Flaws from "bad" comic book movies that appear in "respected" comic book movies.

[cerealkiller182]

But they aren't stupid. And they need to exude power.



MCD is intimidating no matter what. Even in the green mile he was intimidating. If you can't be psychologically intimidating then you need to be physically intimidating. Falcone was neither.

I have to agree with Urich on the voice of Falcone. I thought it was good the way it was. You are correct in saying they arnt stupid but its a different kind of intellect. He probably grew up on the street and has lots of street smarts, but the guy must have started out as either a steet thug or a gangster prince. Theres a good chance he would have a street thug accent.

 

[Ben Urich]

But they aren't stupid. And they need to exude power.

Bruce Wayne: I didn't come here to thank you. I came here to show you that not everyone in Gotham is afraid of you.
Carmine Falcone: Only those who know me, kid. Look around you. You'll see two councilmen, a union official, a couple of off-duty cops, and a judge. Now I wouldn't have a second's hesitation of blowing your head off right here in front of them. And that's power you can't buy! That's the power of fear.

I thought that did a pretty good job of showing off his power. In Daredevil, all we get is Kingpin walking down a hall saying "Get me Bullseye" to some random lackey.
Falcone was more intimidating, IMO.

MCD is intimidating no matter what. Even in the green mile he was intimidating. If you can't be psychologically intimidating then you need to be physically intimidating. Falcone was neither.

Fair enough.

 

[KenK]

How about people who complained about Daredevil letting the rapist die on the train tracks, but no one caring about Batman letting Ra's die when the monorail crashed?!? Even going for as to say, "I don't have to save you." As if that makes it better!! It's the same damn situation, and no one bats an eye. Especially considering the whole film had built up Batman's "no-killing" stance. At least in Daredevil, it was a starting point for him to let the guy die, then realize that that's not really acceptable.

 

[Mrh7448]

I think the multiiple threats worked in BB because they weren't all vying for centre stage the way it was presented in the other Batman movies.

Scarecrow was being used by Ra's and it showed, while Falcone was a subplot really developed to introduce Batman as Batman.

 

[Ben Urich]

How about people who complained about Daredevil letting the rapist die on the train tracks, but no one caring about Batman letting Ra's die when the monorail crashed?!? Even going for as to say, "I don't have to save you." As if that makes it better!! It's the same damn situation, and no one bats an eye. Especially considering the whole film had built up Batman's "no-killing" stance. At least in Daredevil, it was a starting point for him to let the guy die, then realize that that's not really acceptable.

Ra's isn't dead.
There's a gif somewhere on the internet that has the slowed down monorail crash and it shows Ra's falling to safety just before the train hits.

 

[KenK]

Ra's isn't dead.
There's a gif somewhere on the internet that has the slowed down monorail crash and it shows Ra's falling to safety just before the train hits.

That doesn't excuse the fact that Batman willfully left him to die. Fans complain about it in Daredevil but not Batman Begins? I CALL BULL****!!!!

 

[Flexo]

That doesn't excuse the fact that Batman willfully left him to die. Fans complain about it in Daredevil but not Batman Begins? I CALL BULL****!!!!

It's arguable that Batman knew Ra's could escape, and let him save himself. But the guy on the train tracks... he was a snowball in hell.

 

[Savage]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Batman thought "If I can get out of this, so can he.". Besides, this is different. Bruce learned from this guy everything about the criminal element including that the law can do nothing to guys like this. By the time the cops show up, he'd already have dissapeared with the League of Shadows. Ready to fight again another day. Even if he was arrested, how long would it take him to get out? They're f**king NINJAS for crying out loud. Ra's said it himself. "You are talking about a city so corrupt that we have infiltrated every level of it's infrastructure." Batman let's him live and he's making a very big mistake.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Plus, we saw how Ra's rewards compassion.

 

[KenK]

First word "Cop", second word "Out". Daredevil featured corrupt police as well, and the fact that the justice system failing to put the rapist behind bars in the first place is the only reason Daredevil went after him. Letting him live could have easily resulted in him being released anyway, especially after being caught by someone the police considered a myth.

 

[Savage]

hmm...Rapist...Ninja escape artist...You rrreally can't make a comparison between the two.

They both learned lessons from it but different ones for different purposes. Daredevil learned that he is no better than they are if he kills. Batman learned that by letting this man go, he came back only to finish the job. I'm sure he would have sent him to prison if it WASN'T for the fact that the man would roll on the floor laughing at even the concept of attempting to detain him as ninjas come down out of nowhere to kill every cop in sight and rescue him.

EDIT: For that matter, has Ra's Al Ghul EVER been arrested in the comics?

