Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU

[Tony Stark]

Because Ultron is based on Tony's brain patterns, he ends up being kind of the anti-Stark. Beautiful casting of Spader in there. Just the perfect guy to counter Tony's snarky remarks. There was another clip I saw where he says something like "I literally can't throw up in the back of my mouth, but this is one of those moments." or something like that.

 

[Tony Stark]

That's what I'm saying, that a superhero movie shouldn't just "enjoy" being mere entertainment, it can aspire to be something more, something that lingers. Comedy is not easy at all, we agree, but it bothers me sometimes, there's no danger in Marvel movies, it's like everything is a joke (I'm pushing it, but it's just to make a point), I think of that AOU clip where Ultron throws a zinger

Spoiler

and that's the part where I explain to you my evil plan

I don't know.

MCU, DCU, two sides of a coin I'd say. For the first teaser of AOU, I'd say they were trying to be edgy, but that didn't last long.

The problem is at least as was presented in MoS that the "danger" presented was wanton destruction and most of it by the hero. I read an interview about Age of Ultron, and they specifically mentioned showing the Avengers saving people while cities are being destroyed, because they didn't want it to be like Man of Steel.

I don't know if the trailer will be anything like the movie, but as I've said, the danger from the trailer to me, is they didn't learn any of their lessons from what went wrong with MoS.

 

[Marvin]

The problem is at least as was presented in MoS that the "danger" presented was wanton destruction and most of it by the hero. I read an interview about Age of Ultron, and they specifically mentioned showing the Avengers saving people while cities are being destroyed, because they didn't want it to be like Man of Steel.

At some point here has to be some accountability for these sorts of statements.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

At some point here has to be some accountability for these sorts of statements.

Not in my experience.

This is usually when I will challenge someone on their dislike of the film. Because it's not legitimate. There are valid reasons not to like MOS, and I can disagree and respect those reasons based on taste or preferences. But all too often I see stuff like that and it's like... "Were you even paying attention at all?" But at this point they have made up their minds so it's a rarer occurrence than it was a year and a half or so ago, even when such statements are factually incorrect. I don't have the same enthusiasm or energy to tell people they are simply wrong when they say such things, or that "millions" died in Metropolis, or that "more than half of the city was destroyed" and that said destruction is the result of the one on one fight with Zod. When pointing these errors out they'll just point to bad film making as the culprit. "What do you expect... It was so badly made that of course it all blurs at the end." Then... Why did I have no problem remembering the film's events accurately?

As I stated though... It's gotten tedious.

 

[gildedmuse]

The Batman trilogy had a lot more room to feel dangerous, because it was a limited series set apart from any other mythos, so a major character very well could die. I assume that once we get into the DCU that they will not be killing off any of their major franchise characters, either. Because why would you do that? It's why comic books keep killing and resurrecting main characters, to create that sense of drama. But you don't have to do that - there are other ways!

Unfortunately a lot of writer's assume that other way is to kill off the wife/girlfriend/love interest. But I'd like to believe we're past the "kill of the lady or black friend for the drama!" trope these days.

Of course, on top of being lighter the MCU is kind of like 98% white dude protagonist, female love interest, and black bestie. So it's probably better not to get too slaughter happy.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Marvel has gotten more valuable under Disney ownership without a doubt. The same will happen to Star Wars.

Force Awakens trailer boosted Disney's market capitalization by $2 billion and Bob Iger has already come out saying that Star Wars is Disney's most valuable brand.

 

[Marvin]

Force Awakens trailer boosted Disney's market capitalization by $2 billion and Bob Iger has already come out saying that Star Wars is Disney's most valuable brand.

Considering the deal pretty much fell into their lap, it's a great time to be a disney shareholder.

 

[InJustice]

The problem is at least as was presented in MoS that the "danger" presented was wanton destruction and most of it by the hero. I read an interview about Age of Ultron, and they specifically mentioned showing the Avengers saving people while cities are being destroyed, because they didn't want it to be like Man of Steel.

I don't know if the trailer will be anything like the movie, but as I've said, the danger from the trailer to me, is they didn't learn any of their lessons from what went wrong with MoS.

You clearly didn't pay attention to the movie if you're making that claim.

 

[Tony Stark]

At some point here has to be some accountability for these sorts of statements.

What? I should get banned for stating my impression (and many others) of the film?

This is the article I was referring to:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/17/how_avengers_age_of_ultron_betters_man_of_steel.html

 

[Tony Stark]

You clearly didn't pay attention to the movie if you're making that claim.

I'm not going to get dragged into another MoS debate. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But if you don't think that a large number of people shared the same impression I did, then you are kidding yourself.

 

[InJustice]

I'm not going to get dragged into another MoS debate. You can disagree with me if you want, that's cool. But if you don't think that a large number of people shared the same impression I did, then you are kidding yourself.

