Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[MbJ]

The problem is that nobody cares about Mandarin outside hardcore fans. The audiences barely know who he is. It's not that big of a risk to do that to a not so popular character.

This goes back to what I was saying prior though, that there's a difference between objective criticism and fan-based criticism.

Fan-based complaints can help color perception but they're also not things about objective quality. For instance, Tim Burton's Batman gleefully murders people, something Batman does not do in the comics. He drastically changed the origins for characters like Catwoman and the Penguin, and made it so that the Joker was the one responsible for the murders of the Wayne family, not Joe Chill. Those are all changes that still annoy various Batman fans to this day, but at the end of the day, the two movies are well made enough that they're considered good movies in spite of those. Something that angers comic book fans is not gonna necessarily gonna be an indication of the film's actual quality one way or another.

Or even later on, you had the two Bryan Singer X-Men movies, which similarly drew a lot of ire from the fanboys but were well regarded by critics (with the second one often appearing on lists about the best comic book movies ever made and so on).

So the lack of serious consequences over the Mandarin have less to do with the media having any sort of Marvel bias or refusing to call them out, and more to do with the fact that for most people, the twist didn't actually hurt the quality of the movie.

The fact that DCEU's critics keep getting called out for bias is unfortunate because it ignores that unlike those previous examples, critics had a lot more legitimate flaws with things like the writing, pacing and editing.

I would also note that Gal Gadot's portrayal of Wonder Woman was very little like Lynda Carter's iconic portrayal or how she was depicted on the Justice League cartoon (which for many people are their most prominent exposure to the character), and she's pretty universally considered to be one of the few truly good parts of the movie. Even the negative reviews and fan reactions I read usually list her as being a rare high point in the film.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

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

I loved Blake...I really think how hey brought in a Robin was inventive and genius. I tried I really tried to understand his reasoning for discovering Bruce's secret; I just watched the scene again hoping to find something I missed to explain it. Despite that lunacy I still love the Blake character.
As for the original question, it seems people go into these films looking to hate them and when they find it the 100 positives are overshadowed by 8 Negatives.

 

[BH/HHH]

I loved Blake...I really think how hey brought in a Robin was inventive and genius. I tried I really tried to understand his reasoning for discovering Bruce's secret; I just watched the scene again hoping to find something I missed to explain it. Despite that lunacy I still love the Blake character.
As for the original question, it seems people go into these films looking to hate them and when they find it the 100 positives are overshadowed by 8 Negatives.

I liked Blake to but I stoll think the whole reason he knew Wayne was Batman was pour writing. But the character itself I'm a big fan if, the way the film ends with him on the platform riding us one of my favourite CBM endings ever, and probably my favourite of the whole trilogy.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

People are also resistant to new interpretation s of the characters of Superman and Batman. How many times have we heard "that's not my Superman" or "Batman doesn't do that"...only to have some one else point out well actually that has been done in the comics. WB allowed Reeve to define what Superman is and isn't by allowing his movies to seep into all their other Superman projects. Now when they have a more comic book Superman people are resistant to it.
With Batman he just had another universe less than 5yrs ago so people think the 2 should be the same and Bale's ideals should be Affleck's Batman ideals.
Marvel gets a pass because their making movies about characters who aren't icons and some of them were hardly heard of before the movies came about.
The GA seems to embrace SS more because they don't have any preconceived notions about who Enchantress or Deadshot should be.

 

[BestGirl]

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.

Don't forget that the Burton movies were overall well made and memorable.

 

[BestGirl]

People are also resistant to new interpretation s of the characters of Superman and Batman. How many times have we heard "that's not my Superman" or "Batman doesn't do that"...only to have some one else point out well actually that has been done in the comics. WB allowed Reeve to define what Superman is and isn't by allowing his movies to seep into all their other Superman projects. Now when they have a more comic book Superman people are resistant to it.
With Batman he just had another universe less than 5yrs ago so people think the 2 should be the same and Bale's ideals should be Affleck's Batman ideals.
Marvel gets a pass because their making movies about characters who aren't icons and some of them were hardly heard of before the movies came about.
The GA seems to embrace SS more because they don't have any preconceived notions about who Enchantress or Deadshot should be.

Fanboys think this way but I doubt the GA and critics do. They just want to have a good time at the movies and so far the DCEU hasn't provided them with that.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Critics and the GA watched Superman 78 and the Nolan films. What makes you think they wouldn't be influenced by those interpretations which causes them to come in with pre conceived ideas?

 

[MbJ]

EDIT wrong thread

 

[BH/HHH]

Here in the UK I distinctly remember read a few reviews around the time Superman Returns came out and they were praising but for been like the Reeve movies. They are clearly nostalgic and influenced just like any one of us are.

 

[MbJ]

They are clearly nostalgic and influenced just like any one of us are.

That'd hold more water if there weren't objective things to dislike about BVS (just like for all its flaws there are things I can see people liking about Returns).

A biased or nostalgic complaint would be "Superman doesn't smile like he used to" or "Batman didn't kill people in the old movies" or something along those lines. While those are two of the most vocal complaints, they're not the only ones.

People complained about the movie being poorly edited. They complained about the story being convoluted and hard to follow. They complained about Lex's plan making no sense. They complained about the motivations for the actual fight not being properly built up.

Those are all objective criticisms that have nothing to do with the movie not having Christopher Reeve in it or not being directed by Chris Nolan.

 

[BH/HHH]

That'd hold more water if there weren't objective things to dislike about BVS (just like for all its flaws there are things I can see people liking about Returns).

