I left it out because I haven't seen it. I'm mildly curious to watch it, but it's never like. Been anywhere in front of me to watch. And I don't care enough to look for it. Also, it's notable that even DC "failures" still cracked $100m. It was no doubt a bomb, but it wasn't that huge.
[Movies] The DC Cinematic Universe - The David Zazlav Dumpster Fire.
So did the Wolverine solo movies, but that doesn't make them good movies.
Also note, I specifically said DC in general, meaning the comics and the movies.
I feel like this comparison is a little "apples and oranges". The Dark Knights and Man of Steel have the fortune of huge name recognition for decades. Batman and Superman have never been out of the public eye even if you've never picked up a comic book. People know Batman and Superman because their presence has super-saturated the market of film, television, merchandise, etc.;they're going to see a Batman or Superman movie and may have never read a comic in their life. The MCU has been built on, at least to the public, 2nd-tier characters. Maybe a few people remembered Iron Man or Captain America, but the closest thing you can compare success/awareness to is the Spider-Man movies. The success of the LOTR is also not really applicable, considering the good majority of the ticket buyers had either never read or even heard of Tolkien prior to The Fellowship of the Ring.
Different would be good if they were retelling the stories of the (long historied) characters in a way that stayed true to the core of the characters. Batman Begins was clever enough to reinvent a very well-worn wheel. YMMV with the subsequent sequels. (I feel The Dark Knight was carried on Ledger's performance alone and The Dark Knight Returns was serviceable but forgettable.) Man of Steel felt like they slapped the Superman name on something that vaguely resembled Superman. It ended up being lazy storytelling. For a character that has the comparable speed of the Flash or freezing breath, or whathaveyou, all he ever did was punch things to solve his problems, and if he couldn't punch them, he was useless. (*coughPAKENTcough*). It barely made any sense why he'd be so insistent on not letting the Kryptonians have Earth when he never seemed all that concerned with protecting the public from his won fallout. Superman should never be more myopic in his battles than Batman, but WB seems okay with making every hero "Batman" as long as it makes money. Hell, they'd probably slap "Batman" on every new film if they thought it would bring in people that have only ever heard of Batman: "Wonder Batman" "Green Batman" "CyberBatman". They even added Joker to the Suicide Squad for that reason. They're not being different, they're trying to repackage Batman over and over again.
I'd say the opposite. Joss Whedon action sequences don't really bring anything new to the screen, but his strength lies in his dialogue. His characters all have distinctive personalities and he manages to juggle them well. You could pull a piece of dialogue and guess what character said it without hearing their voice. Zack Snyder is all action sequences and very little substance. Even when he adapts media that already has the entire plot mapped out for him, he still manages to lose any semblance of human emotion or reaction in his characters. They always come off as wooden puppets that exist to move from action sequence to action sequence.
I don't think these films are going to be DC/WB demise (again, Batman money) as much as they are a disappointment to movie making. They're investing millions of dollars into bringing these characters to life, and yet all they're doing is taking the character's names and slapping them into the same Bat-formula over and over again. It's a waste of a universe where ANYTHING can be possible, and they're taking the most boring, mind-numbing route.
The difference between them is their backgrounds, I'd say. Whedon's writing and dialogue is strong because he has a background as a writer, first (co-writer on the first Toy Story, Roseanne, script doctor for other movies).
Synder's background, on the other hand, is purely visual. Director and cinematographer, and a background in doing commercials (which need to be quick, but memorable and visually appealing). Everything he's done looks great. There are scenes in Man of Steel that could easily have been a shot straight out of the comic. In 300's case, they WERE shots straight out of the comic (and Watchmen many times, too). Say what you will about his storytelling, pacing, or perchance for slow motion, but his stuff looks great.
I'd say "looked" great. I enjoyed Dawn of the Dead and Watchmen, but it feels like Snyder's a one-trick pony. All his movies have the same "browness" and slowed-down fight scenes. Even when he's adapting different texts and genres, they all feel the same now. If WB wanted to be different, they wouldn't hire the same director and/or writer for different projects. Marvel can be accused of making the same " hero triumphs over evil" film, but at least the journey is different every time, both visually and story-wise, thanks to different directors.
fade
Staff member
I don't see "hate" or "vitriol" for MoS here so much as ... disappointment? It could've been good. Snyder's done decent things before. But the character he presented didn't represent Superman. Espy tried to make a similar argument and I disagreed with him, too. You really can't divorce the character from nearly 90 years of comic history and characterization just because you want your own interpretation. Supes's Boy Scout nature is perhaps even more a fundamental part of him than any of his superhuman powers. That is Superman. There are a thousand characters with super-strength and invulnerability, but only one of them is this paragon of simple virtue. If you take that core aspect away, it's only Superman because you say it is. It's not a reinterpretation so much as a different character with the same name and outfit.
