How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe? - Part 1

[STARMAN]

I'm not interested in them upstaging anyone. I simply want them to string a couple of good movies together. This starts by actually not having to wait years between movies and get some momentum.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I'm not interested in them upstaging anyone. I simply want them to string a couple of good movies together. This starts by actually not having to wait years between movies and get some momentum.

Yeah, ''winning'' over marvel is not a thing for me. I just want to see good movies and more characters other than Batman.

 

[Black Narcissus]

People can have their own view of MOS' story, just don't act like someone else "Doesn't understand" just because they didn't like something. This movie is too polarizing to act like the criticisms of it are just oddities.

I agree with you 100%, but this topic often enough goes back and forth both ways. Some folks who did not like Mos act like liking it, is some sort of sin and get on their high horse, and the folks who enjoy the film then go nitpick mcu films etc. MOS isn't some misunderstood masterpiece, but it isn't the abomination some also make it out to be. I liked the film, but even I only give it a solid 7.

 

[TeeKay]

I don't think its an abomination either. Just a film which had huge potential. The script is the main problem of the film.

 

[Greens]

We're going to see a lot of BvS vs. CW articles next year, whether they're warranted or not.

Box office wise, I think they'll end up about the same. Obviously we're still 5 months out, but I don't see BvS making an unprecedented splash in terms of ticket sales. It'll do very well, but I think a lot of people are overestimating it. The Star Wars hype may just be blinding me, though.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I don't think its an abomination either. Just a film which had huge potential. The script is the main problem of the film.

Oh, I wasn't really talking about folks on here specifically, just in general.

 

[Black Narcissus]

We're going to see a lot of BvS vs. CW articles next year, whether they're warranted or not.

Box office wise, I think they'll end up about the same. Obviously we're still 5 months out, but I don't see BvS making an unprecedented splash in terms of ticket sales. It'll do very well, but I think a lot of people are overestimating it. The Star Wars hype may just be blinding me, though.

I do guarantee at least 1bill tho. The rest we shall see. I actually won't be surprised if CW makes more. We just need to be in the green for the sake of future DC films. t:

 

[Greens]

I do guarantee at least 1bill tho. The rest we shall see. I actually won't be surprised if CW makes more. We just need to be in the green for the sake of future DC films. t:

Oh yeah, 1 billion is a given.

I just think that people often conflate what the general audience wants to see with what we fans have always wanted to see.

I hope it's a critical and financial success so we can look forward to Suicide Squad (and the films after that) without there being too much on the line.

 

[Steamteck]

When the Avengers movie has flaws, people make up excuses for those flaws.

When MOS has flaws and fans try to justify or explain that they're not flaws, that's just them putting in "a little more effort to understand certain things that might not be 100% obvious for 100% of the viewers."

I see.

Kind of like TDK.

I see.

 

[STARMAN]

WW is going to film soon and barring something crazy we should be getting Justice League. It's the slate of films further down the road that are at risk if 2016 misfires.

 

[Greens]

WW is going to film soon and barring something crazy we should be getting Justice League. It's the slate of films further down the road that are at risk if 2016 misfires.

Starting your universe with TWO divisive films puts more weight on the shoulders of subsequent releases. I want to look forward to Suicide Squad as a movie, not as a DCEU lifeline.

 

[The Guard]

He saved people when it was convenient for him to do so. He wasn't actively searching for people to rescue.

It seems he saved people when they needed saving, and then moved on. Not when it was "convenient". There's nothing in the movie that shows him only saving people when it was convenient. Other than the obvious convenience of him being there and aware of the incident, which Superman shareswiththefilm version.

He was also trying not to expose himself. If he flew around actively trying to find people to save, he’d pretty much already be Superman.

Hiding from humanity is part of an active choice he made as a character. His exhile is not just because he is "lost", it's an actual choice he has made and continued to make as a character until he developed beyond that.

As for finding people to save and looking for opportunities to do so…he seemed to be working dangerous jobs. Why do you think he was doing those things?

