Are DC films held to a higher Caliber by critics?

[InJustice]

The same reason he always has?

To help people.

That's not really a sufficient answer. That only scratches the surface. The Nolan trilogy treated Batman as if it was Bruce Wayne's addiction/depression personified. Helping people is only one side of it. The whole reason for Batman in the context of TDKT is Bruce Wayne's reaction to his own trauma. That's why we hear so many references to Bruce hanging the cape in TDKR, and that's why he purged Batman at the end of the TDKR...because he overcame his struggles.

 

[Marvin]

The approach to Man of Steel wasn't the problem. It was the execution.

Of course it was. Even in the face of articles being written about why superman doesn't kill no matter what and a producer known for not embracing the premise of comic books...

I'd be inclined to think it was an issue if it wasn't for the fact that this film was the first to shock the GA into a new take on the character. Perhaps I'll be more than open to the idea upon the sequel.

If only we could run an experiment where this was the first anyone had ever seen of the character, superheroes in general even. The film comes out and it get's the same scathing reviews....that would set the record straight that it's a matter of execution. For me anyways. Till then guess we'll just have to stick to our theories.

 

[jmc]

It seems to me that saying execution wasn't an issue is being a bit in denial. Most people who like the film seem to agree it still had its fair share of problems, the most likely answer to the reaction is that it was a combination of both bad execution and pre-conceived idea of what Superman is suppose to be. When the former failed to hit the right marks the experience became less and less enjoyable because there was no fall back for people to grab on to. It wasn't a case of it being just a poorly executed film, it was a case of a poorly executed film that took away what was traditionally liked by people. If it retained more of the traditional Superman stuff but wasn't executed well then I'd hazard a guess that the reaction would be far more favourable, because at least it's a Superman movie. The same is possibly true if it was an excellent execution that re-invented the character, people might have come away thinking what a great update to the character it was.

 

[Hush]

To me I hold DC Films to a higher standard tha Marvel because Marvel Films to me are kinda formulaic at this point and I kinda know what im getting. For DC I literally have no idea whats gonna happen and they owe us as a fan base, quality, because for years they have been behind Marvel. Everything they make needs to be quality to me partly because of their commitment to crap for years in regards to hero developement and Batman and Robin.

 

[redhawk23]

it's like GL doesn't exist anymore

GL was a bungled opportunity. I actually don't think it's particularly worse than Iron Man 2...but Marvel had a lot more to fall back on. If Iron Man one had been as generally bloated and formless as Iron Man 2, things would have likely gone very different for Marvel. That's basically what happened with green Lantern.

The movie has its moments, Mark Strong is great as sinestro.

Going with Sony Imageworks for the bulk of the effects was an awful choice though. For whatever reason, that company more or less got to Spiderman 2, did great work for the time, but then decided to never improve past 2005.

Also with GL, while I can see why they would go with Hal Jordan from a story perspective, they more or less failed to realize that a large chunk of their target audience grew up knowing Green Lantern as John Stewart from the Justice League cartoons and were disappointed when that was not the character in the film. Going the John Stewart rout would have hit that audience, and would have helped to break the endless succession of standard issue White-dudes-in-tights.

 

[Marvin]

I was pointing to the fact that DC clearly has the capacity to make non 'serious' super hero films in this day and age. And one doesn't need to point way back to B&R to mark when they changed their mind.

I do think sony imageworks is kinda funky. Though aren't they doing still doing spiderman?
Masked heroes are easier to pull off in cgi.

It seems to me that saying execution wasn't an issue is being a bit in denial. Most people who like the film seem to agree it still had its fair share of problems, the most likely answer to the reaction is that it was a combination of both bad execution and pre-conceived idea of what Superman is suppose to be. When the former failed to hit the right marks the experience became less and less enjoyable because there was no fall back for people to grab on to. It wasn't a case of it being just a poorly executed film, it was a case of a poorly executed film that took away what was traditionally liked by people. If it retained more of the traditional Superman stuff but wasn't executed well then I'd hazard a guess that the reaction would be far more favourable, because at least it's a Superman movie. The same is possibly true if it was an excellent execution that re-invented the character, people might have come away thinking what a great update to the character it was.

I haven't met an individual(including myself) that thinks it was executed perfectly. The thing is few films are. The thing is like you said, due to that other contingent, when this of all films starts lacking in execution things get obtuse or even hyperbolic. Thank goodness mos didn't have the overlong 3rd act issue some would say tdk had, otherwise we'd all be hearing about the massively overlong third act...

For all the films that have a suffering of execution here and there(pretty sure that's all of them), the one with preconception working against it suffers the most.

 

[chaseter]

Mind explaining how?

I've already posted showing how it does undermine the story.

Well lets see...how about the ending of TDKR with the introduction of a new Batman? Well there's JGL in the role. How many times has Batman come back out of retirement? You do realize the book that the movie took it's name from...Batman comes out of retirement? What about Batman Beyond were Bruce sits at home on his computer helping Terry fight crime? So...please do tell me how the decades of Batman material out there can't support him returning because it would shame Christopher Nolan. It wouldn't be Batman if a new threat came to the city and Batman was just sipping cognac in France...giving no ****s.

