Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The [DCEU] thread - mark WW spoilers

Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
The DEU moves forward. Optimism in the project continues to plummet post-not! Guardians of the GalaxySuicide Squad.



Please be good. Though even if it is the DCEU brand is going to difficult to overcome - so well done, WB. Save us Gal Gadot-chan.



Goofiness is in full swing, and had this been made earlier it wouldn't be as big a tone switch. Because there is no tone consistency in this universe. Tone consistent is for those movies cinematic universes who have competent people running them (X-men, Marvel etc).



And Deathstroke somewhere? They're going to step up their game to compete with Arrow-verse Slade.

So It Goes on
Shadowencloudeagle
«13456753

Posts

  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    He reminded me of the cave troll in the LOTR movies.

    Wow, he does. He looks exactly the same, like I would believe that they just stole the model whole cloth. Eh.

    As for Batman killing people with guns, that could maybe possibly be an interesting what-if story. Not the way to introduce him in your new shared universe, obvs.

    Not much else to say except :heartbeat: to all the folks who suffered through the whole shit buffet so I could pick out the morsels worth eating.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
  • LordSolarMachariusLordSolarMacharius Registered User regular
    Random thought: a lot of the core points of Moana would be my ideal Wonder Woman movie.

    15wxzkn.jpg
    Dark Raven X
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Tone consistency is the hobgoblin of little executives. As Harry points out, the X-Men movies have a very uniform tone--but that didn't stop Apocalypse from being a terrible movie. For that matter, it didn't stop the only X-Men spinoff with a unique tone, Deadpool, from being a fun and much beloved movie.

    Even when it comes to the tiny world of cinematic universes, the fundamental truth of cinema remains: neither cast, nor crew, neither subject nor style, etc; no proxy exists for quality. The only measure of quality is quality.

    The reason the DCEU is bad is because the movies are bad. If they were great movies with inconsistent tones, it would be a great universe and we'd all be talking about how DC mirrors the comics industry by giving space and freedom to diverse, talented auteurs to put forth individualistic takes on similar narratives in a truly shared world.

    Marvel, on the other hand, succeeds financially (but almost never creatively) because it is easier to build a brand around consistency (and familiarity) than quality. Marvel is the Dreamworks to DC's would-be Pixar: confident but conventional, a franchise generator in the Ray Croc sense, selling audiences the same movie over and over again in a dreary grind toward the inevitable soft reboot.

    Between DC and Marvel, I'll take DC--at least their movies are colorfully, vibrantly atrocious, where Marvel's weaker efforts tend toward an idiot soporificness that dulls the mind and strangles the spirit.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    FencingsaxTexiKenwanderingDissociater
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Tone consistency is the hobgoblin of little executives. As Harry points out, the X-Men movies have a very uniform tone--but that didn't stop Apocalypse from being a terrible movie. For that matter, it didn't stop the only X-Men spinoff with a unique tone, Deadpool, from being a fun and much beloved movie.

    Tone consistency is important, it isn't the end all be all of film quality. I didn't think I'd have to point the obvious out. There have been numerous threads where myself and others have gone over the problems the DCEU has struggles with. You could literally with a multi page thesis on how bad they are from those conversations.

    Tone consistency is important in tying the movies together, otherwise it looks haphazard. Tone also is more obvious with the DCEU since they seem to go back and forth on what type of characters they want them to be (Batman and Superman), with no explanation in between installments. This effects verisimilitude, along with their terrible world building.

    Tone consistency is one advantage Marvel got right when building a brand, you know what you're getting and this stretches across their portfolio. The Arrow-verse does this right, too. We don't know exactly what we're getting with the new movies, what we do for sure is that the chances of it being bad quality are very high.
    Even when it comes to the tiny world of cinematic universes, the fundamental truth of cinema remains: neither cast, nor crew, neither subject nor style, etc; no proxy exists for quality. The only measure of quality is quality.

    Agreed.
    The reason the DCEU is bad is because the movies are bad. If they were great movies with inconsistent tones, it would be a great universe and we'd all be talking about how DC mirrors the comics industry by giving space and freedom to diverse, talented auteurs to put forth individualistic takes on similar narratives in a truly shared world.

    That'd be less of a problem, yes. But it'd still stick out unless handled appropriately.

    I sense a mocking tone in your last sentence. Diversify is welcome, Marvel does it pretty well actually. Unfortunately whenever the DCEU tries it utterly fails since the people making it don't know what they're doing or misunderstand the concepts.
    Marvel, on the other hand, succeeds financially (but almost never creatively) because it is easier to build a brand around consistency (and familiarity) than quality. Marvel is the Dreamworks to DC's would-be Pixar: confident but conventional, a franchise generator in the Ray Croc sense, selling audiences the same movie over and over again in a dreary grind toward the inevitable soft reboot.

    In your opinion. The movies are critically acclaimed, they aren't the Transformers movies or PT. Yeah, some of them aren't great, you know no one in Hollywood hits 10/10's out of the park all the time. Marvel manages to do this with amazing consistency not seen since Pixar.

    It's true they do have a formula but they're not all identical. The movies with similar shapes (Iron Man, Ant man and Dr. Strange) have many things unique to them. All the Cap movies are very different in tone and formula to each other, Thor movies are kinda bleh, GOTG was a huge risk and a genre breaker (so was Dr. Strange). Winter Soldier is not the same movie as Guardians of the Galaxy.
    Between DC and Marvel, I'll take DC--at least their movies are colorfully, vibrantly atrocious, where Marvel's weaker efforts tend toward an idiot soporificness that dulls the mind and strangles the spirit.

    Except that's the standard there are no high quality DCEU film yet. They've had 3 attempts they shouldn't be this far off the formula, especially when they've got numerous examples of how do this super hero films properly - including from their own catalog (Dark Knight trilogy).

    Yes, Marvel fails to hit it out the park all the time, that's unavoidable. What about their quality efforts?

    Harry Dresden on
    DevoutlyApatheticjdarksunNartwakNobeardLanlaornMoridin889autono-wally, erotibot300
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    For that matter, there really doesn't have to be a Marvel vs. DC comparison at all -- the three DC Cinematic Murderverse movies we've gotten so far would be objectively flawed even if there wasn't anything similar to compare them to. I mean, most of us quickly agreed that Superman Returns was crap, and that was before Marvel really got the ball rolling.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
    jdarksunNartwakchiasaur11LanlaornSpoitGennenalyse RuebenXaquin
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Tone consistency is the hobgoblin of little executives. As Harry points out, the X-Men movies have a very uniform tone--but that didn't stop Apocalypse from being a terrible movie. For that matter, it didn't stop the only X-Men spinoff with a unique tone, Deadpool, from being a fun and much beloved movie.

    Tone consistency is important, it isn't the end all be all of film quality. I didn't think I'd have to point the obvious out. There have been numerous threads where myself and others have gone over the problems the DCEU has struggles with. You could literally with a multi page thesis on how bad they are from those conversations.

    Yep, they're bad. But not because of tone. This is like saying DC's real problem is their Best Boys just aren't the best. Maybe it's true, but it's so far afield from the actual disease that it ends up being a meaningless diagnosis, like when you have cancer but the doctor is like "I notice you're not sleeping well, that's probably why you feel so bad." No, it's the cancer.
    Tone consistency is important in tying the movies together, otherwise it looks haphazard. Tone also is more obvious with the DCEU since they seem to go back and forth on what type of characters they want them to be (Batman and Superman), with no explanation in between installments. This effects verisimilitude, along with their terrible world building.

    Great cinema can be haphazard--Tim Burton's Batman is a far cry from Donner's Superman, that doesn't make them bad movies or a poor pairing.

    These cinematic universes are basically huge TV shows, right? Most of the time you do want consistency in your shows--each episode should basically look and feel like the one before. It's Cheers or The West Wing... But every once in a while a show comes along that throws consistency out the window and is all the better for it--Community, Louie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Consistency can come at the expense of surprise, of excellence, and of radically tailoring each episode's approach to its subject matter.
    Tone consistency is one advantage Marvel got right when building a brand, you know what you're getting and this stretches across their portfolio. The Arrow-verse does this right, too. We don't know exactly what we're getting with the new movies, what we do for sure is that the chances of it being bad quality are very high.

