BvS Is anyone else not excited about Superman and Batman? I feel nothing but dread. - Part 1

[BlueLantern]

Was worth it though, Smaillville13. You've hit the nail on the head.

J. Howlett, those who aren't looking forward to the film are cynics. Like I said, many of us just felt Man of Steel sucked so having the same creative team tackle this AND Batman isn't an inspiring notion.

 

[J.Howlett]

But to be honest: It didn't. If anything it just continues the cycle of abuse of people confusing it, and just not getting it. The reasons here are twofold but I think they both fold back on Snyder. One the movie was good, and that's it. About on par with all the other ordinary Marvel fare we've been getting. Nothing that sets it above those. And a lot of people here and outside here will tell you it was only average, or very very bad. That's fault 1.

First mistake right there...comparing it to the Marvel Studios' line up and saying it's on par with those film. It's not. Man of Steel wipes the floor with six out of seven of those films done by Marvel Studios'. That's not even up for debate anymore.

 

[Gianakin_]

Was it Smallville13 who said "You wouldn't want an Avengers written by Theroux"? Hit the god damn nail on the head, this is exactly what it is.

 

[J.Howlett]

You know, I'm gonna have to stay way from the Hype until release date because if this is the attitude that this thread/forum is gonna take surrounding this projecting until release date, it's going to be completely miserable around here for two years....

...until the trailer hits and then the naysayers will be suddenly optimistic and then the cycle will continue.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, that's how it goes with Snyder: Initial optimism, then they remember his track record and it's pessimism, then he releases a trailer that makes the movie seem like cure for cinema cancer, resulting to optimism, and then... well, the movie's out.

But I think you're kinda overreacting. The movie is divisive. Best accept it and keep coming here. The TASM boards seem to be handling things fine.

 

[J.Howlett]

Was worth it though, Smaillville13. You've hit the nail on the head.

J. Howlett, those who aren't looking forward to the film are cynics. Like I said, many of us just felt Man of Steel sucked so having the same creative team tackle this AND Batman isn't an inspiring notion.

If Man of Steel sucked, then I'm curious to know what you think of Marvel Studios' output....

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, that's how it goes with Snyder: Initial optimism, then they remember his track record and it's pessimisn, then he releases a trailer that makes the movie seem like cure for cinema cancer, resulting to optimism, and then... well, the movie's out.

But I think you're kinda overreacting. The movie is divisive. Best accept it and keep coming here. The TASM boards seem to be handling things fine.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree about Snyder. I think the guy is on point as an artist. I truly do. I knew it after 300 and the Ultimate Cut of Watchmen. And I really knew it after Sucker Punch.

Yes, I think the extended cut of Sucker Punch is a god damn mini-masterpiece that will be reevaluated in 20 years. Simple as that. And with Man of Steel, I think he's delivered the best, most complete Superman film by far. Debate that all you like but that's how I see that behemoth of a film.

So, even with the blindsided nature of the project that WB has placed Snyder and Goyer, I still think that Snyder, as an artist, has too many tools to let this film fail, even if it's not what they originally planned.

And that's where the heart of the argument is about this project. Superman fans wanted their trilogy like Batman got with Nolan's. And even if the project started out that way, Avengers changed the entire genre to the point that there was no way that Superman was going to get his trilogy. No way, after that opening weekend.

Sad state of affairs but it's truth. Just look at the reaction from Fox and Sony with their Marvel properties.

I just don't see Snyder screwing this one up. Call me a Snyder fanboy all you want but that guy has earned my good will.

 

[BlueLantern]

Well, calling you a Snyder fanboy is pointless since it's so blatantly obvious. Regarding Marvel's output, they know what they're making and stay on point. Most importantly, their films are thematically consistent and tonally spot on. The irony about Snyder is that all his films aside from Man of Steel have been identifiable as Zack Snyder film. This film was just stuff put together in the most joyless manner possible. I liked Watchmen and 300 for its aesthetics and despite their flaws, here I did not.

 

[J.Howlett]

Well, calling you a Snyder fanboy is pointless since it's so blatantly obvious. Regarding Marvel's output, they know what they're making and stay on point. Most importantly, their films are thematically consistent and tonally spot on. The irony about Snyder is that all his films aside from Man of Steel have been identifiable as Zack Snyder film. This film was just stuff put together in the most joyless manner possible. I liked Watchmen and 300 for its aesthetics and despite their flaws, here I did not.

