How can the DCU upstage the Marvel Cinematic Universe?

[Flint Marko]

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.

I'm sure you've commented on this elsewhere, but does Terio's involvement encourage you at all? How interested are you in seeing this new take on Batman?

 

[TeeKay]

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

 

[Boy Scout]

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.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm much more excited for SS, personally.

 

[ThePhantasm]

i oscillate back and forth between being more excited for bvs or ss

i still can't believe we are getting all these characters on screen in just the span of a year

and then justice league...

*swoons*

 

[The Batman]

I'm sure you've commented on this elsewhere, but does Terio's involvement encourage you at all? How interested are you in seeing this new take on Batman?

Terrio's involvement doesn't encourage me. I loved Argo, but that doesn't mean he knows how to write a good superhero movie. Akiva Goldsman wrote A Beautiful Mind, and he also wrote Batman and Robin.

Batfleck has my interest because its Batman. I like his outfit, and the trailer did a great job on selling him and his motivations, but I'm not ready to call him the greatest Batman ever.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I'm much more excited for SS, personally.

I definitely have more faith in SS. It's something we haven't seen in CBM's before, and the cast looks great.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Blade 2 sort of did a diet version of the SKwad. Heh.

 

[Aejej]

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.

Surely you don't mean Firefly and Serenity, because they sucked.

IMO, of course.

 

[TeeKay]

Whedon's résumé goes beyond Firefly and Serenity. And you're in the minority when it comes to those two projects of his. Especially Firefly. Great stuff.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Whedon's résumé goes beyond Firefly and Serenity. And you're in the minority when it comes to those two projects of his. Especially Firefly. Great stuff.

Goyer still has Dark City, Blade, BB, to his. I know the fandom hates the guy, but he ain't that awful.

 

[Aejej]

Whedon's résumé goes beyond Firefly and Serenity. And you're in the minority when it comes to those two projects of his. Especially Firefly. Great stuff.

Sorry, not a fan. B-grade sci-fi. Never liked Buffy, either. Whedon's style is too "TV" for film, IMO.

 

[TeeKay]

Goyer still has Dark City, Blade, BB, to his. I know the fandom hates the guy, but he ain't that awful.

Goyer works best when he either has a co-screenwriter or a filmmaker who knows how to tell a story. On his own? Not so much. Only one has to look at his work without Nolan etc

 

[Black Narcissus]

Loved both Buffy and Firefly.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Goyer works best when he either has a co-screenwriter or a filmmaker who knows how to tell a story. On his own? Not so much. Only one has to look at his work without Nolan etc

Yeah, Dark CIty and Blade, Blade 2 were still great.

The dude ain't a hack.

 

[Mjölnir]

There's nowhere in MOS that it states Zor-El was only a scientist. Or that being bred for combat makes Zod perfect.

Zod was clearly a better, faster, more vicious combatant than Superman through much of their combat.

The movie tells us that Krypton genetically engineered people for such a long time that human civilization itself is insignificant in comparison. You'd expect them to be pretty advanced by that point, and definitely that it would have some significant effect if they should bother having it in the movie.

It also told us that people could never aspire to be anything else than what society told them to be (and society of course told Jor-El to be a scientist). Both these things sounded extremely cool to me. Sort of a mix between humans and ants, which really sounded like a good idea for a society that strove for advancement and perfection, but failed. That wasn't the case though as they were just average humans in a different environment.

And Zod wasn't just shy of perfect, he was downright awful. He didn't just lose to the scientist, he got absolutely humiliated. Then of course he failed in his tactics and leadership just as badly afterwards.

 

[batfreakforever]

Why do Dc have to upstage Marvel?
Why can't they compliment one another?
I do prefer the Dc characters/movies but I also love the Marvel characters/movies too.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Why do Dc have to upstage Marvel?
Why can't they compliment one another?
I do prefer the Dc characters/movies but I also love the Marvel characters/movies too.

I've long wondered that myself.

 

[The Guard]

The movie tells us that Krypton genetically engineered people for such a long time that human civilization itself is insignificant in comparison. You'd expect them to be pretty advanced by that point, and definitely that it would have some significant effect if they should bother having it in the movie.

I didn't say anything about how advanced Krypton was compared to Earth...

It also told us that people could never aspire to be anything else than what society told them to be (and society of course told Jor-El to be a scientist).