    It's a brand advantage, but who cares? Marvel has to care about Marvel's bottom line. I just want good movies.
    The reason the DCEU is bad is because the movies are bad. If they were great movies with inconsistent tones, it would be a great universe and we'd all be talking about how DC mirrors the comics industry by giving space and freedom to diverse, talented auteurs to put forth individualistic takes on similar narratives in a truly shared world.

    That'd be less of a problem, yes. But it'd still stick out unless handled appropriately.

    I sense a mocking tone in your last sentence. Diversify is welcome, Marvel does it pretty well actually. Unfortunately whenever the DCEU tries it utterly fails since the people making it don't know what they're doing or misunderstand the concepts.

    No mocking. I don't mean diversity of race and gender (that's a different conversation); I mean diversity of voice. My ideal DCEU would be a place for different auteurs to leave their stamp on the series. David Fincher's Batman, Guillermo Del Toro's Green Lantern, Katherine Bigelow's Superman. Or whatever. Marvel flattens all voices into one style; I'd love to see a place where creators are, in contrast, supported and freed to do their best work.
    Marvel, on the other hand, succeeds financially (but almost never creatively) because it is easier to build a brand around consistency (and familiarity) than quality. Marvel is the Dreamworks to DC's would-be Pixar: confident but conventional, a franchise generator in the Ray Croc sense, selling audiences the same movie over and over again in a dreary grind toward the inevitable soft reboot.

    In your opinion. The movies are critically acclaimed, they aren't the Transformers movies or PT. Yeah, some of them aren't great, you know no one in Hollywood hits 10/10's out of the park all the time. Marvel manages to do this with amazing consistency not seen since Pixar.

    Dreamworks has consistency. Pixar has (or had) consistent excellence.
    It's true they do have a formula but they're not all identical. The movies with similar shapes (Iron Man, Ant man and Dr. Strange) have many things unique to them. All the Cap movies are very different in tone and formula to each other, Thor movies are kinda bleh, GOTG was a huge risk and a genre breaker (so was Dr. Strange). Winter Soldier is not the same movie as Guardians of the Galaxy.

    Conventional wisdom is that Guardians was a big risk. Conventional wisdom is wrong. Anybody who thinks that space opera does badly at the cinema has been asleep since 1977. Anybody who thinks mainstream audiences would balk at a sci-fi action film forgets that 1) superhero movies are for nerds and nerds love sci-fi, 2) everybody is a nerd now. There's really no universe in which an even barely competent sci-fi action comedy with the word Marvel on it (not to mention starring one of the most bankable, likeable actors since Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones in space) wouldn't make a bunch of money and be well received. It only looks like a risky bet next to the safest bet ever laid, Iron Man 35: RDJ Says More Quips.

    And Dr. Strange? Yeah, nobody ever got rich making movies about wizards.
    Between DC and Marvel, I'll take DC--at least their movies are colorfully, vibrantly atrocious, where Marvel's weaker efforts tend toward an idiot soporificness that dulls the mind and strangles the spirit.

    Except that's the standard there are no high quality DCEU film yet. They've had 3 attempts they shouldn't be this far off the formula, especially when they've got numerous examples of how do this super hero films properly - including from their own catalog (Dark Knight trilogy).

    Yes, Marvel fails to hit it out the park all the time, that's unavoidable. What about their quality efforts?

    Sure. For what it's worth, the thrust of my argument isn't that DC is great. But the comparison must be made because these two entries are the only CUs out there. My argument is simply that "a good CU needs to be X," especially where X is something Marvel arguably suffers from, is a false idea. We don't know what cinematic universes need yet because the form barely exists. My argument is that just because that guy over there is skinning cats and this guy over here is failing to skin his with a dull spoon doesn't mean there's only one way to skin cats.

    Marvel is McDonalds. It's tasty, it's popular, it's usually decent enough when you're hungry, and you know exactly what you're going to get every single time.

    DC is the food court restaurant in a failing mall that changes hands every two months. Sometimes it's a crappy pizzeria, sometimes it's a really awful cheesesteak hut, and you suspect the roaches are the same either way. But one of these days it might become a great hole in the wall Chinese restaurant, and that's never going to happen at McDonalds.

    But ultimately what I want is more than two restaurants. Because I love superheroes and I want to see them done well, and right now I see two competing brands each with different crippling problems holding them back from greatness.

    Astaereth on
    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    NobeardJayrichoTexiKenFencingsaxBlackDragon480MalReynoldswanderingDissociater
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    @Astaereth Even if I disagree with you I almost always love your interesting, well thought out post.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    DevoutlyApatheticAstaerethNartwakBloodySlothHarry DresdenMoridin889Kristmas KthulhuMalReynoldsBear_thescond
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Yep, they're bad. But not because of tone. This is like saying DC's real problem is their Best Boys just aren't the best. Maybe it's true, but it's so far afield from the actual disease that it ends up being a meaningless diagnosis, like when you have cancer but the doctor is like "I notice you're not sleeping well, that's probably why you feel so bad." No, it's the cancer.

    Tone is merely one of the reasons why they're bad. It's a problem they have, not the reason. They don't get a free pass with tone because they have serious issues elsewhere.
    Great cinema can be haphazard--Tim Burton's Batman is a far cry from Donner's Superman, that doesn't make them bad movies or a poor pairing.

    These cinematic universes are basically huge TV shows, right? Most of the time you do want consistency in your shows--each episode should basically look and feel like the one before. It's Cheers or The West Wing... But every once in a while a show comes along that throws consistency out the window and is all the better for it--Community, Louie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Consistency can come at the expense of surprise, of excellence, and of radically tailoring each episode's approach to its subject matter.

    Burton's Batman isn't supposed to exist in the same world as Donner's Superman, which was my point.

    Cavill's Superman and Affleck's Batman are a poor match thematically. Superman's meant to be a contrast, they're so similar they barely have a reason to fight in the movie.
    And their conflict is poorly defined. Why does Superman not like Batman? I dunno. Those guys should be murder buddies.

    Your tv example is flawed, this isn't just about an episode this is a man series and spin-offs. Angel's tone fits in with Buffy's, Frasier's does with Cheers, Voyager does with TNG, JAG does with NCIS etc. They all fit seamlessly in the same world. It's not jarring to think those shows exist together, it does when Suicide Squad occurs after B vs S. The shoddy world building contributes to this.


    It's a brand advantage, but who cares? Marvel has to care about Marvel's bottom line. I just want good movies.

    So do I, and plenty of people do care. DCEU needs as much edge as they can get to compete with Marvel.

    That's an advantage Marvel tried years perfecting and it paid off, WB would be wise to do the same. It's good business to build a reliable brand.
    No mocking. I don't mean diversity of race and gender (that's a different conversation); I mean diversity of voice. My ideal DCEU would be a place for different auteurs to leave their stamp on the series. David Fincher's Batman, Guillermo Del Toro's Green Lantern, Katherine Bigelow's Superman. Or whatever. Marvel flattens all voices into one style; I'd love to see a place where creators are, in contrast, supported and freed to do their best work.

    I wasn't talking about race and gender diversity. Yes, they have diversity, except this isn't a strength when their product is terrible. When it's done terribly in bad movies all it does is add another layer of incompetence. Considering WB is a major movie studios that has been in the movie bit for literally decades that's a big blow to their reputation when they're getting beaten by the newest kids on the block who bet their entire company on Robert Downy Jr. (who was a massive risk at the time, as perfectly cast as he was). What's worse is that this gap has been steadily growing over the years, rather than narrowing. How embarrassing for WB.