A biased or nostalgic complaint would be "Superman doesn't smile like he used to" or "Batman didn't kill people in the old movies" or something along those lines. While those are two of the most vocal complaints, they're not the only one.

People complained about the movie being poorly edited. They complained about the story being convoluted and hard to follow. They complained about Lex's plan making no sense. They complained about the motivations for the actual fight not being properly built up.

Those are all objective criticisms that have nothing to do with the movie not having Christopher Reeve in it or not being directed by Chris Nolan.

I never said there wasn't, way to take my comments and twist them mate.

 

[BestGirl]

Critics and the GA watched Superman 78 and the Nolan films. What makes you think they wouldn't be influenced by those interpretations which causes them to come in with pre conceived ideas?

The best way to defeat preconceived ideas is to make a movie that's as good as or better than the one the audience remembers. If you don't do that then of course people are going to say, "Well, it was no Nolan film."

 

[The Batman]

How is Snyder Superman more comic book Superman than Donner, when Donner has had influence on both modern day comics and the Snyder films themselves?

The last time a version of Superman wasn't influenced by Reeve might've been just before Post Crisis.

 

[Luke234]

Superman was a bully in the old movies. I loved Reeve but I'm so glad they didn't portray him that way again.

 

[The Joker]

How was he a bully?

 

[Luke234]

He murdured a Zod with no power and sent him off a cliff and smiled and went back when he was super powered and beat up the chubby guy at the diner.

 

[writer0327]

Boy as soon as people complained about Cavill not smiling, Reeve's smile became the biggest complaint. Are people that bothered by it or is this "tit for tat"?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I didn't like the beating up the bully at the diner scene, but Zod didn't die in Superman II. In the Lester version, he gets arrested along with Lex Luthor. In the Donner version, he ends up back in the Phantom Zone.

 

[BH/HHH]

I didn't like the beating up the bully at the diner scene, but Zod didn't die in Superman II. In the Lester version, he gets arrested along with Lex Luthor. In the Donner version, he ends up back in the Phantom Zone.

I don't like that diner scene all that much either in the Donner cut, don't mind it in Lesters. However, Zod & co did die in Superman II. That scene you're talking about was a deleted scene, it was not part of the film therefore is obsolete. As far as the film is concerned the Kryptonian's are dropped into the deep recesses of the fortress never to be mentioned again.

The Donner version you're correct because he turns back time again.

 

[The Batman]

He murdured a Zod with no power and sent him off a cliff and smiled and went back when he was super powered and beat up the chubby guy at the diner.

Compared to snapping a Zod's neck, making out with Lois Lane in the ruins of Metropolis, using his super powers to wreck someone's truck, and hypocritically bossing around other heroes while never actually answering to anyone, let's not act like Cavill was better.

Boy as soon as people complained about Cavill not smiling, Reeve's smile became the biggest complaint. Are people that bothered by it or is this "tit for tat"?

It is definitely a tit for tat thing, because most people didn't seem to care about Reeve killing Zod and smiling until MOS came out.

And if Amy Adams' Lois killed someone and got flak for it, DCEU supporters would suddenly care that Kidder Lois punched Ursa off a cliff after cracking a joke.

 

[AnneFan]

I don't like that diner scene all that much either in the Donner cut, don't mind it in Lesters. However, Zod & co did die in Superman II. That scene you're talking about was a deleted scene, it was not part of the film therefore is obsolete. As far as the film is concerned the Kryptonian's are dropped into the deep recesses of the fortress never to be mentioned again.

The Donner version you're correct because he turns back time again.

Exactly. One kiss equals making out now. It just seems like Superman was thankful Lois was actually still alive after the city was terrorised by the world engine. Superman had exactly one chance to end the fight against a fully powered Zod after getting pummeled. And he took it. I would've snapped his neck too. And for context, I like Superman getting revenge on the diner bully and throwing Zod down into the fortress in Superman II. I like a Superman that stands up for himself and struts his stuff when needed.

 

[The Batman]

[YT]ZAX-y018pcY[/YT]

That's just one kiss, folks. Just one. Kissing (for a lengthy amount of time, which is what we call...making out), then stopping to make a stupid joke before kissing again is just one kiss.

Who knows how long they would've been there if Zod didn't show up.

 

[Zarex]

Exactly. One kiss equals making out now. It just seems like Superman was thankful Lois was actually still alive after the city was terrorised by the world engine. Superman had exactly one chance to end the fight against a fully powered Zod after getting pummeled. And he took it. I would've snapped his neck too. And for context, I like Superman getting revenge on the diner bully and throwing Zod down into the fortress in Superman II. I like a Superman that stands up for himself and struts his stuff when needed.

Forcing Clark to snap a neck is like making Steve Rogers burn a flag. It's bad writing that completely misses the point of the character.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

The nitpicking is bordering on nonsensical. Just ignore it.

 

[AnneFan]

[YT]ZAX-y018pcY[/YT]

That's just one kiss, folks. Just one. Kissing (for a lengthy amount of time, which is what we call...making out), then stopping to make a stupid joke before kissing again is just one kiss.

Who knows how long they would've been there if Zod didn't show up.

The kiss really seems to bother you. I hope this dark and terrible thought doesn't wake you up in a cold sweat every night. He kisses her once, and then they kiss another time. I was going off my memory, but that doesn't change my stance one inch. I see humanity added to a character that is accused of being cold and aloof. He's grateful she's alive.

Forcing Clark to snap a neck is like making Steve Rogers burn a flag. It's bad writing that completely misses the point of the character.

Thanks for re-educating my wrong understanding of the character. It's really appreciated. You don't know how thankful I am for your presence on these forums.