 

[The PhantaZm]

How about people who complained about Daredevil letting the rapist die on the train tracks, but no one caring about Batman letting Ra's die when the monorail crashed?!? Even going for as to say, "I don't have to save you." As if that makes it better!! It's the same damn situation, and no one bats an eye. Especially considering the whole film had built up Batman's "no-killing" stance. At least in Daredevil, it was a starting point for him to let the guy die, then realize that that's not really acceptable.

Yeah thats a huge issue with me! Batman would never let someone die like that regardless of who they are! If I had actually liked the movie that ending would have ruined it for me. That "I don't have to save you" crap just made it worse. Seriously thats sounds like something the punisher would and has said to several anonymous snitches. That kind of god complex is expected from the punisher but not batman.

And anybody that knows dd knows that hes very capable of killing someone, maybe not as nonchalantly (sp) as he did in the film but his "no killing" stance is circumstantial. On the flip side batmans moral code is rock solid. He would never kill someone.

Sure the movie is free to interpret the character however they want but that doesn't mean I have to like it. One of the things I admired about batman as a kid, reading books like Knightfall was the lenghts he always took to save lives. Its what made him better than the bad guys. The movie really crapped all over that ideal.

 

[Ben Urich]

And anybody that knows dd knows that hes very capable of killing someone, maybe not as nonchalantly (sp) as he did in the film but his "no killing" stance is circumstantial.

No.
Daredevil and Punisher have frequently targeted the same mob goons and arrived on the scene at the same time, only to end up fighting each other because Frank wants to waste them and Matt wants to bring them to justice.

 

[The PhantaZm]

hmm...Rapist...Ninja escape artist...You rrreally can't make a comparison between the two.

They both learned lessons from it but different ones for different purposes. Daredevil learned that he is no better than they are if he kills. Batman learned that by letting this man go, he came back only to finish the job. I'm sure he would have sent him to prison if it WASN'T for the fact that the man would roll on the floor laughing at even the concept of attempting to detain him as ninjas come down out of nowhere to kill every cop in sight and rescue him.

EDIT: For that matter, has Ra's Al Ghul EVER been arrested in the comics?

Theres no justifying it. Sorry but Batman doesn't have the right to make that judgement call. At that point hes no longer a hero, hes just a vigilante seeking his own twisted sense of justice. What your saying is very logical, thats absolutely true, but if he compromises with ra's whats to stop him from compromising with everyone else??

"Hey joker, you've escaped from prison way too many times, the justice system is obviously not working here so I'm just going to let you die." What kind of batman is that??

If I can't hold him up to higher standards than the ninjas then what makes him any better than them? Apparently ra's didn't teach him about honor.

 

[The PhantaZm]

No.
Daredevil and Punisher have frequently targeted the same mob goons and arrived on the scene at the same time, only to end up fighting each other because Frank wants to waste them and Matt wants to bring them to justice.

True, but Daredevil uses the logic that BB's batman uses. In extreme circumstances he will make a judgement call to go for the greater good. (Like in Born Again.) He will agonize over the decision but he's still capable of doing it. He even thought about killing punisher once, reasoning that hes responsible for thousands of deaths.

Daredevil and Batman are both great characters, but I relate to daredevil, hes morally ambiguous and thats realistic. Batman on the other hand I can actually admire because of his unshakable code of honor.

 

[Savage]

Theres no justifying it. Sorry but Batman doesn't have the right to make that judgement call. At that point hes no longer a hero, hes just a vigilante seeking his own twisted sense of justice. What your saying is very logical, thats absolutely true, but if he compromises with ra's whats to stop him from compromising with everyone else??

"Hey joker, you've escaped from prison way too many times, the justice system is obviously not working here so I'm just going to let you die." What kind of batman is that??

If I can't hold him up to higher standards than the ninjas then what makes him any better than them? Apparently ra's didn't teach him about honor.

Well who is to say that he will not regret it? It could only add more to the character's stance on killing. The thing about Joker and those other guys is that they CAN be detained and kept away from society. Ra's would not even see trial. What lesson is there? Why even fight the guy if you are going to lose every time, no matter what? He has tried saving his life. He has tried giving him a chance. Even though the man TOLD him what he would do.

...Besides that, you have to take into account that this was a very early Batman with less than a week's worth of action under his belt. If THAT. He had a strong stance on not killing people but not as strong as it is in the comics today. You have to remember that even in the comics Batman has killed in his early days. Right now he thinks about killing the Joker every day but his resolve is so strong that he resists the urge. This is the experienced Batman. I am sure that by the next movie it will haunt him but for now we at least know he tried to do what he thought was the right thing to do and can any of you really blame him?

