Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

Frank said:

Marvel just appears to get what comic books do, that is to deal with real world concerns in a hyper-exaggerated fun kind of way where the good guys win in the end. WB/DC seems to think that their characters have to be something they're not; Batman is ultimately a quitter and Superman is a careless crybaby. They're looking at us not like undersized Steve Rogers with a heart of gold just waiting for the right circumstances (or movie hero) to come around and properly kick ass. It's like they think we have self esteem issues so they don't want their heroes to be too awesome lest we'd reject them out of hand because they don't appeal to our underachieving selves.

No, we want our superheroes to have it all and win it all in the colors they were born in. They shouldn't need to jump through hoops in order to justify their actions, that's why they're superheroes. They may be simple that way, but I think that's why they generate so much appeal.

Click to expand...

karamazov80 said:

The wish fulfillment part of it all is huge. That's why most of us first get into these characters as kids. We see heroes as bigger than life, and don't see any reason why they should be ashamed of it. And I do think Marvel gets that part of it, embraces it, and has succeeded because of it.

Having said that, I can also appreciate an approach that treats some of these characters are fundamentally flawed and troubled. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Moore-era Swamp Thing, much of Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, and Mark Millar's work, etc. But to do that effectively, filmmakers have to be pretty careful IMO, and of course, pretty skilled. It is easier to do a mindless action movie well than it is to do a thoughtful character-driven drama well (not that I'm saying the Marvel films are the former, but they tend to migrate in that direction if you think of this as a continuum). I think Nolan did a good job with a dramatically-oriented comic film, at least through the first two films. But I don't think Snyder did, and I don't think that is his strength based on his overall body of work. Hopefully Superman vs. Batman will have a better script that can, at least, help to push him in more of the right direction.

Click to expand...

a-dev said:

Nah some people like to slag Aliens. Hardcore fans of the first film resent its popularity over the original. Sounds familiar....

Click to expand...

jye4ever said:

LOTR needs to give back that oscar, total crap of a trilogy wasn't it.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

Nah, for it to be a backlash there'd have to be some sort of pendulum swing after a huge positive response. With ALIENS there have always been fans of the original that were put off by Cameron turning the unstoppable beast from the first film into cannon fodder bugs. But overall the prevailing opinion has consistently been that it was a masterpiece of a sci-fi action/war movie.

Click to expand...

morphosis said:

I personally don't agree with this at all because your basically saying TDK Trilogy was a failure and that is by far from the truth. What you wrote here was just your own personal opinion about what you like, but there are MILLIONS of people all over the world that love the TDK Trilogy and even MoS. Sure some will agree with you, of course, but the vast majority of everyone who have seen this films think they are amazing movies, especially the TDK Trilogy. The geek nit picking on message boards is not the world view of these films.

Click to expand...

All the superheroes have flaws, they all have since the beginning. I think exposing their flaws or vulnerability makes are more intriguing story. As much as I love Avengers, i thought it was fantastic, but my one personal feeling is I never felt they were in any sort of danger. Everything felt too easy. Taking down all those leviathan ships was like a piece of cake. Its was fun to watch of course, but I think it lacked some sense of danger. But thats just my opinion

Click to expand...

karamazov80 said:

The wish fulfillment part of it all is huge. That's why most of us first get into these characters as kids. We see heroes as bigger than life, and don't see any reason why they should be ashamed of it. And I do think Marvel gets that part of it, embraces it, and has succeeded because of it.

Having said that, I can also appreciate an approach that treats some of these characters are fundamentally flawed and troubled. I'm a huge fan of Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, Moore-era Swamp Thing, much of Neil Gaiman, Warren Ellis, and Mark Millar's work, etc. But to do that effectively, filmmakers have to be pretty careful IMO, and of course, pretty skilled. It is easier to do a mindless action movie well than it is to do a thoughtful character-driven drama well (not that I'm saying the Marvel films are the former, but they tend to migrate in that direction if you think of this as a continuum). I think Nolan did a good job with a dramatically-oriented comic film, at least through the first two films. But I don't think Snyder did, and I don't think that is his strength based on his overall body of work. Hopefully Superman vs. Batman will have a better script that can, at least, help to push him in more of the right direction.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

I think to really have an observable backlash a film needs to break some barrier with regard to box office and/or Academy Award nominations/wins. Titanic and Avatar really didn't have a chance at avoiding one. Similarly most people are currently singing the praises of TWS but you know that if it somehow grossed $500 million domestic or won Best Picture people would be weighing in left and right on how it wasn't that great and didn't deserve such praise even if they enjoyed the film.

