For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
Yup, there's nothing more realistic than a guy who can break every law of physics to a ridiculous degree, aliens with the technology to travel across the universe and have colonized thousands of worlds deciding that they just have to colonize the earth, risking the future of their entire species in the process, rather than going to some uninhabited planet where they would meet no resistance, and a major metropolitan city being demolished with almost no consequence.
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
Wut
If anything it's usually the opposite. DC's characters are generally representative of ideals while Marvel's stories tend to focus on the more human element of their characters.
I'm pretty far from an expert, and what little I know comes from the movies and from Marvel comics, but from what I've read and heard around the net my impression has been that you get more grimdark in DC (which much of the time is to edgy what "mature" is to mature, if you know what I mean). Is that the films more than anything else?
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
Wut
If anything it's usually the opposite. DC's characters are generally representative of ideals while Marvel's stories tend to focus on the more human element of their characters.
You're bad at comics, Mr. Tsujihara.
to be fair it shouldn't come as any surprise at this point that a WB CEO doesn't understand these IP. its the very core of their problem.
Marvel have embraced the fact that there's a farcical element to what they are doing, while never actually descending into farce. WB are scared of the fact that their making movies based on comic books and every attempt suffers as a result. even some of their best efforts have been from people who didn't want to make comic book movies. until WB change their thinking, they're always going to have more failures than successes.
I'm pretty far from an expert, and what little I know comes from the movies and from Marvel comics, but from what I've read and heard around the net my impression has been that you get more grimdark in DC (which much of the time is to edgy what "mature" is to mature, if you know what I mean). Is that the films more than anything else?
Ehhhhhh
Both properties are huge and have decades of story telling so it isn't a hard and fast rule. But generally DC's characters symbolize different ideals in a positive manner. Superman is the best of what humanity could be, Flash represents what science could achieve, Green Lantern puts duty above personal desires, Batman rises up to face fears, etc. Obviously none of these are set in stone and the characters have been reinterpreted over the years but those are what the characters have often come to symbolize over time. And aside from Batman tend to have fairly optimistic story lines.
Marvel's character's meanwhile have come to represent character archetypes. Spiderman's the outcast teenager, Fantastic Four are the bickering family, Stark is a flippant playboy, etc. Their stories often revolve around being people first. Spiderman is trying to just get bills payed, the FF are trying not to let their relationship drama break them apart, Stark is battling with alcoholism. And that's why I'd say they tend to deal with more "mature" subject matter since their stories often revolve around real life problems. Again it's not hard and fast as there's still plenty of symbolism with their characters. But most people tend to think of them as people first before what they represent.
Meanwhile both companies have their share of grim dark tones. I wouldn't say either's especially heavier in that department compared to the other. Warner Bros just thinks for some reason that's the only way to present comic book characters for some dumb reason. There's a reason a lot of Superman fans hate the most recent movie. It bore little resemblance to the character or what he normally represents and pushed being "edgy" over being Superman.
When people want a grittier and more realistic superman, they're not saying that aliens and someone flying are impossible.
They're saying they don't want Christopher Reeve's Superman.
They want basically a comic book interpretation of the characters from this century. One that deals with big shit blowing up and Superman smashing big bad guys that are just as strong as him. They want Superman dealing with real problems that his powers bring him. Stuff like, "Do I kill this bad guy to save humanity, or is there a better way?" Or the fact "I'm so alone, yet I'm not, I can use this."
They don't want a happy go lucky Clark Kent bumbling around metropolis lifting heaving things.
Basically they want bad ass fight scenes and Superman doing super stuff. Or Batman being an absolute dick.
They want the tone of the movies to be "Shit is going down, and we need some friends who are super to save us."
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That's still doable though! Without Superman being a broody sad sack for two hours who then inadvertently kills half of Metropolis. He doesn't have to be unbridled optimism and sunshine but that doesn't mean he needs to be a jerk either.
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
Wut
If anything it's usually the opposite. DC's characters are generally representative of ideals while Marvel's stories tend to focus on the more human element of their characters.
You're bad at comics, Mr. Tsujihara.
I feel like DC is more susceptible to weird grim bullshit stories these days precisely because they want to shed the image of being uncool, which is a problem marvel doesen't have, and thats likely to continue with their film series.
Which makes me imagine a sketch where a whole bunch of DC superheroes audition, delivering their take on the gravelly "I'm Batman," though some might go for "I'm the goddamn Batman." And most likely Deadpool will sneak his way in there as well, despite being Marvel.
Edit: There'll be an after-credits scene of the Martian Manhunter going, "Darkness... No parents..."
