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

[Aejej]

If the movie were as poor as you say it was, why was it well-received by critics and audiences alike? I'm waiting for the excuses.

There are no excuses. Only the obvious:

Because RDJ.
Because Marvel's The Avengers.
Because familiarity with the "MCU formula."

(Surely you can't be that dense. And I'm not calling you Shirley.)

Critical and consumer reception and box office gross don't necessarily identify a "great" or "good" film — Exhibit A: Avatar.

Sometimes a movie that doesn't make "a lot of money" can also be a media darling, and a genuinely well-made and entertaining film — Exhibit B: Mad Max: Fury Road/

No it's polarizing because, as JMC said, it was poorly executed.

Still waiting for you to provide solid evidence for this. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

Funny how "just another big budget MCU film" is still a good movie.

It's definitely a watchable movie, much more so than TDW and Green Lantern. However, it's "watchablity" does not preclude me from picking it cleaner than a drumstick.

 

[Boy Scout]

Can we please stop pointing out that someone's opinion is just their opinion?

 

[Flint Marko]

For that to be true a sizable amount of comic book fans would have to know how a well made movie is constructed.

Most people know enough to adequately describe what does and does not work for them in a movie. Goyer gave those people a lot to pick and choose from.

If that were true, then instead of mentioning how sad and morose Superman was in contrast with DC comics and Marvel movies, criticisms of MoS that continue to this day would instead speak about the film's technical shortcomings instead of their narrative expectations.

They most certainly do.

If that were true, the same group who criticizes Man of Steel would also equally criticize other movies with weird pacing and oppressive world building, such as Age of Ultron.

Age of Ultron had a better screenplay, so the two really aren't comparable.
And since when have people complained about "oppressive world building" in Man of Steel?

You don't have to 'justify' disliking something by trying to prove it's objectively worse than the things you like. Just like what you like dude. People will continue to complain about the mood of Man of Steel on into the next decade and the pacing issues will continue to not come up, and people will continue to love superhero movies that are fun that have similar pacing issues, and you will be free to continue singing this song you're singing... or not.

Stay fly, Flint.

Who's justifying anything? We're having a discussion. You posited the idea that people didn't like Man of Steel because of external factors related to the characters place in our culture, I'm telling you that is false and dismissive of the numerous legitimate criticisms people have for MoS not just as an adaption of a beloved character, but as a film.

There are no excuses. Only the obvious:

Because RDJ.
Because Marvel's The Avengers.
Because familiarity with the "MCU formula."

(Surely you can't be that dense. And I'm not calling you Shirley.)

Critical and consumer reception and box office gross don't necessarily identify a "great" or "good" film — Exhibit A: Avatar.

Sometimes a movie that doesn't make "a lot of money" can also be a media darling, and a genuinely well-made and entertaining film — Exhibit B: Mad Max: Fury Road/

You aren't presenting any new information to me.
The movie was well-received because most people seem to think it was a good movie. It's that simple.
You called Age of Ultron "junk", but you seem to be in the minority on that one.

Still waiting for you to provide solid evidence for this. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

Of course it's my opinion.
I've spent a good deal of my time expressing my distaste for Man of Steel, and it all boils down to the screenplay and it's lack of characterization.
If you want an incredible, detailed analysis about why it completely failed on a basic-storytelling level, read Film Crit Hulk's exhaustingly long review:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2013/07/03/film-crit-hulk-man-of-steel

He pretty much hit the nail on the head.
I'm sure you're not going to read it, but if you actually want to know why so many people dislike Man of Steel, and you have half an hour to kill, it's worth reading.

It's definitely a watchable movie, much more so than TDW and Green Lantern. However, it's "watchablity" does not preclude me from picking it cleaner than a drumstick.

Yet earlier you referred to it as "junk" along with TDW?

 

[TeeKay]

There are no excuses. Only the obvious:

Because RDJ.
Because Marvel's The Avengers.
Because familiarity with the "MCU formula."

(Surely you can't be that dense. And I'm not calling you Shirley.)

Critical and consumer reception and box office gross don't necessarily identify a "great" or "good" film — Exhibit A: Avatar.

Sometimes a movie that doesn't make "a lot of money" can also be a media darling, and a genuinely well-made and entertaining film — Exhibit B: Mad Max: Fury Road/



Still waiting for you to provide solid evidence for this. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.



It's definitely a watchable movie, much more so than TDW and Green Lantern. However, it's "watchablity" does not preclude me from picking it cleaner than a drumstick.

Its a Double edged sword. If people keep going back to see the film then they must like what they saw. That's how films make money, people keep going back and word of mouth plays a huge factor. There are awalys exceptions to the rule. For example the Transformers franchise, most people know it sucks but they still go for the action anyways (which Bay delivers).

 

[Marvin]

Can we please stop pointing out that someone's opinion is just their opinion?

Not so simple when people insist on using such things as point making evidence.

 

[Boy Scout]

It's very simple. It's obvious when an opinion is an opinion. We don't have to constantly point it out every single time. It adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Marvin]

It's very simple. It's obvious when an opinion is an opinion. We don't have to constantly point it out every single time. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Unless pointing out that it's an opinion is the point and counter argument.

