BvS Skepticism Regarding the Film - Part 5

[The Question]

Right, but the majority of viewers had not seen tge characters before.

I myself had seen TIH, IM, IM2, CA, once each when they came out, I slept through most of CA, and I had not seen Thor, and I'm a superfan if the genre. Imagine normal people.

A lot of Avengers had probably watched none of the movies.

What evidence do you have of that?

And I'm not quite sure what you being a super fan compared to "normal" people has to do with anything. They're big budget summer blockbusters. People go wee those wether they're nerds or not.

 

[sf2]

Exactly. There's no way they could call that dude boring. How can you not love a guy who'd crack up at the sadness and pain he's caused supremacists and other corrupt people?

i don't know. if they really do that in the movie... i'm afraid the critic rating will get worse than MOS... you know... the crime of destroying their image of superman...

 

[The Question]

i don't know. if they really do that in the movie... i'm afraid the critic rating will get worse than MOS... you know... the crime of destroying their image of superman...

That's not the only criticism people had of Man of Steel. It's not even the biggest one.

 

[The Question]

Also, in regards to The Avengers: How many people who saw The Avengers saw the other films doesn't change the fact that The Avengers spent a lot less time establishing the characters and their corners of the world than it would have had to if it had been the first film. It allowed the freedom for the film to not be bogged down while also not sacrificing character. It made the film better, because it allowed the writing to not be bogged down by too much exposition. And, in a wider cultural sense, wether or not everyone who say The Avengers saw any of the other films, it created an awareness of these characters existing in the context of this fictional world. It made the very existence of The Avengers feel more natural wether you saw the other films or not.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Also, in regards to The Avengers: How many people who saw The Avengers saw the other films doesn't change the fact that The Avengers spent a lot less time establishing the characters and their corners of the world than it would have had to if it had been the first film. It allowed the freedom for the film to not be bogged down while also not sacrificing character. It made the film better, because it allowed the writing to not be bogged down by too much exposition. And, in a wider cultural sense, wether or not everyone who say The Avengers saw any of the other films, it created an awareness of these characters existing in the context of this fictional world. It made the very existence of The Avengers feel more natural wether you saw the other films or not.

A film should stand on it's own and not rely upon previous films to establish the characters. Also, I feel character was very much sacrificed in Avengers and it WAS bogged down by too much exposition, at least in the beginning. Honestly, I found the script to be pretty flawed (though I still enjoyed the movie).

 

[sf2]

A film should stand on it's own and not rely upon previous films to establish the characters. Also, I feel character was very much sacrificed in Avengers and it WAS bogged down by too much exposition, at least in the beginning. Honestly, I found the script to be pretty flawed (though I still enjoyed the movie).

the huge success of ironman 3 mainly reply upon the previous movie... and Thor2 too to a certain extent. just saying.

 

[The Question]

A film should stand on it's own and not rely upon previous films to establish the characters.

Under normal circumstances, I'd probably agree with you. But in the case of The Avengers and the Justice League, I think it's a case where you need previous films to establish characters to a certain extent. Otherwise, the team up film runs a much bigger than normal risk of becoming very unwieldy.

Also, I feel character was very much sacrificed in Avengers and it WAS bogged down by too much exposition, at least in the beginning. Honestly, I found the script to be pretty flawed (though I still enjoyed the movie).

I don't see how any character was sacrificed in The Avengers. If anything, The Avengers had a lot more time dedicated to character than most big budget action films do. I just don't see that reading of the film at all.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

the huge success of ironman 3 mainly reply upon the previous movie... and Thor2 too to a certain extent. just saying.

I wasn't talking about box office success, I was referring to the fact that you can't have a movie without establishing the characters, even if it's a sequel to a popular franchise.

 

[The Question]

I wasn't talking about box office success, I was referring to the fact that you can't have a movie without establishing the characters, even if it's a sequel to a popular franchise.

That's usually a good rule of thumb to work under, but it really depends on the situation. I think The Avengers and the Justice League are a scenario where, wether that's a good standard of film quality or not, having some lead in films to establish character is simply a practical course of action when adapting these properties so the films don't become unwieldy.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

Under normal circumstances, I'd probably agree with you. But in the case of The Avengers and the Justice League, I think it's a case where you need previous films to establish characters to a certain extent. Otherwise, the team up film runs a much bigger than normal risk of becoming very unwieldy.



I don't see how any character was sacrificed in The Avengers. If anything, The Avengers had a lot more time dedicated to character than most big budget action films do. I just don't see that reading of the film at all.

1. There are many great ensemble films that required no solo films to set up.

2. None of the characters in Avengers had much of an arc.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

That's usually a good rule of thumb to work under, but it really depends on the situation. I think The Avengers and the Justice League are a scenario where, wether that's a good standard of film quality or not, having some lead in films to establish character is simply a practical course of action when adapting these properties so the films don't become unwieldy.

It may be the practical course of action, but that doesn't make it the right course for making a good film. I like The Avengers, but the script had a lot of room for improvement and I believe it relied too much on the solo films.

