Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[TeeKay]

Marvin's disagreements with that panel where Batman clearly leaves that guy to drown is a pretty great example of arguing against the sky being blue.

I'm convinced he just argues for the sake of it. Walls of text that really doesn't say anything. It's going around in circles. I still laugh every time though, "the sky is blue","well actually..".

 

[Marvin]

Marvin's disagreements with that panel where Batman clearly leaves that guy to drown is a pretty great example of arguing against the sky being blue.

I'm convinced he just argues for the sake of it. Walls of text that really doesn't say anything. It's going around in circles. I still laugh every time though, "the sky is blue","well actually..".

On cue, the usual detractors peddling the usual agenda in the exit. It's increasingly transparent when it can even be called. I'll give you all one thing, all 7 of you do stick together. Flint, I've avoided engaging with your 'stuff' so as to spare you the effort of having to deal with my 'stuff' as you so often go on about even before I respond to you. This has been me doing that. That you are buzzing around chiming 'Marvin this or that' comes off as conflicted and a few other things the mods just back asked people to stop doing. It's annoying and what's more in any consistent world your antics my just get this thread shut down for weeks. Just saying.

I'll include the scene below, but I can't see him smiling. At any rate, it's more than just his lack of a smile; it's the soundtrack, the darkness of the images, and the rather negative VOs. It's a whole package. Obviously Snyder was going for a certain mood but BVS wasn't some arthouse flick. It was meant to be a summer blockbuster and audiences don't want to have to sit through some dreary slog. It's stupid to portray Superman as seriously as Batman anyway when they're being introduced in the same movie. Superman should've been portrayed more hopefully and positively.

Spoiler

[YT]K0lQxUqmnfU[/YT]

Yes I've heard all about what superman and a block buster like this is supposed to be. On forums and in professional reviews much to the disbelief of others, your sentiment here encapsulates what a significant amount of people find significantly wrong about this movie. I'm not really gonna argue it, rather if that's why it didn't work for you to each his/her own. And the smile happens when he reaches the family.

 

[TeeKay]

Irony.....

 

[Kelly]

Well, I was going to delete posts singling out another poster, but since said poster quoted it to continue the long winded debate. ok......

 

[The Batman]

If the current films are being held to a higher standard, then it's fair to say that in some cases, at least among fans, the older versions are retroactively held to a "higher" standard when they don't things their successors do.

 

[Nemeres]

The scene itself is that superman smiles and enjoys the intimate saving of a girl, if it ended there, then the same old superman stuff would have been met and Snyder would be considered competent in this regard in 'getting the character'. It happened, it only then went further, and adds an 'interesting' dynamic to the material. Superman is faced with this own father's early premonition of the world changing, beliefs in god and our place in the universe shook, this is certainly worrying as masses are shown to worship him as they would Jesus. The scene conveys both diegetically and un with the voice over, the consequences to both superman's heroic action and his god like interference, the main theme of the story. This is what his turning worrying 'dis-interested' look is pertaining to. It goes beyond the simplistic simply saving people and then big smile and hands on hips and 'flying is still the safest way to travel..'

I'll include the scene below, but I can't see him smiling. At any rate, it's more than just his lack of a smile; it's the soundtrack, the darkness of the images, and the rather negative VOs. It's a whole package. Obviously Snyder was going for a certain mood but BVS wasn't some arthouse flick. It was meant to be a summer blockbuster and audiences don't want to have to sit through some dreary slog. It's stupid to portray Superman as seriously as Batman anyway when they're being introduced in the same movie. Superman should've been portrayed more hopefully and positively.

Spoiler

[YT]K0lQxUqmnfU[/YT]

I do see a clear smile, the simple presence of which fills a "quota" that isn't necessarily important and misses the point behind this old discussion. Being fair, presented here is: a silent Superman with the best of intentions, later surrounded by a crowd ready to adore him as a religious figure. And it makes him uncomfortable. End. That's the effect he has on people, and it's as much as he's able/willing to make of the situation. Here's a Super-person very unable to have any agency over his effect on the masses, who creates religious zealotry, uncertainty, divisive debate. Perfect, have that, why wouldn't you. But if that's the extent of the impact he's able to have -- and that's all that's shown -- sadly, it says as much about the in-film world as it does about him.