On the issue of mad max performance/reception for instance:
Mad Max doesn't deserve a sequel
Why's that
Cause it sucked and no one liked it(opinion)
Well that's your opinion. Here I thought you were going to provide more tangible evidence such as it maybe it's numbers, the niche, rating..
Pointing out to the person that it's an opinion reminds them perhaps to try again, thus adding to the discussion.

 

[ThePhantasm]

It's very simple. It's obvious when an opinion is an opinion. We don't have to constantly point it out every single time. It adds nothing to the discussion.

That's just your op-

er, uh, nevermind.

 

[Aejej]

Pointing out to the person that it's an opinion reminds them perhaps to try again, thus adding to the discussion.

Bingo.

 

[jmc]

Still waiting for you to provide solid evidence for this. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

To suggest the main reason for the dislike people have towards MoS is something other than it being poorly executed is illogical and shifting blame.

 

[Aejej]

Until I am formally convinced, how am I to believe the film "fails on every level" with regard to "basic storytelling," it is "not well-executed," and on and on and on and on? I prefer it to the second and third Iron Man films, both Thor films, Ant-Man and AoU, for instance. There is no blame-shifting to speak of. Leave the rhetoric in the drawer.

 

[jmc]

People are free to like the movie all they want, but to not understand or be dismissive as to why some people don't is to hold the film in a much higher regard than it frankly deserves.

 

[Marvin]

To suggest the main reason for the dislike people have towards MoS is something other than it being poorly executed is illogical and shifting blame.

to suggest/argue/assert the film wouldn't have been better received even on a purely 'critics' front without the preconceptions is approaching ignorance (imo).

 

[Flint Marko]

Strange how similar preconceptions did nothing to hurt the first ASM.
I'll say it again: that excuse is dismissive of the numerous legitimate criticisms people have for MoS not just as an adaption of a beloved character, but as a film.

 

[jmc]

to suggest/argue/assert the film wouldn't have been better received even on a purely 'critics' front without the preconceptions is approaching ignorance (imo).

I would argue strongly that even taking the character of Superman out of that film the fundamental film making flaws of that movies would still have been picked apart and the mixed response would have more or less remained the same as to what we got. The only difference being is we wouldn't have been talking about it this long. It would have been a film a lot of people watched and moved on from.

 

[Aejej]

People are free to like the movie all they want, but to not understand or be dismissive as to why some people don't is to hold the film in a much higher regard than it frankly deserves.

Except your statement is undermined by the fact that the film's detractor's put in truckloads of overtime when it comes to arguing how much it "sucks."

Also, such a statement seems to not apply mysteriously and inexplicably to celebrated entries in the CBM canon like IM3 and AoU — IMO, both are grievously undeserving of the accolades they enjoy.

 

[jmc]

They do it because they are passionate about Superman and believe the character deserved better than ultimately what it got.

 

[Aejej]

They do it because they are passionate about Superman

So am I. Imagine that.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, I'm passionate about Superman and I love the movie.

 

[Aejej]

I'm sure you're not going to read it

Only a clairvoyant would be sure.

 

[Marvin]

Strange how similar preconceptions did nothing to hurt the first ASM.
I'll say it again: that excuse is dismissive of the numerous legitimate criticisms people have for MoS not just as an adaption of a beloved character, but as a film.

So you saw people like teekay(2 pages past) making posts about how they changed the basic character principles in his opinion on that movies board? I must have missed that one. I'll also say it again, what ever legit criticisms you are referring to aside, there is also a large amount of criticisms based on the challenged preconceived notions and expectations presented and the two parts together yield a larger whole than the very often one part of the films it's so often compared to. Perhaps the sum total really wouldn't have been all that bad all things being equal. But nope, it's rated worse than both thor movies on story telling alone and due in no part to anything else...

I would argue strongly that even taking the character of Superman out of that film the fundamental film making flaws of that movies would still have been picked apart and the mixed response would have more or less remained the same as to what we got.

..in the spirit of MOS, let me go the show don't tell approach:

Mara Reinstein
Us Weekly
"No fun costume change in a phone booth, no wowing humans with his powers and no repartee with reporter Lois Lane."

J.C. Maçek III
PopMatters
"A solid film, but a solid Superman?"

Staci Layne Wilson
Yahoo! Movies
"As a science fiction action extravaganza, I can't fault the latest from director Zack Snyder. But as a fun Superman comic book popcorn flick, I certainly can."

Jason Best
Movie Talk
"With Zack 'Watchman' Snyder and Christopher 'Dark Knight' Nolan behind the film, it's no surprise the mood should be dark and serious. If you're hankering after the playful innocence of Christopher Reeve's Superman, you'll definitely be disappointed."

David Kaplan
Kaplan vs. Kaplan
"Rest easy, Christopher Reeve fans. He's still the best Superman ever, and Margot Kidder is still the number one Lois Lane."

Richard Roeper
Richard Roeper.com
"There's very little humor or joy in this Superman story."