That was one of the things that I found the most frustrating about "Man of Steel". Synder was so interested in showing us the story that it didn't feel like Henry Cavill got a chance to act. I think that the movie would have been stronger if he got to tell the story of his father's death instead of it being showed to us a flashback. Also, I was disappointed that we didn't get to see more of Clark Kent, the mild mannered reporter.
While i don't have mich faith in Snyder at the helm, i do think it's a little weird that we're talking about these movies like they've already happened and already sucked. Let's maybe wait until ONE of them has come out to declare the franchise dead?
Also, as someone who hasn't read much DC comics at all (2 Batman trades and nothing else), I am surprised at the reactions because while DC does seem generally goofy, you guys all seemed to like the Injustice story, which was pretty dark and gritty, and Arrow, which seems to be taking the Batman gritty approach as well.
Seems to me like this grim atmosphere CAN be done in DC.
Also, as someone who hasn't read much DC comics at all (2 Batman trades and nothing else), I am surprised at the reactions because while DC does seem generally goofy, you guys all seemed to like the Injustice story, which was pretty dark and gritty, and Arrow, which seems to be taking the Batman gritty approach as well.
Seems to me like this grim atmosphere CAN be done in DC.
fade
Staff member
The Arrow series seems to be based on the 80s reboot, which was definitely dark and gritty. That was when Ollie switched to shadowy vigilantism and lethal plain old arrows. But even before that, Lantern/Arrow was pretty serious with all its real world politics. Also Injustice is kind of (snicker) justified, in that it took place in a parallel universe which had gone all dark and gritty.
I watched some Arrow, and while I didn't find it terrible (outside of the usual WB cheesiness, and the wonder of how no one recognized him when he wasn't wearing a mask) the one sticking problem I had that didn't sit well with me is that Ollie kills -a lot- of people in that show.
I thought Injustice was a raging piece of crap, for the same reason I hate Man of Steel. Green Arrow has always been a second rate Batman clone, so when you apply a darker tone to the character it works for the same reason it does with the Caped Crusader. Arrow excels at providing that mood, while still maintaining the character traits that keep Oliver Queen unique. Note the producers did not just copy their formula for Arrow over to Flash. They looked at how Flash works as a character and tailored the show to match the character, taking an approach more like you would expect to see with a Superman franchise.
That actually becomes a major plot point in the second season. It's what people have been hoping will happen with Superman in regards to him killing Zod in MoS, but I feel like it was done much more naturally in Arrow because they had time to build his motivations for what he does and his eventual turn away from killing makes sense form a character development standpoint.
As for the new movies, I have no doubt that they will make money hand over fist. Even Green Lantern grossed over 100m dollars, as did the FF movies, Ang Lee's Hulk, and any number of horrible superhero movies, so the money as a metric for success is hardly good.
Here's the thing though. I, in general, seem to have a much lower bar for bullshittery when it comes to comic adaptations. I was able to enjoy the FF and Daredevil movies. I know they weren't great, or even fully faithful adaptations, and they had questionable acting, but they were kind of stepping stones towards what we have now. Kind of like the comic to movie screen puberty period. Gangly and awkward and not quite fully formed.
Also, I do have to repeat, when I'm talking about DC losing its way, I'm not just talking about the movies, I'm talking overall. The comics are shit in general, thanks to the editorial mandate to make everyone dark and gritty (i.e. Batman). I think even the animated universe is starting to lose some of its former glory now that Timm isn't as involved in them and they are doing their own New 52 universe now.
I do have to say that the two things that they are doing right at the moment are Arrow and The Flash. Particularly The Flash, because they're bucking the trend of trying to make everything all gritty and realistic. I loved the Firestorm storyline and they managed to keep it relatively faithful to the comics.[DOUBLEPOST=1425660239,1425660115][/DOUBLEPOST]
I don't agree about Injustice. The thing about Injustice is that it's essentially an elseworlds story. Of course the heroes in the alternate dimension are dark. THEY'RE the VILLIANS. The real Superman was horrified by what the alternate Superman did.
Also, Arrow now has The Atom flying around in an Iron Man type suit, so it's also embracing the "comicbookiness" along with the more dour portions of the show.
Sigh... the whole story of Injustice was a framing device to give reason why DC heroes were fighting each other in a video game. Story-wise it would fall into a slightly interesting Elseworlds tale but other than that it's just an excuse to justify a fighting game.
Also, Charlie's argument about using the money these films make to justify bad story decisions in them is a bad one. I mean for crying out loud the Transformer movies make tons of money..... doesn't make them good films.