No it isn't. That implies that he was intentionally seeking out people in need of help, which he wasn't.

No, me saying “Seeking out people to save” would imply that.

“Actively saving people” means that he was, at different times, taking part in the act of saving people.

We're pretty much splitting hairs here, because we KNOW that he did it. We see it happening during the film.

Clark was purposeless. Lost. Traveling from place to place without caring

But just because he is somewhat lost does not, in itself, make him a passive character throughout the film.

MANY heroes are "lost" in some respect at the beginning of their journeys. Seeking purpose and meaning. It’s a major component of the beginning of
the classic hero quest in both literature and film.

For instance, Ra’s Al Ghul talks about how Bruce Wayne is “truly lost”, and Bruce’s actions at the beginning of BATMAN BEGINS reflect this.

And it's not like Superman stays there. This is just where his characterization begins.

No it isn't. Bruce, in BB, had a clearly defined and understood purpose: to understand how criminals think. It's not a plan that requires him to be at any particular place at any particular time. After all: crime and criminals are everywhere.

Superman also had a clearly defined and understood purpose. Hide what he could do from the world while still contributing to it as best he could. It is not a plan that required him to be at any particular place at any particular time.

When it comes to disasters and fighting crime, yes. When it comes to finding answers, becoming Superman, and making something of himself? Not usually.

He does seek out his own answers in the film. There are several sequences dedicated to this. And I think it's difficult to argue that he takes no action in terms of becoming Superman and making something of himself as his character arc unfolds.

The happy ending doesn't really jive with what came before it. That being, lots of death, collateral damage, and a man in emotional agony.

You might as well complain anytime a happy scene follows a serious one, or takes place several scenes after a serious one.

It’s not like we go from “Superman in grief” to “Happy go lucky Clark”.
There’s a serious scene that bridges the events to Clark starting work at the daily planet. Actually, there are two of them. Between Superman and the military and Superman and his mother.

Sure. But that "something else" shouldn't directly contradict what we were lead to believe about Krypton's culture.

And it doesn’t. At no point during the film are we expressly told “No one can make any other choices or acquire other skills”. In fact, the film clearly shows us that Kryptonians can do this, via Jor-El.

He also flat out said that he's just as much a victim of Krypton's stereotyping as anyone else. That's why he didn't travel with Kal-El to Earth.

But the film SHOWS us that he is not entirely beholden to it.

Yeah, no, that's lame. And it wasn't luck that allowed Jor-El to beat those soldiers. It was skill. Skill that Jor-El, as a scientist, shouldn't have possessed.

Guess what? It being lame doesn't make it any less logical.

How do you know it wasn't a combination of luck and skill? Do you have a cinematic skill/luck measuring device that you utilize for fictional work?

I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

You said: "a character's flaws shouldn't contradict the internal logic of the film."

I'm pointing out that, over the history of storytelling, character flaws are shown to affect a character's effectiveness in relation to other, potentially weaker or less intelligent or capable characters.

It's not an issue with the film's internal logic. It's a basic of character interaction.

Why? How? And how do those classes allow him to stand up to people who were born and bred to be fighters?

Why? Because at some point he wanted/needed to learn how to fight.

Maybe he somehow did a stint in the Kryptonian military at some point. The armor would suggest something along those lines...he seems familiar with Zod...there are all kinds of possibilities.

How? We are shown how.

Just because the movie does not go into a detailed explanation of this does not mean the outcome is invalid from the logical standpoint.

And if the explanation is that simple, why couldn't it be expressed through a few lines of dialogue? We were on Krypton for what...twenty minutes? Twelve more seconds wouldn't have made a difference.

I don't know. Ask the writer. My guess? Because the movie was already somewhat heavy on exposition and putting more exposition into not broader story ideas but interpersonal relationships and fairly straightforward character traits would not do the film much of a service.

Perhaps they didn't think people would question an action trope that has been seen and accepted in, oh, thousands of other films over the years. A "weaker" character defeating a "stronger" character in a dramatic confrontation.