 

[The Question]

1. There are many great ensemble films that required no solo films to set up.

I think superhero team ups are a completely different beast. In most ensemble films, the characters were created to be an ensemble. They exist in the same context, within the same narrative, within the same genre, and are each other's supporting casts.

With The Avengers, and by extension the Justice League, you have an ensemble cast made up of characters that were designed to be heroic leads in their own largely unrelated stories that fall into the conventions of largely unrelated genres. Each one of them has ten times as much baggage as any individual character in most ensemble movies, with their own arcs, their own supporting casts, their own themes, their own villains, and their own genre conventions that have very little to do with each other. It may seem natural to us that they're all on a team together, because we're used to it as fans of a comic book franchise that has been growing for decades, but if you're first ever exposure to these characters that on the surface have absolutely nothing to do with each other and belong to completely different genres is them hanging out like it ain't no thing, that's not going to work for most folks without spending a lot of time establishing and growing these characters and the world they exist in.

It's simply too much stuff to get out of the way in just one movie.

2. None of the characters in Avengers had much of an arc.

That seems demonstratively false to me. They all, collectively, had the arc of getting over their own baggage and realizing that they could work together, and that played out differently for each Avenger.

It may be the practical course of action, but that doesn't make it the right course for making a good film. I like The Avengers, but the script had a lot of room for improvement and I believe it relied too much on the solo films.

It is the right course of action when not doing it would have made the film worse, which I believe is absolutely the case. I don't see how they had the option of making the film 100% standalone without making it an impenetrable mess of exposition and clashing genres.

 

[Naked Shia]

I wanna see supes catching a guy beating his wife and throwing him against a wall.

 

[WBwins]

I think superhero team ups are a completely different beast. In most ensemble films, the characters were created to be an ensemble. They exist in the same context, within the same narrative, within the same genre, and are each other's supporting casts.

With The Avengers, and by extension the Justice League, you have an ensemble cast made up of characters that were designed to be heroic leads in their own largely unrelated stories that fall into the conventions of largely unrelated genres. Each one of them has ten times as much baggage as any individual character in most ensemble movies, with their own arcs, their own supporting casts, their own themes, their own villains, and their own genre conventions that have very little to do with each other. It may seem natural to us that they're all on a team together, because we're used to it as fans of a comic book franchise that has been growing for decades, but if you're first ever exposure to these characters that on the surface have absolutely nothing to do with each other and belong to completely different genres is them hanging out like it ain't no thing, that's not going to work for most folks without spending a lot of time establishing and growing these characters and the world they exist in.

It's simply too much stuff to get out of the way in just one movie.


.

Thats why we have BVS and MOS-to help JL setup. Thats 2 movies to reduce exposition in JL.

 

[The Question]

Thats why we have BVS and MOS-to help JL setup. Thats 2 movies to reduce exposition in JL.

1: I'm not sure that's enough. Heck, Batman Vs Superman is itself already way too crowded right out the gate.

2: It's not just about exposition. Heck, it's barely about exposition at all. It's about developing these huge characters with all of their baggage and establishing as existing and coexisting in a world, and doing so in a way that dramatizes these ideas of character and theme and genre instead of simply saying them at the audience.

Like, sure, Batman Vs Superman might set up the fact of Paradise Island or Atlantis existing, but a movie can't just tell us that a thing exists, it has to bring that thing to life and make it real for the audience.

 

[WBwins]

1: I'm not sure that's enough. Heck, Batman Vs Superman is itself already way too crowded right out the gate.

2: It's not just about exposition. Heck, it's barely about exposition at all. It's about developing these huge characters with all of their baggage and establishing as existing and coexisting in a world, and doing so in a way that dramatizes these ideas of character and theme and genre instead of simply saying them at the audience.

Like, sure, Batman Vs Superman might set up the fact of Paradise Island or Atlantis existing, but a movie can't just tell us that a thing exists, it has to bring that thing to life and make it real for the audience.

I fully-get what your saying.

But look at this way.MOS properly introduced to the concept of Godlike Extraterrestials into DCCU thus setting up Superman and to a Smaller extent GL.

BVS will likely introduce us to the concept of Hidden races(Amazons,Atlanteans) thus setting up WW and Aquaman in one go.

BVS will also likely see creation of Cyborgs in the DCCU(Metallo etc)thus setting up the intro of the Cyborg.

That leaves the Metahuman concept to be introduced in JL setting up Flash.Thats not two much

 

[Lencho01]

i don't know. if they really do that in the movie... i'm afraid the critic rating will get worse than MOS... you know... the crime of destroying their image of superman...

I don't think it would've been. They at least wouldn't have been watching such a boring version of the character.

 

[Zionite1]

I fully-get what your saying.

But look at this way.MOS properly introduced to the concept of Godlike Extraterrestials into DCCU thus setting up Superman and to a Smaller extent GL.

