How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

[Black Narcissus]

I'm not gonna deny it, I think Whedon is a far better writer than Goyer sans Nolan. I don't find that to be a particularly controversial statement, we can look at their track records and see examples of what I'm talking about.
And for what it's worth, even I as an outspoken critic of MoS can't wait for BvS to get here so we can talk about something else in the DCEU lol.

Yeah, the dialogue in that lame baseball card death scene was Shakespeare. But every five minutes tho? That sounds like hyperbole. To each their own I guess. Russell's dialogue was pretty good to me. Eh.

I get it, mayne. Some DC peeps on here are rubbing you the wrong way but don't take the bait. You're matching hyperbole with their hyperbole. lol

I only truly consider TDK to have the better dialogue in these cbms.

 

[Snow Queen]

Man of Steel was by no stretch a masterpiece and I agree with a good amount of the criticism on it, but I'd still take it over either Avengers movie. For all it's faults, of which there are many, I have some fun with it and though the execution is mixed, I like a number of the ideas. It's not a great film, but I think it's enjoyable. That's much better than I can say about the first Avengers, which is the only Marvel film I'll say is flat out bad. And I'd put it a few notches above Age of Ultron, though it's closer. I feel they share a number of the same problems, just Man of Steel ends up being a little more fun for me. I wouldn't put it near my top 3 Marvel Studios films (Winter Soldier, Iron Man, Iron Man 3), but I'd put it about give or take on par with Thor, First Avenger and Incredible Hulk.

 

[Deadshot]

Superman Returns made numerous choices that I think were poor, but in terms of basic story structure and characterization, I find it to be head and shoulders above MoS. The latter relied far too much on "tell don't show" storytelling and assumed empathy for me to connect with almost any character; the only moment that worked for me, and worked pretty well, was when young Clark was struggling with his powers.
Saying the Avengers was written by someone with "zero emotional intelligence" befuddles me. There's better writing in any given five minutes of either Avengers film than anything in Man of Steel.


Thank you for bringing this up, it's one of the things I gripe about the loudest with Man of Steel. We've seen him fight Zod and the world engine for what feels like 3 hours, he snaps his neck which is a huge moment for a character like Superman, and then immediately the movie cuts to him joking around in the desert with a general after destroying even more government property. No reference is made to any of the previous events almost like it never happened, the consequences of what just happened are completely brushed aside for some heavy handed light hearted banter. Talk about completely shifting gears out of nowhere.
It's a shining example of how tone deaf the movie is, and I rarely see it addressed.

Superman Returns is borderline silly. Lex's scheme is something you would expect from an Austin Powers movie, that's why i have a hard time comparing it to MOS. They just seem to be in completely different leagues.

What you say about the scene after Zod's death...well, it doesn't bother me, but i get what you're saying. The Avengers is not that much better though. Personally, i didn't get the feeling that a big tragedy had just happened. A few news reports, some people being interviewed, but absolutely zero dramatic value. Sometimes it's better not to do it than to do it poorly.

This discussion is interesting but pointless. I suppose you're a huge Marvel fan, so it's pretty easy for you to feel something while watching those characters. Even if the movie is completely dull you will probably still get emotional about it.

I'm the same way about Batman. I always find it interesting to watch other non-fans reactions to the movies i love just to see if the movie is really THAT great, of if i'm just a dumb fanboy. A lot of times, people i know feel nothing while watching movies about characters i love, and i think to myself "well, maybe the movie is not that great...". To me TDK is the greatest CB movie ever and i find it really emotional, but most of the people i know feel nothing while watching it. Suprisingly(or not), i've seen people who don't even like Batman or superheroes in general cry while watching TDKR, which is interesting, because most fans would put TDK on a much higher level than TDKR. This is not an isolated case. I've seen these movies with dozens of people over the years, and at least in my experience, TDKR is the one who clicks with them.

