Why Can't DC Get it right? - Part 2

[MadVillainy]

None of us not gonna "win" the argument with him. Just let it go.

 

[SamuraiX]

That's because what you mentioned has nothing to do with being coherent, it's just missing, and uneeded, information that can be easily implied. It doesn't make anything confusing, and the addition of a 1 minute scene of Peter signing the accords is unnecessary.

Lex Luthor cutting open his hand and dumping the body of Zod into alien water and having it transform into Doomsday is incoherent because it never tells us why this happens. Or why Lex knows about it.

If you'd defaulted to Thor in AoU, I'd have agreed. What you mentioned is frivilous.

MCU movies are significantly more coherent than what I've seen in the DCEU so far. You may disagree, but those paid to review movies have almost universally brought the point up.

Whatever Lex Luthor did with Zod's body was the result of the knowledge he gathered from that first time he was in the ship. He obviously created Doomsday as a back up plan, to destroy Superman. This is better implied than anything in the CW scene i mentioned and a lot more in tune with the character's motivations.

And it has a lot to do with being coherent. Going from feeling seriously affected by the death of inoccent people to manipulating a kid into putting his life in even more dangerous is highly incoherent. Allowing an outsider to fight alongside you when your whole thing is "we have to play by the book" is incoherent. It breaks the logic of the character and the narrative.

 

[Erzengel]

The first thing that Doomsday tried to do was kill Luthor. How is that a backup plan?

 

[Flint Marko]

Have you all seen honest trailers breakdown of Lex Luthor's plan? It clearly lays out how it's anything but coherent, sensible, and within reason, even for a superhero film.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

But if you perform Olympic leaps of logic and justification, as well as inventing motivation that's not in the film, then it kinda makes half a sense.

 

[SamuraiX]

Have you all seen honest trailers breakdown of Lex Luthor's plan? It clearly lays out how it's anything but coherent, sensible, and within reason, even for a superhero film.

I don't think he explains in any way how and why Lex's plans are "incoherent". He just makes fun of it. Which is different. It's not that hard to edit something in the right way to make it sound ridiculous.

Lex's plans aren't the simplest to understand nor the most logical. They're a little bit far fetched, like what we see in almost every single CB movie, and they force you to think a little bit about it, but at the end of the day, i don't remember anything i couldn't understand.

Certain things he did might not seem very sensible, but at the end of the day, i feel that's perfectly in tune with the character. Every time he talks he sends the vibe of madness. He is the type of guy from whom i would expect something truly absurd. He acts like a desperate lunatic, which is what he is in the movie. Again, it doesn't bother me. It makes him more interesting, more complex. Pretty much like a mad scientist.

 

[SamuraiX]

But if you perform Olympic leaps of logic and justification, as well as inventing motivation that's not in the film, then it kinda makes half a sense.

I don't think you need to do that. It«s all perfectly clear. At least for me.

 

[Flint Marko]

I think you need to go back and revisit that breakdown. They flat out say "this is too complicated, you don't need to throw everything including the kitchen sink in the bad Guy's plan". Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of coherency to me, but think what you'd like.

 

[Silver Surfer]

The tires to do too much, too soon. Marvel laid out the blueprint in how to create a cinematic universe, all they had to do was copy it step by step and they were golden. They choose to take shortcuts and fell flat on their faces.

 

[SamuraiX]

I think you need to go back and revisit that breakdown. They flat out say "this is too complicated, you don't need to throw everything including the kitchen sink in the bad Guy's plan". Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of coherency to me, but think what you'd like.

If you set Lex Luthor's goals, your plan has to be complicated. He wants a lot of things. You don't get a lot of things with one simple plan.

You can argue that the movie would have been more enjoyable if he had a more straight forward plan, and i would agree with you. But that's a personal preference. It doesn't make his plan incoherent.

 

[Aztec]

I really want WB/DC to succeed...I really do...they are a legit company and not just leaching some other company's IPs **cough**Fox**cough**. Also I truly love Batman and his universe and most stories involving both Batman and Superman. But let's be honest. WB/DC is a hot mess!