Gary Wolcott
Tri-City Herald
"The Man of Steel is not super, man. Not even close."

Let me stop there, about 4-5 pages into the constantly referenced Rt page. What is this I'm seeing peppered all over, but negative after negative reviews that simply wouldn't, rather could not exist had this been an original picture, one with less clearly defined&known preconceptions or simply judged on it's own merit like so many a film before it. How much higher did the score need to be to yield a fresh rating? How much higher would it have been.. The resolution that this films critical reception was hindered by challenged preconceptions must stand. Effectively!

 

[Aejej]

Mara Reinstein
Us Weekly
"No fun costume change in a phone booth, no wowing humans with his powers and no repartee with reporter Lois Lane."

J.C. Maçek III
PopMatters
"A solid film, but a solid Superman?"

Staci Layne Wilson
Yahoo! Movies
"As a science fiction action extravaganza, I can't fault the latest from director Zack Snyder. But as a fun Superman comic book popcorn flick, I certainly can."

Jason Best
Movie Talk
"With Zack 'Watchman' Snyder and Christopher 'Dark Knight' Nolan behind the film, it's no surprise the mood should be dark and serious. If you're hankering after the playful innocence of Christopher Reeve's Superman, you'll definitely be disappointed."

These are just beautiful. They absolutely reinforce everything I've said, and that in a teensy wittle uncracked nutshell, everyone can't help but compare a new effort to '70s/Reeve/Donner Superman. Look, I love those movies, too, but the same way Burton's Batman need not be the template for future cinematic Batman efforts, those need not — should not — be the template for future cinematic Superman efforts.

ETCETERA. ETCETERA. ETCETERA.

 

[jmc]

So you saw people like teekay(2 pages past) making posts about how they changed the basic character principles in his opinion on that movies board? I must have missed that one. I'll also say it again, what ever legit criticisms you are referring to aside, there is also a large amount of criticisms based on the challenged preconceived notions and expectations presented and the two parts together yield a larger whole than the very often one part of the films it's so often compared to. Perhaps the sum total really wouldn't have been all that bad all things being equal. But nope, it's rated worse than both thor movies on story telling alone and due in no part to anything else...

..in the spirit of MOS, let me go the show don't tell approach:

Mara Reinstein
Us Weekly
"No fun costume change in a phone booth, no wowing humans with his powers and no repartee with reporter Lois Lane."

J.C. Maçek III
PopMatters
"A solid film, but a solid Superman?"

Staci Layne Wilson
Yahoo! Movies
"As a science fiction action extravaganza, I can't fault the latest from director Zack Snyder. But as a fun Superman comic book popcorn flick, I certainly can."

Jason Best
Movie Talk
"With Zack 'Watchman' Snyder and Christopher 'Dark Knight' Nolan behind the film, it's no surprise the mood should be dark and serious. If you're hankering after the playful innocence of Christopher Reeve's Superman, you'll definitely be disappointed."

David Kaplan
Kaplan vs. Kaplan
"Rest easy, Christopher Reeve fans. He's still the best Superman ever, and Margot Kidder is still the number one Lois Lane."

Richard Roeper
Richard Roeper.com
"There's very little humor or joy in this Superman story."

Gary Wolcott
Tri-City Herald
"The Man of Steel is not super, man. Not even close."

Let me stop there, about 4-5 pages into the constantly referenced Rt page. What is this I'm seeing peppered all over, but negative after negative reviews that simply wouldn't, rather could not exist had this been an original picture, one with less clearly defined&known preconceptions or simply judged on it's own merit like so many a film before it. How much higher did the score need to be to yield a fresh rating? How much higher would it have been.. The resolution that this films critical reception was hindered by challenged preconceptions must stand. Effectively!

All of that comes down to execution not being right. If the execution was perfect for a new interpretation then they wouldn't have complain. I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue, because the fact remains if the film was better people wouldn't be saying any of this. Also, you're quoting a piece of a review, thus making the quote subject to being taken out of context, so you're not proving anything.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm looking at the RT page now, you know what I see a whole lot more of than in your few cherry-picked excerpts? Endless legitimate criticisms that deal specifically with the movie itself that have been echoed here and elsewhere by countless people. The dull character work, the lack of charm, an over-reliance on uninspired action; all of these complaints feature prominently in basically every rotten review. It's undeniable that a significant portion of this did not work for a lot of people, and that has everything to do with the execution, and not the audiences perceived inability to accept a new interpretation.
But if we're going to suggest that there is a significant amount of people out there who did not like the film based solely on their preconceptions, the converse of this must be brought up as well: people who went in and liked it simply because it was a Superman film.

 

[jmc]

That's an entirely valid point and I think a lot of people who defend this movie do so not because it's a misunderstood good film, but because it's a Superman film that kinda gets enough right. It still boggles my mind that Superman fans use the whole whole 'Rookie Superman' justification for how his character was developed in that movie. I don't believe for a second the intention was to make Superman look reckless in that film but people try to justify it anyway. If Batman was mishandled in that way I know I'd be pissed.