not see their characters done in a more unique style.
I'm sooo ready to see Snyder's version of these characters and what approach they'll take because I KNOW it'll be different. Not everyone will like it but the variety will have expanded.

Then down the road we could see more unique superhero films. Like a more noir Batman or a 4th wall breaking Deadpool movie.
The potential is exciting.

 

[dhandler01]

Yeah you cant just copy what GOTG did because most characters couldnt work in a cheese filled movie like that. That isnt an insult as I have said previously GOTG was really the only Marvel movie I enjoyed and would see again. Even GOTG 2 will have trouble mimicking the charm and hilarity of GOTG it was a perfect mixture and a great origin.

The only DC property that should be like that is Shazam as the character has always had high levels of cheese and fun. Shazam should be its own beast and while it shouldnt be separate from the DCCU (like GOTG is a part of the MCU) it should also be outside those movies. Shazam's world should be about wonder and fun and amazement. It should be written as though through the eye of a kid. If done right it could be a great all ages film.

As for the rest of the DCCU let it evolve on its own. Dont ape what others do make your movies and let the characters grow in their own way. Let the fanboys worry about the nitpicky stuff and let the clickbaiters write their articles. Just because they rip or love a movie shouldnt make a difference anyways if you enjoy your experience seeing the film.

Just my unasked for $.02.

 

[Wise]

I think the big turning point for CBM will be when they start playing around with the tropes and standard concepts of the genre until "comic book movie" doesn't just mean another blockbuster movie.
I think that's why The Dark Knight made such an impact.
It showed that superheroes could be a part of serious filmmaking and not just spectacles.
The same can be said for movies based on video games. They need their Renaissance.

Obviously I'm speaking more from the critical side and I can't be sure if my history is correct. But my general point still stands.
It's specifically why I'm ready for WB to get back into the genre. Sure, I'm biased but it's more about the competition driving directors to try different things with superheroes. In other words, Marvel has their uniform process that gives them a unified world of cinematic characters despite different directors. That's great and it's worked. But you may not see their characters done in a more unique style.
I'm sooo ready to see Snyder's version of these characters and what approach they'll take because I KNOW it'll be different. Not everyone will like it but the variety will have expanded.

Then down the road we could see more unique superhero films. Like a more noir Batman or a 4th wall breaking Deadpool movie.
The potential is exciting.

I think the DCCU has the chance to throw out and flip the formula of Superhero movies. DC has 75 years of great material to draw from.

Imagine a Superman film that followed "For the Man Who Has Everything" or a Batman film that followed "Blind Justice" or "The Cult".

I like the Marvel movies, they have great characters and sharp dialgoue, but their plots are repetitive and don't take a lot of risks.

I think DC has the chance to be the risk taker.

 

[Wise]

Agreed with all of this.


It has become painfully obvious that most of these article writers have a shameless bias towards Marvel films. Specifically Marvel Studios.

And whenever DC is mentioned in the equation, people are quicker tk bash it, than defend it. And, will point out what the Warners/DC films have done wrong, than what theyve done right.

Actually Cracked is pretty unbiased when it comes to Marvel and DC.

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-reasons-why-all-marvel-movies-are-same/

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5-weirdly-specific-scenes-you-see-in-every-marvel-movie/

 

[zryson]

I like the Marvel movies, they have great characters and sharp dialgoue, but their plots are repetitive and don't take a lot of risks.

Marvel was built on risk. Thor, Captain America, even Guardians of the Galaxy. To take less popular characters and put them up for the big screen was a huge gamble. And it paid off handsomely for the studio.

 

[Wise]

Marvel was built on risk. Thor, Captain America, even Guardians of the Galaxy. To take less popular characters and put them up for the big screen was a huge gamble. And it paid off handsomely for the studio.

To clarify I'm not talking about financial risk. You're correct that they took a big chance banking on lesser known characters.

But their movie plots aren't exactly innovative. The marvel films are like a really really tasty steak. You know what's involved in a steak and what you're going to get. But they're a great cut of meat that's cooked extremely well. But they aren't exactly an exotic meal.

