Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - Part 3

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]505007[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]497623[/split]

 

[jokesonm3]

 

[ernesth100]

Thats fantastic. Holy crap my thread made it to Part 3. Im so honored. When I made this I thought it wpuld simply be dismissed as a stupid troll tryna start a fan war. But it has become a rather moderate central for intelligent DC vs Marvel debates.

 

[ernesth100]

So I was in the BvS thread. And came up with another topic. Muscles. Henry Cavill vs Chris Evans.

 

[Evil]

So I was in the BvS thread. And came up with another topic. Muscles. Henry Cavill vs Chris Evans.

Now you can create a new thread. Henry wins.

 

[ernesth100]

Now you can create a new thread. Henry wins.

Im tempted to do so.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

I don't think that scene was meant to be beautiful and i never referred to it as such. That was a scene meant to establish Kent's strong conviction that there are more at stake than the lives of a few kids. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. That was a father being protective of his son. Maybe in an unhealthy way, but you can see the love is there and there are moments in the movie that demonstrate that very well. Also, his mother is sweet and caring, so i don't see any reason to not to care about her.

MOS doesn't play it safe. TWS does. Not playing safe will always rub people the wrong way. You watch MOS and you can see it has a couple of artists behind it. You watch TWS and you can see an entire studio. One is a very personal work, the other is more like a corporate project.

I just turned the phrase as I pointed to a bad scene, that's a core in how the movie now invalidates the point of Superman being the best of Earth and Krypton. Now he's all Krypton, both power and heart. A decent script writer could write scenes where the father is protective and still cares strongly about doing the right thing. Putting others above yourself. Superman needs that as a balance to his immense power, and if he still has it they haven't supported it in writing.

There's nothing daring in MoS, it's just a mess (but if you don't think the studio had their say in it you're deluding yourself as that's not how big budget movies are made). If it was just the choices made with the Kents that I didn't like I wouldn't have much of an issue with it. The main problem is that it has lots of logical flaws and plot conveniences. It's just so poorly thought out.

Snyder needs guidance. There's good reason why he hasn't had a fresh rated movie after his first 3. I so hope that Terrio can write a proper script this time and that Affleck got to give Snyder a lot of input how to do things other than visuals.

 

[Evil]

I just turned the phrase as I pointed to a bad scene, that's a core in how the movie now invalidates the point of Superman being the best of Earth and Krypton. Now he's all Krypton, both power and heart. A decent script writer could write scenes where the father is protective and still cares strongly about doing the right thing. Putting others above yourself. Superman needs that as a balance to his immense power, and if he still has it they haven't supported it in writing.

There's nothing daring in MoS, it's just a mess (but if you don't think the studio had their say in it you're deluding yourself as that's not how big budget movies are made). If it was just the choices made with the Kents that I didn't like I wouldn't have much of an issue with it. The main problem is that it has lots of logical flaws and plot conveniences. It's just so poorly thought out.

Snyder needs guidance. There's good reason why he hasn't had a fresh rated movie after his first 3. I so hope that Terrio can write a proper script this time and that Affleck got to give Snyder a lot of input how to do things other than visuals.

Superman did put others above himself. And Pa Kent simply believed it wasn't the right time for the world to know he existed. There's nothing right or wrong about that scene. It's just a point of view regarding an issue to which there is no logic answer.

I don't agree with anything you said i don't care one bit about fresh ratings. Why should i? The Avengers has an outstanding rating and i think it's a mediocre movie. I also don't know absolutely anybody in real life who thinks that movie is better than MOS. Why should i care about a website? I care about me and those who are close to me. And Snyder obviously doesn't need RT's approval in order to be given the opportunity to direct these movies. They make money, most people seem to like them, and that's all that matters.

MOS is daring on many levels. Some of the points you mentioned as "flaws" are part of what made it so daring, because those moments were concious decisions that they made knowing a lot of people would have big issues with them. I don't remember if i ever saw anything controversial in Marvel flicks. Everything seems carefully constructed in order to not to piss anybody off.


Now, if you don't like the movie and can't recognize its greatness, that's your sole problem. There are obviously many people who can, so it can't be that bad, can it? Not every movie needs to please everybody. Do you know what generally pleases everybody? Fast food. If fast food was a movie, it would get a 90% on RT. It's easy to like it.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Now, if you don't like the movie and can't recognize its greatness, that's your sole problem. There are obviously many people who can, so it can't be that bad, can it? Not every movie needs to please everybody. Do you know what generally pleases everybody? Fast food. If fast food was a movie, it would get a 90% on RT. It's easy to like it.

Nah, fast food would be like a 60 to 70%. 90% means people got a large amount of enjoyment out of it, and some people absolutely loved it. 70ish is something that most people like, it fits the bill, but nobody is going to go crazy about it aside from a small minority. That's fast food.

I agree that the biggest weakness of Marvel's films is their reluctance to take risks, but since they've started, none of their films have been "fast food." Some may have been some of the more expensive dishes at Applebees, to continue the food comparison, but at their core, they're all well made movies. Some being much too safe.

Though it's not fair to say Marvel hasn't taken risks. That's not true at all. The original Iron Man was a huge risk. They took a character was barely known to the general public, grabbed an actor as their leading role who had a history of drug abuse and had fallen out of the limelight and was only just beginning to make a comeback in indie films and small mainstream projects, AND had a Superhero movie that touched (lightly) on current political issues by setting it in the Middle East and having Terrorists be a part of the plot. At that time, we never had a superhero film try to really address anything related to modern politics, so that was a gamble.