Also, writers and filmmakers like to “show” sometimes, not have to explain every little thing via dialogue.

The soldiers had armor, weapons, and years of experience.

It's not a math problem. None of these things would preclude an actual soldier, in real life, from potentially being defeated by someone without these things, or a fictional soldier falling prey to someone less skilled.

Stranger things have happened. Even in the real world.

I don't. But if the Lucius Fox of the film is gonna beat the Batman, I'd like a better explanation than, "Because he can."

We’re not discussing Lucius Fox. We’re discussing a specific character and context. Jor-El.

And it doesn't make sense, which is why we're having this conversation.

It makes perfect sense. You just don’t accept the logical explanation that is presented, because for some reason, you think there’s a hard and fast “rule” in the film that precludes it. When there isn't.

It's also reasonable to assume that Zod, as someone who has probably spent years training, is able to productively channel rage and use it to make himself even more formidable, especially against someone who shouldn't be on his level.

And that’s entirely possible, but in this instance, he did not do so.
In this instance, he was defeated in combat.

Sort of like he is defeated in combat later in the film, even though he should technically be more skilled than Superman. He obviously has some flaws as a combatant and a character. His ego and his rage seem to be among them, per what the film shows us.

 

[John Locke]

WW is going to film soon and barring something crazy we should be getting Justice League. It's the slate of films further down the road that are at risk if 2016 misfires.

Starting your universe with TWO divisive films puts more weight on the shoulders of subsequent releases. I want to look forward to Suicide Squad as a movie, not as a DCEU lifeline.

I don't see the further movies down the road getting cancelled, well maybe the 2020s, unless BvS and Suicide Squad don't make money. If BvS is divisive the others will still happen. That may be a reason why they are emphasizing the director's control now that I think about it. WB's betting a lot on the DCEU, it's the biggest pillar they have going for them. I don't see WB wanting to start again from scratch especially after the year they've had this year.

 

[starscream22]

When the Avengers movie has flaws, people make up excuses for those flaws.

When MOS has flaws and fans try to justify or explain that they're not flaws, that's just them putting in "a little more effort to understand certain things that might not be 100% obvious for 100% of the viewers."

I see.

I enjoyed both so I don't care either way.

Eff Fox's Marvel films though.

 

[Boy Scout]

First off all, we're never told about the particularities of Krypton's civilization. The information we get is very limited.

In the absence of relevant information, I have to work with what I have to fill in the blanks left by the creative team. That's not my fault.

We know they're supposed to follow a certain lifestyle, but we don't know if they can't have access to information outside their line of work.

You'll notice that I never once said that it was impossible for Jor-El to have received or even sought out combat training. What I think is ridiculous is the fact that he was so skilled that he could easily defeat men who were born to be fighters, with no explanation provided as to where that training came from and how it allowed him to take on people who were trained and genetically engineered to be better than him.

And we also know that being a soldier, apparently, doesn't require superior hand 2 hand combat.

You're forgetting that the soldiers in question are ones that Zod chose to accompany him in his attempt to overthrow the government. Why would he choose to bring along men and women who couldn't defend themselves?

Do you think a soldier can beat anybody in a fight?

I expect soldiers personally handpicked by a general to help him stage a coup to be better fighters than a scientist, yes. Why is that an unreasonable expectation to have?

There's nothing wrong or odd about a scientist beating a soldier.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't.

You're just trying to apply your own personal(and quite fictional) rules to a universe about which you don't even have enough information to draw any type of definite conclusion, since the film never really went into detail about such matters.

You have a rather condescending way of expressing your opinions that I don't appreciate.

Why? Why does Jor-El knows how to fight? I don't know. The movie never tells. Is it important? Maybe not. There are dozens of pretty plausible theories.

Why couldn't one of them have been shared with the audience?

Now, about Batman and Gordon...

I never said anything about Batman and Gordon.

Jor-El is a man of knowledge, and he uses an armour, which kind of indicates that Krypton is an hostile enviroment to live.