DC so far hasn't shown much risk taking either as MoS was about as generic as you could get in the plot and dialogue stakes (IMO). But they have the character and story potential to really do something unique.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Incredible Hulk 2 in 2010 would have been a risk.

 

[Tv's Phil]

The idea being that currently Marvel's approach IS what is currently defining superhero movies. It's all unified for one universe.
WB is in a good position to look and say "They're doing that. Let's do this."

Already BvS will likely look and feel different simply bc Snyder takes a very stylized approach. That's why I've been on board with him starting this cinematic universe. Even though they may have had confidence in him, it was still an easy way to assure the movie wouldn't look like Avengers or another Marvel movie. If nothing more than a subconscious way for people who don't realize which characters belong to which company to say "Hmm...this is different."

I would personally hope WB would continue to hire visually distinct directors. (I don't necessarily think all solo movies have to look the same for team ups to work)

 

[Guts]

I don't think you can link articles with profanity.

 

[zryson]

I would personally hope WB would continue to hire visually distinct directors.

Visuals dont mean a whole lot to me because unless its tempered with characters who matter, a story which resonates and who's characters I care about on screen it makes for empty spectacle.

 

[Juke Box Hero]

I thought MOS looked beautiful and the found footage-esque look worked well with the first contact vibe, but I hope BvS has its own look and style. Something preferably closer to Watchmen.

 

[Guts]

Visuals dont mean a whole lot to me because unless its tempered with characters who matter, a story which resonates and who's characters I care about on screen it makes for empty spectacle.

When it comes to some of the DC movies I think getting fantastic visuals would be great. One of the DC movies that's getting made is Sandman and while it has a fantastic story it also has great imagery to go along with it.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

For a while there I thought the red head is Poison Ivy from the Arkham Asylum graphic novel (I was unable to sit through the whole story)

 

[Silliminite]

I don't necessarily think all solo movies have to look the same for team ups to work.

Infact, I think solo films having a distinct look and feel will make the team-up all the more interesting and special.

 

[Micromind]

Let me ask those fans who love the Marvel approach to comic book movies this question -

Do they really want DC to follow similar structure namely solo movie lead-up to Justice League movie and a similar light-hearted tone and homogenized look and feel (I know some Marvel movie are a bit different but not too different.) for all DC movies ?

If yes, then please explain why it is a good thing to follow Marvel approach ?

Especially when we already are getting it in good measure in the form of Marvel movies.

 

[Nemeres]

The idea being that currently Marvel's approach IS what is currently defining superhero movies. It's all unified for one universe.
WB is in a good position to look and say "They're doing that. Let's do this."

Already BvS will likely look and feel different simply bc Snyder takes a very stylized approach. That's why I've been on board with him starting this cinematic universe. Even though they may have had confidence in him, it was still an easy way to assure the movie wouldn't look like Avengers or another Marvel movie. If nothing more than a subconscious way for people who don't realize which characters belong to which company to say "Hmm...this is different."

I would personally hope WB would continue to hire visually distinct directors. (I don't necessarily think all solo movies have to look the same for team ups to work)

If WB bases its big decisions on differentiating themselves from Marvel they're gonna stumble big and often, considering that a lot of what Marvel does is just... common sense.

Seems to be they're constantly chasing after the success the TDK tone brought them back in 2008, when not only is it a very different scenario that they're working in today, but to paint their entire universe with the Batman brush is a lousy idea that could only come from a confused studio terrified of taking chances. For some reason there's this idea that WB's more "serious, grounded, high stakes" tone is gonna make for a religious experience of a movie that's gonna make Marvel's films seem small potatoes by comparison. Beats me why, based on evidence.

 

[zryson]

If WB bases its big decisions on differentiating themselves from Marvel they're gonna stumble big and often, considering that a lot of what Marvel does is just... common sense.

Seems to be they're constantly chasing after the success the TDK tone brought them back in 2008, when not only is it a very different scenario that they're working in today, but to paint their entire universe with the Batman brush is a lousy idea that could only come from a confused studio terrified of taking chances.

Exactly. Its why at this stage I dont really take what WB is doing too seriously. There are so many other studios which regularly pump out beautiful, interesting and intelligent superhero movies that I dont sit around waiting for WB anymore. And if WB stumbles so be it.