 

[Infinight888]

Humour is not a requirement for a good movie. It all depends on what the movie is trying to accomplish. Is it trying to be a kid friendly action packed flick? Is it trying to be frightening? Is it trying to be tragic? It all depends. Certainly, a little of humour, as long as it is well executed, can fit pretty much any type of movie, but that's not easy to do and doesn't happen too often.

I agree. You can have a good movie with no humor, or one that's all humor.

But my point, before we on the subject of which is better, is that humorless is not more REALISTIC. Chances are, you have a friend or co-worker who you banter with. You know someone, maybe a few people, who tell corny jokes... Possibly at the worst times.

If you think a movie is better without much comedy, that's fine. I just don't think we should dismiss. But it's still every bit as unrealistic as what Marvel does.

 

[TeeKay]

Superman Returns made numerous choices that I think were poor, but in terms of basic story structure and characterization, I find it to be head and shoulders above MoS. The latter relied far too much on "tell don't show" storytelling and assumed empathy for me to connect with almost any character; the only moment that worked for me, and worked pretty well, was when young Clark was struggling with his powers.
Saying the Avengers was written by someone with "zero emotional intelligence" befuddles me. There's better writing in any given five minutes of either Avengers film than anything in Man of Steel.


Thank you for bringing this up, it's one of the things I gripe about the loudest with Man of Steel. We've seen him fight Zod and the world engine for what feels like 3 hours, he snaps his neck which is a huge moment for a character like Superman, and then immediately the movie cuts to him joking around in the desert with a general after destroying even more government property. No reference is made to any of the previous events almost like it never happened, the consequences of what just happened are completely brushed aside for some heavy handed light hearted banter. Talk about completely shifting gears out of nowhere.
It's a shining example of how tone deaf the movie is, and I rarely see it addressed.

Look, ill be honest, I can admire an earnest overambition that fails to meet its goals. But there is something aggressively insincere behind the attitude that resulted in such half-assed alterations to the Superman origin story. The movie works on assumed empathy because we already know who Superman is rather than establishing the character itself.

Man of Steel is one of those movies that is fascinatingly flawed in that it can easily facilitate a conversation about why it doesn't work which can then lead to a much deeper understanding of why the movies we do love do work (and why we love them). Great movies have a habit of being 'invisibly great.' Everyone sees it and loves it and then that's it. The conversations usually revolve around great moments in the "wasn't it awesome when ______________ happened?" kind of way. We don't necessarily talk about why it really worked in a deep meaningful way. Bad movies, on the other hand, tend lead to deeper conversations that require more analysis by their very nature, especially divisive ones. You have to back up your points and explain what doesn't work and how it could have been done better.

MoS is not even a bad movie, I prefer it over Superman Returns.I don't like MOS. That is pretty much known. But even beyond that I like dissecting movies, and MOS is such a strange case that actually invites dissection even beyond what I consider the surface level failures of the movie. I mean Goyer pretty much came out and took Superman out when writing the film. I mean who does that? You're writing a film about this character and don't even include said character in the creative process? As a huge Superman fan, that pissed me the **** off man.

Everything about these big movies riding on the coattails of established properties are suffering an internal conflict. They'll try to jettison the supposedly 'corny' and 'outdated' elements of Superman without thinking about why such elements were fundamental to the armature underneath that icon.You want to have a gritty, complex, conflicted protagonist? Fine. Want to tell a first-contact story in which an inexperienced young god is instrumental in causing unimaginable amounts of destruction? Cool! Sounds fascinating!

But think carefully about that before hogtying it willy-nilly to an icon that is strongly tied to an ideal of heroism while blaring the sound system with a heroic anthem and desperately trying to present it like a hero based on an audience's collective awareness/association with it. That's a big part of the disconnect, I think. So many of these old 'heroes' and 'role models' are being trotted back out without much thoughtfulness. They are being brought out specifically to spit in the face of 'corny old heroism.' The "THIS AIN'T YOUR DAD'S ___________" approach to mining a property to sexy it up. That's where these writers and people behind these films miss the point because they don't get it. Fingers crossed for BvS.

