Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[Steamteck]

All three of the Nolan films have flaws, it's just that none of them are as glaringly obvious as the ones in BVS or Suicide Squad.

I disagree some of them are glaring preschool level flaws, obvious stuff its amazing got through. Its just that for most folks the good stuff made them vanish into insignificance.

 

[BH/HHH]

I disagree some of them are glaring preschool level flaws, obvious stuff its amazing got through. Its just that for most folks the good stuff made them vanish into insignificance.

There were some really dumb things in the Nolan trilogy, mostly in Rises with Bane's voice and Blake working out Bruce is Batman because of a look lol

 

[Nemeres]

Of course they're flawed. But BB and TDK in particular mostly informed further audiences' existent perception of the material as it was, rather than forcing them to twist it or else be alienated. Enjoy the DCEU all week long and twice on Sundays, but there's being effective and then there's not.

 

[Nygma]

Of course they're flawed. But BB and TDK in particular mostly informed further audiences' existent perception of the material as it was, rather than forcing them to twist it or else be alienated. Enjoy the DCEU all week long and twice on Sundays, but there's being effective and then there's not.

Yap...this!

 

[BH/HHH]

Of course they're flawed. But BB and TDK in particular mostly informed further audiences' existent perception of the material as it was, rather than forcing them to twist it or else be alienated. Enjoy the DCEU all week long and twice on Sundays, but there's being effective and then there's not.

I wasn't making comparisons or knocking the Dark Knight trilogy at the expense of the DCEU. I was merely pointing out some of the silly flawed stuff in those movies. End of the days it's an opinion and if I do prefer the DCEU movies then that's my perogative.

 

[Nygma]

I wasn't making comparisons or knocking the Dark Knight trilogy at the expense of the DCEU. I was merely pointing out some of the silly flawed stuff in those movies. End of the days it's an opinion and if I do prefer the DCEU movies then that's my perogative.

I would hardly describe what you pointed out as flaws...i see flaws as something a little bit more objective rather than just personal preference.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

There were some really dumb things in the Nolan trilogy, mostly in Rises with Bane's voice and Blake working out Bruce is Batman because of a look lol

He felt it in his boness man!

I like Rises well enough, but Nolan's heart just wasn't in that one like the first two. Understandably so.

 

[random_havoc]

Jumping in here, imo no they aren't held to a higher standard. They're rated badly because Snyder doesn't seem to understand the heart of almost any of the characters and made Man of Steel so-so at best and BvS a mess of a movie. If WB had any brains Snyder wouldn't be touching another DC film.
Suicide Squad was a fun movie but it was a bit of a mess too.

 

[BH/HHH]

I would hardly describe what you pointed out as flaws...i see flaws as something a little bit more objective rather than just personal preference.

Ok Bane's voice is a oregrence, although a bad creative choice still. As for the Blake finding out scene, that is a flaw cause it's bad writing.

He felt it in his boness man!

I like Rises well enough, but Nolan's heart just wasn't in that one like the first two. Understandably so.

I like arises too that's the thing, it just has many flaws to it that I find it hard to get past aswell as some personal preferences I have.

I think that was the case too which actually may have had more to do with Ledgers death than anything.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

I think that was the case too which actually may have had more to do with Ledgers death than anything.

There's no doubt in my mind that was the reason. Initially, he didn't even want to come back for Rises.

 

[BH/HHH]

There's no doubt in my mind that was the reason. Initially, he didn't even want to come back for Rises.

Yeah and it's totally understandable given what happened. I think he did it in part aswell because WBs let him make Inception.

 

[Nygma]

Ok Bane's voice is a oregrence, although a bad creative choice still. As for the Blake finding out scene, that is a flaw cause it's bad writing.

Fair enough. Bane's voice is weird so not everyone will like it. A lot of people dislike Prince's voice too. The unusual turns a lot of people off. I personally like it. It's a very nice and unexpected contrast from his physical appearance.

John Blake...i don't see it as bad writing. I see it as a wild guess that happened to be right. It happens in real life. It can happen in a movie too. Like he described, he and the other kids used to make up stories about it. Nothing wrong with kids having a wild imagination. Blake just took it a little more seriously than the rest. He recognized in Bruce's face the same fake smile. That's not enough to logically connect him to Batman, but this was a very damaged kid that simply used to dream about this possibility. About the possibility of another orphan being this amazing hero. Chances are, based on his confidence, he game the subject a lot of thought during his entire life and probably when he became a cop started to connect some dots.

He didn't really know it. He believed it and happened to be right.

 

[BH/HHH]

Fair enough. Bane's voice is weird so not everyone will like it. A lot of people dislike Prince's voice too. The unusual turns a lot of people off. I personally like it. It's a very nice and unexpected contrast from his physical appearance.