 

[The PhantaZm]

Well who is to say that he will not regret it? It could only add more to the character's stance on killing. The thing about Joker and those other guys is that they CAN be detained and kept away from society. Ra's would not even see trial. What lesson is there? Why even fight the guy if you are going to lose every time, no matter what?

Thats a good question. But on that note why bother fighting crime at all? Batman's never going to win that war so why try?

Batman may not be able to keep Ra's in jail but he can foil his plans, and he can continue foiling his plans. Its a crazy messed up cycle, and obviously it would be easier to let him die, but taking the easy way out is not what batman does. Even the movie acknowledges that batman must be "more than a man."

...Besides that, you have to take into account that this was a very early Batman with less than a week's worth of action under his belt. If THAT. He had a strong stance on not killing people but not as strong as it is in the comics today. You have to remember that even in the comics Batman has killed in his early days. Right now he thinks about killing the Joker every day but his resolve is so strong that he resists the urge. This is the experienced Batman. I am sure that by the next movie it will haunt him but for now we at least know he tried to do what he thought was the right thing to do and can any of you really blame him?

I would buy this more if the movie felt more like a year one story. Frank Millers year one felt raw, you saw bat's inexperience, you saw him setting up theatrical entrances and making bad mistakes and even training on the streets out of costume. Even spiderman did a better job with the origin than BB.

 

[Savage]

Maybe this will be the moment that defines his entire career. He had to kill the man who became a second father to him but the question that will really bug him is "Did he have to kill him? Was it absolutely necessary?". Daredevil has the moment with the little boy crying as his own father got beat up in front of him and Batman will have this. Maybe Ra's will come back and even torment him about it and how much they're not as different as he thought. He let his emotions get the best of him and that will be what haunts movie Batman...Because I don't see Jason Todd making it into this franchise.

That's not his only mistake either. I mean what was up with handing that kid the gadget? Rookie mistakes. Simple.

As for showing his inexperience in battle, I agree with you there. When Batman came on screen, he WAS Batman. Everything was clean and perfect. When this movie was first rumored, I was kind of hoping for a scene like the one where those three kids trying to steal the TV kicked his ass in Year One.

 

[Wyrminarrd]

Personally I never had a problem with DareDevil letting that guy die on the tracks. What I found wrong was that Matt was acting like a DA in the courtroom since last time I checked only DA´s were allowed to prosecute people. If it was just a civil litigation then that would more or less mean that Matt was pissed off for not getting any money

In the end I think that how well a movie does a thing determines how much grief the movie takes for doing something. Fanboys who were disappointed with a movie will actively seek out anything and everything even slightly odd or wrong and harp about it forever

 

[Chris Wallace]

The DD novel touched on that; basically since Quesada had already escaped prosecution the civil suit was more like a last attempt at justice.

 

[Chris Wallace]

And you all act like the concept of Batman killing is new.

 

[Mr. Magoo]

Lets be honest people! Some comic book movies take more heat than others for commiting the same crimes. So lets examine:

1. Crime: Having too many villains

Batman 2, 3 and 4

Same offense generally ignored in BB


2. Crime: Fast edit fight scenes.

Daredevil

Same offense ignored in BB

note: Daredevil only applied this technique once and there was a reason for it, bb did it several times for no reason other than to hide ChristianBales lack of fighting skills.

3. Crime: Dialogue is cheesy

Fantastic Four

Same offense ignored in Spiderman

Uhh... okay. Seeing as this thread is 46 posts strong, what I'm about to say has probably been said, but all of these...

...first of all, most people don't think "too many villains" and "fast-edit fight scenes" are necessarily bad. They associate them with bad movies like Batman & Robin and Daredevil, and they should, because both of those movies had more problems than the two or three you listed.

Second of all, Spider-Man's dialogue was nowhere near as cheesy as Fantastic Four's. Not even close. Find me one "cheesy" line of dialogue in Spider-Man and I'll find you four more in Fantastic Four.