Tonally consistent? Sure. Thematically spot on? Nope. Marvel Studios' make commercials for the next set of films, not stories. They're commercial TV at best.

The only risk they took was the shared universe and for a lot of folks, that seems to be enough for them.

 

[Gianakin_]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree about Snyder. I think the guy is on point as an artist. I truly do. I knew it after 300 and the Ultimate Cut of Watchmen. And I really knew it after Sucker Punch.

Yes, I think the extended cut of Sucker Punch is a god damn mini-masterpiece that will be reevaluated in 20 years. Simple as that. And with Man of Steel, I think he's delivered the best, most complete Superman film by far. Debate that all you like but that's how I see that behemoth of a film.

So, even with the blindsided nature of the project that WB has placed Snyder and Goyer, I still think that Snyder, as an artist, has too many tools to let this film fail, even if it's not what they originally planned.

And that's where the heart of the argument is about this project. Superman fans wanted their trilogy like Batman got with Nolan's. And even if the project started out that way, Avengers changed the entire genre to the point that there was no way that Superman was going to get his trilogy. No way, after that opening weekend.

Sad state of affairs but it's truth. Just look at the reaction from Fox and Sony with their Marvel properties.

I just don't see Snyder screwing this one up. Call me a Snyder fanboy all you want but that guy has earned my good will.

Well, what I said has nothing to do with my or your opinion on Zack. It's got more to do with what's factually happening around the boards every time Snyder is announced for something.

It's clear that you connect with what Zack does, which is fine and it really makes sense with regard to your anticipation of B/S.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, calling you a Snyder fanboy is pointless since it's so blatantly obvious. Regarding Marvel's output, they know what they're making and stay on point. Most importantly, their films are thematically consistent and tonally spot on. The irony about Snyder is that all his films aside from Man of Steel have been identifiable as Zack Snyder film. This film was just stuff put together in the most joyless manner possible. I liked Watchmen and 300 for its aesthetics and despite their flaws, here I did not.

Tonally consistent? Sure. Thematically spot on? Nope. Marvel Studios' make commercials for the next set of films, not stories. They're commercial TV at best.

The only risk they took was the shared universe and for a lot of folks, that seems to be enough for them.

I think what Blue Lantern is saying is that Marvel knows their kind of entertainment and stick to it unapologetically, whereas many MoS viewers felt that the particular iteration of Superman didn't quite achieve the depth it promised it would deliver.

In that sense, Marvel is more consistent, and I'm inclined to agree. That doesn't necessarily make the MCU films better or even good on their own merits, however.

 

[BlueLantern]

Tonally consistent? Sure. Thematically spot on? Nope. Marvel Studios' make commercials for the next set of films, not stories. They're commercial TV at best.

The only risk they took was the shared universe and for a lot of folks, that seems to be enough for them.

This myth that Marvel films are commercials or trailers for something else is just laughable. Even Iron Man II, which is around when this myth took on shape, barely touched on the Avengers initiative. Instead that film's issue was its meandering plot that eventually just culminated as a rehash of the first film.

Ditto for Captain America and Thor. They did their jobs as origin films. and set up a stage for these characters, since outside of a limited niche, not many people recognized these characters. Were these films great? Probably not. They had great moments and were enjoyable for what they were. Furthermore, they were thematically consistent and precise. You know what the goal of every film is and they don't get bogged down in gratuitousness. Except maybe Iron Man III with the comedy.

 

[jmc]

Was worth it though, Smaillville13. You've hit the nail on the head.

J. Howlett, those who aren't looking forward to the film are cynics. Like I said, many of us just felt Man of Steel sucked so having the same creative team tackle this AND Batman isn't an inspiring notion.

I don't think it sucked, the way I describe it equal parts brilliance and stupidity, but I do agree the same creative team, especially the director, coming back is not a high point and far from inspiring. I saw a two second shot of a racoon shooting a machine gun today - that concept alone has me more excited than this.