Being told to be something does not mean they cannot develop any other skills during their lives or make different choices. It obviously didn't stop Jor-El from acquiring other skills and acting a certain way.

And Zod wasn't just shy of perfect, he was downright awful. He didn't just lose to the scientist, he got absolutely humiliated. Then of course he failed in his tactics and leadership just as badly afterwards.

Eh...Zod has the upper hand at first. I don't consider that downright awful, nor was he "downright awful" at combat later in the film. Jor-El, who has more at stake, simply fights harder and wins their first encounter.

Yes, Zod is humiliated. So?

Where is it written that because he has been designed to be a soldier that he will somehow be perfect at every aspect of it in every concievable outcome?

No one said he's a good leader, or a good person. Maybe, just maybe, there's a weakness in his mindset, and that's why he's a villain? Maybe, just maybe, attempts to create the perfect soldier aren't always the right way to go.

It's almost like that's one of the things the movie was trying to say.

 

[The Guard]

The blanket opinions when it comes to either franchise/studio are a bit much.

When it comes to MAN OF STEEL, I don't think the film's weakness is so much an actual lack of story or characterization. The problem is that it didn't tell the type of story or feature the type of characterization a lot of fans wanted from a Superman film.

A lot of fans wanted to see a more straightforward origin; the story about how the Kents raise Clark, and because he's raised by good people, he chooses to do good, in other words, the personal "why" of Superman, and the film presented us with a different side of the character; Superman's internal conflict about his place in the world and the global "why" of him.

Because the film didn't show A, and chose to show B, a lot of fans cry "There's no characterization there!". When that's not really the case. There's just not the sort of character, the fully formed superhero type that many wanted. The film presents a character who, strong as he is, might just be in over his head a little bit.

I disagree that Clark is any more a passive character than he has ever really been in the past. Even him hiding himself from the world was an active choice he made, and he continued to do good while doing so. Superman has always been about reacting to things to a certain extent, its inherent to the character and really to the idea of a superhero in general, but Clark's actions still drive the story forward in MAN OF STEEL in several respects until the Kryptonians arrive, at which point, of course he's going to be a reactive character. He's still a fairly proactive one though.

I view the end of MOS as neither a good or bad choice, simply a nontraditional one. The film did resolve the film's central conflict, which was Clark starting to resolve his issues about his heritage and finding his place in the world. The event in Metropolis, as big as it was, was secondary to the overarching theme of Clark's personal journey.

Since the next film seems to be spending a large part of the film addressing the "unanswered questions" from MAN OF STEEL, I don't have much of an issue with the way MOS ended. Instead of tying things up neatly, it left us with a lot of questions, concerns, possibilities, etc, and I like movies that do that.

 

[Deadshot]

People get so hung up on the fact that Jor beat Zod, like if it is some unquestionable major flaw. "He beat a scientist". I think the point is that Zod is highly flawed on pretty much all levels, that's why he always fails. And that's a major characteristic among villains: They fail a lot and they think too highly of themselves. They're not exactly as good as they think they are, that's why they lose.

As far as Jor-El's fighting abilities, i can't say i remember everything that happened in the movie, but i'm conviced that nowhere in it we're told that the people from Krypton can only learn one skill. They have a genetic predisposition for certain areas, but i don't think we should interpret that as an indication that they can only succeed at one thing.

It's interesting that people pay more attention to what characters say than to what they do. Character A says that he has more training than character B and is a much better fighter than him, but then character B beats character A, and people conclude that the movie is flawed. Why is it flawed? "Because character A said he was better and had more training". Well, the movie just showed you character A was wrong, so what's the problem in simply accepting that? The movie showed you a scientist can beat a soldier. I think it's all pretty clear. It's also pretty clear that Jor-El is not just a nerdy scientist like some of you would expect. He can actually fight. That's right there in the movie for you to see. There's no inconsistency, there's no flaw, there's no plot hole. The movie explicitely tells you that a scientist from Krypton can learn how to fight.

 

[The Guard]

Exactly.

Nevermind that characters who shouldn't be able to beat other characters in fights do so ALL THE TIME in cinema. It's how films create tension.