It doesn't undermine the story one bit. Batman retires at the end of TDKR after coming back out of retirement at the beginning of TDKR. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. You have a new Batman in JGL and a plethora of other stories were Batman returns to save Gotham one last time. It would not undermine Chris Nolan's vision. It's Batman at the end of the day...

 

[Marvin]

Batman Beyond, had him retire after his body stopped working. His heart actually.
I haven't read DKR in a long time but the major flaw in comparing what nolan did with what those stories do is simply, the amount of career work batman has done before retiring. Spiderman is prone to retire at some point as well, but not after encountering 3 and a half rogues then again after a fourth.
Imagine it was just one rogue that caused him to retire, would that seem kinda odd for batman of all characters? I can see why it doesn't sit well with some people.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Nolan's Bruce Wayne is done being Batman. That's how his story was written. His character arc is complete. He's a different character from the comics, with different motivations, wants and needs. He wouldn't come out of retirement because that's how he was written.

 

[InJustice]

Well lets see...how about the ending of TDKR with the introduction of a new Batman? Well there's JGL in the role. How many times has Batman come back out of retirement? You do realize the book that the movie took it's name from...Batman comes out of retirement? What about Batman Beyond were Bruce sits at home on his computer helping Terry fight crime? So...please do tell me how the decades of Batman material out there can't support him returning because it would shame Christopher Nolan. It wouldn't be Batman if a new threat came to the city and Batman was just sipping cognac in France...giving no ****s.

You do realize just because the comics/animated series depict Batman coming out of retirement X amounts of time, it doesn't mean that the filmmakers will see Batman in the same way. All your comment is saying is "it works in the comics, so it will work in TDKT," while disregarding the themes and story elements explored in the films. AS Poni_Boy said, the whole point of Nolan's Batman is to have a character arc, not to be a longstanding comic book movie series. Hence why there's a beginning, middle and end...something you clearly don't seem to understand.

Again, the point of Nolan Batman was to be Bruce's response to his own personal injustice. Because of that, the grief and addiction to Batman consumes him. When Bruce no longer needed Batman, he'd then explore the possibility of having a normal life. This was alluded to so many times in TDKT.

It doesn't undermine the story one bit. Batman retires at the end of TDKR after coming back out of retirement at the beginning of TDKR. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. You have a new Batman in JGL and a plethora of other stories were Batman returns to save Gotham one last time. It would not undermine Chris Nolan's vision. It's Batman at the end of the day...

That still doesn't even come CLOSE to explaining the temporal and tonal inconsistencies between MOS and TDKT.

People need to get over it, TDKT will never be connected.

Nolan's Bruce Wayne is done being Batman. That's how his story was written. His character arc is complete. He's a different character from the comics, with different motivations, wants and needs. He wouldn't come out of retirement because that's how he was written.

Thank you.

 

[Poni_Boy]

It's not hard to understand. Personally I don't like that he was written that way, but that's the way he was written. He no longer feels attached to Gotham. To the cowl. Being Batman was his PTSD therapy not his life-long purpose. He's done. Roll credits.

This is close-to-comics-canon Batman in live action in terms of motivation. Bruce Wayne is his facade. His life revolves around his mission.

 

[Marvin]

Bruce died with his parents in the comics. That's what I was told when reading.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Bruce died with his parents in the comics. That's what I was told when reading.

Winner winner chicken dinner

 

[DACrowe]

Bruce died with his parents in the comics. That's what I was told when reading.

Of course, Nolan's point was to explore that. Why would someone become so emotionally shut-off and stagnant after the loss of his parents? Nolan extrapolated that as a form of grieving and uncontrollable rage that was only increased as more loved ones died. And like all grief, he had to let go.

It is a pretty interesting way to view the character. However, it is not quite as mythic as, "He does it because NO ONE else can." But I appreciate that Nolan both honored the myth and stripped it away a lot. Sort of a raw, acoustic cover of the character on film.

 

[Marvin]

Of course, Nolan's point was to explore that. Why would someone become so emotionally shut-off and stagnant after the loss of his parents? Nolan extrapolated that as a form of grieving and uncontrollable rage that was only increased as more loved ones died. And like all grief, he had to let go.

It is a pretty interesting way to view the character. However, it is not quite as mythic as, "He does it because NO ONE else can." But I appreciate that Nolan both honored the myth and stripped it away a lot. Sort of a raw, acoustic cover of the character on film.

When you say nolan, I assume you mean the writer of the script?

I personally see it as the moment bruce became a facade and this other person was awoken. I'm not a fan of the idea that bruce just longs for a normal life and such after he's cleaned things up(temporarily). The creature is who he is, beyond the needings of society(relationships) and such.

DKR did this well imo. Given nolans characterization of bruce throughout along with his batman, I'm not surprised he quit. That really just was never batman. Just a guy looking for a way to grieve and find a human connection.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Batman Beyond, had him retire after his body stopped working. His heart actually.