 

[Greens]

Thank you for bringing this up, it's one of the things I gripe about the loudest with Man of Steel. We've seen him fight Zod and the world engine for what feels like 3 hours, he snaps his neck which is a huge moment for a character like Superman, and then immediately the movie cuts to him joking around in the desert with a general after destroying even more government property. No reference is made to any of the previous events almost like it never happened, the consequences of what just happened are completely brushed aside for some heavy handed light hearted banter. Talk about completely shifting gears out of nowhere.

Kind of like after destroying half of New York City in the Avengers, they show TV news footage only to end on a Stan Lee quip?

 

[Flint Marko]

Kind of like after destroying half of New York City in the Avengers, they show TV news footage only to end on a Stan Lee quip?

You mean footage showing the fallout of the destruction, memorials to those who have died, and the publics reactions to the Avengers, thereby serving as a satisfying bookend to what has preceded it?
Yeah, kinda not like that at all.

Superman Returns is borderline silly. Lex's scheme is something you would expect from an Austin Powers movie, that's why i have a hard time comparing it to MOS. They just seem to be in completely different leagues.

What you say about the scene after Zod's death...well, it doesn't bother me, but i get what you're saying. The Avengers is not that much better though. Personally, i didn't get the feeling that a big tragedy had just happened. A few news reports, some people being interviewed, but absolutely zero dramatic value. Sometimes it's better not to do it than to do it poorly.

This discussion is interesting but pointless. I suppose you're a huge Marvel fan, so it's pretty easy for you to feel something while watching those characters. Even if the movie is completely dull you will probably still get emotional about it.

I'm the same way about Batman. I always find it interesting to watch other non-fans reactions to the movies i love just to see if the movie is really THAT great, of if i'm just a dumb fanboy. A lot of times, people i know feel nothing while watching movies about characters i love, and i think to myself "well, maybe the movie is not that great...". To me TDK is the greatest CB movie ever and i find it really emotional, but most of the people i know feel nothing while watching it. Suprisingly(or not), i've seen people who don't even like Batman or superheroes in general cry while watching TDKR, which is interesting, because most fans would put TDK on a much higher level than TDKR. This is not an isolated case. I've seen these movies with dozens of people over the years, and at least in my experience, TDKR is the one who clicks with them.

That certainly is interesting, the first time I saw TDKR a friend of mine teared up. I'd say it's the most flawed of the three Nolan movies, but it does say something when it can draw such a visceral reaction out of someone in the general audience.
In terms of being a Marvel fan, I very much am, but it started with me being a fan of the genre first and foremost. I like superheroes. I still say TDK is the greatest CBM ever made, I was incredibly excited about MoS, and I have gone on record to say that I'd rather see BvS right now more than Civil War.
I clearly favor the MCU over most superhero films, but does that make me bias? Does that make me look more favorably upon it and downplay their mistakes? It's certainly possible, I won't pretend to be above being a "fanboy", at least in some cases. But as I've said before, in this instance, I genuinely believe Whedon go be a better write than Goyer in almost every way. I think that shows through in their respective superhero movies, as well as their filmography as a whole.

Look, ill be honest, I can admire an earnest overambition that fails to meet its goals. But there is something aggressively insincere behind the attitude that resulted in such half-assed alterations to the Superman origin story. The movie works on assumed empathy because we already know who Superman is rather than establishing the character itself.

Man of Steel is one of those movies that is fascinatingly flawed in that it can easily facilitate a conversation about why it doesn't work which can then lead to a much deeper understanding of why the movies we do love do work (and why we love them). Great movies have a habit of being 'invisibly great.' Everyone sees it and loves it and then that's it. The conversations usually revolve around great moments in the "wasn't it awesome when ______________ happened?" kind of way. We don't necessarily talk about why it really worked in a deep meaningful way. Bad movies, on the other hand, tend lead to deeper conversations that require more analysis by their very nature, especially divisive ones. You have to back up your points and explain what doesn't work and how it could have been done better.

