Negativity towards the DC films?

[Greens]

There hasn't really been much Marvel bashing in the SS main thread at all. In fact, recently a particular poster was called out for doing so.

DarthSkywalker paints the picture of a testosterone-driven cesspool. Is there a healthy dose of testosterone? Yes. But there have also been countless discussions about character roles/motivation and plot speculation. Discussions can get a little heated because everyone thinks their interpretation is the best one. Nothing new.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There hasn't really been much Marvel bashing in the SS main thread at all. In fact, recently a particular poster was called out for doing so.

DarthSkywalker paints the picture of a testosterone-driven cesspool. Is there a healthy dose of testosterone? Yes. But there have also been countless discussions about character roles/motivation and plot speculation. Discussions can get a little heated because everyone thinks their interpretation is the best one. Nothing new.

Just went into the Harley thread. Still talking about the outfit, still complaining about people complaining.

I'll say I don't visit often. But when I do, yes the dark and adult conversation is always in play.

 

[TheVileOne]

Batman v Superman really should've made $1 billion easy for WB and it didn't. This is the problem right now and why the execs should be fearful for their jobs.

 

[marshal99]

The issue i feel is that DC has given Zach Snyder the creative director of all DC movies moving forward. Zach is a great visual director , he's good at visual adaptation from comics - look at his movies - 300 , watchmen etc but don't think he has that creative thinking and vision outside the box that Kevin Feige has for marvel. That is the key.

 

[jmc]

The biggest problem WB has right now is there's no hype for JL, hell the hype for BvS wasn't all that great either. The saddest thing about it all is I feel as a fan of the DC characters a sense of helplessness. DC fans came off 7 years of Nolan awesomeness only for WB to drag their golden goose back into the gutter, taking along Superman and Wonder Woman with him.

I can't do anything about it and that makes me sad, and worse of all I'm losing interest in these characters I grew up loving. I'm looking over at Marvel more and more now, finding myself enjoying the MCU more and developing a bigger appreciation for their accomplishments after each film. Nolan's films are always going to be there but I also don't want to be constantly holding onto these films as all there is. Yet that kind of craftsmanship is missing, and what's in that place is a leaderless ship being driven by someone who doesn't know how to steer.

I personally feel WB will never really be able to do what Marvel have done, and them trying to emulate that success is going to end up with all of us looking back at the DCEU as nothing more than a series of films that never reached their potential because the same studio structure as Marvel was never in place from the beginning. We will get all these characters on film for the first time, but I'm skeptical it will have been worth the effort when we look back.

 

[Greens]

The biggest problem WB has right now is there's no hype for JL, hell the hype for BvS wasn't all that great either. The saddest thing about it all is I feel as a fan of the DC characters a sense of helplessness. DC fans came off 7 years of Nolan awesomeness only for WB to drag their golden goose back into the gutter, taking along Superman and Wonder Woman with him.

I can't do anything about it and that makes me sad, and worse of all I'm losing interest in these characters I grew up loving. I'm looking over at Marvel more and more now, finding myself enjoying the MCU more and developing a bigger appreciation for their accomplishments after each film. Nolan's films are always going to be there but I also don't want to be constantly holding onto these films as all there is. Yet that kind of craftsmanship is missing, and what's in that place is a leaderless ship being driven by someone who doesn't know how to steer.

I personally feel WB will never really be able to do what Marvel have done, and them trying to emulate that success is going to end up with all of us looking back at the DCEU as nothing more than a series of films that never reached their potential because the same studio structure as Marvel was never in place from the beginning. We will get all these characters on film for the first time, but I'm skeptical it will have been worth the effort when we look back.

Agreed.

 

[FunkMiller]

The biggest problem WB has right now is there's no hype for JL, hell the hype for BvS wasn't all that great either. The saddest thing about it all is I feel as a fan of the DC characters a sense of helplessness. DC fans came off 7 years of Nolan awesomeness only for WB to drag their golden goose back into the gutter, taking along Superman and Wonder Woman with him.

