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

[Loki882]

Really, because most of the reviews that I read focused on it's flaws as a film. And a lot of people found it to be "joyless" and "dour," which isn't the same as being "dark and mature."

I've said through "dark movies" and still found stuff to enjoy. This movie, is just unpleasant to sit through. It's made by a guy, who THINKS that he's being "serious and deep," but wouldn't know to make such a movie if it came up and tattooed the instructions on his forehead.

 

[Xrated48]

DC movies can't get it right not because they are dark films but because most of films such bvs do not have a well entertaining story that the GA would accept. I love dark films for the most part as I love the tdk trilogy but me as well as most critics believe that being dark does not automatically mean that it's good film. You need to tell a good story like the tdk trilogy and even the Captain America trilogy to be successful with audience and critics imo.

 

[StormC]

I don't really know how to explain Nolan's success with critics.

He made good movies.

 

[Loki882]

^Exactly. And he made movies that, despite getting dark and serious, could still be enjoyed by the GA as well.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't really know how to explain Nolan's success with critics.

He paid em off. Obviously.

 

[Flint Marko]

I don't really know how to explain Nolan's success with critics.

He... he made really good movies. What's hard to explain about that?
Again, I am so sick of the conversation always veering to the "tone". It only serves to distract from the real issues at hand with any given movie. Had BvS been executed better in regards the story, the action, the editing, the characterization, etc, people would have complained less about the "tone" in the reviews. The fact of the matter is that the film is poorly pieced together, so the super serious, dour tone sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[Visualiza]

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.

You either haven't been reading/listening to people's issues with these films, or you're filtering out (whether intentionally or not) the reasoning and criticisms that don't confirm this belief of yours. Irrespective of whatever it is they're trying to be, none of that automatically means that the movies will be quality. Personally, I'd say that they've failed at presenting anything resembling realism (characters, plotting, and universe), and as far as "being their own thing" is concerned, there's nothing unique or noteworthy (aside from how shockingly lackluster they are) about them either.

Eventually you'll need to realize that people's issues with these movies aren't as simple to boil down as some sort of stubborn aversion to change. Neither MoS nor BvS were particularly challenging, groundbreaking, or ahead of their time. The excuse always seems to be that the problem is with the audience and not the movie. So much for tolerating different opinions, eh?

 

[Cobblepot]

He made good movies.

TDKR was not one off them.
It's funny 'cause the way I feel about TDKR is the way most people seem te feel about BvS.

-pretty pictures, bad story/plot holes, no good reasoning for the villains to do what they do, 5 months Gotham under siege! exactly the time it takes for Bat's to return from his un escapeable prison..which turns out is not so un-escapeable., bad acting (man that death scene..)
Just like Snyder now wasted a good opportunity for the Death of Superman (which I do agree on!), Nolan wasted Bane's story and the breaking of the Bat, and he did it with really bad fight choreography...

I could go on forever..but I won't 'cause I get that a lot of you enjoyed it.

BvS was way better than TDKR. imo.

 

[Loki882]

No it isn't, not even close. Oh and for the record, even TDKR got good reviews overall, and most of the audience seemed to like it. It's more the hardcore fandom that's more mixed.

 

[The Apocalypse]

TDKR was not one off them.
It's funny 'cause the way I feel about TDKR is the way most people seem te feel about BvS.

-pretty pictures, bad story/plot holes, no good reasoning for the villains to do what they do, 5 months Gotham under siege! exactly the time it takes for Bat's to return from his un escapeable prison..which turns out is not so un-escapeable., bad acting (man that death scene..)
Just like Snyder now wasted a good opportunity for the Death of Superman (which I do agree on!), Nolan wasted Bane's story and the breaking of the Bat, and he did it with really bad fight choreography...

I could go on forever..but I won't 'cause I get that a lot of you enjoyed it.

BvS was way better than TDKR. imo.

I'm with you on everything you said except that it wasn't better than BvS.

