Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[MadVillainy]

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.

Exactly. That's why it was so ridiculous to me

 

[The Joker]

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.

I know that. A lot of characters were missing vital character traits and elements when they first debuted. Batman didn't have Alfred, a Batmobile, Gotham City, Wayne Manor, a Batcave, and a plethora of other stalwart elements to his character and world when he debuted in 1939. Catwoman didn't wear a costume and was nothing but a scam artist who fleeced rich old ladies on cruise ships. Alfred wasn't a butler, he was a Sherlock Holmes looking amateur detective that helped Batman and Robin solve crime cases;

 

[misslane38]

I know that. A lot of characters were missing vital character traits and elements when they first debuted. Batman didn't have Alfred, a Batmobile, Gotham City, Wayne Manor, a Batcave, and a plethora of other stalwart elements to his character and world when he debuted in 1939. Catwoman didn't wear a costume and was nothing but a scam artist who fleeced rich old ladies on cruise ships. Alfred wasn't a butler, he was a Sherlock Holmes looking amateur detective that helped Batman and Robin solve crime cases;

The Grant Morrison story was a top-selling mainstream title for DC just five years ago. It was the debut arc for New 52's Action Comics. It was well-liked by old and new fans. Many want it adapted for animation or live action. The idea of a flightless Superman isn't a relic of the distant past. Five years ago it was new and beloved.

 

[Flint Marko]

Fidelity to the source material is not one of the DCEU's biggest problems. Joe Schmoe movie goer doesn't care that Superman isn't smiling or that Batman kills.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Fidelity to the source material is not one of the DCEU's biggest problems. Joe Schmoe movie goer doesn't care that Superman isn't smiling or that Batman kills.

BvS was atrocious regardless. It didn't just fail as an adaptation, it failed as a movie in general.

 

[Flint Marko]

it failed as a movie in general.

Exactly. Each entry into the DCEU thus far has failed as a movie.

I'll be more inclined to listen to the "DC bias" arguments once they make a movie that isn't fatally flawed, with properly dramatized characters and conflicts.

I'm confidently predicting Wonder Woman to be that movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The Grant Morrison story was a top-selling mainstream title for DC just five years ago. It was the debut arc for New 52's Action Comics. It was well-liked by old and new fans. Many want it adapted for animation or live action. The idea of a flightless Superman isn't a relic of the distant past. Five years ago it was new and beloved.

If I remember correctly, Grant Morrison was telling an origin story. They had another concurrent book which saw the same Superman, 5 years in the future, flying. So that Superman could fly, he just couldn't do it at that point in his life. It is no different then any origin story that shows Superman learning to master his abilities.

While not every story has every well known aspect of these characters, there are reasons things have become associated with these characters over the years. Not just by fans, but the general public. Superman flies, he doesn't kill, he has a red cape, he shoots lasers out of his eyes, he is an alien, etc.

If given the permission any writer or director can do what they like with a character. But that does not mean fans or the general public will like it or agree with it. I remember when the rumors of Luke Skywalker being the big bad of the new Star Wars trilogy was going around. I was completely against it as it went against the ending of RotJ imo. These things can be debated like heck, but it is hard to argue that things become ingrained for a reason. People have expectations for a reason. Usually because this is the prominent aspects of the character the company has been pushing for decades.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I'm sure that the larger body of adaptations that DC had in comparison to Marvel (prior to 2008) has something to do with the divided audience reactions. Comic book readers understand that characters vary somewhat from period to period. Someone who is introduced to a character via a cartoon, live-action show, or previous films might erroneously think that is the singular version of the character and his/her world.

 

[misslane38]

If I remember correctly, Grant Morrison was telling an origin story. They had another concurrent book which saw the same Superman, 5 years in the future, flying. So that Superman could fly, he just couldn't do it at that point in his life. It is no different then any origin story that shows Superman learning to master his abilities.

