Is Snyder's DCEU Trilogy the worst Superhero film trilogy?

[Skrilla31]

This is flawed logic. Not liking all popular movies and not seeing the correlation between a large number of people consistently liking a product are in no way the same thing.

That's akin to saying, "Yeah, this one medicine I took gave me a bad reaction," and someone going, "EXACTLY! Which is why you shouldn't use everyone else talking about how good all this other medicine is as an example as why it's good!"

Now, to an extent, I do agree that there are many factors for how people judge film, film is subjective etc. But it is rather silly to ignore the fact that a huge number of people look at a film favorably. It shouldn't be the only think you use to judge quality, but it is most certainly a factor. Ignoring that would be just as foolish as the person who uses it as the only bar to judge something at.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the popular opinion is automatically a correct one.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I don't subscribe to the belief that the popular opinion is automatically a correct one.

That's wonderful. Neither do I. We can at least agree on this point.

However, what I was talking about, is how it certainly is something that should be considered. Discarding it is just as foolish as automatically assuming the popular belief is correct.

 

[The Batman]

I am perfectly able to argue the merits of Batman Forever.

Then do it.

What makes BF "f'n awesome"?

What makes it the Best Batman movie?

What makes Val Kilmer the equivalent of BTAS Batman?

 

[Skrilla31]

That's wonderful. Neither do I. We can at least agree on this point.

However, what I was talking about, is how it certainly is something that should be considered. Discarding it is just as foolish as automatically assuming the popular belief is correct.

McDonalds is the most popular hamburger chain in America.

Should that be considered when discussing the best hamburgers?

 

[Skrilla31]

Then do it.

What makes BF "f'n awesome"?

What makes it the Best Batman movie?

What makes Val Kilmer the equivalent of BTAS Batman?

Your first and second question have the same answer, because I find it the most entertaining. It's upbeat, it's clever and it's action packed. It is campy and playful and yet it also knows when to take itself serious. It is a good time from beginning to end.

I didn't say Forever Batman was the TAS Batman, I said he was the closest thing we've seen in the movies. As Bruce Wayne he exudes class and intelligence, as Batman he is bold and fearless. Keaton and Bale wouldn't have the wits or the balls to recite a riddle while being tortured with the decision of having to save the love of his life or his best friend. All while finding a way to save both.

 

[The Batman]

Your first and second question have the same answer, because I find it the most entertaining. It's upbeat, it's clever and it's action packed. It is campy and playful and yet it also knows when to take itself serious. It is a good time from beginning to end.

I didn't say Forever Batman was the TAS Batman, I said he was the closest thing we've seen in the movies. As Bruce Wayne he exudes class and intelligence, as Batman he is bold and fearless. Keaton and Bale wouldn't have the wits or the balls to recite a riddle while being tortured with the decision of having to save the love of his life or his best friend. All while finding a way to save both.

....Well, at least you answered the questions.

 

[LaughterLives]

I didn't say Forever Batman was the TAS Batman, I said he was the closest thing we've seen in the movies. As Bruce Wayne he exudes class and intelligence, as Batman he is bold and fearless. Keaton and Bale wouldn't have the wits or the balls to recite a riddle while being tortured with the decision of having to save the love of his life or his best friend. All while finding a way to save both.

hahaha! I love the way you think and I'm totally in agreement with most of your feelings about Batman Forever.

But Let's be real for a second. Keaton would've Killed Riddler before it even got to that point. hahahaha! Keaton's Batman was a professional.

 

[Skrilla31]

hahaha! I love the way you think and I'm totally in agreement with most of your feelings about Batman Forever.

But Let's be real for a second. Keaton would've Killed Riddler before it even got to that point. hahahaha! Keaton's Batman was a professional.

Keaton's Batman was cold blooded! LOL!

He looked pissed off ALL THE TIME!

 

[The Joker]

Which is precisely why you shouldn't point to a movie's popularity when arguing it's merit.

I'm not. Popularity and status as one of the greatest is apples and oranges. Case in point with this silly analogy you made here regarding McDonalds;

McDonalds is the most popular hamburger chain in America.

Should that be considered when discussing the best hamburgers?