The Avengers was a gamble simply because something like that had never really been done before. Take multiple characters from multi-million dollar films and stick them in one flick? It was risky, there were tons of ways to screw it up, and they pulled it off.

But the other films, and a few after TA, all felt very safe. None of them were bad, but they just didn't take any risks. Thor, Cap, IM2, IM3, and Thor 2 were all very "safe films." But then C:TWS and both GOTG were risks as well. Cap for being a comic film that felt more like a spy thriller, once again infusing the film with more modern political tones and fears, and really stepping outside the general superhero formula. GOTG for taking a Z-list superhero property and embracing the wacky space-comedy vibe of the entire film.

So Marvel has certainly taken risks. They're just different than the kinds DC has made. No, they haven't made "dark" risks, but they've definitely taken them.

 

[TeeKay]

I disagree with IM3 being a "safe" film. It was a subversive film that ditched the Marvel "formula" and actually tried to do interesting things much to the disdain of certain fans.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I disagree with IM3 being a "safe" film. It was a subversive film that ditched the Marvel "formula" and actually tried to do interesting things much to the disdain of certain fans.

So wait, there was no humour in the movie and the villain wasn't weak? I must have been watching that movie all wrong .

 

[TeeKay]

That was not my point but whatever.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That was not my point but whatever.

It was a joke ?

 

[Evil]

Nah, fast food would be like a 60 to 70%. 90% means people got a large amount of enjoyment out of it, and some people absolutely loved it. 70ish is something that most people like, it fits the bill, but nobody is going to go crazy about it aside from a small minority. That's fast food.

I agree that the biggest weakness of Marvel's films is their reluctance to take risks, but since they've started, none of their films have been "fast food." Some may have been some of the more expensive dishes at Applebees, to continue the food comparison, but at their core, they're all well made movies. Some being much too safe.

Though it's not fair to say Marvel hasn't taken risks. That's not true at all. The original Iron Man was a huge risk. They took a character was barely known to the general public, grabbed an actor as their leading role who had a history of drug abuse and had fallen out of the limelight and was only just beginning to make a comeback in indie films and small mainstream projects, AND had a Superhero movie that touched (lightly) on current political issues by setting it in the Middle East and having Terrorists be a part of the plot. At that time, we never had a superhero film try to really address anything related to modern politics, so that was a gamble.


The Avengers was a gamble simply because something like that had never really been done before. Take multiple characters from multi-million dollar films and stick them in one flick? It was risky, there were tons of ways to screw it up, and they pulled it off.

But the other films, and a few after TA, all felt very safe. None of them were bad, but they just didn't take any risks. Thor, Cap, IM2, IM3, and Thor 2 were all very "safe films." But then C:TWS and both GOTG were risks as well. Cap for being a comic film that felt more like a spy thriller, once again infusing the film with more modern political tones and fears, and really stepping outside the general superhero formula. GOTG for taking a Z-list superhero property and embracing the wacky space-comedy vibe of the entire film.

So Marvel has certainly taken risks. They're just different than the kinds DC has made. No, they haven't made "dark" risks, but they've definitely taken them.

That's the way you see it. I respect it. To me they're pretty much all fast food. Simple, family friendly action flicks who play as safe as possible. Because that's what fast food is. It's not daring. It's a mix of flavours that generally appeal to almost everybody.

"spy thriller"

Man, that term gets thrown around a lot. Funny because i see TWS as a perfect straight to the point SH movie. I've watched many spy thrillers and they generally have a lot more to it than what we see in TWS. For me, to call TWS a Spy Thriller would be like calling Batman Begins an horror movie, just because it has a few "Boo" moments in it. Let's not get too carried away.

 

[Quasimod0]

IM3 definitely wasn't safe. It gets tons and tons of hate for making an interesting change to a character. Plus, Tony is out of the armor for much of the film. It really is a movie about Tony Stark, and what makes him a hero.

 

[TeeKay]

The way I'd describe MoS is that its a movie that wants to make you think its about something but it really isn't. Its very superficial. The last 3rd act was no different from any other big blockbuster action movie.

 

[Evil]

The way I'd describe MoS is that its a movie that wants to make you think its about something but it really isn't. Its very superficial. The last 3rd act was no different from any other big blockbuster action movie.

Yeah, it was no different. Like the third act of TWS was also no different from any other big blockbuster movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Going into MoS, I was really hoping for this daring re-invention of the character for the 21st Century. That's the type of thing I expect when I hear the name Christopher Nolan attached to a project. I couldn't help but be disappointed when the film just ended up being a generic popcorn action movie.

 

[jokesonm3]

Blame Goyer guys.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Guess I'm still a Noob to cinema terms.
How do you tell the difference between popcorn flick and another big budgeted action movie like The Dark Knight?

 

[The Batman]

I would say the differences lie in depth of storytelling, quality of actors, style choices, etc.

 

[Evil]

Going into MoS, I was really hoping for this daring re-invention of the character for the 21st Century. That's the type of thing I expect when I hear the name Christopher Nolan attached to a project. I couldn't help but be disappointed when the film just ended up being a generic popcorn action movie.

That can be said about pretty much any other cb movie. To me the only real exception would be the Nolan stuff.

 

[Flint Marko]

Now, if you don't like the movie and can't recognize its greatness, that's your sole problem. There are obviously many people who can, so it can't be that bad, can it? Not every movie needs to please everybody. Do you know what generally pleases everybody? Fast food. If fast food was a movie, it would get a 90% on RT. It's easy to like it.

"Can't recognize its greatness"? Holy cow, this whole post is gold.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Man of Steel is just too dang smart for us mortals to 'get'. It will take centuries for us to even begin to decipher its hidden genius. But then it may just be too late.