But you don't know that. You're making assumptions based on limited information, just like I am. What makes it okay for you, but not me?

 

[Deadshot]

When the Avengers movie has flaws, people make up excuses for those flaws.

When MOS has flaws and fans try to justify or explain that they're not flaws, that's just them putting in "a little more effort to understand certain things that might not be 100% obvious for 100% of the viewers."

I see.

You're always welcome to explain people why they're wrong for not viewing something as a flaw. If someone offers you an argument to justify something, you're free to explain why and how that argument is invalid. I think it would be more useful than simply looking down on people's views, like if they were factually wrong, which they aren't. Let me just remind you filmmaking is not science.

 

[The Guard]

It's an important part in creating the expectations of how significant the effects of their genetic engineering are.

Significant doesn't mean all-encompassing. We are shown this in the case.

Interpreting as just being told that makes the whole concept ridiculously weak. Then Krypton is no more special than any controlling dictatorship on Earth and it's just stupid to talk about genetic engineering if that's not supposed to matter at all.

Well, it's clearly shown to be a flawed system. The concept isn't supposed to be an appealing one, or a successful one.

It IS a weak concept. A heavily flawed one. That’s sort of the point.

It's pretty weak to have Jor-El be a good warrior in that society in itself, but it would at least be acceptable if he was good but that it only lead to him being able to delay his own defeat enough for securing the launch. He doesn't have to reduce Zod to Grima Wormtounge.

Jor-El is portrayed as doing just enough to stop Zod and his soldiers to buy Lara time to launch the rocket. After the rocket is launched, Zod recovers and attacks Jor-El. I don't remember Grima Wormtongue stabbing anyone right after his initial defeat...

As far as I remember Zod only lands two strikes on Jor-El. That's being humiliated and the "so?" is obviously that it leaves everything we're told about Krypton redundant. It of course also doesn't help set up your villain well if he's an utter failure at everything he's supposed to be good at.

Actually, he lands several blows during the fight, and has the upper hand at the beginning of it.

I don’t find that obvious at all. The movie never tells you Zod is the best fighter. Zod says he was raised to be a soldier and protect Krypton and is shown to have been indoctrinated to be a military person. They never go into detail about exactly what that entails, how sharp his skills are, etc. Any assumptions from viewers about what that entails are just that…assumptions.

And please stop with the ridiculous "perfect" argument. He doesn't have to be perfect but he needs to be good at it.

He is good at it. He is shown to be a very capable fighter at several points during the film.

Nevermind that a general not being at top fighting form by that point in his career is pretty standard, even in real life.
[
quote]I've been more than clear on that it's not about him not being perfect but about him being absolutely awful at everything.[/quote]

He’s not awful at everything, though. He wipes the floor with Superman for much of the final battle.

In fact, he succeeds at a good bit of what he sets out to do.

No one's said that he's a good leader? So why was he put in the position of being the overall military leader of Krypton, a planet where they supposedly can engineer people to be what they should be?

You’re asking how a flawed individual got to a position of leadership in a flawed system?

The same way people do in the real world. Politics, seniority, all kinds of reasons.

He should be able to lead the army but clearly most of it didn't care to follow him at all.

Then what were all those attack ships doing at the beginning of the movie?

We are shown that Zod's forces try to overthrow the existing government amidst a sort of civil war atmosphere.

I would imagine most of the ones who were fighting to do so were following Zod.

He's also a completely moronic tactician since he staged a coup where he was swatted down immediately, which was the obvious result if he didn't get his own military forces behind him.

1. It’s a movie. Let’s not pretend that we’re talking deep military tactics here.
2. He succeeds at first.
3. It was clearly a desperate move on Zod’s part in the first place. No one can be guaranteed of success in any coup scenario. This coup happened to fail. Doesn't make his tactics moronic, it just means his attempt at a coup ultimately failed and his forces were defeated in battle.

He's much more of a good person than he is competent as he at least has noble intentions.