I can't do anything about it and that makes me sad, and worse of all I'm losing interest in these characters I grew up loving. I'm looking over at Marvel more and more now, finding myself enjoying the MCU more and developing a bigger appreciation for their accomplishments after each film. Nolan's films are always going to be there but I also don't want to be constantly holding onto these films as all there is. Yet that kind of craftsmanship is missing, and what's in that place is a leaderless ship being driven by someone who doesn't know how to steer.
.

The more this thing goes along, the more I return to the old adage: you don't **** with the source material.

Marvel get this. WB/DC don't.

Adapt comic book characters accurately, make billions.
Make a lot of changes to suit your own agenda, lose billions.

Anyone sat reading this comment and feeling the rage?

Go see how Spider-man and the rest of the Marvel roster is handled in CW - and then wait for the box office results.

This isn't ****ing rocket science. Adapt the characters accurately and you make all the money.

More proof? Deadpool.

 

[MadVillainy]

The biggest problem WB has right now is there's no hype for JL, hell the hype for BvS wasn't all that great either. The saddest thing about it all is I feel as a fan of the DC characters a sense of helplessness. DC fans came off 7 years of Nolan awesomeness only for WB to drag their golden goose back into the gutter, taking along Superman and Wonder Woman with him.

I can't do anything about it and that makes me sad, and worse of all I'm losing interest in these characters I grew up loving. I'm looking over at Marvel more and more now, finding myself enjoying the MCU more and developing a bigger appreciation for their accomplishments after each film. Nolan's films are always going to be there but I also don't want to be constantly holding onto these films as all there is. Yet that kind of craftsmanship is missing, and what's in that place is a leaderless ship being driven by someone who doesn't know how to steer.

I personally feel WB will never really be able to do what Marvel have done, and them trying to emulate that success is going to end up with all of us looking back at the DCEU as nothing more than a series of films that never reached their potential because the same studio structure as Marvel was never in place from the beginning. We will get all these characters on film for the first time, but I'm skeptical it will have been worth the effort when we look back.

I agree with most of your points save for a few

1) I do think the hype was there for BvS. Didn't it make 166M domestically opening weekend even without the long weekend the numbers are impressive for the first week (although there was a huge drop Fri to Sun) if I recall

2) Im not gonna say WB will never get it right. That's too long. I will say as long as Snyder has his hands on JL t me they probably won't get it right. They have set themselves up in a real stupid manner though

 

[jmc]

I think the biggest issue WB will always have is that they are not a superhero studio and never will be. Marvel is only ever going to focus on superheroes. I don't believe you can be a film maker friendly studio and have a cinematic universe that is consistent, without objective leadership the films are only ever going to be hit or miss. Either do what Nolan did and keep the characters separate in the own universes, or build a DC film divisions who has a person in charge like Marvel does to oversee a connected universe.

 

[MadVillainy]

The more this thing goes along, the more I return to the old adage: you don't **** with the source material.

Marvel get this. WB/DC don't.

Adapt comic book characters accurately, make billions.
Make a lot of changes to suit your own agenda, lose billions.

Anyone sat reading this comment and feeling the rage?

Go see how Spider-man and the rest of the Marvel roster is handled in CW - and then wait for the box office results.

This isn't ****ing rocket science. Adapt the characters accurately and you make all the money.

More proof? Deadpool.

I'm probably taking what you say too literally...but I think it's fine to change to source material as long as you keep in spirit with the character.

Not just Marvel, but every adaptation of books, tv shows, etc. changes some things about the characters. Some lesser known characters can get away with having larger changes though

I think the biggest issue WB will always have is that they are not a superhero studio and never will be. Marvel is only ever going to focus on superheroes. I don't believe you can be a film maker friendly studio and have a cinematic universe that is consistent, without objective leadership the films are only ever going to be hit or miss. Either do what Nolan did and keep the characters separate in the own universes, or build a DC film divisions who has a person in charge like Marvel does to oversee a connected universe.

Yeah I really don't know why they didn't do the bolded. Im sure there are money reasons, but you gotta spend money to make money.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'm probably taking what you say too literally...but I think it's fine to change to source material as long as you keep in spirit with the character.
.