Are McDonald's hamburgers praised as some of the finest gourmet food with the general public or the food industry? Does McDonalds ever get rated among the food industry peers as one of the top restaurants to dine in? Does it get shouted out by the public as a great example of fine cuisine that will go down in history as one of the best?

Your first and second question have the same answer, because I find it the most entertaining. It's upbeat, it's clever and it's action packed. It is campy and playful and yet it also knows when to take itself serious. It is a good time from beginning to end.

Ok, lets tackles these one at a time. It's clever. I'm dying to hear what is so clever about it. It's action packed. So are the likes of the brainless Michael Bay movies. It's campy and playful. Could you be more vague....in what way is it campy and playful in a positive way. It knows when to take itself serious. Well this is a laugh in itself. For a start it took one of the most dark and serious Batman villains, Two Face, and turned him to a cartoonish caricature who spends the whole movie with Jim Carey trying to out ham each other.

It's a good time from beginning to end.....very convincing argument. Most of it is like sitting through a root canal.

Fully agree. Its the aesthetic and the feel and the reasonably intelligent plotting that makes TDK, CA: WS etc. comparable to the actual genre movies. In terms of real quality within that particular genre, the ones which do not have to include a SH will always feel better, coz the SH movies are basically meshing 2 genres anyways. I would say TDK also had the advantage of a hero who has nothing supernatural. Another reason why I think the CA trilogy deserves respect - they pulled off genre movies within the extremely fantastical MCU and still made it all seem real and made it all mesh and work.

I agree. Well said.

Don't forget that he essentially said Kilmer was the live action equivalent of BTAS Batman.

That gave me a good laugh.

 

[Skrilla31]

It is not my job to convince you that Batman Forever is a good movie, especially considering it looks you don't want to be convinced.

But hey let's use your logic. It was a huge hit for it's time and made more money than Batman Begins when adjusted for inflation despite playing in 1000 less theaters. I guess that means it's the superior film.

 

[The Joker]

It is not my job to convince you that Batman Forever is a good movie, especially considering it looks you don't want to be convinced.

I'm not asking to be convinced. That is an impossibility. I'm asking for explanations on your reasoning since you decided to share them here with us, and they were all vague blanket statements.

But hey let's use your logic. It was a huge hit for it's time and made more money than Batman Begins when adjusted for inflation despite playing in 1000 less theaters. I guess that means it's the superior film.

How is that my logic? Point out where in this thread I used box office takings to indicate movie superiority.

 

[Skrilla31]

Robin: Riddler and Two-Face make a pretty lethal combination. Figured you could use a hand.

Batman: Two against two are better odds.

Robin: I can't promise I won't kill Harvey.

Batman: Every man's got to go his own way... a friend told me that.

Robin: Not just a friend... :: extends hand ::

Batman: A partner... :: returns handshake ::




Compare that to...

"OMG YOUR REAL NAME IS ROBIN!?!?!?!?"

 

[The Joker]

Robin: Riddler and Two-Face make a pretty lethal combination. Figured you could use a hand.

Batman: Two against two are better odds.

Robin: I can't promise I won't kill Harvey.

Batman: Every man's got to go his own way... a friend told me that.

Robin: Not just a friend... :: extends hand ::

Batman: A partner... :: returns handshake ::

You mean this contrived nonsense that made no sense when previously Bruce forbade Dick to be his partner, and had even decided to toss in the towel with being Batman. Suddenly he's ok with him being Robin, his partner, and possibly killing Dent just because Batman is facing two enemies (like that never happened before - Batman Returns). The really funny thing is he ends up having to save Dick as well as Chase lol.

That kind of crap, along with all the god awful bad camp, is what made Michael Keaton run a mile I'd say; https://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/michael-keaton-says-batman-forever-sucks He had a lucky escape.

 

[Skrilla31]

You mean this contrived nonsense that made no sense when previously Bruce forbade Dick to be his partner, and had even decided to toss in the towel with being Batman. Suddenly he's ok with him being Robin, his partner, and possibly killing Dent just because Batman is facing two enemies (like that never happened before - Batman Returns). The really funny thing is he ends up having to save Dick as well as Chase lol.