 

[The Guard]

It's always interesting to see how hard some will work to try and explain/justify the numerous problems with Man of Steels screenplay.
"Zod was enraged, so that's how a military general who was genetically engineered and trained to be a soldier for his entire life was matched by a scientist. Clearly Zods problem was his genetic engineering which made him a myopic, ineffectual leader, even though that was hardly touched upon in the movie to make more time for punchy punch punch punch. And the super abrupt, unsatisfying ending is great because it raises a whole bunch of questions it doesn't even think to answer".

No one ever said there aren't issues with the screenplay. I have issues with it in places, too. But some of them have legitimate explanations and aren't huge gaps in storytelling or logic as some have said.

And it's not hard work to explain why a fictional character is able to defeat another fictional character. At all. It's a staple of literature and film.

And this is a movie. Not a math problem.

 

[ThePhantasm]

holy walls of text, batman

 

[The Guard]

Pardon me for not going "Yuh huh!"

 

[ThePhantasm]

you're pardoned!

 

[TeeKay]

Superman attempting to take the fight elsewhere wouldn't provide any more characterisation than him keeping the fight on the city and then killing Zod. Both scenarios say plenty about the man. They just say different things. And i have no problem with MOS's Superman not being the "perfect" Superman, since we're dealing with someone who went very quickly from not knowing exactly who he was to having to save earth. It's only natural for him to show flaws and bad judgement. It actually makes him more interesting. Plus, he will have plenty of time to grow.

You can say this is wrong because in the comics he is this and that, yada, yada, yada, but this Superman worked perfectly in the context of this particular story.

What casualties did The Avengers prevent? In the first movie they save a couple of people, but they still keep the fight in the middle of the city. The movie is 100% light and they show no credible concern for the fact that thousands are dying right there while they're cracking "funny" one liners amongst them. MOS is not much better, but man, there's one scene where you can see true concern and pain in the eyes of the hero, and that's something i can't say about anyone in The Avengers.

In the second movie they showed a lot of concern for the civilians, but you can tell that was just Marvel trying to play as safe as possible. They saw what happened with MOS and they didn't wanna piss people off, so they just decided to address as much as possible the civilians. To me that's what takes the fun away from these Marvel movies. They are just waaaaaaaaaaay too concerned with not pissing anybody off. They're just waaaaaaaaaaaay too strategic. Good for them, they make money that way. But watching these movies is a little bit like hearing a politician talk. I just can't fully buy into it. Nothing seems to come from the heart.



You're assuming too much and that's a silly comparision.

First off all, we're never told about the particularities of Krypton's civilization. The information we get is very limited. You're just assuming too much. We know they're supposed to follow a certain lifestyle, but we don't know if they can't have access to information outside their line of work. Well, we actually know: They can. The movie doesn't say it, but it shows. And we also know that being a soldier, apparently, doesn't require superior hand 2 hand combat. Not on Krypton and not even on earth. Do you think a soldier can beat anybody in a fight? Most of them have very minimal hand 2 hand training. There's nothing wrong or odd about a scientist beating a soldier. You're just trying to apply your own personal(and quite fictional) rules to a universe about which you don't even have enough information to draw any type of definite conclusion, since the film never really went into detail about such matters. Or maybe it did, when it showed you a scientist could actually fight. I repeat: The movie shows you. It's there for you to see. It's telling you: "Hey, Jor-El knows how to fight".

Why? Why does Jor-El knows how to fight? I don't know. The movie never tells. Is it important? Maybe not. There are dozens of pretty plausible theories.

Now, about Batman and Gordon: Batman is known for being an ultimate Martial Artist. He is supposed to be better than pretty much everyone else. It's actually the permise of the character: He can do what others can't. Now, about Zod, we are never told about his exact qualifications as a martial artist. All we know is that he is a general, which, per se, if you know anything about military, doesn't say much about his fighting abilities.