You obviously like a lot of superhero movies that are considered mediocre and are angry that more people don't agree, but I ask you: why do you think the offenses you listed were "ignored" in Spider-Man? Do you think it's just some conspiracy that you weren't told about to only like certain films? Don't you think that most comic fans would want to overlook the same problem in both films? The good just doesn't outweigh the bad in Fantastic Four the same way it did in Spider-Man. For most people, anyway. I mean it's ridiculous to say "well, Fantastic Four was full of cheesy dialogue, and I'm pretty sure I heard a cheesy line or two in Spider-Man, so they're the exact same movie." It doesn't work like that, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

 

[Raiden]

Begins handled its villains and subplots well. The same can't be said for X3, where the Powers That Be decided it'd be okay to reduce a cosmic-level threat like Phoenix to... a zombie-like possessed Jean Grey who really gets nothing to do. X3 should've been Magneto's army assaulting Worthington Labs OR the X-Men Phoenix; not both. I suppose Ratner, Fox Studios and co wanted to make the biggest, loudest trilogy finale ever made. Sure, I suppose they did, but it turned out to be mediocre at best.

I think you summed up X3's problems rather well. X3 was a project that got too ambitious for its own good, cramming two major plots (the Cure and Dark Phoenix) into one movie. Unfortunately, it does not have the right writers nor director to pull it off, and got a studio who was too stubborn to change the release date that they got rid of Singer and refused to allow the movie to take its time to develop properly. If X3 had just the Dark Phoenix saga (which is built from the end of X2) and Singer, the movie would've worked. As it turns out, X3 brings a mediocre end to an otherwise fantastic trilogy.

That's why FOX should not be allowed to make another Marvel movie again. I predict Fantastic Four 2 to suffer the same problems as the first movie, and that's unfortunate since Marvel's First Family deserves better.

 

[roach]

1)I'll wait and see FF2 before I condemn it
2)I'll wait to how they do the villains in Spider-man 3 before I claim there were too many in the film.
3) There are more than one way to be a lwayer in the US.

 

[The PhantaZm]

Uhh... okay. Seeing as this thread is 46 posts strong, what I'm about to say has probably been said, but all of these...

...first of all, most people don't think "too many villains" and "fast-edit fight scenes" are necessarily bad. They associate them with bad movies like Batman & Robin and Daredevil, and they should, because both of those movies had more problems than the two or three you listed.

Second of all, Spider-Man's dialogue was nowhere near as cheesy as Fantastic Four's. Not even close. Find me one "cheesy" line of dialogue in Spider-Man and I'll find you four more in Fantastic Four.

Your on!

Every word uttered by green goblin!

You owe me ten thousand lines.

But this is silly actually. It should be about quality and not quantity, (although spidey would still win in that catergory). Spidey had some top notch grade A cheese. I don't remember any lines well enough to sit here and recite them but I remembered how I cringed.

Actually I don't have a huge problem with the cheese in either of those movies. I found it to be kind of charming in FF and it was only one of my more minor problems with Spiderman. I only mention it because others seem to have a big problem with the cheese in FF. And the reason why I can't accept the cheese in spidey is because the rest of the movie tries to have this seemingly naturalistic dialgoue thats very un-comicbook-ish... then they hit you with ridiculous lines that sound like they came straight from a power rangers script and the over the top delivery doesn't help either. It seems awkward and out of place. The dialogue in FF on the other hand was fluff from beginning to end which made it easier to swallow and less intrusive. I was able to reach a comfort zone with the cheese.

Both movies are still cheesy but only one is called out for its cheesiness.

You obviously like a lot of superhero movies that are considered mediocre and are angry that more people don't agree,

I'm more angry about the bias

but I ask you: why do you think the offenses you listed were "ignored" in Spider-Man?

You obviously like the spiderman movie and are angry that I'm calling it out

Do you think it's just some conspiracy that you weren't told about to only like certain films? Don't you think that most comic fans would want to overlook the same problem in both films?

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a conspiracy. And no I don't think most comic fans want to overlook the same problems. They are very selective. Heres the fact: People make their minds up about the movies waaaaay before they see them. People determined that BB was the greatest movie ever months before the movie came out. Check the archives for evidence. People also determined that FF was a pile of crap months before it came out... same with X3. So how were these conclusions drawn in the absence of clandestine abilities? The criteria is as follows:

Who is the character
Who is the director
Who is the lead actor/actress.

Which is why an ant man movie starring Ben Affleck directed by an unknown would be DOA. (regardless of how good it is)

The good just doesn't outweigh the bad in Fantastic Four the same way it did in Spider-Man. For most people, anyway. I mean it's ridiculous to say "well, Fantastic Four was full of cheesy dialogue, and I'm pretty sure I heard a cheesy line or two in Spider-Man, so they're the exact same movie." It doesn't work like that, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just deluding themselves.

I never said any of that. Your making a lot of assumptions. I'm gonna state my personal opinions and all but I'm actually trying to be objective here. I'm not saying FF and spidey are the same. I think BB is superior to Batman 2, 3, 4 and X3. It may sound like I'm trying to defend them but in reality I hate all those movies with a vengeance.