John Blake...i don't see it as bad writing. I see it as a wild guess that happened to be right. It happens in real life. It can happen in a movie too. Like he described, he and the other kids used to make up stories about it. Nothing wrong with kids having a wild imagination. Blake just took it a little more seriously than the rest. He recognized in Bruce's face the same fake smile. That's not enough to logically connect him to Batman, but this was a very damaged kid that simply used to dream about this possibility. About the possibility of another orphan being this amazing hero. Chances are, based on his confidence, he game the subject a lot of thought during his entire life and probably when he became a cop started to connect some dots.

He didn't really know it. He believed it and happened to be right.

Hey it's not totally bad though it does make me laugh

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I can understand thinking its a fake smile but thinking that he's Batman was a little to far.

As I said though I do like Rises and I love the trilogy but like anything it's not flawless. That was mainly my point, wasn't trying to bash the trilogy, it's great.

 

[Nemeres]

I wasn't making comparisons or knocking the Dark Knight trilogy at the expense of the DCEU. I was merely pointing out some of the silly flawed stuff in those movies. End of the days it's an opinion and if I do prefer the DCEU movies then that's my perogative.

I wasn't addressing you directly, just giving my general assessment regarding TDKT vs. DCEU.

 

[BH/HHH]

I wasn't addressing you directly, just giving my general assessment regarding TDKT vs. DCEU.

my apologies

 

[The_Manhunter]

Issues and episodes of source material at their best / most acclaimed garnered her no appeal, but a shoehorned franchise-building cameo did? I just don't understand that. It sounds quite disproportionate, and like rah-rah #teamsnyder-ing for the hell of it.

It's only shoehorned if you think it is. Her reasons for being in the movie made sense to me.

 

[TeeKay]

She was looking for a photo?

 

[Bats123]

She was looking for a photo?

Its really sad, she's so shoehorned into the movie, we dont even get to hear her name once. :/

 

[Steamteck]

He felt it in his boness man!

I like Rises well enough, but Nolan's heart just wasn't in that one like the first two. Understandably so.

That's true. I've made no bones over the years how I dislike TDk but TDKR disappointed even me who wasn't expecting much. Even as a "hater" I feel it unfair to judge the trilogy by TDKR. I don't blame him at all for losing a bit his heart for the franchise after Ledger's death and really wanting to go back there again.

 

[MbJ]

Of course they're flawed. But BB and TDK in particular mostly informed further audiences' existent perception of the material as it was, rather than forcing them to twist it or else be alienated. Enjoy the DCEU all week long and twice on Sundays, but there's being effective and then there's not.

Yup. I said it before but it seems like the go-to argument for defending the creative choices in the DCEU seems to just be pointing out other dumb choices made by other superhero movies, which doesn't really inspire confidence.

 

[Marvin]

This is a great summary of a criticism of this idea that I don't fully get. People's preconceptions of what's funny causing them to dislike, I dunno, Pluto Nash, doesn't "bail out" that film. It wasn't funny to most people. That affected how they viewed the film...
1. The audience isn't idiots. They know an improvement when they see one...
2. People don't cite source very often actually. They just have a *feeling* of Superman. His well known powerset and lifestyle denote certain thematic elements: freedom, hope, power, aloofness. These ideas are exemplified and explored in the most critically acclaimed stories. People don't sit down and cite comics, people, generally just have a common idea of what Superman is. Snyder has a different idea than most and isn't interested in the themes that are intrinsic to the premise of the character. Citing an obscure or elseworld's comic doesn't make society wrong about what Superman represents to society.

In short, yes, if the film is bad then there are no bail outs per say. If someone walks out and proclaims: this serious Pluto Nash is SUPPOSED to be a comedy is bad, if it had just been funny..this is where the issue arises. People asserting their own parameters based on their own experience with the material rather than speaking to the basic qualifiers for film in general, Story, Acting, etc. To be clear, my post wasn't about if this happened in Dceu. You said this stuff happens, and is acceptable(or something to that end). I agree it happens, I don't agree it's acceptable. That being said, I'm reminded of Dean Cain's "review" of the new direction: "The last incarnation of Superman was completely different than anything I did on Lois & Clark. It was kind of devoid of the two things that made our show special, which were humor and romance," Cain said. "It didn't have either of those. There was no humor and there was no real romance. I saw the movie they pushed. There's no romance in there. I'm sorry." What does this 'review' add for all the people that haven't been indoctrinated into Lois&Clark? What does it do for all the people that think that direction was crap(not me). He's constrained his analysis of the film to how much it correlates to his own preconception. Subverting historical quality for his own newly defined 'quality'. I don't see what good comes from it when prompted for a review, in any instance.

