Why Can't DC Get it right? - Part 1

[ernesth100]

Wait! So it's the public's fault that they don't like BvS? You can't be serious!

100% serious. People are so hell bent on the whole "DC is trying to be dark n gritty" idea. That they fail to see theyre not. Theyre just trying to be realistic. Theyre trying to be their own thing.

 

[Erzengel]

We're on a comic book messageboard, I think it's not a far stretch that in terms of at least the geek community, they have the pulse on whether BvS was good or not.

 

[Skrilla31]

100% serious. People are so hell bent on the whole "DC is trying to be dark n gritty" idea. That they fail to see theyre not. Theyre just trying to be realistic. Theyre trying to be their own thing.

These characters aren't realistic though.

 

[writer0327]

Why is it that Batman always seems to get a well-known, A-list actor to play him and Superman gets a good actor, but not as well-known?

Not to say casting was a problem here, just curious...

 

[Micromind]

These characters aren't realistic though.

They aren't but, there are degrees of "realism", some characters are closer to reality than others, for example, take the case of older "fictional" character like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (older version of HULK) compare it with Sherlock Holmes, which one is more realistic ?

Both are fictional but one is closer to realism than the other.

 

[ernesth100]

I mean as realistic as superheroes can get without straying to far from source material.

 

[NHawk19]

^ Part of the issue is how far they strayed especially with Superman tonally.

The other issue is the pacing and how they're building the world.

 

[metaphysician]

Also, that there is basically nothing "realistic" in BvS at all. I don't mean in terms of science and physics; I mean in terms of "these characters do not behave in ways that humans behave". At *best*, they act like broad operatic archetypes, which kicks the movie out of "realistic" even if nothing happens that violates the laws of physics.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'm sick of the conversation always gravitating towards the "tone" of these movies. The "tone" wasn't really the problem with BvS, although I'd argue it wasn't a particularly appropriate one. If that was what truly stopped people from loving this film and the DCEU, then the Nolan batfilms wouldn't be as widely-acclaimed as they are. Again, this conversation is just a deflection from the real issues.

 

[FunkMiller]

I'm sick of the conversation always gravitating towards the "tone" of these movies. The "tone" wasn't really the problem with BvS, although I'd argue it wasn't a particularly appropriate one. If that was what truly stopped people from loving this film and the DCEU, then the Nolan batfilms wouldn't be as widely-acclaimed as they are. Again, this conversation is just a deflection from the real issues.

Poor characterisation, poor storytelling, poor editing.

 

[Saint]

I'm sick of the conversation always gravitating towards the "tone" of these movies. The "tone" wasn't really the problem with BvS, although I'd argue it wasn't a particularly appropriate one. If that was what truly stopped people from loving this film and the DCEU, then the Nolan batfilms wouldn't be as widely-acclaimed as they are. Again, this conversation is just a deflection from the real issues.

Correct. Much like the "You don't like it because it's different from Marvel" line of thought, it's just sidestepping the actual problems with the film. Sadly, I suspect the studio will learn the wrong lesson from BVS and assume that by injecting some jokes into upcoming films that all their problems will be solved. We only need to look at Green Lantern to understand that's not the case.

Hopefully Geoff Johns will be a good influence on these films in his new role. Of course, he had his hands in Green Lantern, too, and that turned out inexplicably bad.

 

[Lily Adler]

Why is it that Batman always seems to get a well-known, A-list actor to play him and Superman gets a good actor, but not as well-known?

Not to say casting was a problem here, just curious...

Christian Bale was A-List?!

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Christian Bale was A-List?!

I wouldn't quite go A-List (I reserve that for the Tom Cruise/Matt Damon megastar types), but he was certainly well known and widely respected. American Psycho made him a star.

He was probably the same level that Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney were at the time they were cast. Much bigger than guys like Routh and Cavill.

 

[Lily Adler]

I felt he was more of an up and comer type.

 

[Skrilla31]

I mean as realistic as superheroes can get without straying to far from source material.

They are inherently silly concepts though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I would hardly call the Snyder films 'realistic.' The Nolan films, sure. There was a real effort by Nolan to make a more grounded and real-looking adaptation, or at least as much as he could given the source material.

The Snyder films are just dark and stylish cartoons, closer to the Burton films than the Nolan films.

 

[Lily Adler]

Don't you dare put him in the same ballpark as Burton!

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Don't you dare put him in the same ballpark as Burton!

I don't mean quality-wise.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

100% serious. People are so hell bent on the whole "DC is trying to be dark n gritty" idea. That they fail to see theyre not. Theyre just trying to be realistic. Theyre trying to be their own thing.

That must be why they're failing. The baffling idea of making something inherently silly into realistic.

 

[StormC]

The moment you blame the audience for a product's failure, you've already lost.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The moment you blame the audience for a product's failure, you've already lost.

Well said.

 

[Loki882]

Again, the Nolan films are pretty darn "dark" and "serious," overall (although not completely humorless), yet all three (yes even TKDR) were critically acclaimed/well-received and also popular with the GA.

Most of the Bryan Singer X-Men films are pretty "dark and serious,"(although again not without humor), yet they've been well-regarded by both critics and GA (although the new one seems to be getting a more mixed reception, but not really because of it's tone).

The last two Captain America films, which as far as Marvel films go take themselves much more seriously than many of the others (and explore more complicated themes/ideas to boot) are two of the most acclaimed ones from critics, and the GA loves them as well. And do son and so forth.

So this idea that the critics, or the GA, don't like Snyder's movies because they're "too dark and gritty" or "not enough like Marvel" just doesn't hold up. Heck even MOS wasn't completely panned, it's just really controversial (which by it's very nature means that there are also people who really like/love it and stick up for it). But BVS, people don't like that because they don't think that it was good or holds together very well.

 

[ManWithNoName18]

Shazam producer promises movie will be "fun".
http://comicbook.com/2016/05/23/the-rocks-producer-promises-shazam-is-a-ton-of-fun/

 

[Lily Adler]

I don't mean quality-wise.

 

[CaptainWagner]

I'm just going to say that there were a lot of critics who complained about the dark tone in BvS, wanted to know why it wasn't more fun, flat out said Marvel does it "right" with their tone, etc... I'm not saying that BvS wasn't bad, it was indeed deeply flawed, but I found plenty of bias amongst the negative reviews I read.

I don't really know how to explain Nolan's success with critics. Maybe because he tried so hard to not make a superhero movie, they allowed the trilogy to take itself seriously.