The fact that found at the center of this elevation of the material, this discussion of the grown-up ideas around Superman, is such a negated individual limits the impact any moment of benevolence could have, and it creates a lasting impression that colours everything else. It's what leads to unfair statements about how he never saves anyone and never smiles, even though he does. It just doesn't mean what it should.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Avengers kills bad guys: Everybody leaves the movies grinning.

Justice League kills bad guys: Riot police have to shoot tear gas into the theater to stop all the nerd rage.

Yes, I was being hyperbolic, but read between the lines and the truth shall set you free.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Avengers don't have no kill policies that are a big part of their character. Heck, they have a couple of outright assassins on the team (Black Widow and Hawkeye).

 

[The Batman]

Yup....now we're throwing terms like "Grinning idiots" around....because people like Marvel and not DC...

I hope people keep that in mind when they complain about mods reprimanding people.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Never heard the term grinning idiots? Should I censor that because I somehow offended your fragile sensibilities?

 

[Joeyjojo72]

DC comics fans are not necessarily DCEU /Snyder fans. Same goes for the "gritty, dark and humorless equals mature" crowd. Superhero comics fans by and large are fans of both Marvel and Dc characters, to varying degrees.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

DC comics fans are not necessarily DCEU /Snyder fans. Same goes for the "gritty, dark and humorless equals mature" crowd. Superhero comics fans by and large are fans of both Marvel and Dc characters, to varying degrees.

 

[The Batman]

DC comics fans are not necessarily DCEU /Snyder fans. Same goes for the "gritty, dark and humorless equals mature" crowd.

Plenty people understand this, as plenty people are in those exact same boats.

Never heard the term grinning idiots? Should I censor that because I somehow offended your fragile sensibilities?

Nope, and I find you accusing someone of "Fragile sensibilities" ironic. But, I guess "Grinning idiot" is somehow a positive term, so carry on.

 

[C. Lee]

Never heard the term grinning idiots? Should I censor that because I somehow offended your fragile sensibilities?

There are many terms, I and others have heard, like "grinning idiots"....and they, like it, should not be used to insult other people on here because they don't share the love for a particular brand of comic superheroes that you do.

You should censor that because (1) it is not nice or civil to insult people because they don't share opinion (2) it will get you infracted.

Try to play nice with others on here.

 

[Steamteck]

Yup....now we're throwing terms like "Grinning idiots" around....because people like Marvel and not DC...

I hope people keep that in mind when they complain about mods reprimanding people.

Maybe he was being passive aggressive , I dunno but I just took they were super happy but C. Lee has spoken I suppose.

 

[Steamteck]

I'm convinced he just argues for the sake of it. Walls of text that really doesn't say anything. It's going around in circles. I still laugh every time though, "the sky is blue","well actually..".

We all often feel that way about the other side on the DCEU boards. I'd like to think its not true but its as often as hard for me to believe as it is for you. Try to give folks the benefit of the doubt.

 

[BH/HHH]

The Avengers don't have no kill policies that are a big part of their character. Heck, they have a couple of outright assassins on the team (Black Widow and Hawkeye).

That's the comics though, these are big screen versions of those characters they are not tied to the comics versions in anyway, they are their own versions. You can't put your pre-conceived notions or their comic book versions on the movie versions.

In any case those no kill rules have to come from somewhere.

For example

The no kill rule here came from this action when Superman KILLED in the comics. It didn't just come out of thin air.

Of course he didn't kill again in the comics until:

Which coincidentally is the same as the DCEU.

 

[Patchwork Man]

That's the comics though, these are big screen versions of those characters they are not tied to the comics versions in anyway, they are their own versions. You can't put your preconceived notions or their comic book versions on the movie versions.

I concur. As one who saw and loved each of the original Superman films in theaters (many here probably did not), with the exception of the fourth film, I went and watched Superman Returns and waited for "something" to happen. That something never arrived. If there is anything I cannot stand, it is a retread. I went and watched Man of Steel and found it to be the modern age Superman film I'd waited three decades for. It reminded me of what an adaptation of John Byrne's 1986 Man of Steel comic would be like.

If we can have a different Batman every few years, we can have a different Superman.