DC's problems are so many too count:
1) Too much too soon. Relax and take your time developing your core characters first.
2) Zack Snyder. He's awful. Seriously awful. Watch MoS again (if you can stomach it). It's a miserable piece of garbage that has virtually no characters worth caring about, nor a compelling plot. The only thing Zack cares about is getting the "money shot" visuals and then moving on to the next one. I can not believe that DC gave him the keys to the kingdom after that dreadful film.
3) It's not that DC's films are "not fun" (although they aren't) it's that they are "not human". There's no humanity to any of these characters. Those little moments that make them people. Watch the Marvel films, each character matters and grows as not just a hero but a person. Civil War is a masterpiece because it took characters we cared a lot about and placed them in a challenging position that allows us to analyze how they have grown. We CARED about Tony and Steve. Did anyone care about Bruce and Clark?
4) There's no art to DC's films. People call the Marvel movies "light and fun", and at times they are, but many of them (particularly the elite ones) are full of depth, meaning, and questions about the human condition (The Avengers, Iron Man, Civil War, Winter Soldier, etc.). They are just approached in a more welcoming way through the use of likable and familiar characters. I'm not sure what the message of MoS was aside from Snyder's blatantly ham-fisted attempts at "Christ/American" symbolism. Go back and watch The Dark Knight or Civil War if you want to see superhero films that are also works of art.

 

[SamuraiX]

I really want WB/DC to succeed...I really do...they are a legit company and not just leaching some other company's IPs **cough**Fox**cough**. Also I truly love Batman and his universe and most stories involving both Batman and Superman. But let's be honest. WB/DC is a hot mess!

DC's problems are so many too count:
1) Too much too soon. Relax and take your time developing your core characters first.
2) Zack Snyder. He's awful. Seriously awful. Watch MoS again (if you can stomach it). It's a miserable piece of garbage that has virtually no characters worth caring about, nor a compelling plot. The only thing Zack cares about is getting the "money shot" visuals and then moving on to the next one. I can not believe that DC gave him the keys to the kingdom after that dreadful film.
3) It's not that DC's films are "not fun" (although they aren't) it's that they are "not human". There's no humanity to any of these characters. Those little moments that make them people. Watch the Marvel films, each character matters and grows as not just a hero but a person. Civil War is a masterpiece because it took characters we cared a lot about and placed them in a challenging position that allows us to analyze how they have grown. We CARED about Tony and Steve. Did anyone care about Bruce and Clark?
4) There's no art to DC's films. People call the Marvel movies "light and fun", and at times they are, but many of them (particularly the elite ones) are full of depth, meaning, and questions about the human condition (The Avengers, Iron Man, Civil War, Winter Soldier, etc.). They are just approached in a more welcoming way through the use of likable and familiar characters. I'm not sure what the message of MoS was aside from Snyder's blatantly ham-fisted attempts at "Christ/American" symbolism. Go back and watch The Dark Knight or Civil War if you want to see superhero films that are also works of art.

What's so inhuman about DC characters and what's so human about Marvel characters? I remember having seen DC characters showing plenty of regular human emotions. Not sure why do you think there's that big of a gap between one and the other.

 

[Rocketman]

Add me to the microscopic minority who doesn't think DC is doing anything wrong.

 

[The Endless]

They must be doing something wrong. Deadpool out grossed Batman and Superman in the US. As well as becoming a more likeable and popular character than Superman.

At the end of the day, a film about Superman shouldn't be polarising. It's as simple as that.

The difference between Marvel and DC? Why does Marvel get favourable treatment? It's because they've EARNED it. They've earned it by making c listers a listers. They nail their characters. They show faith in their characters and bring them to the screen with respect. Audiences can overlook flaws in the plot if they are engaged by the characters.

Evidentally, DC cannot make an engaging character.

