Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU - Part 5

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]511907[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]509519[/split]

 

[Tilapia]

Was trying to quote the previous post in the old thread, which is warranted here:

Going to have a bit of a rant here so sorry in advance. I raised a genuine plot hole on a different forum and someone posted a Lex meme that the film "was too big for little minds". It really kicked me off...

I'm getting tired of the whole narrative surrounding BvS that keeps playing out over every forum and talkback.
I'm bored of people acting like if you don't like BvS (including most critics) then you're obviously not bright enough to see some larger, deeper meaning that Snyder had instilled. Bored of people accusing me of not really understanding the characters histories if I don't like the changes Snyder has made to them. Bored of being told I wasn't paying enough attention to the movie or I'm "looking for holes" because I didn't follow their own series of massive speculatory leaps they took to cover up story holes and bizarre character motivations. (or sometimes entire storylines they've made up amongst themselves. It is Lex - Not the son of some to-be-revealed "real" Lex ffs).

Most people just didn't like the film. At best, the vast majority of the GA, Critics and comic fans thought that (despite some cool action) it was pretty boring and average; yet if you come out in threads, even inevitable comparison ones, and say that you think it was **** then people say you're trolling - so everyone does a polite tiptoe around the crazy.

For instance, this whole repeated mantra of "DC Movies are for Adults, Marvel Movies are for kids". I mean... we all know it's BULL right? The DCEU movies so far aren't dark in anway but cosmetics. The end of Winter Soldier alone (with Cap realising the only way to save Bucky is to let him beat him to death to snap him out of it) was far darker than ANYTHING in MoS or BvS. BVS is "Dark" in the sense a mopey 15 year old who just wears black and quotes Nietzsche out of context is "Dark".

The biggest difference is that Marvel make movies for the GA and Fans. Snyder made the movies exclusively for himself. The fact other people enjoyed them too is just gravy. The only deeper ideas he injected into them are his own Objectivist ideals; that killing is the characters "growing up" (Snyders words, not mine) and that the idea of a selfless hero is naive and childish. Those ideas are counter to what these heroes should be about IMO.

Imagine if after Fant4stic, there were still so many dedicated die-hard Marvel fans acting like all its critics were idiots who didn't understand the deeper meaning behind it, and finding random things from ancient comics to justify why Doom is so different from how anybody would want him to be. Saying any F4 fans that don't like it can't be real fans of the comics, and calling people out for dissing it as trolls. It'd be fully mental right?

Everyone can have an opinion; everyone has their guilty pleasures, and everyone loves certain films for their own reasons that others don't like. Nothing wrong with that. Can we just cut out all the weird elitism that's somehow surrounded this film.

Snyder can redeem himself in my eyes... if and when this Superman becomes ****ing Superman. Not some mopey teenage 'woe is me, I am the most powerful man in the world and nobody loves me' attitude.

Maybe the problem is Cavill. Maybe he can't just pull it off from an acting standpoint. He wants to be this heroic, omnipresent, sex symbol in the one hand, and some needy, angsty teenager on the other hand that is unsure of himself. Maybe Henry can't do both convincingly?

I just need ****ing Superman. I liked MoS as an Origin flick, but give me my Superman. If felt like two Batman's on the screen with some mix of Peter Parker in Kent.

 

[Lily Adler]

I don't believe Snyder can be redeemed. He has had several attempts to prove his worth as a filmmaker, but has again and again failed to deliver. I liked Watchmen and Man of Steel. 300 was mainly to get my fix of shirtless men and I guess Sucker Punch was meant to do the same for men. All in all, Snyder's record has him with two films that were successful and several films that were either panned or divisive.

 

[Tilapia]

Watchmen completely failed for me, but MoS has some rewatchability, as ridiculous as the plot holes and writing is. Goyer mapped the story perfectly, Snyder/Goyer didn't execute it. Knowing this, the movie gets a win in the score card still.

It's too late to make a change, so I am in the camp of Snyder being a lame duck director. I agree, the damage has been done.

PS: As an aside, can we please get a Watchmen/HBO thing going on after GoT? Don't tell me you can't do Watchmen if you had the same budget as Game of Thrones... maybe wait till after GoT finishes?