 

[Marvin]

agreed
but something about mos is unique for some reason.

the usual mos debates aside, I think all dc needs to do is get a few films out. If either company only had to rely on one film alone they would have an up hill battle in the face of the other guys.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

Eh, I love Superman, but I was excited for a different interpretation. Man of Steel was bad because it was a bad film that didn't know what it wanted to be or say, was washed out in tone and poorly paced, and directly contradicted and undermined its own narrative themes.

 

[TeeKay]

The blanket opinions when it comes to either franchise/studio are a bit much.

When it comes to MAN OF STEEL, I don't think the film's weakness is so much an actual lack of story or characterization. The problem is that it didn't tell the type of story or feature the type of characterization a lot of fans wanted from a Superman film.

Because that's the way Goyer wrote it. His comments make it very clear why this movie was so devisive and still debated to this day but also why there will never be a way to solve the argument. "If you take Superman out of it, what's the right way to tell the story...". Nothing more clear than that- Goyer wasn't telling a Superman story. Goyer wasnt telling a story of what would Superman do. As he said before the movie ever came out, this was not meant to be a superhero movie; he wanted it to be a "first contact" movie. There really is nothing to debate, Goyer wasn't telling a Superman story when he wrote it.You're telling me you're OK with writers who write a movie without taking into account the titular character? Come on, I mean really?

A lot of fans wanted to see a more straightforward origin; the story about how the Kents raise Clark, and because he's raised by good people, he chooses to do good, in other words, the personal "why" of Superman, and the film presented us with a different side of the character; Superman's internal conflict about his place in the world and the global "why" of him.

Because the film didn't show A, and chose to show B, a lot of fans cry "There's no characterization there!". When that's not really the case. There's just not the sort of character, the fully formed superhero type that many wanted. The film presents a character who, strong as he is, might just be in over his head a little bit.

*sigh* Right because that what most of us think right? Your point here really cements the point I made earlier which I feel the need to reiterate here:

"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."

Seems like Goyer wrote the film with the unspoken (and likely studio mandated) purpose of appealing to people who don't actually like the character.

I disagree that Clark is any more a passive character than he has ever really been in the past. Even him hiding himself from the world was an active choice he made, and he continued to do good while doing so. Superman has always been about reacting to things to a certain extent, its inherent to the character and really to the idea of a superhero in general, but Clark's actions still drive the story forward in MAN OF STEEL in several respects until the Kryptonians arrive, at which point, of course he's going to be a reactive character. He's still a fairly proactive one though."


I view the end of MOS as neither a good or bad choice, simply a nontraditional one. The film did resolve the film's central conflict, which was Clark starting to resolve his issues about his heritage and finding his place in the world. The event in Metropolis, as big as it was, was secondary to the overarching theme of Clark's personal journey.

Since the next film seems to be spending a large part of the film addressing the "unanswered questions" from MAN OF STEEL, I don't have much of an issue with the way MOS ended. Instead of tying things up neatly, it left us with a lot of questions, concerns, possibilities, etc, and I like movies that do that.

Which is just bad story telling if that was the intent (and it would have been just sloppy) but it clearly wasn't because MoS ties things neatly and ends on a happy note, with Metropolis seemingly rebuilt(?), everyone is all happy and everything that happened beforehand is swept under the rug. A movie has to stand on its own and not rely on another movie to address events of the previous movie. That's just bad storytelling. I don't think Snyder nor Goyer expected the film to be as decisive as it was given on how they chose to end the story.

And as to regards the Jor-El vs of fight.The movie clearly sets up the fact that Kryptonian social classes are specialized to do one thing. But somehow after establishing this fact people want us to believe that Jor-El trained to be a fighter. Even if he was, I hardly believe he was any match for someone who spent his entire life as an actual hardened soldier. I called B.S on that. And if it was Goyers or Snyder's intent to show that Zods character had flaws, then they failed at properly expanding on the idea. Which again as I said before, MoS is all ideas that dont really go anywhere.

 

[Flint Marko]

Instead of tying things up neatly, it came to a screeching halt, sending viewers careening through the windshield.

 

[TeeKay]

Instead of tying things up neatly, it came to a screeching halt, sending viewers careening through the windshield.

I shouldnt laugh but damn. See in reality nothing that happened in MoS was a mistake. Everything was portrayed the way it was intentionally. The reaction to the things that were portrayed was completely unexpected by the filmmakers, specifically Snyder who stated that he didn't understand why people didn't complain about the destruction in the Avengers.