More likely it is because the bad guys found his secret hideout and kidnapped his girlfriend, compromising him greater than ever before.

 

[The Joker]

More likely it is because the bad guys found his secret hideout and kidnapped his girlfriend, compromising him greater than ever before.

Finding his secret hideout, what is Robin going to do change that? They already broke in and destroyed it. Damage done. Kidnapped his girlfriend. Well gee, there's another issue he never faced before either *cough* Vicki Vale *cough*.

 

[Skrilla31]

Finding his secret hideout, what is Robin going to do change that? They already broke in and destroyed it. Damage done. Kidnapped his girlfriend. Well gee, there's another issue he never faced before either *cough* Vicki Vale *cough*.

Batman didn't have two supervillains to worry about with Vicki Vale.

And if you are going to apply this level of logic to these films, let alone one as campy and over the top as Batman Forever... then I'm curious as to whether or not you think The Dark Knight contains air tight logic from beginning to end as well.

Spoiler alert, it doesn't.

 

[Lantern Venom]

does this even count as a trilogy if he didn't get to finish JL?

I still say no since it doesn't adhere to its own overarching story as laid out in MOS. If we use the criteria of Zack's involvement and Superman as a character, then BvS-Suicide Squad-JL should also be considered a Batman trilogy. And since Zack also helped with Wonder Woman's solo, is BvS-WW-JL also the Wonder Woman trilogy? I'd say no on all counts.

 

[The Joker]

Batman didn't have two supervillains to worry about with Vicki Vale.

And? He already faced and defeated the threat of two villains in the previous movie. What kind of Batman needs a partner every time he faces two villains? If anything the Penguin and Catwoman did more damage to him by framing him for murder and turning the city against him (not to mention Penguin trashing infiltrating and controlling his Batmobile to run down citizens and Cops), than Riddler and Dent did trashing the Batcave.

And if you are going to apply this level of logic to these films, let alone one as campy and over the top as Batman Forever... then I'm curious as to whether or not you think The Dark Knight contains air tight logic from beginning to end.

Of course I don't, but I don't laud those moments as examples of the merits of the movie like you just did with that horrendous Bruce and Dick exchange.

 

[LaughterLives]

Robin: Riddler and Two-Face make a pretty lethal combination. Figured you could use a hand.

Batman: Two against two are better odds.

Robin: I can't promise I won't kill Harvey.

Batman: Every man's got to go his own way... a friend told me that.

Robin: Not just a friend... :: extends hand ::

Batman: A partner... :: returns handshake ::




Compare that to...

"OMG YOUR REAL NAME IS ROBIN!?!?!?!?"

bahahahahahahaha!....We don't even get to see him in a mask or anything.

It's a shame too cuz JGL would've been a great Nightwing.
I still can't believe how misguided TDKR was. Its the most un-Batman film I've ever seen.

 

[Spider-Fan]

This is flawed logic. Not liking all popular movies and not seeing the correlation between a large number of people consistently liking a product are in no way the same thing.

That's akin to saying, "Yeah, this one medicine I took gave me a bad reaction," and someone going, "EXACTLY! Which is why you shouldn't use everyone else talking about how good all this other medicine is as an example as why it's good!"

Now, to an extent, I do agree that there are many factors for how people judge film, film is subjective etc. But it is rather silly to ignore the fact that a huge number of people look at a film favorably. It shouldn't be the only think you use to judge quality, but it is most certainly a factor. Ignoring that would be just as foolish as the person who uses it as the only bar to judge something at.

When arguing whether or not a film is good, you're arguing why the movie doesn't work for you essentially. So, if something doesn't work for me, why should I care about the opinions of others? Lots of people love black liquorish. I don't. You can argue its merits with me all day, but when I put that in my mouth, I instantly spit it out and need to drown out that disgusting taste. Same with movies. No matter how many people in the world love black liqourish in all its glory, you will never hear me say anything kind about it. Why should I treat movies any differently, since a movie is also appreciated on a level of taste? Whenever people go down this route of saying "Well, RT and the domestic BO say this, therefore you have to admit it is good on some level" tells me you're looking for some type of validation or just trying to write off the opinions of others by making some type of skewed metric. The simpler answer is that in the eyes of that beholder, it just isn't a good movie. Just like my previously mentioned black liquorish is to me. Same analogy would apply if we're talking about pizza. Just because everyone loves pizza magically means you have to. So, guy doesn't like TDK, though I may disagree, it still all comes down to personal taste.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

Neither is TDK.