 

[ernesth100]

I mean. Yeah, you do have to take into account personal opinion. But personal opinion is kind of unfair when its all biased AGAINST a movie.

 

[Erzengel]

There's a difference between:

I like this movie. I know most people don't or critics panned it but I really like it.

AND

This is BS!!!! Everyone is biased against this movie.

We've had enough CBM to know when one is a stinker. This is just a stinker that is high profile. No one cared that Elektra or Catwoman sucked but the first movie with Batman and Superman? Of course people will take more notice.

 

[The Joker]

I don't really know how to explain Nolan's success with critics.

That's obvious; he made great movies.

There's a difference between:

I like this movie. I know most people don't or critics panned it but I really like it.

AND

This is BS!!!! Everyone is biased against this movie.

We've had enough CBM to know when one is a stinker. This is just a stinker that is high profile. No one cared that Elektra or Catwoman sucked but the first movie with Batman and Superman? Of course people will take more notice.

Exactly. I am actually embarrassed for people who think there's an audience or critic bias going on. Talk about severe denial.

 

[Cobblepot]

No it isn't, not even close. Oh and for the record, even TDKR got good reviews overall, and most of the audience seemed to like it. It's more the hardcore fandom that's more mixed.

But why on earth did TDKR get good reviews? What were the good points according to those critics?

It's rottentomatoes description couldn't be more wrong.

The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious, thoughtful, and potent action film that concludes Christopher Nolan's franchise in spectacular fashion.

-It wasn't thoughtfull, there were soooooo many plotholes, concidents, mistakes etc..
-It wasn't a potent action film, it had bad fighting, no real lead to why they fight, horrible deaths of both the villans

 

[writer0327]

I get the impression that DC is trying to reinvent their own properties and characters and storylines to suit what they believe will sell or fit some ill conceived notion of what these movies should be. Instead of giving us a classic Superman story we're getting a variation of Superman, which would be fine if it were on the heels of a classic Superman story. People want Superman back, the one we all know and love. The great hero. Then go tell your tale of depressed, world weary hero who the planet fears.

 

[The Joker]

But why on earth did TDKR get good reviews? What were the good points according to those critics?

It's rottentomatoes description couldn't be more wrong.

Couldn't be more wrong according to whom? You?

The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious, thoughtful, and potent action film that concludes Christopher Nolan's franchise in spectacular fashion.

-It wasn't thoughtfull, there were soooooo many plotholes, concidents, mistakes etc..

Yes, it was thoughtful. Deep. Emotional;

http://betterwithpopcorn.com/blog/g...emes-and-character-dark-knight-rises-spoilers

I won't deny there was some plot holes, but some of the best movies ever have plot holes. The movie has it's issues, but it's a solid good movie.

-It wasn't a potent action film, it had bad fighting, no real lead to why they fight, horrible deaths of both the villans

The Bane fights were awesome, the chase scenes were terrific, The Bat looked fab in action. I don't count Talia sitting in a truck gasping out her last breath an action scene. I don't know what you mean by there being no real lead to why they fight. If you don't get why Bane and Batman were enemies, then you must have missed three quarters of the movie.

 

[Cobblepot]

Couldn't be more wrong according to whom? You?



Yes, it was thoughtful. Deep. Emotional;

http://betterwithpopcorn.com/blog/g...emes-and-character-dark-knight-rises-spoilers

I won't deny there was some plot holes, but some of the best movies ever have plot holes.



The Bane fights were awesome, the chase scenes were terrific, The Bat looked fab in action. I don't count Talia sitting in a truck gasping out her last breath an action scene. I don't know what you mean by there being no real lead to why they fight. If you don't get why Bane and Batman were enemies, then you must have missed three quarters of the movie.

Looking at the so-called top critics there isn't even a consensus there..
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/reviews/?type=top_critics
It's about 50/50


regarding your link why TDKR is so 'thoughtfull'. I can find just as much 'serious themes and thought through meaning' with Snyders flick.