 

[The Joker]

Obviously the movies are not obligated to follow the comics. The movie studios can do what they want with their own movies. But creatively they should be tied to the comics. Otherwise what's the point of even adapting these characters if they're not going to use any of the comic book material. Its what you call in name only. For example would anyone be happy getting a movie version of Superman that doesn't fly and accept that just because the movies are not tied to the comics?

 

[Zarex]

Avengers kills bad guys: Everybody leaves the movies grinning.

Justice League kills bad guys: Riot police have to shoot tear gas into the theater to stop all the nerd rage.

Yes, I was being hyperbolic, but read between the lines and the truth shall set you free.

As always, it depends on the character. The nerds will manage to control themselves if Cyborg or Wonder Woman take a life or two. But they'll be a smidge steamed if Spidey executes a bunch of criminals. Unlike the JL, the Avengers were always comprised of commie killers, warrior gods and Nazi busters.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Obviously the movies are not obligated to follow the comics. The movie studios can do what they want with their own movies. But creatively they should be tied to the comics. Otherwise what's the point of even adapting these characters if they're not going to use any of the comic book material. Its what you call in name only. For example would anyone be happy getting a movie version of Superman that doesn't fly and accept that just because the movies are not tied to the comics?

I think there are certain basic characteristics that they should aim to get right, at least for the main characters.

The argument is always going to come down to how much change is acceptable. The more popular a character and the more people that view a particular characteristic as being a key part of the character, the larger the backlash will be if it is changed.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

As always, it depends on the character. The nerds will manage to control themselves if Cyborg or Wonder Woman take a life or two. But they'll be a smidge steamed if Spidey executes a bunch of criminals. Unlike the JL, the Avengers were always comprised of commie killers, warrior gods and Nazi busters.

An example I see often in comparison to Batman is Captain America, but they are really apples and oranges.

Batman is masked vigilante that goes outside of the law to fight criminals on the street and whom has a well established no kill policy. If he kills someone and it isn't able to be justified as being in self-defense or defense of others, that is murder.

Captain America is a trained member of the US armed forces acting (generally, there are exceptions such as in TWS and CW where he becomes a fugitive) with the authority and under the orders of the federal government. If he doesn't kill, not only is he putting people at risk, he's also likely going to be arrested and court-martialed for dereliction of duty. Nobody would call the men landing in Normandy on D-Day murderers either.

 

[MadVillainy]

As always, it depends on the character. The nerds will manage to control themselves if Cyborg or Wonder Woman take a life or two. But they'll be a smidge steamed if Spidey executes a bunch of criminals. Unlike the JL, the Avengers were always comprised of commie killers, warrior gods and Nazi busters.

Yeah I dont get why some don't get this.

I was talking with my uncle's brother and he was saying: "Oh everyone loves Guardians of the Galaxy where that tree guy killed all those people and then smiled. But everyone freaked out over Superman killing in MoS"

And it was weird that he didn't understand the difference.

To me
-Spidey, Superman, Flash, Batman shouldnt kill or let die or whatever. HOWEVER, if the movie itself is good I personally am way more forgiving.

Obviously the movies are not obligated to follow the comics. The movie studios can do what they want with their own movies. But creatively they should be tied to the comics. Otherwise what's the point of even adapting these characters if they're not going to use any of the comic book material. Its what you call in name only. For example would anyone be happy getting a movie version of Superman that doesn't fly and accept that just because the movies are not tied to the comics?

Exactly

 

[misslane38]

Obviously the movies are not obligated to follow the comics. The movie studios can do what they want with their own movies. But creatively they should be tied to the comics. Otherwise what's the point of even adapting these characters if they're not going to use any of the comic book material. Its what you call in name only. For example would anyone be happy getting a movie version of Superman that doesn't fly and accept that just because the movies are not tied to the comics?

Superman didn't fly when he debuted in 1938. He could super jump. Grant Morrison's New 52 Superman didn't start out flying either.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I was talking with my uncle's brother and he was saying: "Oh everyone loves Guardians of the Galaxy where that tree guy killed all those people and then smiled. But everyone freaked out over Superman killing in MoS"

That's just a silly comparison to begin with. Groot is a bounty hunter and outlaw. He and the rest of the Guardians in the film were never meant to be traditional heroes and role models.