MoS is not even a bad movie, I prefer it over Superman Returns.I don't like MOS. That is pretty much known. But even beyond that I like dissecting movies, and MOS is such a strange case that actually invites dissection even beyond what I consider the surface level failures of the movie. I mean Goyer pretty much came out and took Superman out when writing the film. I mean who does that? You're writing a film about this character and don't even include said character in the creative process? As a huge Superman fan, that pissed me the **** off man.

Everything about these big movies riding on the coattails of established properties are suffering an internal conflict. They'll try to jettison the supposedly 'corny' and 'outdated' elements of Superman without thinking about why such elements were fundamental to the armature underneath that icon.You want to have a gritty, complex, conflicted protagonist? Fine. Want to tell a first-contact story in which an inexperienced young god is instrumental in causing unimaginable amounts of destruction? Cool! Sounds fascinating!

But think carefully about that before hogtying it willy-nilly to an icon that is strongly tied to an ideal of heroism while blaring the sound system with a heroic anthem and desperately trying to present it like a hero based on an audience's collective awareness/association with it. That's a big part of the disconnect, I think. So many of these old 'heroes' and 'role models' are being trotted back out without much thoughtfulness. They are being brought out specifically to spit in the face of 'corny old heroism.' The "THIS AIN'T YOUR DAD'S ___________" approach to mining a property to sexy it up. That's where these writers and people behind these films miss the point because they don't get it. Fingers crossed for BvS.

If they made Clark/Kal a character that I knew, whose thoughts and motivations were clearly understood, with a clear voice that showed me what he is like, I would be much kinder to the film. As it stands, I don't think he has any real agency in the film; we see him constantly react to things happening around him, but this does little to help us get into his head.

 

[Greens]

Isn't that a more jarring tone shift, though? A lot of the elements in the NYC battle are played for laughs, even the "destruction" of Loki is one big joke. Then when all is said and done, we go to citizens crying because their loved ones are missing. Couldn't they have shown this during the fight?

That's one of the reasons why I love the scene where Superman flies into the world engine. Not only is it bad-ass and heroic, the time is split between his perspective and the perspective on the ground. When we see Laurence Fishburne with a look that says "It's over" that's a great moment. Combine that with Zimmer's score and we've got ourselves a great scene.

 

[ThePhantasm]

yeah the battle for metropolis was very emotionally handled

i love mcu movies but one of the things that bothers me about them is how often they break the suspense or tension with a joke. there's a little too much comic relief.

 

[Greens]

yeah the battle for metropolis was very emotionally handled

A lot of people think it's too long and too destruction porn-y, okay that's fine, but there are some truly great moments there. When Zod and Superman fly up to the satellite and back, we see this great shot of the satellite pieces crashing down after which Zod screams like a maniac and the score reaches its climax.

It may sound like I'm kissing Snyder's ass, but those are moments I want to see again. Those little moments where visuals, acting and music collide. In my opinion, Man of Steel has more than enough of those moments.

 

[Flint Marko]

Isn't that a more jarring tone shift, though? A lot of the elements in the NYC battle are played for laughs, even the "destruction" of Loki is one big joke. Then when all is said and done, we go to citizens crying because their loved ones are missing. Couldn't they have shown this during the fight?

That's one of the reasons why I love the scene where Superman flies into the world engine. Not only is it bad-ass and heroic, the time is split between his perspective and the perspective on the ground. When we see Laurence Fishburne with a look that says "It's over" that's a great moment. Combine that with Zimmer's score and we've got ourselves a great scene.

