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

[Cobblepot]

It would have been great to see the Joker again in TDKR.

 

[AnneFan]

Yeah, while I'd agree that BB and TDK are better films than TDKR, it's still a pretty great movie and better than most CBMs. Yeah, it has some glaring plot holes and I think it tries to do a little too much, but the movie still works and it has some powerful scenes. Definitely broke the threequel curse for superhero films, at least in my book.

It definitely has powerful scenes. Alfred and Bruce's speech always sticks out to me, along with Batman speaking to Gordon and flying off with the bomb. Among other scenes. All of Selina's stuff is gold too.

 

[Rowsdower!]

It definitely has powerful scenes. Alfred and Bruce's speech always sticks out to me, along with Batman speaking to Gordon and flying off with the bomb. Among other scenes. All of Selina's stuff is gold too.

Agreed, especially the part about Selina. I think Hathaway did a great job and the only reason some people didn't give her enough credit was because they couldn't get over the fact that it was Anne Hathaway, who has become a target of bullsh** internet hate over the past few years because they didn't like how she hosted the Oscars or something.

 

[Whatupman]

I didn't buy Hathaway in the part. It felt more like she was acting as Selina/Catwoman, than actually being the character.

 

[Loki882]

I LOVED Hathaway in the role myself. Like I was shocked at how good she was.

 

[Adhesive Boy]

Catwoman was yet another case of wasted tertiary character in the trilogy for me (Scarecrow had great potential but was ruined at the end, and Two-Face was completely unbelievable in the tone and looked terrible) . I didn't find her to be very good and these days I can barely remember her as it's been a while since I saw the movie.

I don't hate her performance or anything, I just don't think it amounted to much. It's not necessarily Anne's fault though, since I see a trend.

 

[Greens]

Anne didn't get much to work with. She was just there.

When I think of TDKR, the scene that stuck with me the most was the scene where Alfred "breaks up" with Bruce. Very emotional.

 

[Slade W]

I, personally, thought Hathaway was very good in TDKR. I would have loved to have seen more of her.

 

[Erzengel]

I thought Hathaway was good as well except for the fight sequences.

 

[Victarion]

Bane's speech out in front of Blackgate is what comes to mind when I think of TDKR. That and the kangaroo court. I loved it all, though I would've thrown in a headline on Alfred's newspaper about Gotham succumbing to fallout from the bomb - to drive home the theme that Batman was ultimately unnecessary, and maybe even unhealthy, to the city.

Tone seems the main concern for the DCEU. Could ya'll provide me with a succinct list of what came across as being too dark in BvS? I've seen it a couple of times, but there wasn't anything that really jumped out at me as especially dark or whatever you like to call it.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Hathaway was good. It's Nolan who held the character back by minimizing her iconography. The sliding up of the gadget to mimic the silhouette of a cat was the dumbest thing ever.

Because

1. Nolan didn't have to go to such contrived length for Batman, so why Catwoman? Why couldn't she use a Cat gimmick like Batman uses a Bat gimmick?

2. It doesn't even work. The gadget is too blocky to effectively evoke cat-like iconography in silhouette.

3. She didn't even use the gadget in any meaningful way. If you are gonna insert such a dumb reason for the gadget, at least include it in some capacity. But we literally see her use it only once in one throwaway shot.

 

[Victarion]

To some extent, I agree - he did rob her of the icons you'd associated with her as a reader. The character given wasn't one that relied on us having the cat symbolism, though; she was good enough to stand on her own as a character, but not as a woman that dresses as a cat.

 

[SM_experiment]

I agree completely that Catwoman was held back by Nolan and I think his "realist" approach. I think he thought it would look silly for a woman to run around in a tight costume that resembled a cat. He excused Batmans outfit with the fact that it was armour not tights.

 

[Shikamaru]

I gave some thought the other day as to why DC "can't get it right". Besides the already-mentioned fact of WB not knowing what to do with these characters, I also think DC as a whole is simply more out of touch with the public than Marvel is. Or in other words, it seems Marvel lets their audiences decide what their top properties will be will DC has more of an established hierarchy.

DC's hierarchy consists of Batman and Superman on top, followed by Wonder Woman, then Flash and GL, then Aquaman, then everyone else. If you follow the history of DC's creation, this makes sense. Unlike Marvel, DC was an amalgamation of several publishers that came together to form one big publishing company. As a result, the heroes that were there to establish DC in the first place came to be viewed as the beloveds of the company. Even today when when some of those heroes' popularity has fallen from the top, the hierarchy mindset still seems to exist in DC's mind. It's ok for other characters to become popular as long as they don't overthrow the "Founding Six", or so it seems.

Marvel on the other hand was never like that. Due to the fact they started out as one small publishing team that eventually grew into an empire, their hierarchy was entirely based on audience popularity. Marvel didn't choose Spider-Man to be their golden boy, it just happened. The X-Men were initially one of their least popular titles, but they had no issues promoting them to #2 status when Claremont made them the second best selling property. Flash forward to 2008 and Marvel had no problem making Iron Man their new golden boy assuming the GA responded well (luckily for Spidey they now got him back), and the same can be said about their attitude on wanting Guardians to become their new equivalent to the FF.

Batman and Superman's popularities notwithstanding, DC doesn't really have that.