Jor-El is a man of knowledge, and he uses an armour, which kind of indicates that Krypton is an hostile enviroment to live. People who life in hostile enviroments often learn how to defend themselves. Being him such an important man, it's only logic for him to learn how to defend himself.

I don't understand what's so complex to understand about this. I think it just takes a little bit of real world experience to watch that scene and not be surprised by it.

Aren't you doing the same? Its kinda ironic really.

 

[Deadshot]

In the absence of relevant information, I have to work with what I have to fill in the blanks left by the creative team. That's not my fault.

It's your fault to fill those blanks with ideas and then acting like they are what we were told by the movie.

You'll notice that I never once said that it was impossible for Jor-El to have received or even sought out combat training. What I think is ridiculous is the fact that he was so skilled that he could easily defeat men who were born to be fighters, with no explanation provided as to where that training came from and how it allowed him to take on people who were trained and genetically engineered to be better than him.

You're assuming that being a general involves being a great hand 2 hand fighter. Now, where Jor-El learned how to fight doesn't seem that important to me since that's something to which you can easily find several plausible explanations for. He obviously have access to combat training. And he obviously is good at it. If you really feel the need to know where that knowledge came from, i'd say that's your personal problem. It's ok to feel bothered by certain elements of a movie. No movie pleases everybody.

Btw, if you know anything about fighting, which i'm not really sure you do, you will know that overestimating an opponent is a big mistake. If you think you're much better than your opponent and if you're not aware about your opponents real skills, you can be easily defeated. This is a fact and happens very often in combat sports. Guys that are supposed to be much better than their opponents get schooled because they were expecting their opponents to be much less skilled.

As you can see, there's nothing really that ridiculous about that scene. Now, if you're not aware about the particularities of martial arts and human behaviour, that isn't really the movie's fault. That's why sometimes it is important to think a little bit about things instead of jump to conclusions based on very superficial interpretations.

You're forgetting that the soldiers in question are ones that Zod chose to accompany him in his attempt to overthrow the government. Why would he choose to bring along men and women who couldn't defend themselves?

Why would we send to war soldiers that would get destroyed in seconds by a teenager with a couple of years of serious Wrestling training? Again, you're assuming too much. It's not wise to do it. Soldiers are not, by default, great hand 2 hand fighters. They use mostly technology, not punches and kicks. Yeah, they know some basics, most of them, but they're not specialists per se.

I expect soldiers personally handpicked by a general to help him stage a coup to be better fighters than a scientist, yes. Why is that an unreasonable expectation to have?

I'm sorry if your expectations don't meet reality. Theoritically, you're right. But in reality an ice cream seller could beat an elite soldier. People have access to sports, you know? A dentist can be a 7th degree black belt in Judo. A garbage man can be a wrestling world champion. Funny enough, the best fighters in the world are not soldiers. And most soldiers aren't really that great fighters. Most don't even have any serious ranking in any combat sport.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if there wasn't.

Lack of information can lead to the most ridiculous discussions.

Why couldn't one of them have been shared with the audience?

It could, but it wasn't. Still doesn't invalidate the fact that there's nothing that odd about a scientist beating a soldier. But again, it depends on how you look at it. Some people think all blacks are criminals. Misconceptions are very common. Some people being surprised by the event doesn't make it a flaw. Some people not understanding it doesn't make it a flaw either.

But you don't know that. You're making assumptions based on limited information, just like I am. What makes it okay for you, but not me?

Actually, i'm making assumptions based on what the movie actually shows, which is:

1- He uses an armour, so he isn't exactly leaving in paradise.

2- He knows how to fight, so he obviously has training.

See? This is called connecting dots. To show is also a way of telling a story. Not every information needs to be presented in words.

 

[Deadshot]

Aren't you doing the same? Its kinda ironic really.

My judgement is based on what the movie shows.

 

[TeeKay]

No its not connecting the dots, it well, as you put it, "trying to apply your own personal(and quite fictional) rules to a universe about which you don't even have enough information to draw any type of definite conclusion, since the film never really went into detail about such matters."

You are assuming things just as much as he is.