 

[brandeezy89]

I don't believe Snyder can be redeemed. He has had several attempts to prove his worth as a filmmaker, but has again and again failed to deliver. I liked Watchmen and Man of Steel. 300 was mainly to get my fix of shirtless men and I guess Sucker Punch was meant to do the same for men. All in all, Snyder's record has him with two films that were successful and several films that were either panned or divisive.

3 actually, his best film, Dawn of the Dead. Like someone else said earlier, DOTD was a straight forward film that he pulled off well. Maybe he should just make films where he doesn't have to juggle a bunch of plots and complex themes. He would be a perfect Marvel director because there movies are as straight forward as they come, not to take a shot at Marvel or anything. There was a rumor that WB told Terrio to dumb down his JL script last year because the GA wouldn't get it. If he dumbed it down then that's a good thing for Zack

 

[Tilapia]

I really hate to hear things like, "Dumb down a script," but whatever is gonna help Snyder make a watchable film. It's... sad. But there are worse things in life of course.

 

[frostanon]

Finally, now everyone can understand BvS.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DC_Cinematic/comments/4dx0ne/whats_the_oldest_lie_in_america/

Spoiler

Superman is Bugs Bunny. I knew it!

 

[2kt09]

I was about to create a new thread...

You may also discuss Fox/Sony Marvel films as well.

Spoiler

 

[CaptainWagner]

Snyder can do visuals spectacularly, Warner just has to keep a tight grip on ensuring the story gets equal focus. The man is capable of making a good movie, he just needs help.

 

[Kobra]

@mightiest_mortal

I'm bored of people acting like if you don't like BvS (including most critics) then you're obviously not bright enough to see some larger

You will find dismissive comments towards people who like the movie too. It happens with almost every movie. Some people will always question the intellectual integrity of those who disagree with them. It has absolutely nothing to do with BvS or DC.

Most people just didn't like the film

Maybe in your town. Almost everyone i know liked the movie. And judging by most indicators, while very divisive, the majority still enjoyed it.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't believe Snyder can be redeemed. He has had several attempts to prove his worth as a filmmaker, but has again and again failed to deliver. I liked Watchmen and Man of Steel. 300 was mainly to get my fix of shirtless men and I guess Sucker Punch was meant to do the same for men. All in all, Snyder's record has him with two films that were successful and several films that were either panned or divisive.

I certainly agree with most of this. He has had his chance. I think claims around here that superhero movies cannot be sophisticated are a bit ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to excuse studios for not striving for better. When folks look back on most genres, the ones that stand out are the ones that did challenge the material and aimed for higher.

.... With that said, Snyder is the exact kind of risk that makes taking it seem so unappealing. Leave this to formula and you will not get that. Snyder is essentially a great visuals but mediocre storyteller with hackish tendencies that keeps grasping for greatness, which makes his movies even worse.

Time to pull the plug on this.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

@mightiest_mortal



You will find dismissive comments towards people who like the movie too. It happens with almost every movie. Some people will always question the intellectual integrity of those who disagree with them. It has absolutely nothing to do with BvS or DC.



Maybe in your town. Almost everyone i know liked the movie. And judging by most indicators, while very divisive, the majority still enjoyed it.

Box office is the best indicator to be honest. Not of quality of course but of how the films were received. And I don't mean the overall gross, I'm talking about daily drops, weekly drops and multipliers. That's what people are basing "the majority didn't seem to like it" on.

 

[Brother Jack]

I certainly agree with most of this. He has had his chance. I think claims around here that superhero movies cannot be sophisticated are a bit ridiculous and seems to be an attempt to excuse studios for not striving for better. When folks look back on most genres, the ones that stand out are the ones that did challenge the material and aimed for higher.

It's more than ridiculous, it's an argument that demeans comics as an entire medium. To posit that superhero stories, in comics and film and what have you, cannot have the kind of depth and sophistication as other kinds of stories is severely limiting what they can be. Not all characters and stories work with the kind of deep examination and thematic aspirations you find in classic literature but some are and have been given that treatment in great ways over the years. These are modern myths and they can ultimately be whatever you want them to be. The fact that some of these characters have been around for 80 years is a testament to their potency.

