Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[Lord]

That's just one film. Marvel is more than just avengers.
As much as the marketing dept will try and have you forget. The first avenger for example.

Not sure what you are answering about, i just said that The Avengers had a big impact on the industry, i never said that Marvel was just The Avengers.

 

[Marvin]

Not sure what you are answering about, i just said that The Avengers had a big impact on the industry, i never said that Marvel was just The Avengers.

My bad,
I thought you were talking about which studio has had a bigger impact on the industry and sub genre. I'd argue that WB/nolan's 'grounding' approach has had more impact than marvel studio's approach to super heroes. I see now you are talking about the impact of the avengers on the industry. To which we've seen nothing other than a JLA green light imo.

Here's an essay I posted in the Thor threads a little while back. I actually liked MOS better than Thor 1 and 2, but the perspective of this article sheds light on why the MCU movies are better received than the DC movies.

http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/01/03/cultural-lessons-of-2013-thor-is-the-new-superman/

here's the real problem,
Hyperbole:
Superman slaughtering his adversary, crying and screaming to an unjust god amidst a city he helped destroy.
The city actually isn't destroyed, superman didn't help to destroy it in the least, and superman didn't slaughter anyone. However the critics will tell you and themselves some grim fiction to justify their contempt.

Self celebrated double standard:
Thor battles the bad guys with a sense of fun, even though, and here’s the interesting part, he’s a warrior who surely kills people. So, do I have a double standard here? Why is it OK for fictional alien do-gooder No. 1 to kill people and not the other guy? Well, it’s all in the execution, so to speak. Superman unleashed holy hell in a dark, painfully contrived, no-win scenario, culminating in a disturbing snapping of a person’s neck. Thor threw his super-hammer at a rock monster in a daylight battle, smashing it to pieces, and then delivering a fun quip. Did that rock monster have a rock family? A little rock monster at home, wondering where rock daddy is? I don’t know. Who cares? It was gleeful and ludicrous and unreal, like a comic book. Bloodless and bright.

So killing is ok for bright heroes as long as it's not done with any honesty/weight or situational circumstance(no win), just FUN. And because this self imposed requirement isn't met, the film 'fails'...It all begs the question of just what type of reviews would this film had received if there were no preconceptions..you know like most other films.

The idea that some critics are of similar mind to this fellow, is why the film wasn't 8 points higher on the RT score, at the least.

Marvel's film have the current benefit of not having all that many mass preconceptions. Their films are judged for what they are, whereas MOS and the next batman are often judged against what came before. In the case of Begins, it was beneficial, in the case of Batfleck, good luck to them.
Same thing happened to ASM.

 

[chaseter]

If they were copying marvel, wouldn't they too be doing set up films?
Seems to me they are finally doing the Superman/Batman film they've tried to get going for years now.

With the addition of Wonderwoman. The character everyone said WB would never ever commit to. Even while marvel was making a raccoon movie...
They can't win.

They are copying Marvel by making an ensemble movie aka Justice League movie but with no setup because they are idiots. It's going to be awful. They saw Avengers make a billion and saw dollar signs. DC and WB are just awful. It's a sad day when Fox and Sony are better at planning franchises than WB and DC. Enjoy Eisenberg as Lex Luthor lololololol.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's all about what you've set out to accomplish in your film. If you set out to make a cerebral character drama masterpiece about Superman and you don't exceed, you failed your goal. The film is probably missing something. However, if you set out to make an entertaining popcorn flick with little more expectations and you succeed, then you reached your goal. For the most part, the film is made how you envisioned it. That means, there are probably less issues with the film.

The guy who tries to hit a home run and hits the ball all the way to deep center, but ultimately the center catches it, hit the ball further than the guy who got a single, yet the guy who hit the single actually got on base. Whether it be because of their work with Nolan or whatever, DC, for the most part, has strived to make bigger, more 'artistic' films than Marvel and are flying out every time, where Marvel keeps hitting singles, a few doubles and occasionally the home run( The Avengers and Iron Man), because they aren't trying to hit a homer every time, they are keeping their goals realistic and becoming more efficient at what they are doing. I admire DC's goals. I admire Marvel's consistency. Both could learn from each other. However, you are always going to take a single over a fly out, which is why Marvel gets better reviews more consistently. When DC makes something good (Nolan's work), it gets all the praise it deserves.