You see, to me, that is the source material. How accurate the costume looks is completely immaterial. It's how you capture that character's spirit that's vital.

 

[Luke234]

I'm sure some reason I love these 2 DC movies is because I never read the comics really. I don't care if they stray am some from the comic material. I know there are other beefs people have but I could care less about this one.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Straying from the source material isn't exactly the problem. There are ways of doing this while still staying true to the spirit of the character. As far as I know, there was never a version of the Batman origin in which Chill was apprehended almost immediately after killing the Waynes and then released years later only to be immediately gunned down by Carmine Falcone's people. Yet it worked because nothing there (even young, confused Bruce contemplating killing Chill himself) ultimately betrayed the core of who Batman is. On the other hand, having Superman possibly drive a terrorist through a wall and kill him or contemplate killing Batman or spend all his time lamenting his responsibility to the human race... yeah, pretty much all of that feels like a betrayal of that character.

There's nothing wrong with taking some liberties. In fact, you could easily argue that you SHOULD, since all mainstream superheroes have had their origins retold (and retooled) multiple times. But if the writers and the director don't actually understand the character, it's probably not going to work. At least not when it's an iconic character that everyone knows.

 

[kaneluan06]

The more this thing goes along, the more I return to the old adage: you don't **** with the source material.

Marvel get this. WB/DC don't.

Adapt comic book characters accurately, make billions.
Make a lot of changes to suit your own agenda, lose billions.

Anyone sat reading this comment and feeling the rage?

Go see how Spider-man and the rest of the Marvel roster is handled in CW - and then wait for the box office results.

This isn't ****ing rocket science. Adapt the characters accurately and you make all the money.

More proof? Deadpool.

Batman '89 wasn't that faithful to the source material and it was the best batman film for 20 years. Just make a good film and people will gladly ignore the changes

 

[CaptainWagner]

The more this thing goes along, the more I return to the old adage: you don't **** with the source material.

Marvel get this. WB/DC don't.

Adapt comic book characters accurately, make billions.
Make a lot of changes to suit your own agenda, lose billions.

Anyone sat reading this comment and feeling the rage?

Go see how Spider-man and the rest of the Marvel roster is handled in CW - and then wait for the box office results.

This isn't ****ing rocket science. Adapt the characters accurately and you make all the money.

More proof? Deadpool.

I'm sorry, this is just DEAD WRONG. We the fans, the people who know what the source is like, make up a TINY portion of the audience here. The GA could not care less about accuracy to a source they aren't familiar with.

Marvel has made plenty of changes to the source material. Just look at Ant-man, the original Avengers lineup, Bucky, Stark and Star Lord's personalities tailored towards their actors, etc...etc.... And that's without even starting on the X-Men films, or the classic Batman films.

The ONE thing that matters is making a GOOD movie. You do that, you make money. You don't, you wind up like Fant4stic or BvS.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'm sorry, this is just DEAD WRONG. We the fans, the people who know what the source is like, make up a TINY portion of the audience here. The GA could not care less about accuracy to a source they aren't familiar with.

Marvel has made plenty of changes to the source material. Just look at Ant-man, the original Avengers lineup, Bucky, Stark and Star Lord's personalities tailored towards their actors, etc...etc.... And that's without even starting on the X-Men films, or the classic Batman films.

The ONE thing that matters is making a GOOD movie. You do that, you make money. You don't, you wind up like Fant4stic or BvS.

The source material is why these characters have remained popular for decades and decades. If you don't think a majority of the audience are familiar with Superman and Batman's classic iterations, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'll stand by my claim that the closer you adhere to the comic book version of the character, the more successful your movie will be.

 

[Loki882]

Straying from the source material isn't exactly the problem. There are ways of doing this while still staying true to the spirit of the character. As far as I know, there was never a version of the Batman origin in which Chill was apprehended almost immediately after killing the Waynes and then released years later only to be immediately gunned down by Carmine Falcone's people. Yet it worked because nothing there (even young, confused Bruce contemplating killing Chill himself) ultimately betrayed the core of who Batman is. On the other hand, having Superman possibly drive a terrorist through a wall and kill him or contemplate killing Batman or spend all his time lamenting his responsibility to the human race... yeah, pretty much all of that feels like a betrayal of that character.