It wasn't an origin story. He was already known as Superman in that story and was wearing the shield and the cape. He was leading a double life as a reporter for The Daily Star and a superhero, too. Eventually he was able to fly, but a story featuring Superman without him flying and people LOVED it. They loved it more than they did the fiver years later story you're referencing, which tells me that people can enjoy a Superman story without flight.

While not every story has every well known aspect of these characters, there are reasons things have become associated with these characters over the years. Not just by fans, but the general public. Superman flies, he doesn't kill, he has a red cape, he shoots lasers out of his eyes, he is an alien, etc.

I'm not saying it's not associated with him. What I'm saying is that it's possible to do something unexpected, and for it to still work for people. It's not a deal-breaker.

If given the permission any writer or director can do what they like with a character. But that does not mean fans or the general public will like it or agree with it. I remember when the rumors of Luke Skywalker being the big bad of the new Star Wars trilogy was going around. I was completely against it as it went against the ending of RotJ imo. These things can be debated like heck, but it is hard to argue that things become ingrained for a reason. People have expectations for a reason. Usually because this is the prominent aspects of the character the company has been pushing for decades.

Again, I'm not suggesting that there's a free pass to do anything or that anything different can be acceptable or work. What I'm saying is that turning a character into a villain, which is about personality and substance, versus flying, which is superficial, isn't the same. Superman began as flightless and has had stories without him flying that have been adored even recently. So modern fans have already passed judgment on whether or not flight is something that every Superman must be able to do in order for a story to be considered a viable Superman story. Superman can still be Superman, and Superman can still be loved as Superman, even if he cannot fly.

 

[BarryAllen]

Fidelity to the source material is not one of the DCEU's biggest problems. Joe Schmoe movie goer doesn't care that Superman isn't smiling or that Batman kills.

I'd have to disagree. Superman and Batman are so entrenched in pop culture that when you diverge from the most mainstream interpretations of them (as in Superman barely smiling or Batman killing), casuals who are familiar with these characters will have a problem.

Yes, there is some flexibility when it comes to adaptations of iconic superheroes like Superman, Batman and Spider-Man, but diverging too far from what people know and love about them will cause dissent. Man of Steel had a mixed response particularily because of that, and BvS just took it a huge step further.

 

[The Joker]

The Grant Morrison story was a top-selling mainstream title for DC just five years ago. It was the debut arc for New 52's Action Comics. It was well-liked by old and new fans. Many want it adapted for animation or live action. The idea of a flightless Superman isn't a relic of the distant past. Five years ago it was new and beloved.

The campy 60's Batman show got a comic book series that was positively recieved, lasted several years and is still on going, and there's even an animated movie based on the show coming out this year. That doesn't mean people want to see Batman go camp for the movies just because a campy version of the character is popular.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It wasn't an origin story. He was already known as Superman in that story and was wearing the shield and the cape. He was leading a double life as a reporter for The Daily Star and a superhero, too. Eventually he was able to fly, but a story featuring Superman without him flying and people LOVED it. They loved it more than they did the fiver years later story you're referencing, which tells me that people can enjoy a Superman story without flight.

I'm not saying it's not associated with him. What I'm saying is that it's possible to do something unexpected, and for it to still work for people. It's not a deal-breaker.

I haven't read the book in a while, but from what I remember it was basically Superman Year One. Proto-Superman, including the suit, which was basically which was work boots, jeans, a blue shirt with the shield, and a cape.

And that context is important, because it helps people accept the idea. We know he will be Superman proper eventually, so watching him grown into that is a big aspect.

Again, I'm not suggesting that there's a free pass to do anything or that anything different can be acceptable or work. What I'm saying is that turning a character into a villain, which is about personality and substance, versus flying, which is superficial, isn't the same. Superman began as flightless and has had stories without him flying that have been adored even recently. So modern fans have already passed judgment on whether or not flight is something that every Superman must be able to do in order for a story to be considered a viable Superman story. Superman can still be Superman, and Superman can still be loved as Superman, even if he cannot fly.