How is that jarring, first off? This is the first I've ever heard any one argue this.
Secondly, you're missing my point. The scene after the Avengers saved New York serves as a direct conclusion to everything we have just witnessed. Everything is wrapped up story-wise; any questions I have about how the world is responding to these events is touched upon in some way here.
With Man of Steel, what happened in the preceding two hours did not matter in the slightest. The earth witnessed it's first superhero battle and it's first encounter with an alien on the same day. Superman killed Zod, who was the last of his kind. Huge stakes, huge potential consequences, a lot of questions, and they're brushed aside immediately so he can joke around with a general. No falling action, no reference to the previous world-changing events.
I don't consider that good story-telling. It's especially unsatisfying when the film makers went out of their way to show immense destruction; in Snyders own words he wanted to show the "consequences of these heroes fighting, that it isn't fun or funny, that people actually get hurt" and then he proceeded to not show any of that at all other than dazzling sequences of buildings falling.

 

[ThePhantasm]

A lot of people think it's too long and too destruction porn-y, okay that's fine, but there are some truly great moments there. When Zod and Superman fly up to the satellite and back, we see this great shot of the satellite pieces crashing down after which Zod screams like a maniac and the score reaches its climax.

It may sound like I'm kissing Snyder's ass, but those are moments I want to see again. Those little moments where visuals, acting and music collide. In my opinion, Man of Steel has more than enough of those moments.

i agree completely

 

[TeeKay]

I don't think this is a contest between which movie has better lines. Frankly, neither movie should be too proud about its writting.

You find the moment between Vision and Ultron "beautiful". I find it dull because neither character meant anything for me. The movie didn't do enough to deserve my concern for the characters. They're both pretty weak in pretty much all aspects.

To me the moments between Clark and his parents were all much better conceived than any attempt at sentimentalism in any Avengers movie. I truly think that last scene between Clark and his mother is absolutely beautiful, and that's part of the reason why i prefer MOS to The Avengers, which felt pretty shallow compared to MOS.

Now, i'm not a fan of The Avengers, but i'm also not a fan of Superman. Both MOS and The Avengers are flawed in many different aspects and are very far from being masterpieces, IMHO. MOS, at times, really feels like it was written by someone who is trying to hard to be smart and deep, but just didn't have it in him. It kind of felt a little bit like a less talented artist trying to emulate Nolan. The Avengers felt like it was written by someone with zero emotional intelligence. Also, Whedon is not an interesting filmmaker, IMO. He can't create images in the same memorable way Snyder can, and that's a big part of filmmaking.

Oh I agree. Snyder is great with visuals in his films. They look beautiful. He definitely knows how to make "EPIC" looking scenes but not necessarily how to make those scenes work to serve the story. When he presents those scenes, the way he frames them, they're meant to make you feel like they mean something. Even with a good script, he would probably need a scriptwriter on set constantly reminding him what the story is about. Its like he's too focused on individual parts and not enough on the big picture. These problems are present in nearly all his films.

 

[Flint Marko]

Oh I agree. Snyder is great with visuals in his films. They look beautiful. He definitely knows how to make "EPIC" looking scenes but not necessarily how to make those scenes work to serve the story. When he presents those scenes, the way he frames them, they're meant to make you feel like they mean something. Even with a good script, he would probably need a scriptwriter on set constantly reminding him what the story is about. Its like he's too focused on individual parts and not enough on the big picture. These problems are present in nearly all his films.

Agreed. I think it's safe to say that Man of Steel is a more aesthetically striking film than both of the Avengers, if not any MCU film as a whole. Just another reason why I'm super excited for BvS.

 

[ThePhantasm]

snyder's visuals + terrio's screenwriting should be a powerful combination

 

[TeeKay]

If they made Clark/Kal a character that I knew, whose thoughts and motivations were clearly understood, with a clear voice that showed me what he is like, I would be much kinder to the film. As it stands, I don't think he has any real agency in the film; we see him constantly react to things happening around him, but this does little to help us get into his head.

Exactly I tried to enjoy the film but I simply could not. Aspects of this film felt forced and dry with one note performaces and a melo-dramatic script.

