Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - Part 3

[The Joker]

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.

This reminds me of earlier today, when someone claimed that people who found MOS soulless "must not have been paying attention".

Some people love being OTT in their defense of the film.

GOTG wasn't safe in any way, shape, or form. They used a comic property that even most hardcore comic fans only had a passing familiarity with, a director who was known for doing weird niche films, and cast a leading man who was big on a cult comedy TV series that was constantly in danger of being canceled. That's a risk no matter how you look at it.

Same holds for Iron Man as well. Those are just facts. They were risky moves. You need to realize there is a difference between telling "edgy" or "dark" stories and "risk" in a moviemaking sense. Everything I listed for all those films were huge risks for a studio to make. And they certainly weren't as safe as possible. The Transformers sequels were safe action films that played as safe as possible. GOTG was not.

And TWS was definetly a Spy thriller, you could have easily changed Cap to Bond and it would have been a damn good Spy flick. I didn't say it was a serious government drama like Bridge of Spies or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I said it was a spy action flick, and it was that 100%. And for a comic film, it had solid commentary on current political issues, namely the NSA. Was it super in-depth commentary? No, but it was like TDK throwing in the allegory to Bush patriot act post 9/11 with the Bat-sonar. A small thing, but one that was there and executed well.

Point being, all the examples were still risks to take. There's no debating that. They may have not been the risks you wanted, but they were still risks.

 

[DA_Champion]

Iron Man might be the riskiest of 21st century comic book movies.

Wasn't there a risk that if it had failed, Marvel would have been stripped and plundered by some Wall Street hyenas?

Guardians of the Galaxy was obviously far less of a risk, simply because Marvel could afford a failure at that point, they were taking a risk from a position of strength.

 

[Marvin]

I never said otherwise. The difference between the two 3rd acts is the build up and the resolution. IMO Bucky's conflict with Steve was emotionally and physically more impactful than Zod with Superman who were engaged in a punching contest.

Save for the whole villain motivation issue. For me one has the far and away advantage here. Right down to the bomb being diffused before the fight.
There's also the issue(for me) of how many resources the hero has at his disposal in the realm of calling for help and ending this whole charade. This sorts of things, had they been remedied would have elevated TWS ending(for me) to the heights I see in films like TDK or even Fury Road and such.

Iron Man might be the riskiest of 21st century comic book movies.

Wasn't there a risk that if it had failed, Marvel would have been stripped and plundered by some Wall Street hyenas?

Guardians of the Galaxy was obviously far less of a risk, simply because Marvel could afford a failure at that point, they were taking a risk from a position of strength.

Like the dude said, there are two types of risks to look at. That of the production and what it means to a studio and that of the daring story telling decisions.

One looks at this force awakens movie, the idea that people say it's 'safe' most likely points to the story telling(redux et happy ending). Not so much the production angle for that can be looked at two ways:
1) it's star wars so it's safe to make a ton of money no matter what.
2) its the riskiest movie ever cause it has so much of disney's investment and future plans riding on it.

I personally don't look at marvel's unsafe circumstance of 'one big fail and it's all over' during those early days as some sort of pass to claim all their films were 'unsafe'. If anything it's the very reason the films were as similar and 'safe' as they are as accused of being. Things did change later on though. There's probably a reason they didn't launch with GotG and IM3.

I think that part of what drives some like myself to defend MoS is that the criticisms of MoS are often very exaggerated.

MoS is not an awful movie where nothing makes sense, nothing is of value, and Superman doesn't care about civilians.

Someone should sig this.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think that part of what drives some like myself to defend MoS is that the criticisms of MoS are often very exaggerated.

MoS is not an awful movie where nothing makes sense, nothing is of value, and Superman doesn't care about civilians.

I find MoS to be worth the criticisms simply due to how thinly written it is. I could look past the bloated third act, Superman killing Zod, the humorless tone, etc., if they had given me characters I cared about.

 

[Erzengel]

Iron Man might be the riskiest of 21st century comic book movies.

Wasn't there a risk that if it had failed, Marvel would have been stripped and plundered by some Wall Street hyenas?

Guardians of the Galaxy was obviously far less of a risk, simply because Marvel could afford a failure at that point, they were taking a risk from a position of strength.

Honestly, if Avengers didn't succeed anything else released after that movie would be a risk because it was something 5 movies were building up to.

After Avengers, it can now afford to have a hit against it. IM3, TWS and TDW were all safe bets because they were not only sequels to Phase 1 movies but follow up to Avengers itself.

Guardians was the first movie that attempted to break away from the Avengers characters. I remember even on this board people weren't exactly sure why they were going to go with this movie. So I do think it was more of a risk.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think that part of what drives some like myself to defend MoS is that the criticisms of MoS are often very exaggerated.

MoS is not an awful movie where nothing makes sense, nothing is of value, and Superman doesn't care about civilians.

It's when everything isn't terrible that the flaws wear on you the most, imo. MoS is genuinely a movie I get irritated by just thinking about, just because the logical flaws irk me so much and since there was potential in plenty of things those flaws had a lot of effect.

It was easier getting passed something like Fant4stic Four where I didn't like the direction they were changing things in, and then the execution seemed terrible. Granted it seemed so bad that I never even saw it, but I can't imagine that movie sticking with me for long if I did.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

After loving SR and them choosing to re-boot instead of doing a sequel, I was ready to hate MOS, then Snyder got announce as director, and I loved 300 and Watchmen so that got me a little excited, then the cast got me more so.

And when I finally saw the movie, I loved it. It was a Superman origin movie for modern times and I loved it. It's certainly not perfect, but it's better than many make out, in my eyes anyway. No really hope, and think, BvS will add to MOS as it will address things that happened in that movie.

 

[Erzengel]

Obviously, BvS will address the wanton destruction of Metropolis but Cavil stated that it won't address the "issues" people have with MOS.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Obviously, BvS will address the wanton destruction of Metropolis but Cavil stated that it won't address the "issues" people have with MOS.

Oh I know, but it will address the destruction in Metropolis at the end when MOS itself didn't. In fact an issue many had was going from that to the happy ending where everything was okay. So I think it will address some of the problems at least.

 

[Slade W]

GOTG wasn't safe in any way, shape, or form. They used a comic property that even most hardcore comic fans only had a passing familiarity with, a director who was known for doing weird niche films, and cast a leading man who was big on a cult comedy TV series that was constantly in danger of being canceled. That's a risk no matter how you look at it.

Same holds for Iron Man as well. Those are just facts. They were risky moves. You need to realize there is a difference between telling "edgy" or "dark" stories and "risk" in a moviemaking sense. Everything I listed for all those films were huge risks for a studio to make. And they certainly weren't as safe as possible. The Transformers sequels were safe action films that played as safe as possible. GOTG was not.

And TWS was definetly a Spy thriller, you could have easily changed Cap to Bond and it would have been a damn good Spy flick. I didn't say it was a serious government drama like Bridge of Spies or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, I said it was a spy action flick, and it was that 100%. And for a comic film, it had solid commentary on current political issues, namely the NSA. Was it super in-depth commentary? No, but it was like TDK throwing in the allegory to Bush patriot act post 9/11 with the Bat-sonar. A small thing, but one that was there and executed well.

Point being, all the examples were still risks to take. There's no debating that. They may have not been the risks you wanted, but they were still risks.

I am not even a fan of GOTG. I thought it was ok, but nothing special at all and like MOS, I found it to be boring for large parts and would give it 6/10. But this is a good post.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Obviously, BvS will address the wanton destruction of Metropolis but Cavil stated that it won't address the "issues" people have with MOS.

So we are going to continue getting poorly written characters and bland, wooden performances? Because those were my main issues with MoS.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's when everything isn't terrible that the flaws wear on you the most, imo. MoS is genuinely a movie I get irritated by just thinking about, just because the logical flaws irk me so much and since there was potential in plenty of things those flaws had a lot of effect.

It was easier getting passed something like Fant4stic Four where I didn't like the direction they were changing things in, and then the execution seemed terrible. Granted it seemed so bad that I never even saw it, but I can't imagine that movie sticking with me for long if I did.

You just touched on something very important here - MoS isn't as explicitly awful as Green Lantern or Cat Woman. There's nothing as blatantly offensive as the awful CGI costume or the basketball scene for people to hang their hat on and say, "this doesn't work". Instead the problems are on a more conceptual level. Man of Steel doesn't understand the basic tenets of story-telling and proper characterization, and presents us a film that could've been great if it weren't so hollow. Snyder has the chops to paint a pretty picture, but he doesn't know how to make it mean anything. In a way that's even more contemptuous in my book.
And yes, FFINO is as bad as everyone says it is. Personally I'd recommend watching it as a case study for studio-filmmaking gone horribly wrong because it is a fascinating mess of a movie, but if not don't waste your time.

 

[ernesth100]

So we are going to continue getting poorly written characters and bland, wooden performances? Because those were my main issues with MoS.

No, the characters will continue to adapt as time goes on.BvS shows the characters have far more character already from what we've seen.

 

[Marvin]

It's when everything isn't terrible that the flaws wear on you the most, imo. MoS is genuinely a movie I get irritated by just thinking about, just because the logical flaws irk me so much and since there was potential in plenty of things those flaws had a lot of effect.

So pretty much the majority of summer fare let alone cbm's.
Literally this same rhetoric could be used to fuel similar year long campaigns against a great majority of cbms(unlike say Green Lantern). And when faced with the why, why does it happen it's rare to see an explanation that reaches beyond selective and subjective outrage.

It's not that it's perfect, it's really the hyperbole, hypocrisy(see comparisons to prior films) and want in the detraction.
And I'm sure it works both ways, I've seen people claim it the best thing ever. But that's the thing, fans have done this with films they are fans of since forever. People enjoy what they enjoy, as long as it comes from a personal place, enjoyment and quality can and does strive on this approach. Now let's see how much detraction is said to come from a personal place and how much is posed as a general observation. For detraction is the opposite and draws most of it's credible foundation in the latter that of the general and beyond the personal experience.

Like "X movie isn't some great masterpiece(see even GotG) but the world loves it none the less for it see subjective reasoning run amok"
versus "X movie is some great masterpiece(see TDK I guess) but I or we don't like it"
Point being one of these can generally work on a mass credible scale and one cannot.

Bringing it all back,
DA's post, man.

 

[mohoo]

There are somethings that I didn't like in MoS, but similar things or much worse are in other superhero films, yet they don't annoy me there as it does in MoS.

For me MoS is different than the average superhero film, so I hold it to a different standard.

I said before that I can't compare Marvel's and DC's films these days as I can't compare Furious 7 and Spectre. I like action so I like them both, but F7 can get away with things that Spectre can't.

That's why I would criticize MoS more than most superhero films even though I think it's the best one yet, and on a whole other level in most cases.

 

[ernesth100]

So you like it, but think it's flawed? Okay, who am I too judge.

 

[mohoo]

So you like it, but think it's flawed? Okay, who am I too judge.

I think every film is flawed. But some are more flawed than others.

 

[Mjölnir]

You just touched on something very important here - MoS isn't as explicitly awful as Green Lantern or Cat Woman. There's nothing as blatantly offensive as the awful CGI costume or the basketball scene for people to hang their hat on and say, "this doesn't work". Instead the problems are on a more conceptual level. Man of Steel doesn't understand the basic tenets of story-telling and proper characterization, and presents us a film that could've been great if it weren't so hollow. Snyder has the chops to paint a pretty picture, but he doesn't know how to make it mean anything. In a way that's even more contemptuous in my book.
And yes, FFINO is as bad as everyone says it is. Personally I'd recommend watching it as a case study for studio-filmmaking gone horribly wrong because it is a fascinating mess of a movie, but if not don't waste your time.

Well put. It seems like the studio has realized some of it since they kicked Goyer from writing the script and hopefully a Terrio script leads Snyder in a better way.

I'll probably see that movie at some point, but right now I have a big pile of movies and TV-shows that seem great that I haven't had time to watch, so it will have to wait a while longer.

 

[jokesonm3]

So we are going to continue getting poorly written characters and bland, wooden performances? Because those were my main issues with MoS.

He meant other issues.

 

[Mjölnir]

So pretty much the majority of summer fare let alone cbm's.
Literally this same rhetoric could be used to fuel similar year long campaigns against a great majority of cbms(unlike say Green Lantern). And when faced with the why, why does it happen it's rare to see an explanation that reaches beyond selective and subjective outrage.

It's not that it's perfect, it's really the hyperbole, hypocrisy(see comparisons to prior films) and want in the detraction.
And I'm sure it works both ways, I've seen people claim it the best thing ever. But that's the thing, fans have done this with films they are fans of since forever. People enjoy what they enjoy, as long as it comes from a personal place, enjoyment and quality can and does strive on this approach. Now let's see how much detraction is said to come from a personal place and how much is posed as a general observation. For detraction is the opposite and draws most of it's credible foundation in the latter that of the general and beyond the personal experience.

Like "X movie isn't some great masterpiece(see even GotG) but the world loves it none the less for it see subjective reasoning run amok"
versus "X movie is some great masterpiece(see TDK I guess) but I or we don't like it"
Point being one of these can generally work on a mass credible scale and one cannot.

Bringing it all back,
DA's post, man.

You'd probably do better to ask about things you don't understand instead of just picking an interpretation you don't agree with and rant about that. The notion that I would find all CBM's as flawed as MoS, and therefor I could say the same about all of them, is downright absurd.

MoS has good aspects to it but I still find more flaws with it than strengths, and some strengths lie in concepts that weren't realized in the film (for example Krypton is described like a great dystopian society, but the movie never lives up to it).

And I thoroughly disagree that criticism on film is rooted in objectivity and praise is not. It's all subjective in the end. In fact, people that try to bring in objectivity in the matter are usually those that can't handle that people have different opinions and try to justify their opinion in a way that makes it "right".

This explains why you have problems with people not liking MoS though.

 

[Marvin]

You'd probably do better to ask about things you don't understand instead of just picking an interpretation you don't agree with and rant about that. The notion that I would find all CBM's as flawed as MoS, and therefor I could say the same about all of them, is downright absurd.

Yea there's the first mistake. The statement was a general one in response to your general one. Also, you haven't seen me rant(not yet).

And I thoroughly disagree that criticism on film is rooted in objectivity and praise is not. It's all subjective in the end. In fact, people that try to bring in objectivity in the matter are usually those that can't handle that people have different opinions and try to justify their opinion in a way that makes it "right".

This explains why you have problems with people not liking MoS though.

Nah, it explains why I choose to combat some people/posts. I can see why anyone or everyone hates or doesn't like a movie. I can see why anyone would do as such for TDK even. It's when they take that experience into a discussion outside of the personal experience that sometimes it get's combated. The difference between superman didn't save enough people('for that's what I'm here for, that's what I grew up with that's what I need for satisfaction or to give the movie a pass') versus he didn't save enough people as some stated observation and do you care to argue... For everyone that doesn't like the movie I say more power to them, I'd never argue with anyone that as you say here argued 'not liking the movie'. To each their own. I'd argue with someone that said that Whedon's work had too much this or that versus they simply 'don't like it'. If people stayed in this realm they'd never(ever) really hear form me, it's that they don't. And it's not to say that's a bad or good thing, it's basically the reasoning for why people 'hear' from me in this manner. Long story short, I don't have any issue with people not liking it(or anymore). I'm interested in the why to be sure. But I'm only actually bothered by the observations presented as general.

And we seem to somewhat converge in the whole subjective vs objective thing. However my point was about how much more work needs to be done when comparing the opposing factions. Why all the people that love said 'flawed film' actually have a traditionally credible default on their side whereas the people that hate said 'flawed film' have more work to do.. Again when it comes to a what is seen as credible and generally accepted approaching to cultural film discussion. I'm seeing it now even with Deadpool reviews tbh. It's generally just doesn't work the other way.

 

[TeeKay]

So we are going to continue getting poorly written characters and bland, wooden performances? Because those were my main issues with MoS.

And more destruction porn. I have no idea why Snyder is obsessed with it. But I have more faith in BvS in terms of script. The smart thing they did was kick Goyer out and let Terrio take over. But even with that being said, the last trailer was a mess and if that's indicative of the final product, then LoL.

 

[DA_Champion]

Is Goyer's career in the doldrums? Has he found other work or is he on Orci's level now?

 

[jokesonm3]

For me, Goyer was the weak link of MoS, replacing him with Terrio was a damn good decision.

For once in his career, Snyder actually has a good script to work on.

 

[DA_Champion]

For me, Goyer was the weak link of MoS, replacing him with Terrio was a damn good decision.

For once in his career, Snyder actually has a good script to work on.

Dawn of the Dead and 300 had good scripts.