The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 3

[The Joker]

When even the actors are chiming in and talking trash about the movie, then you know how bad it is.

 

[BaelaTargaryen]

When even the actors are chiming in and talking trash about the movie, then you know how bad it is.

It reminds me of Twilight movies (they were dissed by their own actors).

 

[JackWhite]

When it rains it pours I guess, lol.

That's pretty disheartening to hear from Irons, but at least he is real.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

This place is a safe haven for haters of BvS, I'm glad to be part of it.
Too bad they gave Jeremy Irons material to dis instead of a script he can compliment with a straight face.

 

[Shikamaru]

Silly WB, thinking they could trust this guy to keep quiet.

 

[The Joker]

It reminds me of Twilight movies (they were dissed by their own actors).

Yep, and the failed reboot Spider-Man movies, too.

Silly WB, thinking they could trust this guy to keep quiet.

LOL, and he talks about it like he's just there for a paycheck. "I'm in JL which is nice because it's a bit of income".

 

[Tacit Ronin]

How are the Snyder chasers reacting to this?

 

[The Joker]

Strangely silent about it from what I've seen. Although a lot of them have been banned lately. Kobra was the latest one.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Don't forget Aejej

BTW, Dave Gibbons had this to say about Snyder's DCEU...

[YT]m2tCWVKJaTg[/YT]

 

[Spider-Aziz]

How are the Snyder chasers reacting to this?

One said "I agree with things he said, except that BvS is bad.
If critics want to prove no bias then tomato percentage should go something 50% for BvS, 60% for TDKR, and 70% for CA:CW"

 

[Chip Chipperson]

it almost feels like people are snyder fans first, instead being fans of the characters

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If critics want to prove no bias then tomato percentage should go something 50% for BvS, 60% for TDKR, and 70% for CA:CW"

If the critics wanna prove there is no bias they must conform to my opinion!

 

[DoomRulz]

I rewatched Batman Begins last night for the first time in ages. I'd forgotten how good it is. Christian Bale is still the definitive Bats/Bruce to me. Also, it was refreshing to see a self-contained comic book movie.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

If the critics wanna prove there is no bias they must conform to my opinion!

Pretty much.

I rewatched Batman Begins last night for the first time in ages. I'd forgotten how good it is. Christian Bale is still the definitive Bats/Bruce to me. Also, it was refreshing to see a self-contained comic book movie.

I think the Raimi Spider-Man movies and phase 1 MCU movies are pretty self contained, with one or two hints here and there for a sequel.

 

[DACrowe]

Pretty much.

I think the Raimi Spider-Man movies and phase 1 MCU movies are pretty self contained, with one or two hints here and there for a sequel.

Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were self-contained (even if the latter is pretty mediocre). But that all ended with Iron Man 2, which set up SHIELD with no real payoff in its own movie, Thor, and Captain America. Captain America: The First Avenger, meanwhile, ended with a freaking teaser for The Avengers. That kind of says it all about the direction of the storytelling in this genre.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were self-contained (even if the latter is pretty mediocre).

What's so mediocre about it? I find it to be one of the better movies in that series.

 

[shauner111]

TIH is mediocre. Maybe worse than that. It was already a tired origin by 2008. As good as Norton is as an actor, I always felt like he was wrong for the part. It was a cliche comic book movie that offered nothing new. The villain turned me off just like Doomsday 8 years later.

I like the ending to the First Avenger. But it's a trailer to Avengers. i haven't seen Thor in five years but I thought that was pretty self contained??

 

[BatmanBeyond]

TIH is mediocre. Maybe worse than that. It was already a tired origin by 2008. As good as Norton is as an actor, I always felt like he was wrong for the part. It was a cliche comic book movie that offered nothing new. The villain turned me off just like Doomsday 8 years later.

I like the ending to the First Avenger. But it's a trailer to Avengers. i haven't seen Thor in five years but I thought that was pretty self contained??