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
Wut
If anything it's usually the opposite. DC's characters are generally representative of ideals while Marvel's stories tend to focus on the more human element of their characters.
You're bad at comics, Mr. Tsujihara.
Hasn't been like that for ages. While it's true to an extent for the DC icons, the general tone for the Marvel and DC universes are virtually identical. Or they used to be pre New 52.
For decades, DC and Marvel Comics have maintained a good-natured rivalry with the latter often referring to the former as “The Distinguished Competition”. Although discussions among fans don’t always maintain quite the same level of decorum, the “DC vs Marvel” debate is one that’s probably not going to be settled anytime soon. That isn’t stopping Warner Bros. chairman-CEO Kevin Tsujihara, however, from throwing some gasoline on the fire.
“The worlds of DC are very different,” Tsujihara said today at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (per Variety) “They’re steeped in realism, and they’re a little bit edgier than Marvel’s movies.”
TRANSLATION: All our movies will be grimdark as fuck.
Never mind that a flick can be realistic AND light-hearted, but execs gotta oversimplify everything.
As far as comics go, one of the main gripes I've heard about new 52 is that very few of them have a lighter touch. Meanwhile Marvel Now encouraged their books to be more fun.
You know, I don't see Marvel movies as being any less dark than DC movies. They have gone to some damn dark places, and that's ignoring that we're probably staring down the barrel of an actual race war in Cap 3.
Being less colorful is not the same as being more dark - Winter Soldier was darker than Man of Steel, with more questionable morality and more personal sacrifices by the heroes. Just because they didn't wash out the color balance until it made a Call of Duty hallway look like Chinese New Year doesn't mean it wasn't dark. It was just colorful.
Hell, Guardians went to some dark places (not as much as Winter Soldier or even Avengers, but damn close), and didn't even have to stop having goofy light hearted fun to do it. "Here's a villain who's hammer will cleanse life from the galaxy and the revenge-obsessed maniac whose life he destroyed. Here's a tree arguing with a Racoon. Now here's all of that together set to some 70's music that in no way fits the tone of the scene."
It's not like DC can't do this. Dark Knight made use of bright colors to contrast Joker against Batman's black. It didn't sacrifice dark themes to do it.
You know, I don't see Marvel movies as being any less dark than DC movies. They have gone to some damn dark places, and that's ignoring that we're probably staring down the barrel of an actual race war in Cap 3.
Being less colorful is not the same as being more dark - Winter Soldier was darker than Man of Steel, with more questionable morality and more personal sacrifices by the heroes. Just because they didn't wash out the color balance until it made a Call of Duty hallway look like Chinese New Year doesn't mean it wasn't dark. It was just colorful.
Hell, Guardians went to some dark places (not as much as Winter Soldier or even Avengers, but damn close), and didn't even have to stop having goofy light hearted fun to do it. "Here's a villain who's hammer will cleanse life from the galaxy and the revenge-obsessed maniac whose life he destroyed. Here's a tree arguing with a Racoon. Now here's all of that together set to some 70's music that in no way fits the tone of the scene."
It's not like DC can't do this. Dark Knight made use of bright colors to contrast Joker against Batman's black. It didn't sacrifice dark themes to do it.
There's a difference between dark and grimdark.
You're right, Cap 2 went to some dark places. But grimdark means you can't have any jokes or lighthearted moments whatsoever (Cap 2 and Dark Knight did, Man of Steel had maybe one), and the hero has to at least smolder with generic rage or at least not give a shit when civilians get killed.
Dark Knight isn't grimdark. Man of Steel absolutely is.
And sure, DC could make a dark flick that's not grimdark, but Superman v Batman: Too Many Heroes looks absolutely grimdark so far.
G'Nort on a cracker that's sad if true. If not then damn that's eerily good DC movie mimicking.
It is, but it wasn't used like that in MoS. It was in the trailers, I think? "What's the S stand for?" "It's not an S. On my world it means 'hope'." "Well...here, it's an S. How about...Super--" And then feedback cuts her off.
The thing that infuriates me with the decision to make everything grimdark is that it shows just how completely and utterly DC's movie team does not understand the characters they have at their disposal.
Doing a grimdark Batman movie is fine, since thematically Bruce is still that kid who watched his parents get gunned down and wanted to stop it from happening; it forms the core of his being. And you know what? there are other characters DC has they can do this with too! Etrigan, Huntress, Constantine and Specter are all characters you can totally do brooding stories about where it fits their character.