The Bane fight was horrendous. I cringe at the monologue "we are both initiated etc" and they both fight like street level brawlers instead of highly trained men.

The car scenes were great. But so were a lot of CGI scenes in BVS. So was the cinematography in both movies.

Batman looked particulary bad fighting on the streets in mid daylight. That whole scene with Gothamites vs Gotham/Bane's thugs was ridiculous on a whole new level. Watch it again..Nolan tried to emulate Braveheart but failed miserably.

They "fight' because Bane is a minion to Ra's his daughter. A daughter bent on full fulling her father's dream of destroying Gotham and the Bat. Except Ra's had respect for Bruce, he wasn't hellbend on destroying everything Batman stood for. He just wanted to root all evil and Bruce just stood in his way. If anything at all, she was just out for revenge. But the justification is just as weak as Lex Luthors.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Fun doesn't mean funny. Fun means engaging. No Country For Old Men is fun. And that film is way darker than BS. It's fun becasuse it's engaging. BS isn't engaging. It's an incoherent, jumbled mess of a movie. The lack of humor only highlights the incoherence because there is nothing to latch onto.

 

[The Joker]

Looking at the so-called top critics there isn't even a consensus there..
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_dark_knight_rises/reviews/?type=top_critics
It's about 50/50

I didn't know only the 'top' critics opinions mattered. Someone must have forgotten to tell RT.

regarding your link why TDKR is so 'thoughtfull'. I can find just as much 'serious themes and thought through meaning' with Snyders flick.

I'm sure you can, but the difference is it was all executed horribly. That's why the movie is strongly disliked. And not just by critics. You can have all the intention and meaning in a movie story, but if you execute it badly, it comes off like a bad Saturday morning cartoon. Which is what BvS is like.

The Bane fight was horrendous. I cringe at the monologue "we are both initiated etc" and they both fight like street level brawlers instead of highly trained men.

The Bane fight was fantastic. Bane is about brutality. He doesn't fight like a high class fighter, because that's not what he is. When you see him hammer Batman with his punches, hit him so hard his mask breaks, that's Bane style. Brutal strength. Batman was years out of shape, had a death wish, and was holding himself up on a leg brace. He was suppose to look weak and out of depth in that fight.

The car scenes were great. But so were a lot of CGI scenes in BVS. So was the cinematography in both movies.

Even if that were true, it takes more than some great action to make a great movie. Otherwise Michael Bay's movies would be the cream of the crop on RT.

Batman looked particulary bad fighting on the streets in mid daylight. That whole scene with Gothamites vs Gotham/Bane's thugs was ridiculous on a whole new level. Watch it again..Nolan tried to emulate Braveheart but failed miserably.

I've watched it several times. You say it looked ridiculous, I say it doesn't. I never even thought of Braveheart when I was watching it. That's the first time I've ever seen anyone even make the comparison.

They "fight' because Bane is a minion to Ra's his daughter. A daughter bent on full fulling her father's dream of destroying Gotham and the Bat. Except Ra's had respect for Bruce, he wasn't hellbend on destroying everything Batman stood for. He just wanted to root all evil and Bruce just stood in his way. If anything at all, she was just out for revenge. But the justification is just as weak as Lex Luthors.

No, the fight was because Bane and Talia were fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's legacy. He wanted to destroy Gotham. Fact. They were finishing what he started. Maybe you're forgetting Batman Begins where Ra's tried to kill Bruce twice; leaving him for dead in a burning Wayne Manor, and then on the fight on the train. Ra's mocked what Batman was trying to do. He said he was cynical for even thinking Gotham could be saved. He called his compassion not to be an executioner of criminals a weakness. He had nothing but contempt for Batman's mission and methods.

In what way was it stupid for Bane and Talia to finish what Ra's started, and get revenge on the guy who ruined it in the first place?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I've watched it several times. You say it looked ridiculous, I say it doesn't. I never even thought of Braveheart when I was watching it. That's the first time I've ever seen anyone even make the comparison.