 

[J.Howlett]

This myth that Marvel films are commercials or trailers for something else is just laughable. Even Iron Man II, which is around when this myth took on shape, barely touched on the Avengers initiative. Instead that film's issue was its meandering plot that eventually just culminated as a rehash of the first film.

Ditto for Captain America and Thor. They did their jobs as origin films. and set up a stage for these characters, since outside of a limited niche, not many people recognized these characters. Were these films great? Probably not. They had great moments and were enjoyable for what they were. Furthermore, they were thematically consistent and precise. You know what the goal of every film is and they don't get bogged down in gratuitousness. Except maybe Iron Man III with the comedy.

As an unabashed fan of Thor, that doesn't change the fact that the film barely tried to be anything at all. Same goes the Incredible Hulk and half of Captain America. They're the "we just gotta get these out and hope people like the characters/actors enough" films. That's what they are. And the fact that people are eating these films up and constantly saying how brilliant this universe is mindboggling to me.

Iron Man was the only one "trying" to achieve more than what it was...until it got derailed in Iron Man 2.

You can't say that with the WB DC films that they've produced. You just can't. They may have whiffed big time on a few here and there, what you can't say is that they didn't at least trying for the Moon.

 

[jmc]

This myth that Marvel films are commercials or trailers for something else is just laughable. Even Iron Man II, which is around when this myth took on shape, barely touched on the Avengers initiative. Instead that film's issue was its meandering plot that eventually just culminated as a rehash of the first film.

Ditto for Captain America and Thor. They did their jobs as origin films. and set up a stage for these characters, since outside of a limited niche, not many people recognized these characters. Were these films great? Probably not. They had great moments and were enjoyable for what they were. Furthermore, they were thematically consistent and precise. You know what the goal of every film is and they don't get bogged down in gratuitousness. Except maybe Iron Man III with the comedy.

It also made for very bland viewing. Those films, with the exception of IM1 aren't going to be remembered well. The real MCU started with Avengers.

 

[BlueLantern]

Don't get me wrong, I'm really not going to stick in Thor or Captain America half as much as I will Batman Begins or Iron Man, but they did their jobs. I can't specifically blame Marvel for what they did with Cap and Thor. Would I have preferred more daring films? Absolutely. But I'm not going to complain, especially given the fledgling nature of the studio that brought out the films. I'm hoping the sequels go the distance though. Else everything will just feel safe. Not that it vindicates Man of Steel.

 

[Gianakin_]

The real MCU started with Avengers.

Jury's out for that, too.

 

[BlueLantern]

Is it? Surprising to me. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was fun. If I want Wagnerian scale, I'll watch Chris Nolan's Batman films or even the Watchmen Fanedit.

 

[Gianakin_]

Which film are you referring to?

 

[BlueLantern]

The Avengers. Why is the jury out on the MCU starting with it?

 

[jmc]

Jury's out for that, too.

What I mean by that is phase one was this tightly bound group of films that were too scared of their own shadow to do anything remotely interesting other than not screw up. Phase 2 can finally see them unleash their full potential. Best way I describe it is that Marvel were playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Say what you will about WB, but they go for the win.

 

[Gianakin_]

The Avengers. Why is the jury out on the MCU starting with it?

Because I don't know if the rest of the post-Avengers movies are going to be any good.

 

[Gianakin_]

What I mean by that is phase one was this tightly bound group of films that were too scared of their own shadow to do anything remotely interesting other than not screw up. Phase 2 can finally see them unleash their full potential.

I know, that's why jury's out. Until I see the potential (IM3 didn't do a great job at it, imo).

 

[jmc]

I know, that's why jury's out. Until I see the potential (IM3 didn't do a great job at it, imo).

I think IM3 showed Marvel are willing to take chances now which is something they avoided doing in Phase one, like completely avoided. You look at all those phase one movies and they are as stock standard a bunch of superhero films as you can get. The only reason IM stands out is down the the lead actor. They may have screwed up the final act of Iron Man 3 with an unsatisfying switcheroo but I give them credit for at least doing it knowing full well people would hate it.

 

[BlueLantern]

I didn't mind the switcheroo at all, primarily because the comics version of the Mandarin just didn't fit what they were going for. You'd need more than a film just shy of two hour to explore that layered a character. What they provided as a film was entertaining for me. It made promises and explicitly intended on breaking them for effect.