BVS didn't fail because of what it was trying to do, at least in the broad sense. It failed because it couldn't execute on those things successfully. Bad storytelling.

 

[Kobra]

Box office is the best indicator to be honest. Not of quality of course but of how the films were received. And I don't mean the overall gross, I'm talking about daily drops, weekly drops and multipliers. That's what people are basing "the majority didn't seem to like it" on.

The best indicator is to listen to what people actually say instead of trying to speculate about the meaning of things.

You have movies that almost everyone will say they love, and yet, they didn't make any money at the BO.

How do you know what % of people has to like a movie in order for it to make money? What's the math? A movie not making over 1B dollars at the BO means that the majority didn't like it? How do you know that?

I just don't understand how some of you seem to have access to such detailed and mathematically "accurate" information. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Well I didn't say they couldn't be sophisticated. I just think there's a ceiling that's all.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

The best indicator is to listen to what people actually say instead of trying to speculate about the meaning of things.

You have movies that almost everyone will say they love, and yet, they didn't make any money at the BO.

How do you know what % of people has to like a movie in order for it to make money? What's the math? A movie not making over 1B dollars at the BO means that the majority didn't like it? How do you know that?

I just don't understand how some of you seem to have access to such detailed and mathematically "accurate" information. Or maybe you don't. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about.

No that isn't the best indicator because it's purely anecdotal. And also "mathematically accurate information", it's not hard to grasp, it's not calculus. A movie suffering steep drops without competition must have dubious word of mouth at best. And clearly if the legs of the film are bad, people who claim to love it aren't the majority. And I mentioned nothing about the film not making a billion.

 

[Kobra]

No that isn't the best indicator because it's purely anecdotal. And also "mathematical accurate information", it's not hard to grasp, it's not calculus. A movie suffering steep drops without competition must have dubious word of mouth at best. And clearly if the legs of the film are bad, people who claim to love it aren't the majority. And I mentioned nothing about the film not making a billion.

You didn't provide a valid explanation for any of the questions i posed.
Everything you're saying is anecdotal, so i don't really understand how is that so much more valid than people's direct opinions.

 

[Visualiza]

No that isn't the best indicator because it's purely anecdotal. And also "mathematically accurate information", it's not hard to grasp, it's not calculus. A movie suffering steep drops without competition must have dubious word of mouth at best. And clearly if the legs of the film are bad, people who claim to love it aren't the majority. And I mentioned nothing about the film not making a billion.

Some additional context can be found here.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

You didn't provide a valid explanation for any of the questions i posed.
Everything you're saying is anecdotal, so i don't really understand how is that so much more valid than people's direct opinions.

I don't know what to tell you. We clearly have different definitions for the word "anecdotal" so this debate isn't going anywhere.

If you genuinely want to understand how box office analysis is more valid than the opinions of the few people we talk to then I suggest clicking on Visualiza's link.

 

[Sleiek]

It was ultimately Lex's creation. He was under the impression he will control it. He likes the idea of controlling God-like beings.

Was this actually said or implied in the film though?

After Superman arrives in the Genesis chamber where Lex is, Lex says "Ancient Kryptonian deformity, The Blood of my Blood". This means he sees himself as some type of a father figure to this monster. That most likely he thought he would be able to control it. He was wrong, of course.

As for whether he likes the idea of god like beings, when Superman kneeled before Lex looking at the pictures of his mom, Lex says "There we go, there we go, and now God bends to my will". He seemed to be enjoying it as far as I can see. And why wouldn't he enjoy it?

I just believe not everything have to be spelt out. At one point, when Lex says how he did this and that to push Batman, he mentions "Big Bang" which means the Capitol explosion. It was so vague, many people would have missed that. I missed it the first couple of times.

Like most of the defences against problems with this film, no. Fans made it up afterwards to see logic where there is none. I really couldn't see any way he thought he'd be able to control it. In fact, if Batman had succeeded in killing Superman, as Lex had wanted, he would have had no way of stopping it run rampant across the world.

Well, in the movie, Lex had a timer for 60 minutes and Doomsday was activated (with those massive syringe type equipment) a good minute after the timer ended. If Superman brought Bat's head within the deadline, I assumed Lex could have aborted the process of activating Doomsday. Again, this is how I perceived it. You may call it dumb, doesn't make sense, illogical, but doesn't mean others like myself see it that way.

 

[Kobra]

I don't know what to tell you. We clearly have different definitions for the word "anecdotal" so this debate isn't going anywhere.

My definition is the same you can find in a dictionary.

"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

You say the movie didn't make X amount of money because the majority of people didn't like it. How is that not anecdotal evidence? How do you know FOR A FACT the reasons behind a movie's bad performance? How do you know that there aren't other factors that could have played a role too, like the horrible critical reception or the simple possibility of this movie's concept not having the mass appeal some people thought it would have?

I see a lot of cherry picking in the way some people construct their arguments. And why? Because if you fairly consider every possible factor, you might end up not being able to make flawed and questionable claims such as "it didn't make money because most people didn't like it". And let's be fair: That's the only kind of claim some people here are interested in making. You just wanna talk in absolutes. Black or White.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

My definition is the same you can find in a dictionary.

"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation"

You say the movie didn't make X amount of money because the majority of people didn't like it. How is that not anecdotal evidence? How do you know FOR A FACT the reasons behind a movie's bad performance? How do you know that there aren't other factors that could have played a role too, like the horrible critical reception or the simple possibility of this movie's concept not having the mass appeal some people thought it would have?

I see a lot of cherry picking in the way some people construct their arguments. And why? Because if you fairly consider every possible factor, you might end up not being able to make flawed and questionable claims such as "it didn't make money because most people didn't like it". And let's be fair: That's the only kind of claim some people here are interested in making. You just wanna talk in absolutes. Black or White.

I didn't use case studies, random investigations or personal observation. Bad critical reception does not affect how well a movie does. And clearly the concept did have mass appeal due to great ow number. There's no competition. All that's left is WOM. (And WOM unfortunately has nothing to do with quality.) I came to that conclusion by eliminating every other variable. If I missed any please let me know.

 

[InCali]

No that isn't the best indicator because it's purely anecdotal. And also "mathematically accurate information", it's not hard to grasp, it's not calculus. A movie suffering steep drops without competition must have dubious word of mouth at best. And clearly if the legs of the film are bad, people who claim to love it aren't the majority. And I mentioned nothing about the film not making a billion.

Calculus isn't hard. The algebra is way harder. The rate of change experienced at the box office by BvS (in a downward direction) must have freaked out WB. It had a good OW and from there everything turned to manure. Figuring out why it dropped faster than thermometer in Antarctica is easier than calculus. Even folks who thought BvS was great have laid out the reasons.

 

[Kobra]

I didn't use case studies, random investigations or personal observation. Bad critical reception does not affect how well a movie does. And clearly the concept did have mass appeal due to great ow number. There's no competition. All that's left is WOM. And WOM unfortunately has nothing to do with quality. (I came to that conclusion by eliminating every other variable). If I missed any please let me know.

Again, just a bunch of claims not properly backed up by anything.

Bad critical reception does not affect how well a movie does.

How do you know that? How can you be so sure that some people didn't look at the news talking about the horrible critical reception and chose not to spend money in the movie? Because i actually know people who didn't watch the movie because of that. So, again, you make a claim, but you don't back it up. Anecdotal evidence in its purest form.

And clearly the concept did have mass appeal due to great ow number.

I said "the mass appeal". Which means that maybe it didn't have as much mass appeal as some people thought it would have. Clearly, DC, Batman, Superman have a lot of fans, so it's not that hard to get a lot of people excited to watch the movie as soon as possible. The movie also opened on all markets at once, as far as i know. Maybe these two factors have something to do with the big OW? But the thing is: A movie needs the GA to be excited about it in order to make over 1B, and needs to have A LOOOOOT of mass appeal, not just mass appeal.

All that's left is WOM. And WOM unfortunately has nothing to do with quality. (I came to that conclusion by eliminating every other variable). If I missed any please let me know.

You dismissed every other variable without providing a reasonable reason to why. It's interesting that you brought up the word anecdotal, which perfectly sums up the nature of most people's arguments here. They are nothing more than anecdotal. "This means X", "That means Y". Well, you don't really know, do you? For the sake of intelligent discussion, let's not forget the difference between facts and speculation.