Taking Superman's flight away or him being "too young" to fly isn't a new aspect. It is actually a well worn trope. I see your point, but using the flight just seems weird considering this aspect of the character is explored a lot. And the point is he can't fly, which emphasizes the notion that he flies. And it always ends with him flying. It is no different then taking the Flash's speed, or Lantern's ring, Spider-Man's powers, etc.

 

[BH/HHH]

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.

I feel the same way

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?

Of course they have to take some of elements and core characteristics. Love or hate the DCEU they have done that. Even as I said in my previous post look at the two characters that Superman has killed. They're the exact same two as he did in the Byrne era (and beyond) in the comics which MOS borrowed closely from aswell. So those elements are already there, of course people aren't going to accept drastic changes like Superman not flying at all. Well maybe Jon Peter would

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.

I think that is fair and we can have expectations as to which characteristics they go with but we can fault the film for not picking what we want. Only be disappointed in so. It doesn't make the character a wrong version of that character just one we may not necessarily be happy with.

Also as I pointed out it makes more sense to create a no kill rule from somewhere which is what that Byrne era did. Of course he tried not to kill before that but even in those comics he only did so when absolutely necessary i.e. Doomsdy.

BvS was atrocious regardless. It didn't just fail as an adaptation, it failed as a movie in general.

Exactly. Each entry into the DCEU thus far has failed as a movie.

I'll be more inclined to listen to the "DC bias" arguments once they make a movie that isn't fatally flawed, with properly dramatized characters and conflicts.

I'm confidently predicting Wonder Woman to be that movie.

That opinion is subjective though not fact, it's a personal feeling you two share, not one that everybody shares. None of the DCEU films have failed as a movie to me at all. That's not bias it's personal taste.

 

[Iron Fist]

No, not at all. DC's current line of movies just fail to meet the basic standards of good filmmaking. They fail to do what any good movie sets out to do; like present the audience with good plotting and characterization. And they're rightfully judged harshly for that. Bottom line is, people just want good movies, but DC are failing to deliver.

 

[Marvin]

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.

Assuming when you say 'people' you mean the guy who seemingly just did it a few posts prior. It should be noted that I was actually calling out mods(not the posters) for shutting a down a thread for a common occurrence, not infracting individuals not re warning in a thread full of warnings. I know the behavior is common cause it happens to me in almost every exchange with certain people and to be honest it's no big deal. To then reprimand not just the person but the fanbase in a stroke....perhaps I should have been more clear. Neither here nor there at this point. Carry on.

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.

I appreciate this. Anyone can feel that way when trying to make their point, I'm sure many do. Seems a more self centered approach in arguing to act upon it tbh. However when a guy turns to labeling the 'contrarian' esque agenda upon someone then is proven wrong even once, it shines a light on every time he does so again. Would rather just be wrong and that be the end of it. But we're all different and that's what makes this place interesting and fun.

 

[BH/HHH]

No, not at all. DC's current line of movies just fail to meet the basic standards of good filmmaking. They fail to do what any good movie sets out to do; like present the audience with good plotting and characterization. And they're rightfully judged harshly for that. Bottom line is, people just want good movies, but DC are failing to deliver.

This is the kind of post I have a problem with. It's subjective whether it's good or not. Your post is merely your opinion there's no right or wrong here.

 

[akfj]

This is the kind of post I have a problem with. It's subjective whether it's good or not. Your post is merely your opinion there's no right or wrong here.

You have a problem with him sharing his opinion?

 

[Marvin]

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.

When talks of why even adapt something but change it beyond recognition(or something to that end), this is where selectivity shines brightest. They didn't just put a cape on a rabbit and call it superman. The hyperbole is apt for this very much is recognizable and it would take alot more 'changes' for it not to be. It's why we turn to things like no flying to make the point. Evidently the film retained that and various key aspects.