I mean look at the approaches to Captain America and Superman. It tells you everything you need to know. Marvel showed faith in their boyscout. DC hired a guy who clearly thinks Superman is pretty lame. Snyder himself said that Superman needs "growing up".

 

[SamuraiX]

They must be doing something wrong. Deadpool out grossed Batman and Superman in the US. As well as becoming a more likeable and popular character than Superman.

Maybe they should have made a scene with Batman and Superman talking about Wonder Woman's ass.

Deadpool is basically a modern exploitation movie. Comedy, action, sex and a character lacking any sort of major preconceptions attached. It's not like its success had much to do with great storytelling. It's just novelty and heavily appeals to people's most basic needs.

 

[The Endless]

It's success was down to him being a charming and engaging character. The film makers and Reynolds made this sociopath likeable and sympathetic... which isn't easy.

Audiences want to see these films for the characters. DC can't seem to do their characters justice. Simple. The execs don't have the faith or passion required.

 

[SamuraiX]

They must be doing something wrong. Deadpool out grossed Batman and Superman in the US. As well as becoming a more likeable and popular character than Superman.

At the end of the day, a film about Superman shouldn't be polarising. It's as simple as that.

The difference between Marvel and DC? Why does Marvel get favourable treatment? It's because they've EARNED it. They've earned it by making c listers a listers. They nail their characters. They show faith in their characters and bring them to the screen with respect. Audiences can overlook flaws in the plot if they are engaged by the characters.

Evidentally, DC cannot make an engaging character.

I mean look at the approaches to Captain America and Superman. It tells you everything you need to know. Marvel showed faith in their boyscout. DC hired a guy who clearly thinks Superman is pretty lame. Snyder himself said that Superman needs "growing up".

Marvel is quite easy on the senses. It deals with characters that don't have much of a cinematic history and approaches them in a very light, non compromising way. They avoid controversy and keep it simple. The cast is extremely appealing to the masses. We have a few actors that people just absolutely love to watch because they're attractive and charismatic.

I don't think every movie's success is directly related to the quality of the storytelling. There are other factors that come into play. Marvel just happened to have the right approach at the right time.

The main problem is really DC rushing into trying to make what Marvel already made. I don't think they need to do that. It's not like they can't make good movies. They can and they have, when they weren't trying to replicate Marvel's success with a shared universe.

 

[SamuraiX]

It's success was down to him being a charming and engaging character. The film makers and Reynolds made this sociopath likeable and sympathetic... which isn't easy.

Audiences want to see these films for the characters. DC can't seem to do their characters justice. Simple. The execs don't have the faith or passion required.

Well, the masses love alcohol. I don't. There are certain things that simply appeal to the masses. Sex, corny jokes, violence, are great examples of it. A guy who is consistently trying to be funny and dirty is not something i would consider "charming and engaging". To me it's just a very forced and desperate attempt to grab the audience's attention through the easiest way possible. Maybe in Christmas they can dress Deadpool as Santa Claus and everybody will find it super funny. It's a superhero dressed in a funny way, addressing a popular holiday. If his next movie comes out in summer maybe he can surf. Let's make him do in costume the most random daily tasks people do so the masses can relate to him and pay to see him.

I feel it's all about bonding with the audience and being forcefully innovative rather than simply telling a great story.

Again, great marketing, great ability to explore people's basic interests. Maybe if i were a little more naive i would find the movie and the character amazing. But i look at it and i'm like "Yeah, ok, i get it. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to manipulate me into thinking you're something very different and special. You're almost literally screaming for attention. But you're still not telling me a great story." The whole movie is basic a giant gimmick.

It feels cheap, not much different than porn. I look for something a little more complelling in a story.

 

[The Endless]

See BvS didn't try to copy Marvel though. Structurally and tonally it was quite different.

But it's characters were polarising at best and it was frankly, pretentious. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious but the whole thing screams of desperation. Like some hipster *****e scream for people to take him seriously.

 

[Lencho01]

Good point. I forgot about that. Damn. This whole thing got off on a terrible foundation.

