gdw
Superhero
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 5,873
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 33
My money's still on this guy .
![]()
Ugh, he felt far too derivative of Heath in that show, despite the fact that he was largely aping Oldman.
My money's still on this guy .
![]()
Keep Joker hope again
![]()
You're not wrong, but it's not much of a point either. Why shouldn't current iterations be prepared to be compared with their predecessors? They've reached this iconic status because of standing on shoulders of those giants.Most people will say Ant-Man is a better movie than BvS or MOS. But is it really? Well, that's up to you. But would Ant-Man really have a better rating than those movies if the character was as iconic as Batman, if there were already OUTSTANDING Ant-Man movies and if this last movie portrayed the character in a less common and more controversial way? Well, nobody can possibly convince me that that movie would have the same rating as it has today.
I don't know if the comparisons are really anything deeper than just "here's an example of (a competitor) doing adaptations right".Not saying they shouldn't try to raise the bar. Just saying that there's isn't much of a point comparing DC to Marvel when there are completely different stakes associated with each.
When i see people talking about Jared Leto's Joker, i don't see them simply commenting on the quality of the performance. I see them comparing him to Heath Ledger and complaining about him not being a faithful adaptation of the character. It's not just about quality, it's about other things too.
This right here is one of the main reasons why DC is so criticized nowadays. People love to say "hey, look at Marvel and how great they're doing, compared with DC". Right. But Marvel doesn't have a Batman. It doesn't have a Superman. It doesn't have a Joker. It doesn't have these iconic characters that, not only have giant fanbases, but also have been really well portrayed several times. It's easy to creat big expectations and be very demanding with these movies. You don't go watch a Batman movie with the same "clean" state of mind you would watch Ant-Man.
This is definitely not true. Plenty of people have called him cringe-inducing and have said he was overacting, without mentioning other portrayals. Plenty of people have said Ledgers Joker was not faithful to the source material too, but it didn't stop him from receiving plenty of praise (and he had to compete with previous portrayals that were popular too, like Romero, Nicholson and Hamill). Letoker wasn't just a bad Joker or bad in comparison to previous portrayals of the character, he was just a bad character in general, IMO (I also felt that Leto's performance was terrible by any standards).
TDKT had to compete with previous versions of the character that were very popular, like Adam West, Keaton and Conroy, but it was still successful. There is the James Bond franchise too. It can be done, but Snyder and co. have not been up to the task.
Marvel has its own challenges too, like getting people to care about a lot of their characters which are B or C-listers, which is not something DC have to worry about with the characters you mentioned. People will turn up to see them, even if the movie receives lots of criticism.
It could be said that a big reason the movies made money, despite being panned by critics and leaving a lot of fans unhappy (more than most other recent CBMS) is because of them featuring these big characters like Batman.
Other than MOS, which I thought was ok, BVS and SS were bad movies by any standards and not just in comparison to previous movies featuring the characters IMO.
No. They're not bad by any standards.
People need to stop talking in absolutes.
Audiences can like bad movies. Hell, I like some bad movies.
It's not a contradiction. You just don't have the ability to understand what i said.
None of the original movies even had a great critical reception.
You're missing the point. Nobody's saying that there aren't people who called him whatever. Nobody's saying Heath Ledger wasn't criticized. What i'm saying is that when you're dealing with DC properties you need more than something simply good and you're gonna have to satisfy the audience on levels that go beyond the simple the simple quality of the performance. Ledger's performance was obviously superior and he had better material to work with. It still doesn't change the fact that Joker's romantic relationship with Harley, his looks, tattoos and grills were a very common, loud and recorrent complain, which obviously had an impact on the way the character was received. Less iconic characters don't have to deal so much with all these factors. So it's easier for them to not to piss people off.
Got it?.
Again, you're missing the point. Nobody's questioning what TDKT had to do. Those movies were obviously great. But let's not pretend that to please people after B89, BR, BF and B&R is just as difficult as to please people after they've seen TDKT. None of the original movies even had a great critical reception. The best had a decent critical reception, but nothing close to TDKT. Oh, and if TDKT had one strong precedent, BvS had two. The stakes were much higher..
Plenty of movies with even less known characters manage to receive decent, good and even great ratings. Generally only CB movies, adaptations from very well known novels and movies from big franchises deal with larger than life characters. It's a lot harder to make a fair judgement of a movie when you go with your head full of expectations and preconceptions.
People go see them because Marvel made them into stars and interesting and likeable characters. It is through their great work that the Marvel brand is so big. What the have done is far more impressive than what DC are doing now. The were much more reliant on quality to get people to turn up, as they did not have the luxury of big names like Batman and Superman, until now that is, as the have Spider-Man back. Marvel are as responsible as anyone for Superhero movies being so popular these days.Yes. So what? They make money because they're Batman and Superman. Marvel movies make money because they're super hero movies and people know that, even if they don't know the characters. They even know the brand by now. It's not that difficult to attract people who like action to watch an Ant-Man movie. It's not like there is 100 SH movies a month. You have a date, you wanna go to the movies, you like action, Ant-Man is on, the reviews aren't bad, you go watch it. It really doesn't have that much to do with how good the movie is. Most of these movies will make some money, unless they're just horrible.
But none of this changes the clear fact that even fans will complain about the movie if it doesn't meet their expectations. And with Batman and Superman the expectations are high. So it's easy to be disappointed.
No. They're not bad by any standards. They aren't bad by my standards.
And i'm not even the minority.
People need to stop talking in absolutes. Don't be afraid to accept the painful reality that your opinion is just your opinion.
Other than MOS, which I thought was ok, BVS and SS were bad movies by any standards and not just in comparison to previous movies featuring the characters IMO.
I disagree with you.
According to most data available, over 60% of the audience disagrees with you too.
Lol...
What compels a person to create more accounts than I have ice cubes in my fridge just to defend....a movie?
Pitt's a fantastic talent but he does not have a good reputation personally or professionally in recent years. I'm surprised he even got a job for GHOST IN THE SHELL.
Dan Stevens? Hahah what? He's always incredibly stiff to me. The opposite of the Joker.I'm a big fan on Leto's Joker ... but if they were to recast, an actor I could get behind is Dan Stevens.
-R
Dan Stevens? Hahah what? He's always incredibly stiff to me. The opposite of the Joker.
You're not wrong, but it's not much of a point either. Why shouldn't current iterations be prepared to be compared with their predecessors? They've reached this iconic status because of standing on shoulders of those giants.
If the bar is raised, it should be met or raised even higher. Both Ayer and Leto have acknowledged multiple times the legacy they're following, so it's not like they've oblivious of their tasks. They simply went under par in many people's eyes.
I honestly wouldn't shed a tear if they start all over with this character. They had their big shot, which itself is a grand once in a lifetime opportunity. And unlike Burton/Nicholson and Nolan/Ledger, they had a chance to build a foundation which they could cement the character for years to come in sequels to fan excitement. They fell short.
I'm sure there are other fresh duos who could pull it off better.