1. I don't think one has to be described an idiot for responding a certain way to change. People don't always respond well to change is a basic observation applied to taste since the beginning. We've seen it time and again with shifting art periods 14thcentury, the 50's . It goes beyond detecting improvement, for 'improvement' is subjective in art. Was this new spidey suit some 'improvement?' it's not that simple. And this happens with every 'different' suit it seems, only costumes are superficial and far less present than tone thus always easy to get over once even the marketing gets going. The point however is this whole thing is contingent on if said change has a precedent in the popular material. Which means it's subject to the moment in time it happens to arrive in vs the direction alone.

2. Lastly, those things you cited as being intrinsic to the character, were very much present in the direction. It's the constraining preconception which narrows how they are to be explored or presented that blind people to their very presence. The theme of freedom for example, one need only look at they kryponian society and how choice is argued by both fathers in this film. Hope, even easier... However, the point is that maybe what most people know isn't the best or only way. Apply this to Saban's written around low cost super sentai footage Power Rangers. Maybe this material can more than it's been in the past, what these people know. This is my biggest issue. Creators shackled by only what a people know, arrogance labeled upon those for boldness of vision when it could easily be ascribed to those that reject anything outside of their own(See Cain paradigm). And no, it's not about citing a few elseworlds, though one should note all these movies are elsewords by definition, if it has to be, it's about citing ALL celebrated material. He's killed with far less circumstance in these books, he's had somber, angst ridden tales, he's been broken, given up, lost, all of it and that's because in 100 years, the material has been dynamic and survives because of it. This isn't some snow white fixed story, it's an ongoing serial of vastly different tales, sagas and most importantly takes place in different eras. There was a superman that was celebrated in the jim lee 90's, there was a superman in JLU, that was always angry. For every All Star or Birthright "elseworlds" there's an OurWorldsAtWar(canon) or Moore.. The superman in morrisons' legendary jla run isn't the same as his all star one..all of this stuff as different form each each other as this stuff supposedly is from them. There's really only been one celebrated cinematic take prior to this movie so perhaps this is where you point rings truest.

You can do a movie like Man of Steel, and get accurate critical acclaim, but you can't expect society to change their definition of the word "Superman" just as you can't expect them to change their definition of the word "cat." If you cast a dog as a cat, then your film has to address that you are trying to change the meaning of a thing, to change the conversation, get people to think, etc. Same with your Sesame Street analogy, inverting the expectation. This is an artistic technique to create commentary....
If Man of Steel wanted to do this dark Superman, they had the burden of proving that the bright Superman was inferior to what they presented. And they did not do that. They assumed that people would feel so, and the people who already felt that way loved the movie despite it's flaws, and the people who hate that idea hated the movie and oft recite its many flaws.

It seems your point here is that if you are trying to make a subverting commentary you have to actively acknowledge that angle in the execution. My point is that in this instance, even if you aren't trying to do that, not trying to make a dog a cat, that because of all the baggage and finite preconception on the table, you seemingly have to treat any such change in direction as this 'commentary' you describe. It's a burden, and one I would add isn't present when the same thing is attempted in this material outside of live action cinema for various celebrated books have done it without being commentaries or satire or subversion. It's a double standard as the TS would imple. Especially when compared to it's modern peers who simply aspire to do something different from source or simply exist as modern comic book movies. However we seem to agree that there is something present, I imagine it's gonna be met head on by the ones here who aim to deny any such thing exists.

And no, I don't think mos wanted to do a dark superman, I think it wanted to place in him in our grounded world but because it's superman that lands it in the dark realm. A 'dark' superman is that Ultraman stuff, this one never stopped doing the right thing, never gives up. This superman was saving people as a child, outside of Murdock that doesn't happen. It's his world that's the most different from Donner, and it's not that it's dark is that it's grounded, Pa kent gives grey answers and his hero cake doesn't come with a ribbon. The crow is dark, netflix is dark, this wasn't that, If this is the definition of being a dark superman then the argument of double standard is made by that statement alone. But that's another discussion.

 

[MbJ]

I'm sure there are people who, consciously or not, have preconceived biases about Batman and Superman because of growing up with a vastly different portrayal. I'd also agree that with the exception of maybe Spider-Man and the Hulk, Marvel has the benefit of not having to deal with that stigma since most of their characters generally have very little mainstream name recognition before they actually hit the big screen.

But, and this is a rather huge but, those are far from the only criticisms laid out in most reviews or even from most fans. While I freely admit that I think things like having Superman execute an opponent or Batman brand people and commit mass murderer were stupid decisions and that Snyder should have been smacked down by someone in charge the second he suggested them, those are only just scratching the surface.

There's a whole bunch of other things people have pointed out being wrong with Batman v. Superman and they have little to do with the belief that the titular characters are behaving out of character.

If you changed it to Mega Lord V. Turkey Man and still went with the same creative decisions (and in some cases, casting choices), you wouldn't end up with any less of a mess.