There really seems to be a bit of a sweet spot of just enough (but not too much) success/praise for any given movie for audiences to feel that continued praise and positivity is justified. Because once it crosses that threshold, look out.

Click to expand...

morphosis said:

With so many discussions about Superman over many decades, and one I always loved was that he really has to be able to control himself or he could just destroy anything he touches even if he doesn't mean to destroy it. They showed that in MoS to some extent. To have that ability and to control it to protect people is a very difficult thing and i think its cool they showed how he struggled with it and then I hope in later films they show how much he embraces it.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

There really seems to be a bit of a sweet spot of just enough (but not too much) success/praise for any given movie for audiences to feel that continued praise and positivity is justified. Because once it crosses that threshold, look out.

Click to expand...

a-dev said:

You're right, I mean some films do seem to be immune whereas with others people seem to take pride in going against the grain with their views.

I do it too in some instances, I guess we all do.

Click to expand...

karamazov80 said:

I can't think of a single person other than myself who doesn't engage in that kind of behavior.

Click to expand...

karamazov80 said:

I can't think of a single person other than myself who doesn't engage in that kind of behavior.

Click to expand...

Darth Zangetsu said:

The backlash for Avatar was immediate in some circles. I remember lots of people pointing out that while it was pretty to look at, the story had been done multiple times and done better in previous films. Avatar was hurt popularity wise in my opinion by it getting nominated for a best picture Oscar. It really didn't deserve it. Had the academy ignored it, it would have gently faded away. And the rabid fans, who wanted to die and come back as Navi didn't help. I own it on blu-ray, but it's not something I will watch all the time. It's an okay film, but nothing special unless we are talking about special effects.

Click to expand...

karamazov80 said:

Whedon tried to go there with Coulson's death, but I didn't think anyone else of importance was going to bite it. And now that all the major deaths in the Marvel U turn out to not actually be deaths (Coulson, Fury, Loki), I do wonder if I will ever worry much about a death in these movies again!

Click to expand...

Khev said:

His one Robin Hood friend was impaled by a ton of ice spears in the first Thor movie and was simply pulled off by his friends and then he was off fighting again. But Thor's mom stabbed once? Dead.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

They really didn't did they?

Click to expand...

Khev said:

Oh I remember those reports. I just meant that those people really didn't help the overall impression of Avatar did they?

Click to expand...

Frank said:

The world is full of contrary opinions, why should the world of CBMs be any different? Truth be told is that the further we get from the release of any popular film, the less popular and relevant it becomes to the current population. How many treat Gone With The Wind with the kind of awe you'd expect from the all time leading blockbuster adjusted for inflation? Nobody in my generation. Veneration is probably closer to the word I'm looking for. When stripped of all the fancy modernized film techniques, some of these films seemed embarrassed by their own subject matter. In retrospect, how can we respect films that have the CBM equivalent of Woody Allen neurosis running through them?

I'd like for WB to realize how important it is to make the protagonists solution not only the best way, but the only way to go. MOS was waaaaaay too sloppy with all the easy alternatives that could have been taken to avoid the needless loss of life and property. TDKR gave Batman magic powers of healing and teleportation while dulling every other thing about Bane and Ra's (no Venom, no Lazarus Pit). The only upgrade for Bat's arsenal was "The Bat" which looked like an aborted lego project compared to 89's Batwing. I know it's harder to stay ahead of your audience now, but I know a lame Wile E. Coyote scheme when I see it.



The overcoming of those flaws usually come in the form of major power upgrades pure and simple. Weakness of character is something you generally don't want to end a film on. Batman's broken hermetic spirit wins out in the end in The Dark Knight Retires and Superman's great cathartic moment comes at the death of his arch nemesis, not the untold multitude of innocents taken out by his amateur battlefield awareness. Then of course he only learns how to be Superman in his 30s as a power-shamed late bloomer. Tell it to your therapist and get with the program Kal!



There's plenty of room to bend the genre I think. They just have to figure out if it's really a superhero movie or an anti-hero movie. DKR is actually Batman as anti-hero so it wouldn't make sense to follow an optimistic arc. Watchmen kind of fell into that trap I felt. You've got to be prepared to tell people something they don't like about themselves and their society... and not flinch. The willingness to take a financial hit to get your point across is also mandatory. Just ask Dredd.

Click to expand...