Why would anyone care about the large number of people that shared the same impression as you? All that means is that you and a large number of people haven't paid attention to what was happening.

Also, this isn't a matter of disagreeing with you, you are objectively incorrect.

 

[KBX]

Force Awakens trailer boosted Disney's market capitalization by $2 billion and Bob Iger has already come out saying that Star Wars is Disney's most valuable brand.

You have an article? would like to read it

 

[KBX]

Why would anyone care about the large number of people that shared the same impression as you? All that means is that you and a large number of people haven't paid attention to what was happening.

Also, this isn't a matter of disagreeing with you, you are objectively incorrect.

Usually when a large when amount of people of the same opinion, there tends to be some truth to the matter.

 

[InJustice]

Usually when a large when amount of people of the same opinion, there tends to be some truth to the matter.

Not necessarily. A widely held view doesn't mean that its premises and/or conclusions are logically sound. It's still prone to the same mistakes that one person's view may hold if viewed independently.

 

[Tony Stark]

Objectively Superman caused destruction, heck I don't even know why we are discussing this when the premise of BvS is negative reaction to the destruction Superman partially caused.

 

[Marvin]

Objectively Superman caused destruction, heck I don't even know why we are discussing this when the premise of BvS is negative reaction to the destruction Superman partially caused.

It is? Is that from the trailer or another article you read?

What? I should get banned for stating my impression (and many others) of the film?

This is the article I was referring to:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/17/how_avengers_age_of_ultron_betters_man_of_steel.html

Who said anything about banning? Honest question.

Secondly, you responded to a post about these movies aspiring to be more, by mentioning your opinion that the danger in mos came from the wanton destruction caused MOSTLY by the hero. I assume you yourself will stand behind that assertion and not point to other group think or some article written by some other person.

Here's the problem, the wanton destruction in mos, that of the city blocks being leveled was caused by General Zod ordering the activation of the Terraforming device, period. Superman funny enough stopped that before it became celestial destruction and at the risk of his life. I'm not sure if the in movie public is privy to that info but we(you specifically) sure hell are. Then there is the matter of the fist fight. Again, Superman didn't actively bring down a single building, that was all the person he was actively trying to and did stop. He barely even caused any real damage during that entire fight, about as much or less than the bigger avengers in new york.

This is why I suggest your comment needs some accountability for it seems to be based on some other movie. Yet here you and others are just saying it and going about your business. If you want to talk active responsibility then speak of Nick Fury, speak of Tony Stark(ultron), speak of TDK, Optimus Prime, Dominic Terreto...I digress. I think you are careless in your assertion is my point.

 

[Visualiza]

Objectively Superman caused destruction, heck I don't even know why we are discussing this when the premise of BvS is negative reaction to the destruction Superman partially caused.

It never used to be contested so fiercely until a fan (or a group of them, I don't know anymore) played back the footage and counted every time Zod threw Superman into buildings, so that's where this "Nuh-uh, Superman is a flawless angel in the final battle" rhetoric comes from.

I suppose there's some truth to that in the most absolute sense, but if we're gonna go down that rabbit hole, he still essentially treated the city like it was a playground for him and Zod to tussle in. I liken it to a bar fight - there may be one person who starts the fights, and that person may be more negligent and aggressive in how he approaches it, but it takes two to tango, and if you're taking part in something like that rather than...you know, taking your business to a more appropriate locale, you're going to be held accountable in the eyes of the people who witnessed it.

In any case, I'm glad that they'll be addressing the fallout in the sequel. It only makes sense, and if nothing else, it's Clark's fault that the Kryptonians ever came to Earth in the first place, so there goes the raison d'être for the public hating him.

 

[Marvin]

It never used to be contested so fiercely until a fan (or a group of them, I don't know anymore) played back the footage and counted every time Zod threw Superman into buildings, so that's where this "Nuh-uh, Superman is a flawless angel in the final battle" rhetoric comes from.

I suppose there's some truth to that in the most absolute sense, but if we're gonna go down that rabbit hole, he still essentially treated the city like it was a playground for him and Zod to tussle in. I liken it to a bar fight - there may be one person who starts the fights, and that person may be more negligent and aggressive in how he approaches it, but it takes two to tango, and if you're taking part in something like that rather than...you know, taking your business to a more appropriate locale, you're going to be held accountable in the eyes of the people who witnessed it.

You have to be kidding.
imo. If someone walks into your house right now with an assault riffle and starts killing people and breaking things, it's not your fault. Especially if he's going to do so whether you fight him or not! But in stopping him 3 mins in and saving the 99% of his way in, you are actively the counter agent.

As for it being clarks fault they came to earth in the first place, again you are mistaken. Especially considering what these other heroes have done in these other movies(starting with banner)...it just seems unfair but then again, that's kinda the trend I'm seeing develop with this character/film.
Do people blame Thor for Loki doing his thing on earth(in two movies) or do they blame Loki? Perhaps the father(s) who chose earth in the first place should have some accountability.