Yep. Pretty much everything they've done outside of the Nolan films is a reaction to something.

GL due to the success of Iron Man.

MOS due to legally having to make another Superman film and the perception of SR. And taking the wrong lessons from Nolan's films.

Announcing a slate of films (Cyborg, really?) due Marvel always announcing a slate of films.

BvS due to MOS not reaching their goals. And I'm just gonna assume it's safe to say that Iron Man was a reason to approve a Batman with a metal suit.

SS changes due to GOTG marketing and reactions to BvS.

JL pretty much looking like the complete opposite of BvS and having early set visits to try and keep the hype alive. And hopefully sell more toys than BvS.

And though not DC-related, WB announcing the Fantastic Beasts sequel to keep their shareholders happy that at least something "safe" and "surefire" is coming in the future.

[YT]5YjGrZYRAtc[/YT]

Thank you for this.

 

[The Endless]

Again, great marketing, great ability to explore people's basic interests. Maybe if i were a little more naive i would find the movie and the character amazing. But i look at it and i'm like "Yeah, ok, i get it. I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to manipulate me into thinking you're something very different and special. You're almost literally screaming for attention. But you're still not telling me a great story." The whole movie is basic a giant gimmick.

Funnily enough that's how I viewed BvS. It was trying too hard to be serious and philosophical... it was literally screaming PLEASE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!

But in reality it was about as deep as a puddle and more in line with the idiots guide to philosophy. Throwing religious themes and philosophical quotes doesn't make something intelligent or mature.

 

[SamuraiX]

Funnily enough that's how I viewed BvS. It was trying too hard to be serious and philosophical... it was literally screaming PLEASE TAKE ME SERIOUSLY!

But in reality it was about as deep as a puddle and more in line with the idiots guide to philosophy. Throwing religious themes and philosophical quotes doesn't make something intelligent or mature.

BvS addressed issues that were very pertinent to the continuity of the story of Superman. What's so forced or unnatural about that? Deadpool was literally milking trending topics to lure people in. The whole movie is about bombarding the audience with topics of mass appeal and screaming as loud as possible "HEY, I'M DIFFERENT!!!! THIS IS A DIFFERENT MOVIE". He actually says something along those lines in the movie. That's how desperate and ****ish the whole project is.

 

[Creo]

Whatever Lex Luthor did with Zod's body was the result of the knowledge he gathered from that first time he was in the ship. He obviously created Doomsday as a back up plan, to destroy Superman. This is better implied than anything in the CW scene i mentioned and a lot more in tune with the character's motivations.

And it has a lot to do with being coherent. Going from feeling seriously affected by the death of inoccent people to manipulating a kid into putting his life in even more dangerous is highly incoherent. Allowing an outsider to fight alongside you when your whole thing is "we have to play by the book" is incoherent. It breaks the logic of the character and the narrative.

Coherency Breakdown Time:

Lex has a file on all of the superhumans, yet doesn't have anything on Superman, despite knowing who he is. It's also missing a lot of files on the characters from Suicide Squad...But wait, isn't that where he learns that Superman is weak to kryptonite?

Superman can hear Lois fall from a building miles away and can fly to her in enough time to save her, yet can't do the same for his mother. We're also shown that he can do the same for Lois from around the world (intro) and while he's fighting Doomsday.

Also the selective hearing with the bomb becomes more apparent with this.

Lois throws the kryptonite spear away from Superman (apparently learning that it weakens him), and then develops the knowledge that the heroes need it to kill Doomsday from.... nowhere.

Batman spends the entire movie telling us that Superman is a potential threat, and even if there's a 1% chance of him turning on us, he must be killed. But their mom's have the same name, so that doesn't matter anymore.

Zero explanation as to why Zod turns into Doomsday. Just Lex blood, mystic water, and science magic.

Literally everything with the Senate build and scene. It goes nowhere, and it just disappears from the story after the bombing. Why was it even in the movie?