BVS will likely introduce us to the concept of Hidden races(Amazons,Atlanteans) thus setting up WW and Aquaman in one go.

BVS will also likely see creation of Cyborgs in the DCCU(Metallo etc)thus setting up the intro of the Cyborg.

That leaves the Metahuman concept to be introduced in JL setting up Flash.Thats not two much

This x100

 

[The Shape]

1: I'm not sure that's enough. Heck, Batman Vs Superman is itself already way too crowded right out the gate.

You've seen the movie? How crowded was it really?

 

[Rowsdower!]

This is the thing that bugs me. I understand the skepticism and the concern that the movie could be too crowded. But simply stating that it is without actually seeing anything just as silly as declaring it a triumph of modern cinema. At least wait until we get a trailer before we make such assumptions. For all we know, Momoa's Aquaman could be in this film as much as Hawkeye was in Thor, and Wonder Woman's presence could be about as much as Sif's in that film.

 

[Mrs. Wayne]

This is the thing that bugs me. I understand the skepticism and the concern that the movie could be too crowded. But simply stating that it is without actually seeing anything just as silly as declaring it a triumph of modern cinema. At least wait until we get a trailer before we make such assumptions. For all we know, Momoa's Aquaman could be in this film as much as Hawkeye was in Thor, and Wonder Woman's presence could be about as much as Sif's in that film.

Yea, this.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

I think superhero team ups are a completely different beast. In most ensemble films, the characters were created to be an ensemble. They exist in the same context, within the same narrative, within the same genre, and are each other's supporting casts.

With The Avengers, and by extension the Justice League, you have an ensemble cast made up of characters that were designed to be heroic leads in their own largely unrelated stories that fall into the conventions of largely unrelated genres. Each one of them has ten times as much baggage as any individual character in most ensemble movies, with their own arcs, their own supporting casts, their own themes, their own villains, and their own genre conventions that have very little to do with each other. It may seem natural to us that they're all on a team together, because we're used to it as fans of a comic book franchise that has been growing for decades, but if you're first ever exposure to these characters that on the surface have absolutely nothing to do with each other and belong to completely different genres is them hanging out like it ain't no thing, that's not going to work for most folks without spending a lot of time establishing and growing these characters and the world they exist in.

It's simply too much stuff to get out of the way in just one movie.

Superhero films are not exempt from the rules that govern all other films. If a film is well written, directed, and acted, it doesn't matter whether or not we see the individual characters solo adventures. Just because fanboys want to see it, does not mean it's required to make a good film.

To use another Star Wars analogy: in A New Hope, Han Solo's back story was established in ONE scene (the cantina) and the movie did not suffer for it. In fact, it was a better film because of it. We didn't need a solo Solo movie (hehe) to appreciate or understand the character. I would love to see one, but it wasn't a prerequisite to enjoy the film. The idea that we need to see any of the characters origins or extended back stories for the film to work is a little ridiculous. Good films show nothing more than what the story requires.

That seems demonstratively false to me. They all, collectively, had the arc of getting over their own baggage and realizing that they could work together, and that played out differently for each Avenger.

They all had the exact same arc (other than maybe Black Widow and Hawkeye) and it wasn't so much an arc as it was an almost instant change from being at odds to being a team.

It is the right course of action when not doing it would have made the film worse, which I believe is absolutely the case. I don't see how they had the option of making the film 100% standalone without making it an impenetrable mess of exposition and clashing genres.

Just because you don't see it does not make it impossible. It would have been a very different film, for sure, possibly better.

 

[Nemeres]

This is the thing that bugs me. I understand the skepticism and the concern that the movie could be too crowded. But simply stating that it is without actually seeing anything just as silly as declaring it a triumph of modern cinema. At least wait until we get a trailer before we make such assumptions. For all we know, Momoa's Aquaman could be in this film as much as Hawkeye was in Thor, and Wonder Woman's presence could be about as much as Sif's in that film.

One could either believe that the inclusion of all the extra characters is motivated by a) the need to rush the Justice League; or b) absolute story necessity (because apparently you CAN'T tell a Superman/Batman story without Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash and Wonder Woman cameos). But it's a very fair assumption to call it crowded.

 

[rockandrollsoul]

One could either believe that the inclusion of all the extra characters is motivated by a) the need to rush the Justice League; or b) absolute story necessity (because apparently you CAN'T tell a Superman/Batman story without Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash and Wonder Woman cameos). But it's a very fair assumption to call it crowded.

This is a fair point, but you can't know the movie will feel crowded until you see it.

 

[WBwins]

One could either believe that the inclusion of all the extra characters is motivated by a) the need to rush the Justice League; or b) absolute story necessity (because apparently you CAN'T tell a Superman/Batman story without Cyborg, Aquaman, Flash and Wonder Woman cameos). But it's a very fair assumption to call it crowded.

there are numerous Superman/Batman stories that had the presence of Other heroes.heroes whose presence are relevant to the plot.so it's more than possible that the. Story lad require the other heroes presence