And even then, Suicide Squad was also ravaged by critics despite most of the characters (save for Joker, Harley and the cameos from Batman and the Flash) fitting the supposed Marvel mold of being completely unknown to most people prior to the debut of the movie. If you weren't watching Arrow you had no idea who most of these people were. People went in with an open mind and fresh expectations, and that still didn't help.

 

[Marvin]

Some other points I skimmed around here.

Using BB or even TDKT to prove the 'see it worked here' analogy is endlessly flawed in this instance. The discernible difference between it and Burton being the goth and perhaps stylized 50's setting. There were no such editorials about batman needing to not be dark and gritty for that was inherent in both takes and inherent in the progenitor source, what's more, Nolan didn't follow Burton, he followed Schumacher, something vastly different particularly in tone to Burton. BB followed one of the worst 'reviewed' (and received) directions on the material that the genre has ever seen. The Nolan comparison is so misplaced here, especially when citing Burton. Speaking to critics in particular, MOS in contrast was following a long anticipated and well reviewed take on the character. Moreover, the biggest thing leading into BB was Raimi man, an altogether accurate take on the material. BB was the same for batman particularly in the realm of tone and character. MOS seemingly followed the Avengers(and it's 5 year lead in), maybe the biggest cbm yet and it to was bright and altogether accurate to the material, particularly in tone. MOS a year later and the same summer as the avengers follow up, was not bright and joyous and was supposedly not accurate to the material when it came to tone and character, one of these things is not like the other(s). So misplaced.

It's a well argued observation that aggregates have a basic flaw. If a movie is loved/great then the system works, if the movie is the opposite than the same applies. But when a movie is ok and middle of the road then the pendulum can swing either way in the extreme. A bunch of 5/6 and then it boils down to the tally of critics that give it a pass or not, that like it or not. When viewed with that circumstance, the significance of a bias as Cosmic here described becomes very significant. An ok film that you either like or don't, becomes an abject failure to the public or the opposite.
That people argue: If something is great it will overcome any such burdens. The reality is that not everything is great, somethings are just good or ok, a great many things really. They just don't all face the same circumstance.

I myself am pretty curious to see where this discussion goes in 2017, that of preconception and it's significance here. Apparently the lead creative producer has announced the decu is 'fixing' it's direction to that of a more hopeful optimism, something more inline with the the source material, less subverting and conflicting with what people expect. The reaction to this alone has been telling to be sure, but the real curiosity lies in the critical reception. Given this is the same hack director and failed writer at the helm. I imagine detractors are already certain of the films artistic quality. Snyder can only produce a film so good as it were, especially given his history. The only discernible, tangible, change is this mandate for optimism. Plainly speaking, what we have here is as clean an opportunity to see if Sndyer and his team, in making something more 'source accurate', more joyful and such will be received better by the critics. Come this time next year, I imagine the discussion on preconceptions will have taken it's final turn(for better or worse). The discussion on bias is another matter.
Who knows, maybe the trend will continue and JLA will land in the single digits on the tomato meter.

peace

 

[MbJ]

The lack of backlash against the Burton Batman probably stems from a few key differences between the landscape of then and now.

1) Comic book movies were still relatively rare, so a lot of the fans were just so happy to be getting a big budget Batman movie at all that they ignored some of the pretty huge liberties that Burton took.

2) Batman's main pop culture imprint was still the goofy Adam West show and the Super Friends cartoon. The concept of taking a superhero movie and treating it straight, especially for a character who had become widely known for starring in what was essentially a sitcom, was something that a lot of audiences liked because it hadn't been done at the time for a character like Batman. The concept of grim and gritty was actually treated as a refreshing novelty. By now, there have been so many attempts at doing grim and gritty superhero movies that the concept itself has become a bit of a cliche.

3) Batman: The Animated Series came out after the Burton movies and was a huge game changer. It was dark, it was gritty, and it was serious, but it also offered a very humanizing take on Batman. He was violent and disturbed, but he also spared the lives of his enemies (unlike Burton's Batman) and was at times even sympathetic towards them. He would take them down when he had to but he was also shown to have a sense of compassion and human decency (he tells Mr. Freeze that he's sorry about what happened to his wife and tries to persuade him to end the conflict peacefully, for instance).

The show (and the others in that universe like Justice League and its sequel) proved massively popular, and that depiction of Batman more or less ended up being the go-to one for pretty much all of pop culture. A Batman who is violent but doesn't take a life because murder is still wrong, even when it's against a bad guy. Snyder's Batman had to contend with a generation of adults who pretty explicitly know Batman as the guy who won't kill his opponents, or in the case of The Dark Knight, even SAVES them.

 

[Urich Leeds]

DC Films do get held to a different standard, but that's because

A) its predecessor, The Dark Knight Trilogy, raised the bar on how DC films can and should be made, and

B) The minds behind the DCEU have stated they are trying to make films of a higher standard/more mature films