There's nothing wrong with taking some liberties. In fact, you could easily argue that you SHOULD, since all mainstream superheroes have had their origins retold (and retooled) multiple times. But if the writers and the director don't actually understand the character, it's probably not going to work. At least not when it's an iconic character that everyone knows.

I don't think that there's ever been a version of Batman's origins where Bruce was trained by Ra's al Ghul personally (or that Henri Ducard was merely an alias of Ra's as opposed to a separate character in his own right), came to look up to him almost as a father figure, and then there different views on fighting corruption drove them apart. Or that Scarecrow and Falcone were pawns in Ra's master plan.

But it worked really well in the context of that movie because Nolan weaved it together brilliantly.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, absolutely. Didn't even think of that one but it totally worked. And while sometimes Marvel might stay more faithful to the source material than they need to, they've taken liberties as well; I don't think Obadiah Stane was ever Stark's mentor, etc.

 

[CaptainWagner]

The source material is why these characters have remained popular for decades and decades. If you don't think a majority of the audience are familiar with Superman and Batman's classic iterations, I don't know what to tell you.

And I'll stand by my claim that the closer you adhere to the comic book version of the character, the more successful your movie will be.

So you're talking specifically about Batman and Superman now? Both Batman Begins and Batman '89 took huge liberties with Batman's origin. Batman killed with a smile in '89. And yet all that sure didn't seem to affect the box office results. The alleged correlation between source material and box office is simply not true. If you continue to stand by it, please, give examples specifically from past films.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah, absolutely. Didn't even think of that one but it totally worked. And while sometimes Marvel might stay more faithful to the source material than they need to, they've taken liberties as well; I don't think Obadiah Stane was ever Stark's mentor, etc.

When we say things should be accurate to the source material, we don't mean that liberties can't be taken or that things need to be exactly the same as the comics. More that certain key character elements and the spirit and tone of the character should be intact. If a studio is trying to do a dark and serious take on the Fantastic Four or turning the Punisher into a slapstick comedy, they are going about it the wrong way. A Batman in which he is trained by Ra's Al Ghul isn't a big deal, but a Batman in which his poor, working class parents are still alive is.

Also, the more iconic and popular a character, the fewer changes that the audience will accept. You can get away with making major changes to the Sentry far more easily than you can Superman. Not all characters are equal.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yep, totally agreed.

 

[RoryTate]

I'm sorry, this is just DEAD WRONG. We the fans, the people who know what the source is like, make up a TINY portion of the audience here. The GA could not care less about accuracy to a source they aren't familiar with.

I don't think that's what "remaining true to the source material" actually means in these cases. Being more faithful than not isn't done to avoid upsetting hardcore fans, but instead because there is a good reason the original source material gained such hardcore fans, and to forget that is risky. Game of Thrones is a good example of trusting that the original story would speak to a larger audience, without forcing large changes to try and widen its appeal. I Robot, FFINO, are excellent examples of not believing in the source material's strength, and paying the price...big time.

From my memory, the examples of significant changes working are much rarer than not, and in many of those cases (Batman 89) it can be argued that they didn't get too far away from the "soul" of their namesake, so I would side more with the original poster on this. If you're going to take the name of an already established property, respecting it is the best strategy for financial success.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I don't think that's what "remaining true to the source material" actually means in these cases. Being more faithful than not isn't done to avoid upsetting hardcore fans, but instead because there is a good reason the original source material gained such hardcore fans, and to forget that is risky. Game of Thrones is a good example of trusting that the original story would speak to a larger audience, without forcing large changes to try and widen its appeal. I Robot, FFINO, are excellent examples of not believing in the source material's strength, and paying the price...big time.