The money arguments are mainly geared toward the people saying the WB CEO is dumb, bad at his job, it's all gonna fail, etc
Why go through the bother of making a good film if it will make money anyway...
Zack Snyder movies are basically movies you can watch and fully enjoy ONCE. After that, they're kind of dull. He also overuses filters - sepia/brown for the 300 series, blue/grey for Watchmen and Man of Steel - to the point where the movies are visually drab (which was one of the problems with Thor: The Dark World). In addition, his fixation with speed ramping gets kind of old after a while. The Justice League should be about mythic demigods and heroes working together with shared ideals for the benefit of all mankind. Instead, we're probably going to get a filtered, speed ramped, "gritty, edgy" film that won't rate a second viewing.
On the other hand, I personally find The Avengers really engaging even after multiple views. The Winter Soldier seems to get better with each viewing, since you pick up on little details that you might have missed before. The action sequences are visually vibrant, happening in bright sunlight with vivid colors and intense but cohesive action.
But more than that, it's a matter of personality - in Man of Steel, he didn't really have one. For that matter, the Dark Knight trilogy's Batman didn't have much of a personality, either, besides "stupid rasp voice" and "self-pity".
MCU's heroes have personalities. Friends. Connections that make them sympathetic to the audience.
Let me put it this way: which is the line you'd want to hear from a hero?
"I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you, either."
or
"I'm with you 'till the end of the line."
On the other hand, I personally find The Avengers really engaging even after multiple views. The Winter Soldier seems to get better with each viewing, since you pick up on little details that you might have missed before. The action sequences are visually vibrant, happening in bright sunlight with vivid colors and intense but cohesive action.
But more than that, it's a matter of personality - in Man of Steel, he didn't really have one. For that matter, the Dark Knight trilogy's Batman didn't have much of a personality, either, besides "stupid rasp voice" and "self-pity".
MCU's heroes have personalities. Friends. Connections that make them sympathetic to the audience.
Let me put it this way: which is the line you'd want to hear from a hero?
"I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you, either."
or
"I'm with you 'till the end of the line."
The difference I've found for non-comic book people I've talked to is that while they're happy to go see both the DC movies and the Marvel movies, the anticipation for the DC ones don't get them excited. They're just some new action movies that will be coming out. In contrast, Marvel announcements are a joy and they get really excited about what will be coming next.
And unfortunately, I feel like that would still be true even if there wasn't a grimdark mandate. DC movies just haven't proven themselves as far as engagement goes. I doubt the CEO gives a shit either. They don't need the Justice League movie to beat out Avengers for top-grossing films. It just has to make enough more than what it cost to have been worth the trouble.
And unfortunately, I feel like that would still be true even if there wasn't a grimdark mandate. DC movies just haven't proven themselves as far as engagement goes. I doubt the CEO gives a shit either. They don't need the Justice League movie to beat out Avengers for top-grossing films. It just has to make enough more than what it cost to have been worth the trouble.
Do people often hate on them, other than the third? They haven't aged very well, but they're perfectly fine superhero movies for their time.
I sometimes felt like 2 over-used the Raimi-cam stuff, following projectiles/Doc Ock arms/etc, but all in all I still like the first two movies. Generally the worst part of it is either Kirsten Dunst in general, or Tobey Maguire's weird facial expressions.
I mean fucking seriously, look at this mess.
I mean fucking seriously, look at this mess.
Yes to both!
Man, Sam Raimi loved filming McGuire pooping, didn't he?
My issue with the DC movies was that they try so hard to define themselves as a serious dramatic genre, while Marvel just forms it's own genre.
Bare with me here, but what I love about comic books (and certain other universes, like WarCraft) is that they don't define themselves ultimately by a certain genre. They just take all the cool, funny, dramatic, exciting bits and throw them in a pot, add a few guys in crazy situations and let the magic happen. WB tries so hard to make the DC movies dramatic action with realistic commentary that there is very little room for levity. I actually think one of the reasons The Dark Knight does so well, is the simple fact that Heath Leadger's Joker is so morbidly hilarious. Things like the pencil trick, the hospital explosion, etc... Add a little bit of (I think unintentional) levity to the scenes, which in the mix makes those scenes the ones you remember the most.
Let's be honest, but Iron Man didn't do great because it was Iron Man, it was great because the writing was good and RDJs delivery of the character was both hilarious yet engaging, with explosions mixed in because who doesn't love some explosions? If it was just based on throwing a guy in an IM suit and having him fly around whining about all his problems, it never would have gone anywhere. That is one reason I hate Man of Steel. Marvel has been smart to keep that feel through MOST of the other movies (with a few that didn't do it well, like Thor 2). I mean, look at the new Avengers trailer. Half those shots were like comic books pages put to screen, and you will not likely see that in any DC movie. It is likely why I will pass this movie in the theater.