 

[Visualiza]

You have to be kidding.
imo. If someone walks into your house right now with an assault riffle and starts killing people and breaking things, it's not your fault. Especially if he's going to do so whether you fight him or not! But in stopping him 3 mins in and saving the 99% of his way in, you are actively the counter agent.

The difference here is that the guy walking in with the assault rifle isn't exactly on equal footing with me sitting unarmed at a computer. Supes and Zod, on the other hand, certainly were. Hell, Supes started the fight with the advantage if anything, having the ability to fly, after all. Eh, I shouldn't have bothered to start in on this again.

As for it being clarks fault they came to earth in the first place, again you are mistaken. Especially considering what these other heroes have done in these other movies(starting with banner)...it just seems unfair but then again, that's kinda the trend I'm seeing develop with this character/film.

Yeah I get it, there are no fair, impartial, or legitimate criticisms of MoS. To paraphrase the most common line of thinking "You're not paying attention if you didn't like this movie"

Poor Superman, the guy just can't catch a break.

 

[InJustice]

You can't use "objectively" when Superman was only responsible for the silos, bank and a gas station in rural and urban Smallville. That is fair since he was driven by emotion to the point of being a bit reckless when Zod threatened to attack his mother. However...

As for the large amounts of destruction as a whole:
>The World Engine contributed to much of the destruction as it pertains to buildings, but more specifically, the block within Metropolis (the location where Superman and Zod meet for one final fight).
> Zod used Superman's cape to throw him across tons of buildings. Much less, punched him towards buildings vs. Superman unloading punches in the sky where no one was harmed. If anything, Zod/Faora/etc. baited him to start fighting in the city where casualties will be imminent.
>The army's involvement without really paying attention to their surroundings (for instance, sending missiles to the world engine, not knowing that it was manipulating gravity, so the missiles ended up destroying buildings).

Also, the negative reaction is to Superman as a whole, not just the destruction:
- "We're talking about a being whose very existence challenges our own sense of priority in the universe."
- "Human beings have a terrible track record of following people with great power."
- "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
- "Maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."
- "The world has been so caught up in what he can do, that no one has asked what he should do."

In both cases, it sounds like you haven't been paying attention, or rather you're way too caught up on the destruction issue to see things from another point of view.

 

[John Locke]

What? I should get banned for stating my impression (and many others) of the film?

This is the article I was referring to:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/04/17/how_avengers_age_of_ultron_betters_man_of_steel.html

Only the article does. Considering the first draft of Ultron was done by the Iron Man 3 premiere there is no way Feige and Whedon were talking about MOS. Unless they added the handling of the destruction in the second draft and the in the first draft they didn't handle it.

 

[Marvin]

The difference here is that the guy walking in with the assault rifle isn't exactly on equal footing with me sitting unarmed at a computer. Supes and Zod, on the other hand, certainly were. Hell, Supes started the fight with the advantage if anything, having the ability to fly, after all. Eh, I shouldn't have bothered to start in on this again.



Yeah I get it, there are no fair, impartial, or legitimate criticisms of MoS. To paraphrase the most common line of thinking "You're not paying attention if you didn't like this movie"

Poor Superman, the guy just can't catch a break.

If you are not siting unarmed at the computer. If you have the same weapons he does and you are on equal footing... What does that change? What he does to your house and loved ones isn't your fault, especially to the people privy to the watching it unfold. Having the ability to fly didn't means what exactly? I haven't seen AOU yet but I'm pretty sure Stark can fly and Hulk can't, I suppose that entire battle in the city is simply Stark taking a piss then? I mean he can fly after all. Secondly, having the advantage and knowing how to best use it aren't one in the same and are hardly worth blaming an un-trained hero for not utilizing.

As for your strawman at the end there, sure I guess. Though I was actually making about point about your selective logic. Superman is supposedly to blame for something that was triggered unbeknownst to him and set in motion during his birth, whilst people like Stark/Fury and co are inventing ultrons and creating gamma monsters. I didn't say two words about you not paying attention. I think you are paying plenty of attention actually, which is even more telling imo. That being said, weather you liked the movie or not is your own prerogative, however assertions like the one our friend Tony made above about superman cause most of the damage will be challenged.

 

[TeeKay]

Didn't know Fury created gamma monsters.

 

[Marvin]

Didn't know Fury created gamma monsters.

Didn't know I said he did.
I suppose this is the part about paying attention.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

At some point here has to be some accountability for these sorts of statements.

He's not wrong, I remember Superman dodging trucks allowing buildings to be destroyed and putting citizens in danger. That alone is enough to prove how awful his character was executed in the film. You can come up with the excuses that you want "he just became superman" "you're a troll" "it was the world engine the one responsible for every destruction scene in the film" but ultimately the proof is right there in the film and you refuse to see it.