    I wouldn't say the DC movies are the best works for anyone. WB aren't disciplined enough to make the auteur director style work for this universe, instead it reeks of throwing everything at a wall and hoping something sticks. There is barely any plan, and what they do have quickly shifts. Sure, marvel does this to an extent, but that's it. To an extent. I can;t recall them ever completely shifting their slate once when it was told to the public. The DCEU has.
    Dreamworks has consistency. Pixar has (or had) consistent excellence.

    So does Marvel.
    It's true they do have a formula but they're not all identical. The movies with similar shapes (Iron Man, Ant man and Dr. Strange) have many things unique to them. All the Cap movies are very different in tone and formula to each other, Thor movies are kinda bleh, GOTG was a huge risk and a genre breaker (so was Dr. Strange). Winter Soldier is not the same movie as Guardians of the Galaxy.

    Conventional wisdom is that Guardians was a big risk. Anybody who thinks that space opera does badly at the cinema has been asleep since 1977. Anybody who thinks mainstream audiences would balk at a sci-fi action film forgets that 1) superhero movies are for nerds and nerds love sci-fi, 2) everybody is a nerd now. There's really no universe in which an even barely competent sci-fi action comedy with the word Marvel on it (not to mention starring one of the most bankable, likeable actors since Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones in space) wouldn't make a bunch of money and be well received. It only looks like a risky bet next to the safest bet ever laid, Iron Man 35: RDJ Says More Quips.[/quote]

    Conventional wisdom was right. That Marvel did that right didn't mean it wasn't a huge gamble, this is how the movie industry works, too. Every movie is a big gamble, nothing's 100% safe. If that weren't the case why weren't Green Lantern and Catwoman successes?

    Star Wars doing well is not proof the whole genre isn't risky. Sci-fi and space opera have had periods where they weren't safe, this occurs on tv as well. I could write a list of all the movies in those genres who were flops or who were low budget knock offs that don't put a dent in Star Wars profitability. Trek's been on the brink of collapse for years, pre-Abrams.

    No movie is guaranteed to be a hit by the genre alone, otherwise there wouldn't be as many flops or low selling movies, not everyone can make a blockbuster and many blockbusters fail.

    DC got lucky with Nolan, and they've been trying to replicate his success ever since. To bad they completely misunderstand how he did that, and that his formal shouldn't be every super-hero DC has.

    Everyone didn't start off as a nerd, but you know why they are? Marvel. They made super-heroes cool, Nolan's Batman also contributed.

    Chris Pratt wasn't a bankable dynamo when he got the role, he was known for Andy Dwyer from Parks and Rec. Marvel made him a star, and it re-ignited RDJ's career, too. Same for Chris Evans, and Chris Hemworth. Marvel makes stars, the DCEU not so much.

    Iron man 3 was a safer bet, which took many years of practice and risks before it was safe. Iron Man sure wasn't, and if it had failed Marvel would have been taken in by the bank. Avengers was another massive risk that could have easily failed.
    And Dr. Strange? Yeah, nobody ever got rich making movies about wizards.

    Constantine was a flop. Oz, the Great and Powerful barely broke even. The Last Witch Hunter flopped.

    The first Dr. Strange movie was this



    No one remembers this movie.

    Harry Potter is the exception, not the rule for fantasy movies.
    Sure. For what it's worth, the thrust of my argument isn't that DC is great. But the comparison must be made because these two entries are the only CUs out there. My argument is simply that "a good CU needs to be X," especially where X is something Marvel arguably suffers from, is a false idea. We don't know what cinematic universes need yet because the form barely exists. My argument is that just because that guy over there is skinning cats and this guy over here is failing to skin his with a dull spoon doesn't mean there's only one way to skin cats.

    Marvel is McDonalds. It's tasty, it's popular, it's usually decent enough when you're hungry, and you know exactly what you're going to get every single time.

    DC is the food court restaurant in a failing mall that changes hands every two months. Sometimes it's a crappy pizzeria, sometimes it's a really awful cheesesteak hut, and you suspect the roaches are the same either way. But one of these days it might become a great hole in the wall Chinese restaurant, and that's never going to happen at McDonalds.

    But ultimately what I want is more than two restaurants. Because I love superheroes and I want to see them done well, and right now I see two competing brands each with different crippling problems holding them back from greatness.

    Your comparison lacks the full scope of how far ahead of the pack Marvel is, and it's not Marvel's fault DC's the only competition. Though Fox is doing ok, they've been trying to branch out with their own CU and has showed tremendous promise with Deadpool. DCEU can't say that.

    The current form has barely existed, however we have a lot to draw upon not only from Marvel itself (their CU has been around for nearly a decade), connected universes have been around for decades in media like tv* and the WB has a successful history with super-hero films since the 70's. There's absolutely no excuse they should be behind this badly.

    When you're talking about "hands changing" do you mean directors? Because that's what Marvel does too, yet they're not in a rut like DC is. If its upper management there's been some rumbles about people moving in (like Johns), but overall everything is in place. Snyder remains intrinsically linked to molding the DCEU, and has his tendrils in all the movies - like Wonder Woman. Snyder is not kicked out of the DCEU, even if his position isn't a stable as it used to be post-B vs S, nor is Affleck taking over any time soon.

    You're free to disagree, but when has the DCEU not been a dumpster fire? "Sometimes" implies they actually do good stuff occasionally.

    The thing is that DCEU should be up to the task of competing head to head for Marvel. They have access to the same tech, an industry full of people capable of making solid super-hero movies, their casting is brilliant, they're the Empire in this scenario not the plucky rebels. What's holding them back? The metaphor should be modified to McDonalds declining badly, while jumpy upstart Mighty Joe's Chicken stole all their business. Kinda funny how this happened identically in the comic industry.

    The irony is that the DCEU has the same strengths to compete with Marvel in film if they utilized their IP's right, those universes have more in common than not. RE: Arrow-verse.

    How is Marvel holding back DCEU's greatness? And how is Marvel in any way in that position?

    DCEU needs to be like Marvel because there are many elements that would suit that which marvel does right. The two universes are like two brothers, WB could do exactly what Marvel does and have the same successes. Instead they're reactionary and contrary, trying to be edgy, want to relive the 80's and 90's, and secretly badly copy Marvel while praying nobody notices their similarities.

    * Star Trek, and Law and Order being some of the big names who pioneered this. On the movie front Star Wars has done this with two trilogies and managed a successful premiere to a third + more

    Harry Dresden on
    Gaddez
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Yep, they're bad. But not because of tone. This is like saying DC's real problem is their Best Boys just aren't the best. Maybe it's true, but it's so far afield from the actual disease that it ends up being a meaningless diagnosis, like when you have cancer but the doctor is like "I notice you're not sleeping well, that's probably why you feel so bad." No, it's the cancer.

    Tone is merely one of the reasons why they're bad. It's a problem they have, not the reason. They don't get a free pass with tone because they have serious issues elsewhere.

    I'm just saying, I don't think tone is actually a problem at all here. But you have specific reasons for disliking the tonal inconsistency beyond just not enjoying the movies, so fair enough.
    Great cinema can be haphazard--Tim Burton's Batman is a far cry from Donner's Superman, that doesn't make them bad movies or a poor pairing.

    These cinematic universes are basically huge TV shows, right? Most of the time you do want consistency in your shows--each episode should basically look and feel like the one before. It's Cheers or The West Wing... But every once in a while a show comes along that throws consistency out the window and is all the better for it--Community, Louie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Consistency can come at the expense of surprise, of excellence, and of radically tailoring each episode's approach to its subject matter.

    Burton's Batman isn't supposed to exist in the same world as Donner's Superman, which was my point.

    Obviously not literally, but they certainly could, I think.
    Cavill's Superman and Affleck's Batman are a poor match thematically. Superman's meant to be a contrast, they're so similar they barely have a reason to fight in the movie.
    And their conflict is poorly defined. Why does Superman not like Batman? I dunno. Those guys should be murder buddies.

    Are we still talking tone? Are they too similar thematically and too different tonally?

    Like, the big tonal discrepancy in the DCEU so far is Suicide Squad versus everything else. Batman v Superman doesn't feel like a film divided, tone-wise; the Batman parts feel like Batman and the Superman parts feel like Man of Steel and, as you suggest, both of those tones are essentially the same grim, mopey Snyderism.