From my memory, the examples of significant changes working are much rarer than not, and in many of those cases (Batman 89) it can be argued that they didn't get too far away from the "soul" of their namesake, so I would side more with the original poster on this. If you're going to take the name of an already established property, respecting it is the best strategy for financial success.

That I'd agree with partly, though I disagree that BvS failed to embrace the "spirit" of the original characters. But that didn't seem to me what the OP was saying. When I hear "Respect The Source Material", I think of a lot more than just the "spirit".

 

[shauner111]

You see, to me, that is the source material. How accurate the costume looks is completely immaterial. It's how you capture that character's spirit that's vital.

I agree. What happens for me is this:

"Oh sweet, that looks pretty cool. Looks like that suit from the comics, from (INSERT ARTISTS NAME)." Then my mind quickly goes back to the movie, the narrative, what the character is doing. In this era, it's actually quicker than that. The "wow that looks cool" comments happen when i see the trailer. By the time i go and see the movie, it's not really an issue because we spend so much time looking at promos, suit shots, stills. It's all surface and honestly doesn't mean much.

Straying from the source material isn't exactly the problem. There are ways of doing this while still staying true to the spirit of the character. As far as I know, there was never a version of the Batman origin in which Chill was apprehended almost immediately after killing the Waynes and then released years later only to be immediately gunned down by Carmine Falcone's people. Yet it worked because nothing there (even young, confused Bruce contemplating killing Chill himself) ultimately betrayed the core of who Batman is. On the other hand, having Superman possibly drive a terrorist through a wall and kill him or contemplate killing Batman or spend all his time lamenting his responsibility to the human race... yeah, pretty much all of that feels like a betrayal of that character.

There's nothing wrong with taking some liberties. In fact, you could easily argue that you SHOULD, since all mainstream superheroes have had their origins retold (and retooled) multiple times. But if the writers and the director don't actually understand the character, it's probably not going to work. At least not when it's an iconic character that everyone knows.

Well said.

I'm sorry, this is just DEAD WRONG. We the fans, the people who know what the source is like, make up a TINY portion of the audience here. The GA could not care less about accuracy to a source they aren't familiar with.

Marvel has made plenty of changes to the source material. Just look at Ant-man, the original Avengers lineup, Bucky, Stark and Star Lord's personalities tailored towards their actors, etc...etc.... And that's without even starting on the X-Men films, or the classic Batman films.

The ONE thing that matters is making a GOOD movie. You do that, you make money. You don't, you wind up like Fant4stic or BvS.

I have to agree.

The general audience can care less about the comics. They want to be entertained by a good movie. That's it. Deadpool was executed well and was hilarious. That's all it took to be successful. It is possible to make an experimental version of Batman and Superman, and make a good film out of it that entertains people. It just hasn't happened yet, outside of Tim Burton's Batman movies. Especially Batman Returns. People still remember it fondly. I have my problems with it, but most (including myself) think back to a good time in our lives when we saw that movie. That was crazy experimental as far as Batman is concerned. Even 89'. But they made a lot of money and weren't critically panned as much as BvS.

If Green Lantern got every single thing right about the character, it would still bomb because it was a terrible movie.

But this is where it gets tricky. People do get used to a Batman who doesn't kill, that isn't crossing over with aliens/gods, and i think it rubs off on them just a bit. After 7 films, it's weird seeing a ruthless Batman as a villain battling a very serious Superman. They have built a relationship with those two giants in their mind and it comes off weird. Even if they executed this film properly, i still don't believe the fans would jump for joy.

 

[Fincher]

But this is where it gets tricky. People do get used to a Batman who doesn't kill, that isn't crossing over with aliens/gods, and i think it rubs off on them just a bit. After 7 films, it's weird seeing a ruthless Batman as a villain battling a very serious Superman. They have built a relationship with those two giants in their mind and it comes off weird. Even if they executed this film properly, i still don't believe the fans would jump for joy.

People can definitely develop their own sense of what a character/property should or shouldn't be based on their own past experiences. A good example of this is how the Timothy Dalton Bond films weren't well received even though they were closer to the novels because moviegoers associated James Bond with the Goldfinger formula.