I thought the real reason he retired in Beyond was that he pointed the gun at the criminal in the first episode. It's been a while since I saw itt:

 

[Human Torch]

it's like GL doesn't exist anymore

I think GL is part of the reason DC's stuff is so super-serious now.They tried to ape Iron Man's style with one of their characters,and when it failed to spark with the public,they just decided to "Nolan-ise" all their movies.Can't blame them I guess.Give 'em what sells.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I daily have to shake my head and face palm myself when reading how people on here act towards and about a comic book movie they consider "the enemy camp". Really? It's not bad enough that some of you consider a comic book company and it's movies "the enemy"...but you actually spend as much or more time complaining about and attacking them than you do praising and complimenting your side.

How will humans survive when people fight over fictional characters in tights and underpants? (or soccer for that matter. It's just a game where guys run around and kick a ball, calm down!)

 

[The Endless]

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

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Of course it was. Even in the face of articles being written about why superman doesn't kill no matter what and a producer known for not embracing the premise of comic books...

I'd be inclined to think it was an issue if it wasn't for the fact that this film was the first to shock the GA into a new take on the character. Perhaps I'll be more than open to the idea upon the sequel.

If only we could run an experiment where this was the first anyone had ever seen of the character, superheroes in general even. The film comes out and it get's the same scathing reviews....that would set the record straight that it's a matter of execution. For me anyways. Till then guess we'll just have to stick to our theories.

I don't care about Superman killing Zod. Zod put him in a position where had no choice. Not an issue as far as I'm concerned. All the destruction being glossed over at the end is annoying, but Avengers has its own issues at the end (namely all the villains dropping dead after Tony destroys the mothership, the same stupid copout that The Phantom Menace used).

What I do have an issue with is how everything between the destruction of Krypton and Zod showing up on Earth is a poorly-acted (except for Costner and Adams), convoluted mess. They try to copy the same style that was used in Batman Begins which show his early life, but unlike that film there is really no rhyme or reason for the scenes they chose (besides Jonathan's death and the way they handled that was incredibly stupid), and they are always awkwardly inserted into the modern day narrative. The Jor-El scene is reduced to meaningless exposition (most of which we already know from the opening Krypton sequences) and no real relationship is ever developed between Clark and Jor-El. Overall, it did a poor job on showing how Clark Kent became Superman. He was gifted powers from birth, has a five minute conversation with Jor-El, and he's Superman. There needs to be some sort of arc there and it was badly bungled. Everything happens too quickly and too easily, with a lack of emotion.

The last half of the film is much better, but the fight scenes still go on for too long. I was entertained, but I have seen far too many complaints about that by critics and just people I know to ignore that. People can only handle one CGI character punching another CGI character for so long before they get bored.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the film is Henry Cavill's performance. This film really needed someone charismatic enough to carry that role, and Cavill is just bland and wooden. One of my friends who is not a fan of the comics said that Cavill was perfect for the role because he is just as dull and uninteresting as Superman is in the comics. I happen to like Superman, but that's not the type of reaction you want to be getting from people. A lot of people actually seem to like Cavill's performance, which completely baffles me because I thought he was terrible.

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.

 

[weezerspider]

When you say nolan, I assume you mean the writer of the script?

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

 

[The Guard]

That's not really a sufficient answer. That only scratches the surface. The Nolan trilogy treated Batman as if it was Bruce Wayne's addiction/depression personified. Helping people is only one side of it. The whole reason for Batman in the context of TDKT is Bruce Wayne's reaction to his own trauma. That's why we hear so many references to Bruce hanging the cape in TDKR, and that's why he purged Batman at the end of the TDKR...because he overcame his struggles.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Poni_Boy]

If Nolan's Batman was going to come out of retirement, that's why he would do so. To help people.

That's why he passed the mantle on to Blake. He has no more desire to help people himself. His last act of goodwill was giving them a new Batman. Pulling him out of retirement (which thank god won't happen) would make Bruce's whole character arc from Begins to TDKR meaningless.

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

False. He became Batman to heal himself. That's at the lowest, most simplistic level. He didn't know it at the time when he first put on the cowl but like any good catharsis he realized it in the end.

 

[The Endless]

Batman is Bruce's obsession. Batman is Bruce Wayne, it's not Bruce Wayne is Batman. Bruce Wayne, the person, is the mask, the facade. He lives to carry on the crusade he swore on his parents graves. I don't like the idea of him having a happy ending and giving it all up. That isn't Batman to me. That's the main reason I didn't like Rises.

I can accept different interpretations, especially when adapting to film. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

It's why Batman 89, Returns, Begins and TDK are the only Batman films I really like.

 

[The Guard]

That's why he passed the mantle on to Blake. He has no more desire to help people himself. His last act of goodwill was giving them a new Batman. Pulling him out of retirement (which thank god won't happen) would make Bruce's whole character arc from Begins to TDKR meaningless.

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

Not whether it was particularly likely given the events at the end of TDKR.

False. He became Batman to heal himself. That's at the lowest, most simplistic level. He didn't know it at the time when he first put on the cowl but like any good catharsis he realized it in the end.

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.