Goyers script managed to address the film's theme in most of the dialogue. Therefore I found it hard to connect to the characters (especially with adult Clark) with the constant self indulgent monologues about ones purpose in this world. What I found most fascinating about Goyers script is that its more about the ideas of Superman more than anything else. Instead of telling us the story and allowing us to analyze the film on out own, Goyer is constantly reminding us the morale of the tale.

I mean Clarke barely has any dialogue in this film. He's very much a reactive character. He's reduced to glares and various looks. Cavill does best with what he's given but that's not saying much. Goyer wrote Clark as a stiff, depressing and lonely drifter. I actually enjoyed the flashbacks where young Clark seems like an average human struggling to fit into society, rather than the distant adult Clark.

 

[Flint Marko]

snyder's visuals + terrio's screenwriting should be a powerful combination

Exactly why I'm willing to forego any trepidations I may have for BvS. Again, I'm more excited for it than Civil War.

 

[TeeKay]

snyder's visuals + terrio's screenwriting should be a powerful combination

I agree. BvS looks more promising. I'll be there at the midnight premier. The dialogue seemed a lot better and natural than Goyers in MoS. I do love the visuals though. Snyder's biggest strength as a filmmaker is the ability to make his films look beautiful and epic.

Agreed. I think it's safe to say that Man of Steel is a more aesthetically striking film than both of the Avengers, if not any MCU film as a whole. Just another reason why I'm super excited for BvS.

I definitely agree with you. Arent we all excited for BvS? I thought I'd never live long enough to see the day where Batman and Superman fight. Yeah I don't think my body is ready.

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Marvel movies have been entertaining with a good mix of comedy, story and action. If DC truly wants to separate itself from them, they have to have more of the "Comicbook Movie 2.0" route and really shoot for more epic stories and higher quality films. I think that's the answer. Make great movies that happen to be about comic book characters.

 

[Steamteck]

It's also the reason why they don't have a movie like The Dark Knight.

Thank God!

 

[Steamteck]

See I dont have a problem with Superman killing Zod. I have more of a problem with his," Take Superman aside, I think that’s the right way to tell that story" quote. Seriously, how does Goyer not know the sheer ignorance of what he's saying? How do you take Superman out of the creative process when you're writing a Superman movie? Does that make sense to you? He's starting to sound like Josh Trank.

He's pretty much flat out saying that they pasted Superman and his mythos as window dressing over a movie that intentionally flew in the face of what Superman is. And they then wonder why fans took issue with the film. Its quotes like these that shows that he doesn't really get the character. Its frustrating to say the least.

Here I thought he was saying people have preconceived silver ageish visions of Superman that stop them from seeing any possible alternative so pretend for a moment its not Superman. Your sort of take is what frustrating and why statements like this end up being made.

I read my first Superman comic in the late 60s and have seen so many changes in him. I have way more issues with current comic versions than MOS personally.

It all opinion though for me Nolan is completely clueless on Batman. I can't wait for BVS to see a Batman I don't hate. ( Begins had so much promise)

 

[The Batman]

Arent we all excited for BvS?

Not me. Snyder's involvement has left me cautious. I like the visuals, but I can't really say I'm excited when there hasn't been anything that indicates that the film will be an improvement over MOS.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Here I thought he was saying people have preconceived silver ageish visions of Superman that stop them from seeing any possible alternative so pretend for a moment its not Superman. Your sort of take is what frustrating and why statements like this end up being made.

I read my first Superman comic in the late 60s and have seen so many changes in him. I have way more issues with current comic versions than MOS personally.

It all opinion though for me Nolan is completely clueless on Batman. I can't wait for BVS to see a Batman I don't hate. ( Begins had so much promise)

Are we rewriting history here? Lawd.

 

[TeeKay]

Are we rewriting history here? Lawd.

I think we are.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Nolan clueless on Batman?? these words... do not... compute...