    As for why they don't like each other, it's partly because grim egotistical badasses rarely play well together, and partly because their conflict is largely engineered by the villain. They gotta versus because that's the movie, but the story wants them to be inherently predisposed to best bud status (which is why a few minutes of conversation does the trick). I agree that this is dumb, but even on the back of the terribleness of Man of Steel you could have made a good Batman v Superman movie. If anything the two films are more tonally consistent than they should be, which is part of why I go "huh?" when you make that complaint.
    Your tv example is flawed, this isn't just about an episode this is a man series and spin-offs. Angel's tone fits in with Buffy's, Frasier's does with Cheers, Voyager does with TNG, JAG does with NCIS etc. They all fit seamlessly in the same world. It's not jarring to think those shows exist together, it does when Suicide Squad occurs after B vs S. The shoddy world building contributes to this.

    I think this is stretching the analogy. Marvel is not like JAG and NCIS; it's closer to something like Game of Thrones, where multiple plotlines with different central characters coexist in one world until they collide in the finale (the next Avengers movie). (Sure, Game of Thrones needs consistency, but it also needs variety, and it would need more if we only got two episodes a year.)

    Moreover, there are plenty of spin-off shows that benefit from radical differences in tone, aim, or format. Glee spun off a reality show. The Animaniacs is a skit show that spun off into single story shows like Pinky & The Brain and Freakazoid (with all three having wild differences in approach). Closer to home, B:TAS and Batman Beyond exist in the same universe but are very distinct in style. And as a Law and Order connoisseur, there are significant differences between most of its entries; the original is a strictly restrained classic "issues" drama, SVU shifts from one form of overt pulp to another, Criminal Intent was a Sherlock Holmes show, etc.
    It's a brand advantage, but who cares? Marvel has to care about Marvel's bottom line. I just want good movies.

    So do I, and plenty of people do care. DCEU needs as much edge as they can get to compete with Marvel.

    That's an advantage Marvel tried years perfecting and it paid off, WB would be wise to do the same. It's good business to build a reliable brand.

    WB has plenty of money, and anyway, quality is a great way to make bank. Just look at the Nolan Batman movies versus the Snyder Superman films.
    No mocking. I don't mean diversity of race and gender (that's a different conversation); I mean diversity of voice. My ideal DCEU would be a place for different auteurs to leave their stamp on the series. David Fincher's Batman, Guillermo Del Toro's Green Lantern, Katherine Bigelow's Superman. Or whatever. Marvel flattens all voices into one style; I'd love to see a place where creators are, in contrast, supported and freed to do their best work.

    I wasn't talking about race and gender diversity. Yes, they have diversity, except this isn't a strength when their product is terrible. When it's done terribly in bad movies all it does is add another layer of incompetence. Considering WB is a major movie studios that has been in the movie bit for literally decades that's a big blow to their reputation when they're getting beaten by the newest kids on the block who bet their entire company on Robert Downy Jr. (who was a massive risk at the time, as perfectly cast as he was). What's worse is that this gap has been steadily growing over the years, rather than narrowing. How embarrassing for WB.

    I wouldn't say the DC movies are the best works for anyone. WB aren't disciplined enough to make the auteur director style work for this universe, instead it reeks of throwing everything at a wall and hoping something sticks. There is barely any plan, and what they do have quickly shifts. Sure, marvel does this to an extent, but that's it. To an extent. I can;t recall them ever completely shifting their slate once when it was told to the public. The DCEU has.

    The DCEU blows, but the solution to this is not to take on one of Marvel's troublesome limitations. Or rather, I would prefer if they succeeded at the more difficult task of making good movies than if they settled for making more consistent movies.
    Dreamworks has consistency. Pixar has (or had) consistent excellence.

    So does Marvel.

    Nuh-uh, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
    It's true they do have a formula but they're not all identical. The movies with similar shapes (Iron Man, Ant man and Dr. Strange) have many things unique to them. All the Cap movies are very different in tone and formula to each other, Thor movies are kinda bleh, GOTG was a huge risk and a genre breaker (so was Dr. Strange). Winter Soldier is not the same movie as Guardians of the Galaxy.

    Conventional wisdom is that Guardians was a big risk. Anybody who thinks that space opera does badly at the cinema has been asleep since 1977. Anybody who thinks mainstream audiences would balk at a sci-fi action film forgets that 1) superhero movies are for nerds and nerds love sci-fi, 2) everybody is a nerd now. There's really no universe in which an even barely competent sci-fi action comedy with the word Marvel on it (not to mention starring one of the most bankable, likeable actors since Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones in space) wouldn't make a bunch of money and be well received. It only looks like a risky bet next to the safest bet ever laid, Iron Man 35: RDJ Says More Quips.

    Conventional wisdom was right. That Marvel did that right didn't mean it wasn't a huge gamble, this is how the movie industry works, too. Every movie is a big gamble, nothing's 100% safe. If that weren't the case why weren't Green Lantern and Catwoman successes?

    Star Wars doing well is not proof the whole genre isn't risky. Sci-fi and space opera have had periods where they weren't safe, this occurs on tv as well. I could write a list of all the movies in those genres who were flops or who were low budget knock offs that don't put a dent in Star Wars profitability. Trek's been on the brink of collapse for years, pre-Abrams.

    No movie is guaranteed to be a hit by the genre alone, otherwise there wouldn't be as many flops or low selling movies, not everyone can make a blockbuster and many blockbusters fail.

    DC got lucky with Nolan, and they've been trying to replicate his success ever since. To bad they completely misunderstand how he did that, and that his formal shouldn't be every super-hero DC has.

    Everyone didn't start off as a nerd, but you know why they are? Marvel. They made super-heroes cool, Nolan's Batman also contributed.

    Chris Pratt wasn't a bankable dynamo when he got the role, he was known for Andy Dwyer from Parks and Rec. Marvel made him a star, and it re-ignited RDJ's career, too. Same for Chris Evans, and Chris Hemworth. Marvel makes stars, the DCEU not so much.

    Iron man 3 was a safer bet, which took many years of practice and risks before it was safe. Iron Man sure wasn't, and if it had failed Marvel would have been taken in by the bank. Avengers was another massive risk that could have easily failed.
    And Dr. Strange? Yeah, nobody ever got rich making movies about wizards.

    Constantine was a flop. Oz, the Great and Powerful barely broke even. The Last Witch Hunter flopped.

    The first Dr. Strange movie was this



    No one remembers this movie.

    Harry Potter is the exception, not the rule for fantasy movies.

    Obviously no film is totally without risk. But the conventional wisdom said Guardians was a bigger risk than usual because of its genre and subject matter, that there was a chance audiences would reject a film set in space and featuring silly elements like a talking raccoon. Much hay was made over this. Check out this Variety piece, for instance:
    Each time the president of Marvel Studios has greenlit a movie, he’s been barraged by skeptics. “Iron Man” was considered too obscure. “Captain America” too American. And “Thor” too much of a fantasy figure.

    With each movie costing in the neighborhood of $200 million to produce, these questions are certainly warranted. But so far Feige has proved his critics wrong, launching some of Hollywood’s biggest franchises: The nine films Marvel Studios has made since 2008’s “Iron Man” have collectively earned more than $6.4 billion at the worldwide box office.

    Now comes the 10th, “Guardians of the Galaxy,” debuting Aug. 1 — along with even more raised eyebrows.

    The space-set actioner, which will be promoted at this week’s San Diego Comic-Con, revolves around a ragtag group of otherworldly misfits on the run after stealing an orb whose power threatens the cosmos. It stars Chris Pratt, who is making the leap from NBC sitcom “Parks and Recreation” to a leading man role in a major tentpole for the first time, and features a crotch-grabbing gun-toting raccoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and a tree (Vin Diesel) that growls. There’s also Zoe Saldana as a green-skinned alien; a tattooed beast played by WWE wrestler Dave Bautista; and “Doctor Who’s” Karen Gillan, nearly unrecognizable with a bald blue head.