I get the distinction, but I was more responding to that bullshit quote from the Warner Brothers guy up there who did not. And a number of people in this thread are using the terms interchangeably.
The thing that infuriates me with the decision to make everything grimdark is that it shows just how completely and utterly DC's movie team does not understand the characters they have at their disposal.
Doing a grimdark Batman movie is fine, since thematically Bruce is still that kid who watched his parents get gunned down and wanted to stop it from happening; it forms the core of his being. And you know what? there are other characters DC has they can do this with too! Etrigan, Huntress, Constantine and Specter are all characters you can totally do brooding stories about where it fits their character.
Usually when DC feels uncertain about something, even if that uncertainty isn't justified, you can bet on more Batman. Batman spin offs, Batman retcons, Batman shakeups, Batman team ups, other heroes being more like Batman. He's the one character they always seem confident with (even when they're fucking up Batman they double down and fix it with more Batman). Look at their lineup change: There was already a lot of Batman in the New 52, but with the label drop there's even more, it's just Batman and Batman related halfway down the damn list.
That said, the whole grimdark thing with Batman depends on who you put him up against, because a few of his more iconic villains are themed around comedy. Batman lends himself to it well, but his rogues gallery doesn't.
You know, I don't see Marvel movies as being any less dark than DC movies. They have gone to some damn dark places, and that's ignoring that we're probably staring down the barrel of an actual race war in Cap 3.
Being less colorful is not the same as being more dark - Winter Soldier was darker than Man of Steel, with more questionable morality and more personal sacrifices by the heroes. Just because they didn't wash out the color balance until it made a Call of Duty hallway look like Chinese New Year doesn't mean it wasn't dark. It was just colorful.
Hell, Guardians went to some dark places (not as much as Winter Soldier or even Avengers, but damn close), and didn't even have to stop having goofy light hearted fun to do it. "Here's a villain who's hammer will cleanse life from the galaxy and the revenge-obsessed maniac whose life he destroyed. Here's a tree arguing with a Racoon. Now here's all of that together set to some 70's music that in no way fits the tone of the scene."
It's not like DC can't do this. Dark Knight made use of bright colors to contrast Joker against Batman's black. It didn't sacrifice dark themes to do it.
Marvel is not dark. It's a very light tone. Even Winter Soldier is light in tone. That's not a bad thing and it doesn't mean they don't deal with serious issues, but it's just a matter of tone. It's why you can see the difference between how Nolan's trilogy and an MCU film handle their subject matter.
Marvel has built their entire multi-franchise film empire around a specific style and tone. (basically, the Iron Man template)
DC is trying to do the same thing based off Nolan's trilogy. Except they a) don't actually understand what made Nolan's films work, b) haven't gotten anyone competent enough to make it work and c) are trying to jam that tone onto characters where it just doesn't work.
Marvels movies are "fun". You like watching them, because you laugh at the humor and you awe at the fights and special effects and they still have their serious and poignant moments in the midst of that.
DCs movies.... are less fun. I want them to be fun, but they don't seem to get the right balance that Marvel does, and for me I'm left just feeling awkward. I watched Man of Steel because at first glance I thought okay, he looks like a good Superman, this could be fun. But it wasn't fun. It was horrible and left me feeling nothing for the character and rolling my eyes more times than I could count.
0
Options
Mego Thor"I say thee...NAY!"Registered Userregular
I heard everyone talking about grimdark and thought DC was making a Warhammer 40K movie.
Superman didn't kill civilians in Man of Steel I wish people would stop with that bullshit. He obviously cared because that's what Superman does and it's implied because in order to stop Zod he sort of needed to fight him, not go lift some heavy stuff off the people to save them. It could have helped that they showed this more, but I think Snyder was banking that everyone knew how Superman felt about helping people.
Most of Metropolis was abandoned near the start of the world engine doing its shit anyways, so those buildings they were blasting into in the last fight scene were empty.
Also that was Zod doing that. Superman was just doing the best he could to stop it. Pretty hard to do considering you're the only person with super powers. He did a damn good job.
Zod said Supes wouldn't be able to stop him from killing people either. He sort of forced Big Blue's hand into killing him. Still isn't out of character for Superman to do when there's literally no options left, especially a novice Superman.
It's like you guys didn't even watch the movie or just blindly accepted what was going on and became willfully ignorant of Superman's mythos.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I don't doubt Superman didn't intentionally kill civilians.
He just leveled a city while many of them were still there. Which they were. You can assume they were somehow evacuated in a few minutes but that sure doesn't explain all the people running from the buildings collapsing around them.
I actually enjoyed the movie but Man of Steel Superman was terrible. Flat out. He was an uncaring jerk for the vast majority of the movie who could have stopped a lot of the collateral damage if he'd ever actually cared to.
Posts
Although it still bothers me that in DC's mindset, a movie that stars a team of villains gets precedence over actual DC heroes. Go figure...
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Clearly you haven't seen the animated Suicide Squad movie. Harley was just there for sex.
Yeah, the animated SS movie tried for "fun" and it just wound up being degrading and gross.
It's been said before, but Take Superior Foes of Spider-Man, make the characters more competent, darken it to reasonable levels and you're golden.
Ugh, I haven't watched it yet...but this saddens me so much.
Whelp, I guess it's reasonable to assume it'll be similar.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
They already have a great template for the Suicide Squad movie, the "Task Force X" episode in Justice League Unlimited. Just do that.
Darker* isn't edgier, dude.
* literally and figuratively
Not that realistic is a good thing to aim for, though. I mean, realistic doesn't get you Guardians of the Galaxy.
Wut
If anything it's usually the opposite. DC's characters are generally representative of ideals while Marvel's stories tend to focus on the more human element of their characters.
You're bad at comics, Mr. Tsujihara.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
to be fair it shouldn't come as any surprise at this point that a WB CEO doesn't understand these IP. its the very core of their problem.
Marvel have embraced the fact that there's a farcical element to what they are doing, while never actually descending into farce. WB are scared of the fact that their making movies based on comic books and every attempt suffers as a result. even some of their best efforts have been from people who didn't want to make comic book movies. until WB change their thinking, they're always going to have more failures than successes.
Ehhhhhh
Both properties are huge and have decades of story telling so it isn't a hard and fast rule. But generally DC's characters symbolize different ideals in a positive manner. Superman is the best of what humanity could be, Flash represents what science could achieve, Green Lantern puts duty above personal desires, Batman rises up to face fears, etc. Obviously none of these are set in stone and the characters have been reinterpreted over the years but those are what the characters have often come to symbolize over time. And aside from Batman tend to have fairly optimistic story lines.
Marvel's character's meanwhile have come to represent character archetypes. Spiderman's the outcast teenager, Fantastic Four are the bickering family, Stark is a flippant playboy, etc. Their stories often revolve around being people first. Spiderman is trying to just get bills payed, the FF are trying not to let their relationship drama break them apart, Stark is battling with alcoholism. And that's why I'd say they tend to deal with more "mature" subject matter since their stories often revolve around real life problems. Again it's not hard and fast as there's still plenty of symbolism with their characters. But most people tend to think of them as people first before what they represent.
Meanwhile both companies have their share of grim dark tones. I wouldn't say either's especially heavier in that department compared to the other. Warner Bros just thinks for some reason that's the only way to present comic book characters for some dumb reason. There's a reason a lot of Superman fans hate the most recent movie. It bore little resemblance to the character or what he normally represents and pushed being "edgy" over being Superman.
They're saying they don't want Christopher Reeve's Superman.
They want basically a comic book interpretation of the characters from this century. One that deals with big shit blowing up and Superman smashing big bad guys that are just as strong as him. They want Superman dealing with real problems that his powers bring him. Stuff like, "Do I kill this bad guy to save humanity, or is there a better way?" Or the fact "I'm so alone, yet I'm not, I can use this."
They don't want a happy go lucky Clark Kent bumbling around metropolis lifting heaving things.
Basically they want bad ass fight scenes and Superman doing super stuff. Or Batman being an absolute dick.
They want the tone of the movies to be "Shit is going down, and we need some friends who are super to save us."
I feel like DC is more susceptible to weird grim bullshit stories these days precisely because they want to shed the image of being uncool, which is a problem marvel doesen't have, and thats likely to continue with their film series.
Definitely. They don't seem to understand that the Batman trilogy was a good interpretation of Batman. So now they're trying to make everyone Batman.
Edit: There'll be an after-credits scene of the Martian Manhunter going, "Darkness... No parents..."
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Hasn't been like that for ages. While it's true to an extent for the DC icons, the general tone for the Marvel and DC universes are virtually identical. Or they used to be pre New 52.
TRANSLATION: All our movies will be grimdark as fuck.
Never mind that a flick can be realistic AND light-hearted, but execs gotta oversimplify everything.
As far as comics go, one of the main gripes I've heard about new 52 is that very few of them have a lighter touch. Meanwhile Marvel Now encouraged their books to be more fun.
"We aren't on your world anymore."