Pretty much everything Lex did in the movie. What was his motivation? I just read three articles where they try to figure it out in an attempt to make a point about this.

The Knightmare sequences. Yes, with knowledge of the comics they make a bit of sense. But to most, it's just an action sequence with a bunch of random stuff thrown in and then the weird Flash cameo that no one understood. It comes out of nowhere and is given no explanation at all.

The editing. Pretty much all of it.

That's all for now. I may give it another watch to pick up on anything else later.



I also still disagree with the Spider-Man argument. He was already fighting crime against in NYC, where you can assume criminals are more than ready to seriously injure or kill Spidey. Ironman asked him to fight other superheroes who he knows won't kill him, in an attempt to subdue them. Add to that that Spider-Man has a more powerful ability set than anyone on Team Cap outside of Scarlet Witch, and it really wasn't that much danger outside of potentially being hit around by people significantly weaker than him.

Having an outsider fight is not incoherent, as BP was already there. Have him sign the Accords, then boom, he's playing by the books. But if we need more things explained to us via exposition next time, I'm sure Marvel can borrow Lois Lane for a minute to hop in when she's needed.

 

[SamuraiX]

Coherency Breakdown Time:

Lex has a file on all of the superhumans, yet doesn't have anything on Superman, despite knowing who he is. It's also missing a lot of files on the characters from Suicide Squad...But wait, isn't that where he learns that Superman is weak to kryptonite?

Superman can hear Lois fall from a building miles away and can fly to her in enough time to save her, yet can't do the same for his mother. We're also shown that he can do the same for Lois from around the world (intro) and while he's fighting Doomsday.

Also the selective hearing with the bomb becomes more apparent with this.

Lois throws the kryptonite spear away from Superman (apparently learning that it weakens him), and then develops the knowledge that the heroes need it to kill Doomsday from.... nowhere.

Batman spends the entire movie telling us that Superman is a potential threat, and even if there's a 1% chance of him turning on us, he must be killed. But their mom's have the same name, so that doesn't matter anymore.

Zero explanation as to why Zod turns into Doomsday. Just Lex blood, mystic water, and science magic.

Literally everything with the Senate build and scene. It goes nowhere, and it just disappears from the story after the bombing. Why was it even in the movie?

Pretty much everything Lex did in the movie. What was his motivation? I just read three articles where they try to figure it out in an attempt to make a point about this.

The Knightmare sequences. Yes, with knowledge of the comics they make a bit of sense. But to most, it's just an action sequence with a bunch of random stuff thrown in and then the weird Flash cameo that no one understood. It comes out of nowhere and is given no explanation at all.

The editing. Pretty much all of it.

That's all for now. I may give it another watch to pick up on anything else later.



I also still disagree with the Spider-Man argument. He was already fighting crime against in NYC, where you can assume criminals are more than ready to seriously injure or kill Spidey. Ironman asked him to fight other superheroes who he knows won't kill him, in an attempt to subdue them. Add to that that Spider-Man has a more powerful ability set than anyone on Team Cap outside of Scarlet Witch, and it really wasn't that much danger outside of potentially being hit around by people significantly weaker than him.

Having an outsider fight is not incoherent, as BP was already there. Have him sign the Accords, then boom, he's playing by the books. But if we need more things explained to us via exposition next time, I'm sure Marvel can borrow Lois Lane for a minute to hop in when she's needed.

Do you really think there is ANYONE in this forum who thinks BvS doesn't have plot holes? If so, you're very naive, sir. Nobody has been claiming such thing. But plot holes all movies have. All movies have inconsistencies. Especially movies that deal with these type of characters.

 

[Creo]

Do you really think there is ANYONE in this forum who thinks BvS doesn't have plot holes? If so, you're very naive, sir. Nobody has been claiming such thing. But plot holes all movies have. All movies have inconsistencies. Especially movies who deal with these type of characters.

No, I know that everyone does. I'm just refuting the claim that BvS is in any way, shape, or form more coherent than any MCU film to date. It's not even in the same ballpark.