    Marvel’s latest screen heroes are not well known to most moviegoers, so the film lacks the kind of built-in fanbase that makes such iconic characters as Batman, Spider-Man and the X-Men automatic box office draws.

    “We want to show that we can make films with characters (you may not have heard of),” Feige says. “It’s not about a marquee superhero. It’s about whether it’s inherently a good idea for a movie.”

    The entire mindset that produced this article is fundamentally ridiculous. "People said the last 9 times John did this, it was a terrible risk, but they've been wrong every time. Probably they're right about this one, though." The current studio mentality is a tremendous distortion based on the idea that pre-existing brands make less risky movies, no matter how poorly made the film or how unpopular or terrible the original brand. But they live in a world where Green Lantern failed because it was one of the most awful, hollow movies ever made by a studio, and where Inception made $800 million because it was great.

    Likewise, the oft-repeated idea that genre or subject matter holds an audience back is always, always, always bullshit. I can't think of a single big, marketed movie that was rejected by audiences because it was too weird or because they'd never met the characters before the trailer.

    In fact, even if all of those CW concerns were true, the fact is that Marvel's built a successful brand that people trust. They could damage that trust by releasing a movie people hated, but that movie would still do pretty well. (People hated Batman v Superman, but BvS still made... $900 million.)

    You can list failed movies in a particular genre, but that doesn't disprove my point, which is that almost no genre prevents a movie from being successful (just as no genre ensures it).
    Everyone didn't start off as a nerd, but you know why they are? Marvel. They made super-heroes cool, Nolan's Batman also contributed.

    Or how about the original Batman, which was the top grossing movie of 1989? How about X-Men, or the Maguire Spider-Man films? Marvel is more symptom of this trend than cause.
    Sure. For what it's worth, the thrust of my argument isn't that DC is great. But the comparison must be made because these two entries are the only CUs out there. My argument is simply that "a good CU needs to be X," especially where X is something Marvel arguably suffers from, is a false idea. We don't know what cinematic universes need yet because the form barely exists. My argument is that just because that guy over there is skinning cats and this guy over here is failing to skin his with a dull spoon doesn't mean there's only one way to skin cats.

    Marvel is McDonalds. It's tasty, it's popular, it's usually decent enough when you're hungry, and you know exactly what you're going to get every single time.

    DC is the food court restaurant in a failing mall that changes hands every two months. Sometimes it's a crappy pizzeria, sometimes it's a really awful cheesesteak hut, and you suspect the roaches are the same either way. But one of these days it might become a great hole in the wall Chinese restaurant, and that's never going to happen at McDonalds.

    But ultimately what I want is more than two restaurants. Because I love superheroes and I want to see them done well, and right now I see two competing brands each with different crippling problems holding them back from greatness.

    Your comparison lacks the full scope of how far ahead of the pack Marvel is, and it's not Marvel's fault DC's the only competition. Though Fox is doing ok, they've been trying to branch out with their own CU and has showed tremendous promise with Deadpool. DCEU can't say that.

    McDonald's is much farther ahead of the pack than a single crappy mall restaurant, so if anything my comparison exaggerates the Marvel/DC divide.
    The current form has barely existed, however we have a lot to draw upon not only from Marvel itself (their CU has been around for nearly a decade), connected universes have been around for decades in media like tv* and the WB has a successful history with super-hero films since the 70's. There's absolutely no excuse they should be behind this badly.

    When you're talking about "hands changing" do you mean directors? Because that's what Marvel does too, yet they're not in a rut like DC is. If its upper management there's been some rumbles about people moving in (like Johns), but overall everything is in place. Snyder remains intrinsically linked to molding the DCEU, and has his tendrils in all the movies - like Wonder Woman. Snyder is not kicked out of the DCEU, even if his position isn't a stable as it used to be post-B vs S, nor is Affleck taking over any time soon.

    I'm talking about directors. Marvel can swap out whomever they want, the fact remains that their directors are constrained. McDonald's food doesn't taste any different when there's a new chef in the kitchen.
    You're free to disagree, but when has the DCEU not been a dumpster fire? "Sometimes" implies they actually do good stuff occasionally.

    The thing is that DCEU should be up to the task of competing head to head for Marvel. They have access to the same tech, an industry full of people capable of making solid super-hero movies, their casting is brilliant, they're the Empire in this scenario not the plucky rebels. What's holding them back? The metaphor should be modified to McDonalds declining badly, while jumpy upstart Mighty Joe's Chicken stole all their business. Kinda funny how this happened identically in the comic industry.

    The irony is that the DCEU has the same strengths to compete with Marvel in film if they utilized their IP's right, those universes have more in common than not. RE: Arrow-verse.

    How is Marvel holding back DCEU's greatness? And how is Marvel in any way in that position?

    DCEU needs to be like Marvel because there are many elements that would suit that which marvel does right. The two universes are like two brothers, WB could do exactly what Marvel does and have the same successes. Instead they're reactionary and contrary, trying to be edgy, want to relive the 80's and 90's, and secretly badly copy Marvel while praying nobody notices their similarities.

    Broadly speaking, it sounds like what you want is for DC to be Marvel with different characters. I think that's a bad thing to want for a few reasons.

    One, Marvel is Marvel with different characters. Eventually they'll have twice as many franchises going as they used to. Enjoy those numbers and stop looking for replication outside of that company.

    Two, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it's better for everybody if Marvel's competition explores different ways to make superhero movies instead of the genre being hyperfocused on matching some arbitrary ideal.

    Three, Marvel ain't so hot and there's room for smart people to blow them out of the water. I'll take Nolan's Batman movies over anything Marvel's produced, or indeed over everything Marvel's produced.

    What I don't want is for our options for big budget superhero movies to be Coke & Pepsi, McDonalds and Burger King, different shades of black Model Ts. That doesn't serve anybody except stockholders, and I'm not one of those. I want McDonalds and a great steakhouse. I want Coke and Fizzy Lifting Drinks. I would be far happier letting Marvel do its thing without complaint if I had a better, wilder alternative to enjoy. If DC is gonna continue to be trash, maybe that needs to be Vertigo or whatever that equivalent is. But it should be something, and for now, hoping DC will grow up without learning too many rules is my best bet.

    Marvel's not holding back DC at all, and I can only assume DC is failing because they're a bunch of damn morons--they understand that the way to success is to hand over creative control to talented filmmakers, but they're bad at recognizing talent, as indicated by their decision to put Zack Snyder in charge. The answer to that is to empower better filmmakers, not to stop empowering them at all. DC's overall approach is too controlling, not even necessarily because they're exercising too much control (that's Marvel's problem) but because they're dumb and use that control to make bad decisions. The ham-handed Suicide Squad retools are a perfect example. The problem with SS in terms of the DCEU isn't that it's tonally out of whack, it's that the fight over what tone it should be ended up muddling the film's intentions.

    Edit: If I were DC I'd be focused on two things:

    1) Hiring smart people to make good movies
    2) Figuring out ways to take advantage of Marvel's weaknesses - jump on gender/racial diversity early, hire Wes Anderson to do whatever he wants, focus on great villains, etc

    Astaereth on
    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    TexiKenFencingsax
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    The DCEU doesn't have to copy Marvel or be like Marvel. If they want to be different and successful, they can just steal from their animation department. They've had shows with vastly different styles and tones. Young Justice is very different from Teen Titans, which is very different from Batman Beyond. Just within the DCAU, the shows are hugely diverse. In fact, there's a lot of diversity in tone and stories just within each show. They were also far more willing to experiment and do creative things. Since their animation department has taken all the risks and figured out what works and what doesn't, the DCEU can just look at the results, refine the formula a bit and use it to make their movies.

    GaddezInquisitor77
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    it has always seemed to me like DC looked at the Marvel films and learned all the wrong lessons; they see the consistency of tone and cinematography, the shared universe, the omnipresent cross-marketing, etc. and think 'yeah, that's how you make good superhero films.'

    Ignoring that whatever their faults the Marvel films are fun and are populated with characters that get the audience to like them. Dr. Strange has as bog-standard a plot as you could ever hope to see, but its characters are likable and it knows how to do a lighthearted scene. By contrast watching BvS or Suicide Squad is drudgery: those films demand emotional investment without providing any justification for it, and when viewers quite reasonably decline to give it The Tale of Two Marthas falls flat.

    I don't demand every action film be Inception, you know? Superhero films don't need to function as high art to entertain me, but they do need to make me not actively hate all the characters.

    NREqxl5.jpg
    accept your death, and become dangerous
    Harry DresdenInquisitor77
  • Mr.SunshineMr.Sunshine Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    They could do all that but Suicide Squad made the an ass load of money despite it being a massive train wreck. So it'll be easier to stay the course until the DCEU is nothing but a dumpster fire of destroyed trains. The stack of money will probably be slightly higher than the dumpster train stack.

    Mr.Sunshine on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    it's kind of stupid too

    all it would take to fix BvS is like a few extra scenes and some extra dialogue

    but Snyder misses the forest for the trees because he focuses on action shots, not world building

    bowen on
    Ladies.
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    DC is the food court restaurant in a failing mall that changes hands every two months. Sometimes it's a crappy pizzeria, sometimes it's a really awful cheesesteak hut, and you suspect the roaches are the same either way. But one of these days it might become a great hole in the wall Chinese restaurant, and that's never going to happen at McDonalds.

    But the mall has mandated that no matter who takes over the restaurant, they have to keep the same chef, who insists on always smearing vegemite on everything he makes, whether it's pizza, steak, tacos, potato salad, noodle soup, or cheesecake.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Burton's Batman isn't supposed to exist in the same world as Donner's Superman, which was my point.

    Obviously not literally, but they certainly could, I think.[/quote]

    Fair enough.
    Are we still talking tone? Are they too similar thematically and too different tonally?

    Too similar in tone.
    Like, the big tonal discrepancy in the DCEU so far is Suicide Squad versus everything else. Batman v Superman doesn't feel like a film divided, tone-wise; the Batman parts feel like Batman and the Superman parts feel like Man of Steel and, as you suggest, both of those tones are essentially the same grim, mopey Snyderism.

    MoS is very dark and grounded, while B vs S is WarHammer 40k grim dark. I'm not saying Batman and Superman are tonally different in the same film, that's another subject (which effects its tone being grim dark) all 3 movies have different tones.
    As for why they don't like each other, it's partly because grim egotistical badasses rarely play well together, and partly because their conflict is largely engineered by the villain. They gotta versus because that's the movie, but the story wants them to be inherently predisposed to best bud status (which is why a few minutes of conversation does the trick). I agree that this is dumb, but even on the back of the terribleness of Man of Steel you could have made a good Batman v Superman movie. If anything the two films are more tonally consistent than they should be, which is part of why I go "huh?" when you make that complaint.

    Why they don't like each other before Lex arrives isn't properly explained, though. We get Batman's side, not Superman's. He shows up, threatens Batman to retire because ? and that's all we get. How we get to the versus aspect was very badly set up at every angle.

    I'm not just talking about tone here, I'm talking about why the films are bad and how sometimes those choices effect the tones.

    They could have made a good B vs S movie with what they had, but they didn't.
    I think this is stretching the analogy. Marvel is not like JAG and NCIS; it's closer to something like Game of Thrones, where multiple plotlines with different central characters coexist in one world until they collide in the finale (the next Avengers movie). (Sure, Game of Thrones needs consistency, but it also needs variety, and it would need more if we only got two episodes a year.)

    Moreover, there are plenty of spin-off shows that benefit from radical differences in tone, aim, or format. Glee spun off a reality show. The Animaniacs is a skit show that spun off into single story shows like Pinky & The Brain and Freakazoid (with all three having wild differences in approach). Closer to home, B:TAS and Batman Beyond exist in the same universe but are very distinct in style. And as a Law and Order connoisseur, there are significant differences between most of its entries; the original is a strictly restrained classic "issues" drama, SVU shifts from one form of overt pulp to another, Criminal Intent was a Sherlock Holmes show, etc.

    Marvel isn't a single IP, it's several. It's Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, Avengers - separate and together. That they have are shared plot line (which isn't always the focus), misses that fact. GoT is a single IP with a large cast. Marvel also does more with its tv branches, too - it's not just two "episodes" a year.

    Pinky and Brain and Freakzoid may have different humor, though P & B are nearer to Animaniacs in style, they're not totally unlike Animaniacs to be connected to it. It would be if a spin-off was Batman TAS. That'd be a tonal switch which would confuse people.

    Beyond shared a lot of the same tone, humor and animation style as TAS, and so did Justice League. They even had the same people making it!

    L & O may have slight differences yet there was significant overlap in how the shows were produced, scripted and tone wise. There is no doubt all these shows occur in the same universe. Criminals Minds and CSI do this, as well.
    WB has plenty of money, and anyway, quality is a great way to make bank. Just look at the Nolan Batman movies versus the Snyder Superman films.

    Nolan's Batman movies are over. WB do have plenty of advantages, yet they're playing catch up to Marvel when it should be the other way around. They have no excuses. What they don't have is a perceived quality brand like Marvel has.

    I'd be ok with that too, I don't have much hope they can do that without a serious shake up up top, their corporate culture is changed, and they focus more on the DCEU with a single vision (ala Fiege).

    My argument is not solely about consistency, it also includes quality. This needn't be one or the other.
    Nuh-uh, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

    How so?
    Obviously no film is totally without risk. But the conventional wisdom said Guardians was a bigger risk than usual because of its genre and subject matter, that there was a chance audiences would reject a film set in space and featuring silly elements like a talking raccoon. Much hay was made over this. Check out this Variety piece, for instance:

    The entire mindset that produced this article is fundamentally ridiculous. "People said the last 9 times John did this, it was a terrible risk, but they've been wrong every time. Probably they're right about this one, though." The current studio mentality is a tremendous distortion based on the idea that pre-existing brands make less risky movies, no matter how poorly made the film or how unpopular or terrible the original brand. But they live in a world where Green Lantern failed because it was one of the most awful, hollow movies ever made by a studio, and where Inception made $800 million because it was great.

    Likewise, the oft-repeated idea that genre or subject matter holds an audience back is always, always, always bullshit. I can't think of a single big, marketed movie that was rejected by audiences because it was too weird or because they'd never met the characters before the trailer.

    In fact, even if all of those CW concerns were true, the fact is that Marvel's built a successful brand that people trust. They could damage that trust by releasing a movie people hated, but that movie would still do pretty well. (People hated Batman v Superman, but BvS still made... $900 million.)

    You can list failed movies in a particular genre, but that doesn't disprove my point, which is that almost no genre prevents a movie from being successful (just as no genre ensures it).

    Every Marvel film they make it a big risk, some more than others. That they managed to do the impossible again and again is a sign of how amazing they are, I can't recall another study having this many hits so consistently and they're not losing steam. What's even more impressive is that they only began in 2008, they haven't been making movies for decades like WB or Fox.

    My argument about genre was about how no genre is safe unto itself, it doesn't matter what the genre is. Every movie carried tremendous risk for studios. That marvel was able to make a successful movie with Ant-man despite the chaos behind the scenes was very impressive.

    Inception also had the benefit of an all star cast, a big budget and Christopher Nolan. No every film can boast that.

    They have been wrong every time, however that says more about Marvel than them. They should have had some flops by now, yet nope. Their weakest efforts were in Phase 1, and once Avengers kicked off they went into overdrive, they finished refining how they do things and now they're practically unstoppable.

    Genre also come and go in waves, sometimes genre fade or cycle back. Super-heroes and the genre have done this over the years. What's popular a decade ago, might not be popular now as a genre.

    That a studio did something right every time doesn't mean everyone should throw out common conceits to how the business works. Just because Marvel did something isn't proof everyone can do it.
    Everyone didn't start off as a nerd, but you know why they are? Marvel. They made super-heroes cool, Nolan's Batman also contributed.

    Or how about the original Batman, which was the top grossing movie of 1989? How about X-Men, or the Maguire Spider-Man films? Marvel is more symptom of this trend than cause.[/quote]

    They laid the ground work, and their efforts eventually faded. Marvel's got the staying power they didn't, aside from X-men. '89's Bat mania was long gone from public consciousness when Nolan took over the franchise.
    McDonald's is much farther ahead of the pack than a single crappy mall restaurant, so if anything my comparison exaggerates the Marvel/DC divide.

    Except it ignores the Marvel are the new kids on the block, WB has been a movie making juggernaut for decades before Marvel appeared. Marvel started off as a single mall restaurant, they weren't always this head of the pack. Phase 1 had its ups and downs, Iron Man was great, but it was a lightning in a bottle incident which they were never able to replicate. Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk did ok, they weren't the quality we're use to seeing from them post-Phase 1. It took a long time for them to get where they are now.
    I'm talking about directors. Marvel can swap out whomever they want, the fact remains that their directors are constrained. McDonald's food doesn't taste any different when there's a new chef in the kitchen.

    WB's swapped directors who didn't go with their vision, as well. Flash is had his third director by now, and they're still searching. Yeah, there are more restrictions on Marvel's side - I don't see this as crippling. And it's not like their directors don't get to be able to put their own spin on things, Gunn was encouraged to do this and it's always easy to tell which director/s did what movie. You're underestimating the variety the MCU has to offer, which is well above what the DCEU has produced.
    Broadly speaking, it sounds like what you want is for DC to be Marvel with different characters. I think that's a bad thing to want for a few reasons.

    One, Marvel is Marvel with different characters. Eventually they'll have twice as many franchises going as they used to. Enjoy those numbers and stop looking for replication outside of that company.

    Two, there's more than one way to skin a cat, and it's better for everybody if Marvel's competition explores different ways to make superhero movies instead of the genre being hyperfocused on matching some arbitrary ideal.

    Three, Marvel ain't so hot and there's room for smart people to blow them out of the water. I'll take Nolan's Batman movies over anything Marvel's produced, or indeed over everything Marvel's produced.

    What I don't want is for our options for big budget superhero movies to be Coke & Pepsi, McDonalds and Burger King, different shades of black Model Ts. That doesn't serve anybody except stockholders, and I'm not one of those. I want McDonalds and a great steakhouse. I want Coke and Fizzy Lifting Drinks. I would be far happier letting Marvel do its thing without complaint if I had a better, wilder alternative to enjoy. If DC is gonna continue to be trash, maybe that needs to be Vertigo or whatever that equivalent is. But it should be something, and for now, hoping DC will grow up without learning too many rules is my best bet.

    Marvel's not holding back DC at all, and I can only assume DC is failing because they're a bunch of damn morons--they understand that the way to success is to hand over creative control to talented filmmakers, but they're bad at recognizing talent, as indicated by their decision to put Zack Snyder in charge. The answer to that is to empower better filmmakers, not to stop empowering them at all. DC's overall approach is too controlling, not even necessarily because they're exercising too much control (that's Marvel's problem) but because they're dumb and use that control to make bad decisions. The ham-handed Suicide Squad retools are a perfect example. The problem with SS in terms of the DCEU isn't that it's tonally out of whack, it's that the fight over what tone it should be ended up muddling the film's intentions.

    Edit: If I were DC I'd be focused on two things:

    1) Hiring smart people to make good movies
    2) Figuring out ways to take advantage of Marvel's weaknesses - jump on gender/racial diversity early, hire Wes Anderson to do whatever he wants, focus on great villains, etc

    Marvel and DC's characters in the comics have always been very similar from the concepts to how they're written. This includes the cartoons, too. They copy each other's gimmicks, marketing and characters shamelessly. This practice has bought both of them lots of success in comics, and outside them. This is why Marvel has multiple not! Batmen (Black Panther, Moon Knight, Daredevil etc), not! Death stroke (pre-Kelly Deadpool) and DC has Supreme Power (Squadron Supreme), and so on.

    1) What I want is for the DCEU to get their ducks in a row, and paying attention to how Marvel does this can get them there quicker. Which they're already doing, poorly. They don't have to replicate what Marvel's doing 1 = 1, what they don't need to do is being reactionary and contrast them because reasons. If they actually had a game plan the was able to match Marvel's while doing something different it'd be a different matter but they don't. They're lost.

    2) Yes, and the DCEU is nowhere near at being to do that properly.

    3) Marvel's the leading studio on super-heroes, have been for quite a while. On a quality and number of movies front. There is room for people to blow them out of the water, except WB/DC hasn't proven they're capable of doing that. I agree Nolan's Batman movies are superior to Marvels, and his time is over.

    Marvel and DC have always had that relationship as companies, and it's bled into the studio system. I don't see how we can get away from that mindset. Following Marvel's example (properly) is a way for them to do that IMO. Frankly, I'm surprise they haven't, since copying the competition is an age old technique in business. Certainly Hollywood.

    They can do both options - unfortunately they haven't shown they're able to either well. They're probably too controlling with directors below Snyder, which if true sets a bad precedent for movies like Wonder Woman, and Flash. I agree with your analysis of Suicide Squad.

    The problem seems to be the management, who decides who gets hired and how much power they give to directors like Snyder. As well as not giving themselves an out with Snyder if he failed B vs S. That contract to let him shoot Justice league immediately was bound to blow up in their faces if anything went wrong, now they're stuck further into the sunk cost fallacy. Until this gets sorted out the DCEU is doomed. Marvel does give its directors power IIRC, they're just not an auter company like WB is. WB's style might work better as separate franchises, rather than combined universes.

    Tone is minor problem, not the sole reason that I think they're failing. Consistent tone can be a strength when it's used correctly.

    Harry Dresden on
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Are they making an aquaman movie?

    I only want an aquaman movie

    BloodySloth
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    Are they making an aquaman movie?

    I only want an aquaman movie

    Yes, James Wan is directing.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    Sweet

    Momoa 4 lyfe

    Dark Raven X
  • Mr.SunshineMr.Sunshine Registered User regular
    I think you mean "The Justice League's Wolverine!" Aquaman: The Movie.

  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    That's Wolmarine, blub.

    RingobowenDark Raven XNartwakMego ThorSpoitJayrichoNobeardKristmas KthulhuRainfallTastyfishWraith260XaquinThe Ender
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    The fisking is out of control so I'm unilaterally disarming. Here's a few responses, Harry.

    -re: why does Superman already hate Batman?

    My impression of Superman is that he has exactly the kind of arrogance Batman has in the comics, that sense of "only I am powerful enough to save people." He doesn't seem to like the military (as with the end of MoS) and I don't think he respects Batman's vigilantism. I agree this is poorly conveyed in the movie, though.

    -re: the television metaphor

    I still think Marvel's universe works more like a TV show with different subplots than it does like a shared universe of TV shows--for one thing, shared universes in TV seems like a relatively new thing (unlike shows and spinoffs), the prominent examples being the Marvel Netflix shows and Dick Wolf's endlessly expanding set of Chicago procedurals, and they seem inspired by Marvel's film universe rather than the other way around. Marvel's movies seem to work more like, say, the show Skins, changing perspectives episode by episode to focus on individual character arcs even while the overarching plot moves forward.

    -re: why Marvel is off-topic

    There is a dedicated thread to Marvel and I try not to go in there because I'm the resident MCU skeptic here and I consider that kind of rude. It's off-topic here because this is the DC thread. I think comparing the two to point out what DC should or shouldn't do is on-topic, but getting into an argument over whether or not the MCU is consistently high quality is basically just straight Marvel-talk. (Plus, I've been over this stuff many times on the forums before, I feel like my opinions are pretty clear at this point.)