If you don't get baseball analogies...well you are **** out of luck.

I think that's a good analogy actually.

 

[chaseter]

So if you set out to make a mediocre film and succeed...then you reached your goal? Wut......

 

[Marvin]

They are copying Marvel by making an ensemble movie aka Justice League movie but with no setup because they are idiots. It's going to be awful. They saw Avengers make a billion and saw dollar signs. DC and WB are just awful. It's a sad day when Fox and Sony are better at planning franchises than WB and DC. Enjoy Eisenberg as Lex Luthor lololololol.

Eisenberg wasn't lololol when he was oscar nominated for playing a mentally unstable billionaire in a film a few years prior. I don't think he'll be jokes this time either.

As for the one way to set up an ensemble film, I think the Xmen/Startrek/Starwars/harrypotter/godfather/goodfellas..etc films will argue that there was a way to do such things before marvel brainwashed us all into thinking you had to do it this way and this way alone.

I also think wb is making a JLA was inevitable. I doubt they would have went another 80 years without doing so. Doing it now I suppose could be seen as copying, even if they are clearly doing it their own way. But if you want to look at things that way, it would imply that the ironman film(about a rich guy in a suit) copied the other super hero film about a rich guy in a suit that came before it. Which is silly imo.

 

[jmc]

I ask this because it seems they get harsher criticism, recently saw Thor the dark world and I can honestly say that this movie was the worst superhero movie of 2013. I thought the movie was horrible even more some than MOS. After the movie I was curious of what it's RT score was and got blown away when I saw it scored higher than MOS and was considered fresh. So I started thinking how one movie could get away with one thing while another simply gets a pass. Does all this stem from the Avengers ***** or was MOS received in such a way because people expect more from DC?

No. People have to get over this perceived bias.

 

[chaseter]

I can't wait to see Zuckerberg Luthor.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

So if you set out to make a mediocre film and succeed...then you reached your goal? Wut......

From the studio's perspective, it is less about hitting homeruns and more about avoiding disasters. Makes for a profitable franchise. Complete misfires can ruin a franchise, ala the 90s Batman films.

As an art it can be depressing (I don't like any Marvel film as much as I do the best WB, Fox and Sony films), but as a product it is probably the right approach.

 

[3rdstone]

Yaaawn, so, this turned to yet another Marvel vs. Dc thread..

You can make a superhero flick as deep and artsy and filled with pathos as you want. To most people even if it is engaging, it's still men running around in costumes.

This so much.

Never forget that to many critics, superheroes on the screen are still old cartoonish fantasy characters that kids have read in comic books for around 70 years or a coupla decades less. I'd say that also apply for a huge amount of the GA, but they still seem to want those adventures and cinematic experiences.

We'll just have to hope that the GA doesn't get fed up with super hero movies, since the franchises are going crazy right now.

Personally I look forward to every new superhero movie, but I'm still way to old to get hyped for all these flicks coming out in the next coupla years. Regardess of being DC or Marvel, it's still pure entertainment, and not groundbreaking movie events that will go very deep in the history of cinema.

Spoiler

Unless they put Patton Oswald as the Penguin, and Christina Hendricks as Power Girl.

 

[jmc]

They are copying Marvel by making an ensemble movie aka Justice League movie but with no setup because they are idiots. It's going to be awful. They saw Avengers make a billion and saw dollar signs. DC and WB are just awful. It's a sad day when Fox and Sony are better at planning franchises than WB and DC. Enjoy Eisenberg as Lex Luthor lololololol.

MoS 2 isn't a team-up film, it's a sequel. So they aren't copying Marvel then are they?

 

[Drz]

Superman and Batman are pop culture super stars from many generations, hence why their many incarnations can be seen from reviews.

Noone cared about Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and so on, but someday when Iron Man gets rebooted or with a new lead, you will see the first nostalgia critics of Iron Man franchise.

 

[chaseter]

MoS 2 isn't a team-up film, it's a sequel. So they aren't copying Marvel then are they?

What does Batman or Wonder Woman have to do with a Superman sequel?

 

[jmc]

What does Batman or Wonder Woman have to do with a Superman sequel?

They are new characters in the series. Is there's something about that you don't get?

 

[samsnee]

So if you set out to make a mediocre film and succeed...then you reached your goal? Wut......

No one us trying to make mediocre films. The point is by getting on base, you're still in the game. Not every movie should try to redefine the genre.

 

[Marvin]

You can make a superhero flick as deep and artsy and filled with pathos as you want. To most people even if it is engaging, it's still men running around in costumes.

I think this is what nolan/snyder/goyer are trying to debunk.

Doesn't help when some of their efforts are met with "but this isn't what a superhero film is supposed to be = low critical score"
To actually see a film 'fail' for not falling into tropes of colour and levity is such a conundrum.

Thank goodness for Blade. The one that got away with it, no questions asked.

 

[chaseter]

They are new characters in the series. Is there's something about that you don't get?

Oh okay. So we can just call The Avengers, Iron Man 2.5. It's the same thing right?

 

[chaseter]

No one us trying to make mediocre films. The point is by getting on base, you're still in the game. Not every movie should try to redefine the genre.

So if no one is trying to make a mediocre film, directors are instead 'bunting' to get a full base load for another director to hit a 'grand slam' within the same movieverse? That makes no sense. Directors try to make the best movie they possibly can with what they have to work with. Sometimes they have a ****** bat because that's all the studio game them and that's that. Sometimes directors are just terrible batters and they fail. Every director wants to hit a home run. Not every director can hit a home run. Some first timers get lucky and some pro's swing and miss.

If anyone thinks that Marvel is purposely making easy/formulaic/cheap/cookie cutter lead-in movies so that their team up movies make over a billion dollars is hilariously wrong. Marvel wants everyone of their movies to make over a billion dollars. They all won't because Marvel mitigates risk very well. They know Captain America 2 isn't going to make a billion so they don't sink in $300 million to produce it. The know Avengers 2 will get damn close or exceed that mark again so they will sink in $300 million.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

EDIT: Never mind. I misread what you wrote.

 

[jmc]

Oh okay. So we can just call The Avengers, Iron Man 2.5. It's the same thing right?

No because it's not a sequel to any of those solo films. Now, if you can't see the difference between what Marvel did and what WB are doing you need to have a long hard look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[Raiden]

MoS 2 isn't a team-up film, it's a sequel. So they aren't copying Marvel then are they?

The problem is the timing. After Avengers' success, both Sony and Fox have make it clear that they are going to create their own cinematic universes, with the Marvel properties that they have. And WB decided to instead of making a standard sequel of MOS, they are going to have both Batman and Wonder Woman in it, then feign surprise that anyone think they were influenced by Avengers' success.

They can't fool me.

Throughout WB's history they have never attempted a team-up between their marquee superheroes, even during the height of their movies' popularity. And they're doing it merely few years after Avengers made over a billion WW? WB, like Sony and Fox, are just striking while the iron is hot. They knew that this gravy train may not last forever, and eventually GA will be tired of superheroes, like they did with westerns and other genres, and by then it will be too late to make JL. But unlike other studios, they aren't willing to admit it.

 

[Rocketman]

In fairness, The Avengers would've been absolutely nothing without RDJ/Iron Man. He is single-handledly keeping these movies afloat, whether he appears in all of them or not. He is the ONLY thing keeping the universe interesting.

DC on the other hand... They'll continue to be fine without relying on any one character. Superman, Batman (and eventually Wonder Woman in the coming years) are way too big and iconic, and are the first and most widely known superheroes ever (aside from Spider-Man, which Marvel has no control over currently).

Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy aren't really setting the world on fire, and probably never will. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would ever think that Marvel is sweeping the world away with prestige and success because they're making ANT-MAN and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY before a Justice League movie comes out. How is that winning a competition? It's Ant-Man, lol.

Until Marvel gets the rights to their two biggest properties (Spider-Man and X-Men), they are extremely limited and will have serious trouble in the future. I find it hilariously embarrassing that they don't have their two biggest stars. It's like if WB/DC didn't have the rights to Batman and Superman, and they were stuck making Teen Titans and Metamorpho sequels for the next 10 years.

 

[Raiden]

In fairness, The Avengers would've been absolutely nothing without RDJ/Iron Man. He is single-handledly keeping these movies afloat, whether he appears in all of them or not. He is the ONLY thing keeping the universe interesting.

DC on the other hand... They'll continue to be fine without relying on any one character. Superman, Batman (and eventually Wonder Woman in the coming years) are way too big and iconic, and are the first and most widely known superheroes ever (aside from Spider-Man, which Marvel has no control over currently).

Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man, and Guardians of the Galaxy aren't really setting the world on fire, and probably never will. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would ever think that Marvel is sweeping the world away with prestige and success because they're making ANT-MAN and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY before a Justice League movie comes out. How is that winning a competition? It's Ant-Man, lol.

Marvel Studios is doing it because two of their most well-known properties are at Fox and Sony. It is as if WB had given away the rights of Superman (Spider-Man) and Batman (X-Men), and now must do what they can with the rest of the properties. I'd like to see how WB can do it if they can't rely on Supe and Bat, and still make a franchise that can gross a billion.

 

[weezerspider]

From the studio's perspective, it is less about hitting homeruns and more about avoiding disasters. Makes for a profitable franchise. Complete misfires can ruin a franchise, ala the 90s Batman films.

As an art it can be depressing (I don't like any Marvel film as much as I do the best WB, Fox and Sony films), but as a product it is probably the right approach.

Exactly. I couldn't agree more.

I also wouldn't say that Nolan's Batman films have had a bigger impact on the film industry, due to The Avengers, every studio is now looking at their library of properties in order to come up with similar event films.

^^ Except for the Avengers. That is now the bar for superhero movies. It's even why DC is trying to copy Marvel by adding everyone to MoS II without any of the setup...aka fail.

The Avengers not being nominated for Best Picture didn't cause The Academy Awards to change a format they've had for fifty plus years. The Avengers hasn't been called 'unprecedented' filmmaking by auteurs like Paul Thomas Anderson. The Avengers hasn't been called art films by Steven Spielberg. The Avengers hasn't been discussed in depth in filmmaking magazines such as American Cinematographers. The Avengers didn't have a comic book film record eight Academy Award nominations. The Avenger's director Joss Whedon wasn't nominated for the DGA Best Director in film for his work in The Avengers. The Avengers didn't win runner-up for best picture for the LA Film Critics association, nor did it have over twenty nominations in Guild Awards. Nolan's Batman films have had an impact on the art of filmmaking as well as Box Office. The Avengers made money, but didn't make any kind of artistic impact in the industry that Nolan's Batman films, and more specifically, The Dark Knight did.

What's grander? Inspiring studios into envy over the amount of money you made, causing cheap copy-cats to be created in the studio system simply to make money, or actually making an impact on the real artists, making guys like Paul Thomas Anderson and Sam Mendes think differently about the artistic capabilities of a blockbuster type film? I'd pick the latter. That's true impact that will last. Home Alone made the most money in 1990, the same year Goodfellas came out. In forty years, what will be remembered more, Home Alone or Goodfellas? As Joker says: It's not about the money, its about sending a message.

 

[Brother Jack]

I think Nolan's films are probably held to a higher standard, as they should be. But the rest of DC's output, which is quite limited anyway, couldn't be. I seriously doubt most critics even care whether the movie comes from a Marvel or DC property. They just care about the quality of the film and what its aiming to do.