Being less colorful is not the same as being more dark - Winter Soldier was darker than Man of Steel, with more questionable morality and more personal sacrifices by the heroes. Just because they didn't wash out the color balance until it made a Call of Duty hallway look like Chinese New Year doesn't mean it wasn't dark. It was just colorful.
Hell, Guardians went to some dark places (not as much as Winter Soldier or even Avengers, but damn close), and didn't even have to stop having goofy light hearted fun to do it. "Here's a villain who's hammer will cleanse life from the galaxy and the revenge-obsessed maniac whose life he destroyed. Here's a tree arguing with a Racoon. Now here's all of that together set to some 70's music that in no way fits the tone of the scene."
It's not like DC can't do this. Dark Knight made use of bright colors to contrast Joker against Batman's black. It didn't sacrifice dark themes to do it.
There's a difference between dark and grimdark.
You're right, Cap 2 went to some dark places. But grimdark means you can't have any jokes or lighthearted moments whatsoever (Cap 2 and Dark Knight did, Man of Steel had maybe one), and the hero has to at least smolder with generic rage or at least not give a shit when civilians get killed.
Dark Knight isn't grimdark. Man of Steel absolutely is.
And sure, DC could make a dark flick that's not grimdark, but Superman v Batman: Too Many Heroes looks absolutely grimdark so far.
Was that actually used in the movie?
G'Nort on a cracker that's sad if true. If not then damn that's eerily good DC movie mimicking.
It is, but it wasn't used like that in MoS. It was in the trailers, I think? "What's the S stand for?" "It's not an S. On my world it means 'hope'." "Well...here, it's an S. How about...Super--" And then feedback cuts her off.
Doing a grimdark Batman movie is fine, since thematically Bruce is still that kid who watched his parents get gunned down and wanted to stop it from happening; it forms the core of his being. And you know what? there are other characters DC has they can do this with too! Etrigan, Huntress, Constantine and Specter are all characters you can totally do brooding stories about where it fits their character.
I get the distinction, but I was more responding to that bullshit quote from the Warner Brothers guy up there who did not. And a number of people in this thread are using the terms interchangeably.
Usually when DC feels uncertain about something, even if that uncertainty isn't justified, you can bet on more Batman. Batman spin offs, Batman retcons, Batman shakeups, Batman team ups, other heroes being more like Batman. He's the one character they always seem confident with (even when they're fucking up Batman they double down and fix it with more Batman). Look at their lineup change: There was already a lot of Batman in the New 52, but with the label drop there's even more, it's just Batman and Batman related halfway down the damn list.
That said, the whole grimdark thing with Batman depends on who you put him up against, because a few of his more iconic villains are themed around comedy. Batman lends himself to it well, but his rogues gallery doesn't.
Marvel is not dark. It's a very light tone. Even Winter Soldier is light in tone. That's not a bad thing and it doesn't mean they don't deal with serious issues, but it's just a matter of tone. It's why you can see the difference between how Nolan's trilogy and an MCU film handle their subject matter.
Marvel has built their entire multi-franchise film empire around a specific style and tone. (basically, the Iron Man template)
DC is trying to do the same thing based off Nolan's trilogy. Except they a) don't actually understand what made Nolan's films work, b) haven't gotten anyone competent enough to make it work and c) are trying to jam that tone onto characters where it just doesn't work.
DCs movies.... are less fun. I want them to be fun, but they don't seem to get the right balance that Marvel does, and for me I'm left just feeling awkward. I watched Man of Steel because at first glance I thought okay, he looks like a good Superman, this could be fun. But it wasn't fun. It was horrible and left me feeling nothing for the character and rolling my eyes more times than I could count.
Most of Metropolis was abandoned near the start of the world engine doing its shit anyways, so those buildings they were blasting into in the last fight scene were empty.
Also that was Zod doing that. Superman was just doing the best he could to stop it. Pretty hard to do considering you're the only person with super powers. He did a damn good job.
Zod said Supes wouldn't be able to stop him from killing people either. He sort of forced Big Blue's hand into killing him. Still isn't out of character for Superman to do when there's literally no options left, especially a novice Superman.
It's like you guys didn't even watch the movie or just blindly accepted what was going on and became willfully ignorant of Superman's mythos.
He just leveled a city while many of them were still there. Which they were. You can assume they were somehow evacuated in a few minutes but that sure doesn't explain all the people running from the buildings collapsing around them.
I actually enjoyed the movie but Man of Steel Superman was terrible. Flat out. He was an uncaring jerk for the vast majority of the movie who could have stopped a lot of the collateral damage if he'd ever actually cared to.