    -re: the crux of the argument

    I don't think we're wholly in disagreement as to what DC should do. If there has to be a choice between "continue to be a garbage fire" and "become Marvel-lite" then yeah I guess they should be reverse-engineering Marvel to get back on their feet. I just think that's a false dichotomy. If we're blue-skying, DC should become its own awesome thing in its own awesome way. If we're being realistic, DC is just going to continue to be a garbage fire, full stop. Either way Marvel is mostly irrelevant.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    TexiKen
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    ... I'm sorry, did you just call the Snyder movies, in any sense, colorful?

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    BloodySlothGaddezNartwakautono-wally, erotibot300
  • AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Colorfully atrocious. Some awful movies are just boring and bland, but the DC movies are awful in a really overt, weird, flashy way.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    Kristmas Kthulhu
  • XeddicusXeddicus Registered User regular
    Because it got brought up last thread: Wasn't WW busy holding Doomsday with her lasso when Supes did the deed? As presented it all made sense other than him maybe try throwing it from 10 feet away instead. But if you have to be sure!

    "For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men. Not women. Not beasts...this you can trust."
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    it's kind of stupid too

    all it would take to fix BvS is like a few extra scenes and some extra dialogue

    but Snyder misses the forest for the trees because he focuses on action shots, not world building

    The problem with baman v superman is that it is entirely predicated on these two characters slugging it out when the actual premise should of been the two of them pooling their respective abilities to deal with a problem and ultimately learning from each other (superman learns to think situations through more clearly while batman gets a shot of optimism).

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • WiseManTobesWiseManTobes Registered User regular

    The first Dr. Strange movie was this



    Holy shit , let's not overlook this! This is amazing rofl, holy cow, could this be the first instance of a movie where the porn version DIDN'T have the superior porn staches?

    Dr Gettin some Strange

    Steam! Battlenet:Wisemantobes#1508
    BlackDragon480
  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    Wait. If Batman has been active in the Murderverse for so long, how did Lois never investigate those rumors?

    Hell, if Lois pieced together Clarks's trail, why didn't the world's greatest detective?

    And Clark never wandered through Gotham?

  • TexiKenTexiKen Every day they will test you. Every day they will push you to the brink. You must fight them, DJ. Fight them.Registered User regular
    Vicki Vale beat her to it.

    (This is early universe ignoring stuff, like how no one knew what shield was in Iron Man 1 despite the Trislelion sitting there in the 80's)

    7yIqEnf.jpg
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    New Extended TV Spot, which is apparently a different thing to a trailer? Whatever, it's more Lego Batman:

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
    SorceMego ThorRichyQuiddurandal4532cloudeagleCaedwyr
  • TexiKenTexiKen Every day they will test you. Every day they will push you to the brink. You must fight them, DJ. Fight them.Registered User regular
    It's been confirmed that David Ayers will reunite with Robbie in Gotham City Sirens, the Harley-centric movie she was attached to earlier this year.

    7yIqEnf.jpg
  • TexiKenTexiKen Every day they will test you. Every day they will push you to the brink. You must fight them, DJ. Fight them.Registered User regular
    Oh, and Patrick Wilson (Owlman from Watchmen) is going to be Ocean Master in Aquaman. Good actor, solid choice.

    7yIqEnf.jpg
    Dark Raven X
  • Mr KhanMr Khan My power is stickiness UARegistered User regular
    DC's problem is Warner Bros, simply put. We all know about the various "embargoes" that hindered Justice League/Unlimited, that gave Amanda Waller and Deadshot unceremonious deaths in Arrow, and that keeps the phenomenal Grant Gustin from bringing his Flash to the big screen (though Ezra Miller seems to be doing pretty well after his vagrant-like appearance in BvS). The cinematic division lords over the other divisions and the troubled developments of many DC movies seem to suggest that this factionalism is rife *within* the cinematic division too.

    FencingsaxCommander ZoomHarry DresdenbowenAndy Joecloudeagle
  • LegacyLegacy SCP Of The Digital Frontier The Grid(Seattle)Registered User, ClubPA regular
    TexiKen wrote: »
    It's been confirmed that David Ayers will reunite with Robbie in Gotham City Sirens, the Harley-centric movie she was attached to earlier this year.

    And the writer is a virtual unknown who is supposedly writing the new Tomb Raider, Sherlock Holmes 3, M.A.S.K. and ROM? Who's only credit is a 'thanks' on a short and supposedly was added to the Transformers 5 writing room? I guess she co-wrote a script that was on 'The Black List' in 2012 or something, but...huh? I went to go find anything about her, but I only really found this:



    I'll reserve full judgement, as I did for Man of Steel...and BvS...and SS...and...

    Can we get the chemicals in. 'Cause anything's better than this.
    TexiKen
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I will always continue to reserve judgement. I want nothing more than for WB to turn this shit show around.

    Brainiac 8LegacyFencingsaxBloodySlothAndy JoeLoisLaneWraith260
  • TexiKenTexiKen Every day they will test you. Every day they will push you to the brink. You must fight them, DJ. Fight them.Registered User regular
    edited December 2016
    I saw the writer's lack of credits too, and it's one of those things where at this point, I don't know anymore. The way that's even written, "Top female writer in the action sphere," seems like the writer of that article is trying to purposely inflate the credentials and it comes across like the kind of resume padding you put on LinkedIn to get speaking gigs.


    edit: this would be the perfect time to try and link DC animation to the DCEU by using Paul Dini, since he knows the Sirens concept pretty darn well.

    TexiKen on
    7yIqEnf.jpg
    SorceLegacyLoisLane
  • KingofMadCowsKingofMadCows Registered User regular
    "Watcher of such Oscar winning films as Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Hurt Locker, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Life of Pi."

    TexiKenLegacyPailryderHarry DresdenNobeardLoisLane
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Colorfully atrocious. Some awful movies are just boring and bland, but the DC movies are awful in a really overt, weird, flashy way.

    I get what you're saying, but the DC movies just tend to be so unpleasant. Like the whole is worse than the sum of its parts, to the point where I'm actively repulsed by the idea of re-watching even a portion of it. I can't even get onboard with the idea that they're taking risks. I just think that Snyder has decided to go with dark and edgy, as opposed to Marvel's more upbeat tones, and that's about all there is too it.

    GaddezLoisLane
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Ronon from Stargate as Captain Fishman.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Astaereth wrote: »
    Colorfully atrocious. Some awful movies are just boring and bland, but the DC movies are awful in a really overt, weird, flashy way.

    I get what you're saying, but the DC movies just tend to be so unpleasant. Like the whole is worse than the sum of its parts, to the point where I'm actively repulsed by the idea of re-watching even a portion of it. I can't even get onboard with the idea that they're taking risks. I just think that Snyder has decided to go with dark and edgy, as opposed to Marvel's more upbeat tones, and that's about all there is too it.

    The problem is that snyder (being a massive hack) doesn't know how to actually go about creating an original film concept; outside of suckerpunch literally everything in his filmography is an adaptation of someone else's work and oftentimes misses what made the original special.

    Like take MoS. You have the most Iconic superhero of all time, the one that acted as a template for decades after and has consistently sold issues every month for nearly 8 decades. This should be an easy film to do, but because Nolan made a starkly realistic batman trilogy with washed out colors, Zack came to the conclusion that what people really wanted was a starkly realistic Superman and that he'd feed some of his personal views on the genre that are clearly influenced by watchmen ("heroes shouldn't be able to save people!").

    And in the end you wind up with a character that is wrong at the very core of his being because Snyder just aped the works of other actually talented storytellers.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Commander ZoomHarry DresdenLoisLane
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Suckerpunch, talk about putting Marmite on cheesecake.

    Even a washed out Superman who can't manage to save everyone and has some PTSD from the whole deal would (or could) have been interesting. Instead we had someone who looked bored and/or miserable, but not much else going on there. He wasn't suffering from the expectations that people put on him that even his powers couldn't live up to, he just seemed to be acting like he was stuck in a crappy job that he never wanted and can't get out of.

    ArdolCommander ZoomLoisLaneGaddez
«13456753
Sign In or Register to comment.