Bare with me here, but what I love about comic books (and certain other universes, like WarCraft) is that they don't define themselves ultimately by a certain genre. They just take all the cool, funny, dramatic, exciting bits and throw them in a pot, add a few guys in crazy situations and let the magic happen. WB tries so hard to make the DC movies dramatic action with realistic commentary that there is very little room for levity. I actually think one of the reasons The Dark Knight does so well, is the simple fact that Heath Leadger's Joker is so morbidly hilarious. Things like the pencil trick, the hospital explosion, etc... Add a little bit of (I think unintentional) levity to the scenes, which in the mix makes those scenes the ones you remember the most.
Let's be honest, but Iron Man didn't do great because it was Iron Man, it was great because the writing was good and RDJs delivery of the character was both hilarious yet engaging, with explosions mixed in because who doesn't love some explosions? If it was just based on throwing a guy in an IM suit and having him fly around whining about all his problems, it never would have gone anywhere. That is one reason I hate Man of Steel. Marvel has been smart to keep that feel through MOST of the other movies (with a few that didn't do it well, like Thor 2). I mean, look at the new Avengers trailer. Half those shots were like comic books pages put to screen, and you will not likely see that in any DC movie. It is likely why I will pass this movie in the theater.
This was explictly the fault of Sony. They wanted a Venom movie, Raimi wanted a Sandman movie, and they'd already teased a new Green Goblin. Green Goblin and Sandman would have been fine but tossing Venom into it just made it crazy dumb... and the symbiote stuff was easily the worst part of the movie.
I'm fairly certain that was intentional. There's no way that Rami didn't intentionally make the Peter douchebag scenes bad. I also understand that he hates the character of Venom and never wanted to put him in any movie in the first place. I think he basically did it all as a middle finger to the studio for interfering.
figmentPez
Staff member
Trying to explain to my mom why MoS was a poor Superman movie, I made an analogy to an ongoing fiction series I know she's read, Nancy Drew. Imagine that Nancy Drew got a movie, and it was a pretty good mystery/thriller. It had good writing, an acclaimed cast, impressive cinematography... but at the end of the movie Nancy Drew doesn't solve the mystery. In fact, she gets someone falsely arrested, and it only turns out okay because she's forced to admit she makes mistakes. It's a reasonable story, I mean a teenage girl isn't perfect and could conceivably come across a crime she can't solve, right? Yeah, but that's not a Nancy Drew story.
A Superman film ending with the events of Man of Steel isn't a good Superman story. It's like a Looney Tunes movie ending with Bugs Bunny's head on Elmer Fudd's wall, dead and unmoving, with no "I'm just sticking my head through a hole in the wall" gag. That's not who Bugs Bunny is. It might work as a subversion in a short, or even as a set-up for a later gag, but that's not how you end a theatrical length Warner Bros cartoon.
And I'll say it again. It's not necessarily that Superman killed someone, PERIOD. It's all the stuff that preceeded it and followed it. The lack of concern about collateral damage during his fight with "Neo Ursa". Superman didn't kill just Zod, he killed a ton of people, just not intentionally. It's not like there was a mandate to evacuate Smallville. So all the lives of the people of his HOME TOWN are arbitrary, but this one random family in Metropolis is so important that he has to kill Zod.
Any any pathos or regret shown right after killing Zod (which I fully admit, Cavill pulled off the pained yell better than most actors in similar situations do) is followed immediately by "LOL, I'm in yor skie killin your dronz".
I MAYBE could have accepted the whole movie if Superman ended on a down note with him regretting his actions.
Well, that's a lie, the whole thing with Pa Kent was just stupid, and horrible commentary that flies in the face of everything the Kents taught Clark in the comics. Pa Kent would never have told Clark that being secret is more important than saving lives. It's just shown now deep the fear-mongering of the Bush era has gotten its roots into the American psyche. Secrecy = safety. BLECH. It's a selfish standpoint that becomes negligible anyway half way through the movie when the whole world learns about Superman. So, Costner Kent was completely wrong all along.
It was also incredibly unoriginal for them to just go ahead and reuse Zod and the evil Kryptonians again. They would have been much better off with similar results by retelling the Braniac storyline from the animated series and finally brought a good villain from the comics to the screen.
AND DAMN, Snyder. He spends half the movie screaming DO YOU GET THE SYMBOLISM???? DO YOU??? SUPERMAN IS JESUS!!!!!!!!! GET IT?????
GET IT????
Last edited:
