Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[Poni_Boy]

But again, the question was why would he conceivably come out of retirement?

He won't. That's the whole point to the trilogy. He's done. Asking "but what if he does?" is equal to asking "but what if Selina was really a fembot?"

Pointless

He actually sought revenge to help himself.

He realized the error of his ways.

He then became Batman to help Gotham/others.

In helping Gotham/others, he both hurt and eventually helped himself.

And all of that mumbo jumbo backs up my point. He became Batman to heal himself. He didn't know that's what he needed, but it is. TDKR offered the catharsis. So when he finally healed, he was no longer Batman, just Bruce Wayne, and ready to finally live Bruce Wayne's life again.

 

[InJustice]

How is that not a sufficient answer? If Nolan's Batman was going to come out of retirement, that's why he would do so. To help people.

Which was the main reason he became Batman in the first place, psychological elements notwithstanding. To help people/Gotham.

That's not what was shown in The Dark Knight Rises. Batman came out of retirement because he needed a reason to justify being Batman. In this case, **** literally hits the fan when Bane comes to Gotham.

This isn't to say helping people is not important, because Bruce cares about helping. But it's not his primary reason for being Batman. In fact, Goyer and Nolan both said that this Batman treats the persona almost like an addiction. In fact, Batman exists because it's Bruce Wayne's purpose for existing (taken to the extreme). That's the main reason above all else. It makes more sense when you place the scene of him overcoming the Pit in this context. The whole point of that is to show how Batman isn't Bruce's only purpose in life, life in and of itself should be the reason why you're motivated.

There's absolutely nothing in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES to suggest he would never potentially take up the cape/cowl again. And even if there was something like that, Batman, like any human being, can change his mind.

I never said it was present in TDKR (and even then, it's present there too), I said it was present in the entire TDKT. In Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Rachel tells Bruce that as long as he's Batman, they can never be together, and yet we see that Bruce is willing to throw away Batman (scene where Harvey confesses that he's Batman) so that he can have a normal life. Bruce certainly worked hard to make sure he could have a life past the cape and cowl, that ultimately leads him to a kind of purposelessness after The Dark Knight.

Heck, the Dark Knight had a simple minute where Natascha asks Harvey if he'd be up to replace Batman as Gotham's hero. Since you mentioned TDKR, there was also a moment between Alfred and Bruce where Alfred reminded Bruce that he's not Batman anymore, and that it's time to move on (BB-TDKR: "I've never given up on you" in conjunction with "I wanted something more for you...I still do"). I think that's more than enough to show that Nolan's Batman, or rather, Bruce Wayne was never meant to be a permanent hero.

The whole "Bruce Wayne died with his parents" approach is popular, but I don't find it very interesting, or remotely deep.

Yes, he underwent trauma, but to say that that trauma simply ended the existence of "Bruce Wayne" is incredibly cheap psychologically speaking.

I find the concept that "Batman" was born when Bruce's parents died, Bruce Wayne didn't die and Bruce had to balance the two impulses and aspects of his personality (more than just a secret identity) and a huge change to his life to be infinitely more interesting. The idea that a traumatized young Bruce dedicated his life to this idea, this mission, and actually GOT THERE and sustained it despite all odds is a WHOLE lot more compelling for me than "well, I've got nothing else to live for, might as well do this". And pretty much all the elements Nolan focused on (Bruce needing to be Batman, Batman as penance, Batman as an outlet, addiction the mission) fit quite well within that framework.

If Nolan erred anywhere in adapting the Batman character, that's where he did so most. Eliminating a major part of the character's most unique core psychological motivations.

I don't think Nolan erred as much as it is him experimenting with something new, to create a character arc with Batman. I agree with you in that Bruce Wayne isn't dead, but rather re-adjusted to make sense of the trauma around him.

And I don't think Nolan treated Bruce as if he died with his parents. By the conclusion of the Dark Knight Rises (and the Pit scene, as well as Bane's first fight with Batman), we see that Bruce has regained what he has lost, the will to live. And since he overcame the Pit, he now wants to live rather than die because he was unable to move on.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Pfff...the kind of question that the OP asked is just wishfull thinking for some fanboys that can't accept the fact that some cirtics don't like their fav CB movies.

I'm fairly sure that to most critics,all CB movies are just movies that happens to be in the same genre.The only time they MIGHT pay extra attentions to CB movies when directors like Nolan or Singer are involved,as those two directors seems to have transcend the genre.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

DC vs Marvel is bizarre to me. They don't care about the reader or the fans, they just want your money.

 

[Marvin]

So yes, I have far more problems with the film than it not fitting my pre-concieved notions of what it should have been. That said, I still enjoyed it. There was enough there in the opening 20 minutes and the last half that I liked it. But it is a deeply flawed film and I can easily see where someone who is not a fan of the character would not like it. Of my closest friends and family, I'm actually the one who likes this film the most.

It is an ambitious film that tries to recreate this character for the 21st Century (something that was badly needed), but unlike Christopher Nolan, Zack Snyder simply isn't skilled enough to reach those goals.

I appreciate most of what you said, though I can see in your tone that it still get's a positive review. Looking at this thread title, I seek to explain what is the mechanism that ended up landing the film that mixed on these critical number sites?

I've never met one person that's said the film is perfect. I can fire off my own list of short comings, but if I were to explain the phenomena that occurred this summer, I'd say there was more going on than this film just being relatively bad. Ironman 2 landing that much higher than it? I don't/can't subscribe.

You do realize Nolan has screenwriting credit for all three Batman films, right?

That's great, but the death of the Waynes and Bruce's response to that was in the draft of the script nolan's name isn't on. Call it book keeping.

 

[mace1]

Interesting topic.

 

[Lord]

They're not exactly held to a higher caliber, they just think that by Nolanising Superman, their Man of Steel movie is "deep" and "artistic"

 

[flickchick85]

I think critics simply judge these movies based on how well they do whatever they're trying to do. DC and Marvel movies aren't attempting to be the same kind of movies. Marvel is out to make fun, colorful, exciting films that are - to a certain extent, family-friendly - and they typically execute those types of movies pretty well. And when they don't (like say, with Thor: TDW), the critics aren't as kind as they are to the ones that pull it off with flying colors. It's not as if all Marvel movies have over 90% at RT or anything like that.

DC movies are equally judged based on how well they achieve what they're attempting. For example, Green Lantern attempted to be "Marvel-esque" and just came off generic, paint-by-numbers, and half-assed. Nolan's Batman movies attempted to be serious, thought-provoking takes on a formerly more colorful and campy superhero and mostly succeeded, so they got high marks from critics. MoS attempted the same with its hero and only mildly succeeded, so the reviews reflect that.

I don't see any higher standard being held in either case. Regardless of the way fans constantly compare them, critics aren't judging them against each other - they're judging them against themselves, and what the movie itself is attempting to be.

 

[jmc]

I think critics simply judge these movies based on how well they do whatever they're trying to do. DC and Marvel movies aren't attempting to be the same kind of movies. Marvel is out to make fun, colorful, exciting films that are - to a certain extent, family-friendly - and they typically execute those types of movies pretty well. And when they don't (like say, with Thor: TDW), the critics aren't as kind as they are to the ones that pull it off with flying colors. It's not as if all Marvel movies have over 90% at RT or anything like that.

DC movies are equally judged based on how well they achieve what they're attempting. For example, Green Lantern attempted to be "Marvel-esque" and just came off generic, paint-by-numbers, and half-assed. Nolan's Batman movies attempted to be serious, thought-provoking takes on a formerly more colorful and campy superhero and mostly succeeded, so they got high marks from critics. MoS attempted the same with its hero and only mildly succeeded, so the reviews reflect that.

I don't see any higher standard being held in either case. Regardless of the way fans constantly compare them, critics aren't judging them against each other - they're judging them against themselves, and what the movie itself is attempting to be.

I do actually think Superman may be the exception to that rule. I feel the problem for Superman is he has a story and ideology that is so ingrained in the public conscious that it becomes very hard for there to be objectively towards the character when significant changes are made. Of course execution plays a part, in fact it plays a huge part, but there also doesn't seem to be a lot of slack given for the execution towards this particular character. I don't know anyone who outright hated Thor 2 or TDKR or IM3, all films with big flaws, the reaction I got was more 'it was average' at worst, but I know people who outright hated Man of Steel despite it's flaws being on par with some of those movies.

 

[flickchick85]

I do actually think Superman may be the exception to that rule. I feel the problem for Superman is he has a story and ideology that is so ingrained in the public conscious that it becomes very hard for there to be objectively towards the character when significant changes are made. Of course execution plays a part, in fact it plays a huge part, but there also doesn't seem to be a lot of slack given for the execution towards this particular character. I don't know anyone who outright hated Thor 2 or TDKR or IM3, all films with big flaws, the reaction I got was more 'it was average' at worst, but I know people who outright hated Man of Steel despite it's flaws being on par with some of those movies.

I agree that the reaction seemed a little harsh on MoS (for the record, I liked it a lot), but I think a lot of that had to do with it being sold as "Christopher Nolan's" take on Superman. People were expecting the screenplay to be as mature and thoughtful as his Bat-movies were, and instead, what they got was a lot pulpier...and pure Goyer (juvenile writing doing its best imitation of maturity) and Snyder (pretty pictures, over-the-top action). It just didn't match how the movie was being sold to people, and it wasn't clear what the movie itself wanted to be. It seemed to want to be like a Chris Nolan humanistic approach one minute, then went all explosions and destruction (no interest or care for human lives/collateral damage) the next. That identity crisis made for some glaring sloppiness, imo.

As a Superman fan who never liked the previous screen incarnations of the character, I was thrilled to see this new take on the character that more closely resembled the one I know from comics, but I can freely acknowledge its flaws. Its execution was all over the place, imo, and its reviews were a knee-jerk reaction to that result vs. the expectations built by the marketing.

As for the fans who hate MoS because Superman killed, all I can say is, I'm pretty sure those aren't the "critics" this thread is about, lol.

 

[Micromind]

^ I think the quite the opposite, most critics were expecting a lighthearted, enjoyable - summer entertainer, with more comedy and some action, they basically wanted a fun movie which Singer's SR wasn't.

What they saw was complete opposite, with no humor, serious tone, dull colors and over the top action and destruction, and hence the back lash.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

They're not exactly held to a higher caliber, they just think that by Nolanising Superman, their Man of Steel movie is "deep" and "artistic"

Critics said that? Wasn't it like, the exact opposite (MOS was no fun, etc etc)?

 

[flickchick85]

^ I think the quite the opposite, most critics were expecting a lighthearted, enjoyable - summer entertainer, with more comedy and some action, they basically wanted a fun movie which Singer's SR wasn't.

What they saw was complete opposite, with no humor, serious tone, dull colors and over the top action and destruction, and hence the back lash.

Critics have no problem with serious CBMs, and they actually liked SR for the most part, more than some of the Marvel films. MoS's seriousness wasn't the problem. It's self-seriousness? Yeah. You can't have Michael Shannon delivering lines like, "RELEASE THE WORLD ENGINE!" so dramatically with Hans' booming music and not expect a few eye-rolls or chuckles. There were some real groaners in that script for a movie that was taking itself so seriously. I really think the backlash came from the film not delivering on how it was sold, and not from being held to some "higher caliber."

 

[jmc]

^ I think the quite the opposite, most critics were expecting a lighthearted, enjoyable - summer entertainer, with more comedy and some action, they basically wanted a fun movie which Singer's SR wasn't.

What they saw was complete opposite, with no humor, serious tone, dull colors and over the top action and destruction, and hence the back lash.

The trailers showed nothing of the sort so I really don't know how a critic could have gone in expecting the opposite.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I agree that they judge the movie based on what it was going for. Critics don't care if Green Lantern was Marvel or DC. That is fanboy nonsense. What they DO care about is what Green Lantern attempted to be, and they mostly felt it failed, so poor reviews. Conversely, Marvel films strive to be fun adventures for the family to enjoy, and they mostly succeed. Hence the good ratings by critics.

Why did Man of Steel get a 56%, while Thor: The Dark World got a 65%? Man of Steel tried to be Nolan Superman, and it came out clunky in several ways. I enjoyed it a lot, but it had many pacing issues (I find this common in Zack Snyder's work), and Thor: The Dark World was a much safer movie. Notice though, 65% isn't a great rating. It is the lowest rating on RT a MCU film has ever had. So, it is not like critics unanimously praised it.

 

[Micromind]

Critics have no problem with serious CBMs, and they actually liked SR for the most part, more than some of the Marvel films. MoS's seriousness wasn't the problem. It's self-seriousness? Yeah. You can't have Michael Shannon delivering lines like, "RELEASE THE WORLD ENGINE!" so dramatically with Hans' booming music and not expect a few eye-rolls or chuckles. There were some real groaners in that script for a movie that was taking itself so seriously. I really think the backlash came from the film not delivering on how it was sold, and not from being held to some "higher caliber."

The trailers showed nothing of the sort so I really don't know how a critic could have gone in expecting the opposite.

But most critics had an issue with the somber tone of the movie (MOS), that was one of their complaints..no matter that earlier trailers had not hinted that the movie was going to be a fun family entertainer.

You are making a point that critics go in with a certain mindset by watching the trailers of the movie, expecting the movie to have a tone established by the trailers and then they rate it accordingly, then if it does turn out to be some thing different, something that they were not expecting.. they give low ratings.

Sorry, I don't buy that line of reasoning you have provided because Iron Man 3's trailers looked and promised a rather serious take on the character, yet the movie turned out to be full of comedy and over the top action set pieces which were rendered by heavy use of CGI, still critics liked it and gave it really good ratings.

The movie (IM 3) never was faithful; to what trailers promised, it was something different.

 

[Lord]

Critics said that? Wasn't it like, the exact opposite (MOS was no fun, etc etc)?

Sorry, gonna rework my post:

These films are not helt to a higher calliber, WB and the team that did The Man of Steel just think they were making a "high caliber", mature and artistic film just because they were Nolanising Superman, with studios having the wrong idea that something that is "edgier" is more mature than something that is not.

 

[dark_b]

how is this thread..............where............who?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_man_of_steel/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/770677993/

 

[DA_Champion]

In contrast, I looked up the top-15 post-Blade comic book movies on IMDB a while back. both DC and Zach Snyder do a lot better on IMDB than on RT.

Dark Knight, 9.0/10
Dark Knight Rises, 8.6/10
Batman Begins, 8.3/10
V for Vendetta, 8.2/10
Sin City, 8.2/10
The Avengers, 8.2/10
Iron Man, 7.9/10
XMen First Class / Kick Ass (tie) , 7.8/10
300, 7.7/10
Watchmen, 7.6/10
X2, 7.5/10
XMen / Man of Steel / Iron Man 3 / Thor 2 / Spider Man 2 (tie) 7.4/10

Differences between IMDB and RT:
- Nolan's movies are ranked 1,2, and 3 rather than merely being in the top-10;
- Avengers is 6th on IMDB rather than tied for 2nd (with Dark Knight) on RT;
- Spider Man 2 is tied for 13th on IMDB, whereas it is #1 -- #1 -- on IMDB.
- MoS is in the top third of comic book movies on IMDB, rather than in the bottom third;
- Zach Snyder has 3 movies in the top-15;

 

[Lord]

High School Musical and the Justin Bieber documentar also have around 3/ 10 on IMDB, with most voters not having even watched them and all critics saying that they were well made.

 

[DA_Champion]

I will also out of magnanimity oldrazz propose a theory as to why the critics tore it apart.

Suppose there is a stupid kid on the playground. And he is strutting his stuff. But the older kids don't go after him because he is disarming and with a wink in his eye, knowing what he is and genial about it. That movie is Thor 2.

Now suppose there is another kid even stupider and strutting his stuff and acting all hoity-toity and important and claiming profundity, it is then that the older kids will rag him to pieces. That movie is MOS. A movie which has delusions of profundity and importance while in actuality it is just logic-fail ludicrous hokum. Most blockbusters are the later but thankfully few have the former.

That is the thing with DC movies like MOS, TDKR, Inception - all dumb **** blow-em-ups that thing they are meditations on humanity. And therein lies their biggest fail. Their emptiness laid bare due to the vast chasm between what they claim and what they deliver, their barren imagination put into sharper relief by their self-aggrandizing delusion.

The Dark Knight Rises and Inception were extremely well-received by critics, so your theory fails.

It is unfortunate that you did not understand Inception.

 

[DA_Champion]

High School Musical and the Justin Bieber documentar also have around 3/ 10 on IMDB, with most voters not having even watched them and all critics saying that they were well made.

I think it makes sense to compare movies within a genre to each other but not to compare movies between genres. That's probably true of any rating system, you remove a lot of systemic biases that way.