But you can't remove the superhero part. That's an essential part of what makes it what it is. I never understood this kind of silly thinking. It's like people who say if you remove this or that character from a movie it wouldn't be as good. I mean this is obvious, like if you omit an essential ingredient from a recipe it won't taste as nice. You remove any essential character from a movie it would totally change it. Just like if you remove the superhero stuff from a CBM you change what it is.

TDK has many elements of a crime/thriller movie, but that doesn't make it a crime/thriller movie. CBMs like GOTG have a lot of outer space/Sci Fi stuff, but that doesn't make them Sci Fi movies. They are still CBMs. They are just utilizing different elements from different genres.



It is serious and gritty. Having a serious and gritty tone doesn't in any way detract from it still being a CBM with a superhero style story. Some of the best Batman stories are serious and gritty, but we don't expect them to slot into regular realistic crime stories and not look ridiculous because they are still superhero tales.



Much better for whom? Is there some wide spread consensus I am missing that feels this way? We're talking about one of the most respected and lauded movies in cinematic history. How exactly did it not pull off being what it wanted to be when it has appealed to the masses and industry peers on just about every level a CBM could and more.

This is why so many CBMs since have tried to duplicate it. This is why even movies outside the CBM genre have taken inspiration from it. I don't know why you think it failed to be what it is when it has, and nearly 10 years later still does appeal to the masses on the highest level more than any CBM has. And is still influencing the movie industry. Movies that failed or struggled to be what they wanted to be don't have that sort of impact and status.

If you are speaking strictly on your own behalf, then that's your loss. Even the best movies are not held in high regard by everyone.

TDK is a crime movie so it clearly has plenty of similarities. I've heard lots of fans talk about how it's great because it transcended the superhero genre in the manner of being a crime movie instead of being like superhero movies, so it's a view shared by many that love it.

No, you can always remove the superhero part since that's not really a genre but a template in which you create a movie of a genre. A superhero movie can be a crime film, a drama, an epic action, etc. And when comparing to other non-superhero movies you of course pick those with the same kind of genre. That of course doesn't mean that the movies are exactly the same, but that's not necessary in order to compare movies.

The main reason for the comparison I brought up is that there are lots of crime movies where the script actually makes the bad guy really smart instead of resorting to plot armor like they did with The Joker. The Joker is a villain of a style that makes comparisons to well written gangsters/criminals very easy.

And GotG is definitely a Sci-fi movie, although space opera is a more exact fit. Calling it a CBM only is pretty dumb as that says nearly nothing about the content. Comic books contain all sorts of genres and stories. Logan and GotG are both CBM's, which should tell anyone that you need to be more specific than that genre in order to actually say anything about the movies.

Being serious, gritty and realistic puts more pressure on living up to that. TDK has a tone where it becomes ridiculous that the Gotham police force is so utterly incompetent. It would have been expected if it was a comedy like the 60s TV show though. Different tones require different treatment. It's pretty easy to see why Goyer didn't go into the fields of science or economics as when looking at the scripts he's helped write they all have logic issues.

What you're missing is probably that we're talking about subjective matters and that people aren't going to write "imo" after everything. People defending TDK here are doing the exact same thing as I do, and it was such an "objectively stated" post that I responded to in the first place. People state their opinions like that all the time on this forum. Better to just go along with it instead of jumping into meta discussions all the time.

And I don't base my opinions on what others think, I can form my own. No superhero movie has had even remotely as much influence as the first Superman but that doesn't make me think it's the best (although I do think it is great as I grew up with it).

 

[Adhesive Boy]

What nonsense. I am well aware that I called something overrated to begin with, which is why its silly of you to act like I magically forgot that. Perhaps you should ask more questions before misinterpreting what people type. I was saying you finding TDKT specifically overrated is your "issue", not an issue for people like me who feel it isn't overrated.

Don't blame others for misinterpretations when you pretty much went out of your way to make an unclear statement when what you wanted to say was "I don't think the TDKT is overrated". That's the statement people would normally go to, and that can't be misinterpreted, so if you chose to state something else it's more logical to think that you was going for the other valid interpretation of what you wrote. We're responsible for what we write, the readers aren't.

It's just such an empty statement that leads the discussion nowhere, and also forms a dismissive argument against your own statement about the Cap trilogy which started this conversation.

 

[Infinity9999x]

McDonalds is the most popular hamburger chain in America.

Should that be considered when discussing the best hamburgers?

Absolutely. As well as reviews of their product, the pricing of their product, and how quickly they put it out.

Discounting that data would be foolish.

 

[The Joker]

TDK is a crime movie so it clearly has plenty of similarities. I've heard lots of fans talk about how it's great because it transcended the superhero genre in the manner of being a crime movie instead of being like superhero movies, so it's a view shared by many that love it.

TDK is a superhero comic book movie that has lots of crime movie elements. E.g. take the critical consensus on RT;

Dark, complex and unforgettable, The Dark Knight succeeds not just as an entertaining comic book film, but as a richly thrilling crime saga.

That's what fans are talking about. It was able to weave in elements of a crime saga movie while still being able to successfully be a great superhero movie. That's why it transcended the genre for most. Because it went above and beyond the normal limits of a CBM.

No, you can always remove the superhero part since that's not really a genre but a template in which you create a movie of a genre. A superhero movie can be a crime film, a drama, an epic action, etc. And when comparing to other non-superhero movies you of course pick those with the same kind of genre. That of course doesn't mean that the movies are exactly the same, but that's not necessary in order to compare movies.

Of course it's necessary. How can you even think otherwise? If you're going to compare movies, you don't omit one of the largest elements of it that makes it what it is. Comparing a superhero movie to any movie while omitting the superhero part is like comparing a chocolate cake to another cake and omitting the chocolate part.

The main reason for the comparison I brought up is that there are lots of crime movies where the script actually makes the bad guy really smart instead of resorting to plot armor like they did with The Joker. The Joker is a villain of a style that makes comparisons to well written gangsters/criminals very easy.

I just can't follow this logic. Lots of movies make the villain really smart e.g. Hans Landa, Hannibal Lecter etc, but we don't compare them to crime movies, or any other movies outside their genre just because they have a smart villain.

And GotG is definitely a Sci-fi movie, although space opera is a more exact fit. Calling it a CBM only is pretty dumb as that says nearly nothing about the content. Comic books contain all sorts of genres and stories. Logan and GotG are both CBM's, which should tell anyone that you need to be more specific than that genre in order to actually say anything about the movies.

GOTG is a comic book movie. The fact it's set in space doesn't alter that. Comic book stories spread over all kinds of settings. E.g. Jonah Hex is in the Wild West, but its still a comic book movie. If you want to say anything about the nature of the movie then you go into specifics. Like all horror movies are not the same, but they are still horror movies. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream are slashers. Paranormal Activity, The Conjuring are supernatural. The Thing, The Descent are creature features etc.

Being serious, gritty and realistic puts more pressure on living up to that. TDK has a tone where it becomes ridiculous that the Gotham police force is so utterly incompetent. It would have been expected if it was a comedy like the 60s TV show though. Different tones require different treatment. It's pretty easy to see why Goyer didn't go into the fields of science or economics as when looking at the scripts he's helped write they all have logic issues.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely. There are plenty of great Batman stories that are serious and gritty, set in a world far more OTT than Nolan's, and they work beautifully. BTAS is full of them, for example.

What you're missing is probably that we're talking about subjective matters and that people aren't going to write "imo" after everything. People defending TDK here are doing the exact same thing as I do, and it was such an "objectively stated" post that I responded to in the first place. People state their opinions like that all the time on this forum. Better to just go along with it instead of jumping into meta discussions all the time.

I'm perfectly aware it's subjective. Did I ever ask you to state 'imo' after everything you have been saying? We're not arguing you're right to believe these things. We're discussing the reasoning and logic behind these subjective views of yours.

And I don't base my opinions on what others think, I can form my own.

So can I.