Personally when I watch films like TWS, I'm not seeing faithful adaptation to the 'pre crisis' ho hum characterization of the material(I'm sure some are). I'm seeing a fairly accurate adaptation of what I find in the modern comics however and I love his modern comics. With superman you have a clash here. Various celebrated modern superman comics post Byrne don't fit the mold. For me it boils down to if the story and circumstance allow for it. Just what were the circumstances that had Byrne go the kill route..etc.

The real pill to swallow as pointed out above is that fans are selective of source before they are loyal to it. Just about everything seen in these films is can be found in the celebrated media. Really, it's those that simply make arguments for proper execution that I find make the most ground. The same ground they would make in an analysis of some nice manga adaptation. This is the baseline difference between asserting something doesn't work 'for you' vs arguing something doesn't work, it's a matter of preference and we don't all share the same. In truth I fully understand why people wouldn't be happy with changes, but there really should be a distinction.

 

[Iron Fist]

It's subjective whether it's good or not. Your post is merely your opinion there's no right or wrong here.

Of course, but that goes without saying, doesn't it?

 

[MadVillainy]

For some reason, on this site unless you say IMO people don't realize it's just your opinion

 

[BH/HHH]

You have a problem with him sharing his opinion?

I have a problem when he says "No not at all", that's not disagreeing with someone that's telling someone they're wrong.

When talks of why even adapt something but change it beyond recognition(or something to that end), this is where selectivity shines brightest. They didn't just put a cape on a rabbit and call it superman. The hyperbole is apt for this very much is recognizable and it would take alot more 'changes' for it not to be. It's why we turn to things like no flying to make the point. Evidently the film retained that and various key aspects.

Personally when I watch films like TWS, I'm not seeing faithful adaptation to the 'pre crisis' ho hum characterization of the material(I'm sure some are). I'm seeing a fairly accurate adaptation of what I find in the modern comics however and I love his modern comics. With superman you have a clash here. Various celebrated modern superman comics post Byrne don't fit the mold. For me it boils down to if the story and circumstance allow for it. Just what were the circumstances that had Byrne go the kill route..etc.

The real pill to swallow as pointed out above is that fans are selective of source before they are loyal to it. Just about everything seen in these films is can be found in the celebrated media. Really, it's those that simply make arguments for proper execution that I find make the most ground. The same ground they would make in an analysis of some nice manga adaptation. This is the baseline difference between asserting something doesn't work 'for you' vs arguing something doesn't work, it's a matter of preference and we don't all share the same. In truth I fully understand why people wouldn't be happy with changes, but there really should be a distinction.

I'm tired (very tired haha) are you agreeing with me?

 

[BH/HHH]

Of course, but that goes without saying, doesn't it?

For some reason, on this site unless you say IMO people don't realize it's just your opinion

I don't want to derail another thread cause it's been quite civil but I think there are ways of doing it and to me Iron Fists post was telling me I was wrong. If that was the intent then I apologise and we can all move on.

 

[MadVillainy]

I didn't mean it just to you. I was saying it in general. That's why I didn't say "BH/HHH has a problem with yadadadada" because it's not you it's just the mentality of the site in general.

No malice toward you in what I said

 

[Iron Fist]

I have a problem when he says "No not at all", that's not disagreeing with someone that's telling someone they're wrong.

Mm, I think you might've misinterpreted what I said here. I'm simply answering the question. 'Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?'. And to that, I said: no, not at all. I'm not telling anybody they're 'wrong'.

EDIT: Or maybe I am? Hey look, man. I'm just disagreeing with the notion that DC's current line of movies are being unfairly judged by the basic set of standards held to any other blockbuster. I guess if you're saying they are, I'm technically saying you're wrong by proxy, but my intentions with my post was never call anybody's contrary belief on the subject matter wrong in a malicious way. I apologize for any offense taken from my post.

 

[BH/HHH]

Apologies accepted and please accept mine too.

I'm not saying anyone's wrong for saying they're bad or good. It's just everyone's got their own opinion.