Another example of different strokes for different folks - I thought Ed Norton was the best part of the movie and for me, it was the kind of performance that sells a concept I'm not too keen on (not a big fan of the Hulk). It probably helped that I hadn't (and haven't) watched the older, Ang Lee version.

I was gutted when I heard Norton wasn't continuing as Bruce Banner, but judging by the way the shared universe has shaped up since then, I don't think he would've been a fit.

Having said all that, I think Ruffalo is solid in the role, just doesn't bring the same gravitas as Norton for me - on the other hand, he hasn't been offered the chance to show what he can do in a film centered around the Hulk.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

TIH is mediocre. Maybe worse than that. It was already a tired origin by 2008. As good as Norton is as an actor, I always felt like he was wrong for the part. It was a cliche comic book movie that offered nothing new. The villain turned me off just like Doomsday 8 years later.

The origin was only like two minutes of screen time.
Seeing a comic book movie about a giant raging smashing beast not completely obliterating a building is now refreshing to watch, a number of comic book movies since then were pretty much destruction porn.
The villain is nothing like Doomsday (save for the giant CGI beast design in 15 minutes near the end of screen time), there is a build up arc for how he becomes, and is a solid one.
Bruce learns how to dodge and fight, that is something you don't usually see on screen, the only other time that happens is in the 80s cartoon, most of the comics and adaptions have Bruce -as Ross called him in the 60s- as a milksop.
And it was one of the few CBMs to not kill the antagonist.
And Ed Norton was amazing as Bruce Banner in the solo movie, though as much I'd like to see more of him as the character, I don't think he would be as fulfilling as Mark Rufallo proved to be in the ensemble film.
And that movie has one of the best Hulk designs so far, and is the only Hulk design on film not resembling the actor playing the meek guy.

 

[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 while 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 had a successful run with Morrison and can be DC's answer to both X-Men and the FF, but DC still ignores them. Blue Beetle is another one. The list goes on.

 

[The Batman]

The Co Founder of Milestone basically sums up why certain characters are pushed, and why a character like Static doesn't get pushed despite the success of his cartoon:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04...-you-wont-get-it-michael-davis-from-the-edge/

Essentially, DC doesn't fully own Static, and since they fully own Batman, and since Batman has long been insanely popular, they're much more willing to keep pushing him than put effort into Static.


In terms of Marvel/Disney...Nowadays, while they may be cool pushing newer or lesser known characters to bigger popularity, they're also not that into pushing anyone whose film rights they don't own. In that regard, they're not that different from DC. Remember how, before Sony struck a deal with Marvel, they were primed to replace Spider-Man as their flagship character and give Iron Man that role? That had nothing to do with who was more popular (Spider-Man is, if merchandise is any indication), and everything to do with Spider-Man's film rights still belonging to Sony, while Iron Man was the most popular hero whose film rights Marvel did own.

 

[Kane52630]

I wish they could strike some kind of deal with Static, if DC was smart enough (which currently they are not), they could push him to be DC's Spider-Man.

 

[The Batman]

Unless Milestone gave all the rights/ownership/whatever to DC, I doubt Static would get the push he deserves.

 

[Shikamaru]

Isn't Static a full-fledged DC character by now? I know he was brought into the DCU and had his own monthly book. So shouldn't he at least be pushed as much as someone like Aquaman if not more?

Also my point with Iron Man was that Spidey's popularity was decreasing while Iron Man's was increasing and Marvel seemed fine with it (merchandise by itself isn't a good indication since it includes kids' lunchboxes etc., I'm talking strict adult/teen level popularity - film, comics, etc.). Marvel didn't just push Iron Man, they put him out there and the audience responded to it, and only then they pushed him.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Static has two DC animation involvements, one with the DCAU and another in Young Justice, doesn't that make him a DC character?

I think Iron Man books should sell well above 100k copies of one issue a month, and his merchandise would stand tall with Spider-Man's to be really deserving of the push Marvel want to give him.