Take Static for example. After the massive success that character had in the last 15 years, how could he not be on DC's top ten priorities list? He went from an unknown to having a successful modern TV show, something Wonder Woman still has trouble attaining. He's been described as DC's answer to Spider-Man, which is a huge claim considering DC's main criticism being not having relatable characters. Third, he's a minority character with *proven* success. And how does DC react to this? Eight years later they give him a monthly title, which I don't think is imprint anymore. He couldn't even be the black teen to replace Manhunter in the JL, despite his superior track record over Cyborg?

If DC sold Marvel the rights to Static four years ago and the Sony deal never happened, don't you think Marvel would have taken huge advantage of Static like they did with Guardians? I find it mind-boggling to think they wouldn't.

And Static is just the most obvious example. The Doom Patrol is another one, who can be DC's answer to both X-Men and the FF but in a good way. Blue Beetle is another one. The list goes on.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I feel like WB and DC's answer to all of that is, "Yeah, but we've got Batman."

 

[Erzengel]

It's the equivalent of if they were toy lines:

MCU boxes would include 2 Iron Man, 2 Captain America, 2 Thors and 1 Hulk figure.

DC boxes would be 6 Batman and 1 Superman figure.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Lol, yup.

 

[shauner111]

Hathaway was good. It's Nolan who held the character back by minimizing her iconography. The sliding up of the gadget to mimic the silhouette of a cat was the dumbest thing ever.

Because

1. Nolan didn't have to go to such contrived length for Batman, so why Catwoman? Why couldn't she use a Cat gimmick like Batman uses a Bat gimmick?

2. It doesn't even work. The gadget is too blocky to effectively evoke cat-like iconography in silhouette.

3. She didn't even use the gadget in any meaningful way. If you are gonna insert such a dumb reason for the gadget, at least include it in some capacity. But we literally see her use it only once in one throwaway shot.

I don't see how he robbed her of anything. It's a more "real" looking universe. Bane didn't have tubes of venom or a luchadore mask. Ras didn't wear a huge robe. She had ears, she wore a tight black suit, heels and mask. What was different? Was it because she had no whip? Or her boobs weren't hanging out?

If she didn't have the ears, I would be complaining too. Same if Batman didn't have a cape. But those things were included.

I loved the gadget. It was useful and it looked like ears when she lifted it from her eyes. I remember testing one scene from Rises for my dad before he saw the movie, when he bought a new sound system/tv a few years back. I put on the prologue and then a part of Batmans return where they cut to Selina trying to rob Daggett. When she arrived in screen, turns to the tv to see Batman and says "well, whaddya know?" with that smirk and the ears...it was clear to my dad that it was CATWOMAN. He didn't know she was in the movie. But that image of her worked. She obviously made it that way on purpose so she can rest it on her head like ears when she's not using the goggles. I thought it was very smart.

 

[SM_experiment]

Why DC can't get it right? Because they misunderstand the problem.

The idea that DC:s heroes compared to Marvel are less relatable is for me a myth that originated in the 1960s and doesn't up to modern day scrutiny. Is really a ordinary working class man who fights for a better world who happens to be an alien and have superpowers really not relatable? Is it really not relatable to have a woman who comes from another place fight against the injustices that exists towards woman and men in the world? I can literally pick any DC hero and they are just as relatable as anyone in Marvel. It only depends on how you write them and what you do with them.

DCs problem is the fact that in order to make their heroes more "relatable" they remove the uniqueness and complexity that exists in the characters in favor of stock action tropes and simplicity. The problem is not relatability but the problem is that WB is afraid of actually experimenting to make a real superhero movie.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

Can Batman vs Superman be called a failure?

It grossed $872 million, and thats before they release the movie for sale on Blu-ray or digital download.

Not even Deadpool grossed that much.

 

[Erzengel]

News outlets such as Deadline and I think Variety? stated that BvS needed anywhere between $800-$850M to make a profit.

The production cost alone for BvS was $250M. Deadpool's production cost was $68. There was a greater return on investment with Deadpool.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

News outlets such as Deadline and I think Variety? stated that BvS needed anywhere between $800-$850M to make a profit.

The production cost alone for BvS was $250M. Deadpool's production cost was $68. There was a greater return on investment with Deadpool.

Well then it hit the mark and then some, and thats before the movie is being released to buy.

 

[Erzengel]

Well then it hit the mark and then some, and thats before the movie is being released to buy.

I don't consider BvS to be a failure at least box office wise, but the gross is certainly underwhelming.

Then you add that the critics slammed it.

And at best it's divisive with fans and the general audience.

 

[Peyton Westlake]

I don't consider BvS to be a failure at least box office wise, but the gross is certainly underwhelming.

Then you add that the critics slammed it.

And at best it's divisive with fans and the general audience.

Not sure what number would be considered a home run nowadays.
I think the fact that its closing in on $900 million is impressive for a DC movie.
DC will always be compared to Marvel unfortunately.
No one is pointing out the X-men franchise at FOX is underperforming either.

 

[Erzengel]

Not sure what number would be considered a home run nowadays.
I think the fact that its closing in on $900 million is impressive for a DC movie.
DC will always be compared to Marvel unfortunately.
No one is pointing out the X-men franchise at FOX is underperforming either.

X-Men movies have never grossed over $800M. That's out of 9 movies. Only 2 of their movies have grossed over $700M.

Secondly, unfortunately, box office wise, the X-Men aren't in the same class as the Batman or the Avengers.

Which leads to my next point, the last 2 Batman movies grossed over $1B each. Now you have the next movie that includes not only Batman but the first on screen meeting with Superman and Wonder Woman.

Expectations were high and were not met with BvS.