No superhero movie has had even remotely as much influence as the first Superman but that doesn't make me think it's the best (although I do think it is great as I grew up with it).

Nor do I. There's more reasons besides it's influence that make it great. All great movies have more than one singular reason why they are great. That's why they endure for years as greats. They stand the test of time on the strength of many merits.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

TDK is a superhero comic book movie that has lots of crime movie elements. E.g. take the critical consensus on RT;

Dark, complex and unforgettable, The Dark Knight succeeds not just as an entertaining comic book film, but as a richly thrilling crime saga.

That's what fans are talking about. It was able to weave in elements of a crime saga movie while still being able to successfully be a great superhero movie. That's why it transcended the genre for most. Because it went above and beyond the normal limits of a CBM.

I meant specifically what I wrote, as I have seen many people say that, and have had discussions with such people.

Of course it's necessary. How can you even think otherwise? If you're going to compare movies, you don't omit one of the largest elements of it that makes it what it is. Comparing a superhero movie to any movie while omitting the superhero part is like comparing a chocolate cake to another cake and omitting the chocolate part.

What I said was that you take away the superhero genre and look what other genre the film belongs to in order to find what to compare to. The point being that it's of course not relevant to look at the superhero genre when you're looking for non-superhero movies to compare to.

I didn't say that you should omit it when then doing the actual comparison, just when figuring out which movies that make the most sense to compare to.

I just can't follow this logic. Lots of movies make the villain really smart e.g. Hans Landa, Hannibal Lecter etc, but we don't compare them to crime movies, or any other movies outside their genre just because they have a smart villain.

SotL is a crime movie so yes, it really gets compared to that. And the reason I just compare to crime movies is because TDK has that aspect. You can really compare to any well written movie with a similar serious and realistic tone and I'll point out how much of a plot armor character the Joker is in comparison. I've been keen to blame Goyer, who has written many films with weak logic, but I'm not sure I'm entirely fair to put it all on him as the TDKT is clearly Nolan's sloppiest works overall.

GOTG is a comic book movie. The fact it's set in space doesn't alter that. Comic book stories spread over all kinds of settings. E.g. Jonah Hex is in the Wild West, but its still a comic book movie. If you want to say anything about the nature of the movie then you go into specifics. Like all horror movies are not the same, but they are still horror movies. Halloween, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream are slashers. Paranormal Activity, The Conjuring are supernatural. The Thing, The Descent are creature features etc.

I didn't say it isn't a comic book movie, I said that it's dumb to say that it's only a comic book movie in terms of genre. Look at any movie site and you'll see several genres listed under almost every movie (despite that template genres like CBM's aren't usually listed). Genres of course don't say everything but when appropriately used they say a hell of a lot more than "CBM" so you can use them to say something without having to actually type out sentences to describe it in fine detail.

No it doesn't. Not even remotely. There are plenty of great Batman stories that are serious and gritty, set in a world far more OTT than Nolan's, and they work beautifully. BTAS is full of them, for example.

You're missing that I mentioned relative realism. TDK tries to be much closer to a realistic world than most superhero movies, dealing with much smaller issues and presenting them less in a superhero manner, which breaks the marriage between tone and execution for me. I face palm when I see policemen that don't even keep their eyes half open when they approach a crime scene in such context. Such lazy writing, especially when the level of ambition was so high in some other aspects.

I'm perfectly aware it's subjective. Did I ever ask you to state 'imo' after everything you have been saying? We're not arguing you're right to believe these things. We're discussing the reasoning and logic behind these subjective views of yours.

Good, then you wouldn't have had to ask "for whom?" and if there's a consensus" since you'd know the answer is "for me" and "there doesn't have to be since I can make up my own opinions". That would have saved some time.

Nor do I. There's more reasons besides it's influence that make it great. All great movies have more than one singular reason why they are great. That's why they endure for years as greats. They stand the test of time on the strength of many merits.

You used that it's been inspiring other movies as an argument and I showed that I don't think that's relevant to whether the movie is good. And I feel like I yet again should point out that I like TDK and didn't say that I think it's a failure as a movie, just in certain aspects (in particular compared to the opinions of some others, which is why this came up in the discussion about being overrated).