Yeah, I can't say I get the comparison either. To me it was more reminiscent of Gangs of New York.

 

[Erzengel]

The fight didn't bother me. It's the whole 5 months underground capable of fighting that bothered me more.

 

[Lily Adler]

I would have accepted that Bruce didn't immediately jump at the chance to tackle Superman, but almost two years have passed as his anger festers and manifests into a more demented version of Batman. I understand he also didn't have anyway to combat him at the time, but how could he have possibly known that a weapon to combat him would magically appear in the form of radioactive minerals in the Indian Ocean. I honestly don't like the idea that Batman was active during that time. I would have had him be inactive until after Superman and his reemergence catching the attention of Clark Kent.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

The Bane fight was fantastic. Bane is about brutality. He doesn't fight like a high class fighter, because that's not what he is. When you see him hammer Batman with his punches, hit him so hard his mask breaks, that's Bane style. Brutal strength. Batman was years out of shape, had a death wish, and was holding himself up on a leg brace. He was suppose to look weak and out of depth in that fight.

Bane is fine but Batman comes across as stupid. Probably caught it from the police, who are consistently complete morons in the trilogy. A dislocated disc and some push-ups shouldn't exactly have him in a better physical position for the rematch either. Quite the contrary.

Nolan is overall pretty bad at fights in this trilogy. In TDKR he again tells stunt men to fall over without even being attacked, and it's not really that we'll shot or choreographed. Not one of Nolan's strengths.

 

[Cobblepot]

I didn't know only the 'top' critics opinions mattered. Someone must have forgotten to tell RT.

No, the fight was because Bane and Talia were fulfilling Ra's Al Ghul's legacy. He wanted to destroy Gotham. Fact. They were finishing what he started. Maybe you're forgetting Batman Begins where Ra's tried to kill Bruce twice; leaving him for dead in a burning Wayne Manor, and then on the fight on the train. Ra's mocked what Batman was trying to do. He said he was cynical for even thinking Gotham could be saved. He called his compassion not to be an executioner of criminals a weakness. He had nothing but contempt for Batman's mission and methods.

In what way was it stupid for Bane and Talia to finish what Ra's started, and get revenge on the guy who ruined it in the first place?

"I could not forgive my father, untill you murdered him. I honour my father by finishing his work. Vengeance against the man who killed him, is simply a reward for my patience."

Those are her exact words. She doesn't even know..I hated my father so I should finish what he started, I should become just like him?
Hmm I also want to avenge his death so let's kill the Batman aswell.

Bane reasoning isn't even there. He's just there to help put on a show for Talia.

O, and on top off that Batman couldn't figure out he was being played the whole time.

Doesn't that all sound too familiar?

 

[The Joker]

"I could not forgive my father, untill you murdered him. I honour my father by finishing his work. Vengeance against the man who killed him, is simply a reward for my patience."

Those are her exact words. She doesn't even know..I hated my father so I should finish what he started, I should become just like him?
Hmm I also want to avenge his death so let's kill the Batman aswell.

I honor my father by finishing his work. There's your motive. She is finishing her father's work. Revenge against Batman is just an added bonus, or as she puts it a reward for her patience.

She didn't hate her father because of his work. She hated him because he ex communicated her protector Bane from the LOS. She had no issue with what he did in the LOS. So why would she have an issue being like him by finishing his work?

Bane reasoning isn't even there. He's just there to help put on a show for Talia.

Bane's reasoning was stated earlier in the movie when he confronted Batman. He had taken over the LOS. "I am the League of Shadows. I am here to fulfill Ra's Al Ghul's destiny".

O, and on top off that Batman couldn't figure out he was being played the whole time.

In what way could he have figured it out he was being conned? What signs about Miranda Tate were there that there was something dodgy about her?

Doesn't that all sound too familiar?

Not in the slightest. But then I apparently didn't get the Braveheart similarity either