• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Shazam!

They'll come to the wrong conclusion and only make ridiculous movies from here on in.
Sounds good to me
I want a second "Man of Steel" movie with Henry Cavill. I still want a solo Batman movie with Ben Affleck. And I want at least two Justice League movies. It would be nice if they were directed by Zack Snyder and not interfered with by the studio suits. Or at least find a director who can be just as challenging as Snyder.

For me, "Man of Steel" and especially "Batman v. Superman" were the two best films within the DCEU. I'm also a major fan of "Wonder Woman" and "Suicide Squad". I enjoyed these movies because they were challenging. They challenged the audiences' perception of our society. They challenged the audiences' views of these characters. I don't mind the occasional "fun" comic book hero movie like "Aquaman" or "Shazaam". I enjoyed "Aquaman" despite its rather questionable direction. But for me, it was no where as satisfying as those first four movies. And my gut feeling tells me that the Warner Bros. suits will keep listening to the moronic critics and moviegoers who will keep demanding that the DC comic book movies should be non-challenging, fun and somewhat traditional because they're too gutless to consider a comic book movie or pop culture film capable of challenging the status quo.
This is the exact opposite of what I go to superhero movies for, I go to have fun and watch superheroes beat the crap out of bad guys. Now if you want to do the occasional darker more serious take on the material, that's fine, but there is absolutely no way I want that to be the standard for what superhero movies should be. Judging by how Aquman, Wonder Woman, and even Suicide Squad did I'm not the only one who feels that way.
 
Superhero movies can be anything from Deadpool to Guardians to Watchmen to The Dark Knight, some people will like 'em more on the one end of that spectrum or the other, and some will like all kinds, but to say that all should be one way and that that's the only correct way to make them is rather limiting.

I especially don't get this knee jerk reaction of everything must be "fun"!!! whenever anyone suggests they like something different, because if anything the "fun" superhero movies are in no danger of disappearing from cinemas, they're the easiest sell to mass audiences and there's half a dozen scheduled every year for the foreseeable future. They're not going anywhere, so hide your pitchforks every time someone mentions they'd also like to see something more on the serious side...
 
Superhero movies can be anything from Deadpool to Guardians to Watchmen to The Dark Knight, some people will like 'em more on the one end of that spectrum or the other, and some will like all kinds, but too say that all should be one way and that that's the only correct way to make them is rather limiting.

I especially don't get this knee jerk reaction of everything must be "fun"!!! whenever anyone suggests they like something different, because if anything the "fun" superhero movies are in no danger of disappearing from cinemas, they're the easiest sell to mass audiences and there's half a dozen scheduled every year for the foreseeable future. They're not going anywhere, so hide your pitchforks every time someone mentions they'd also like to see something more on the serious side...
Well said.

I love Batman '66 (got the complete set on Blu-ray a few years ago and routinely watch them with my son). And yet, I also very much enjoyed DC Titans--which might be the purest polar opposite to Batman '66. It's almost as though there's more than one legit way to adapt superhero stories...nah. That can't be it. :shifty:
 
Superhero movies can be anything from Deadpool to Guardians to Watchmen to The Dark Knight, some people will like 'em more on the one end of that spectrum or the other, and some will like all kinds, but too say that all should be one way and that that's the only correct way to make them is rather limiting.

I especially don't get this knee jerk reaction of everything must be "fun"!!! whenever anyone suggests they like something different, because if anything the "fun" superhero movies are in no danger of disappearing from cinemas, they're the easiest sell to mass audiences and there's half a dozen scheduled every year for the foreseeable future. They're not going anywhere, so hide your pitchforks every time someone mentions they'd also like to see something more on the serious side...

Yeah. I've had my fair share of problems with DC's output, but tone was never the issue. I liked that they were going for a different tone, I just had issues with the quality.

I'm a huge superhero fan and I want superhero movies to encompass everything from the Lego Batman Movie to Spider-man Homecoming to Deadpool, Man of Steel, Logan, The Dark Knight, Kick-Ass, Infinity War, Unbreakable and whatever other tone or atmosphere the filmmakers can come up with. I really hate how many people not only claim that these movies *have* to be fun but also that they're 'supposed' to be stupid and therefore somehow immune to reasonable criticism. I don't care if a superhero movie is a romp or a tragedy. I care if it's good.
 
I'd even go so far and question the use of the word 'fun' to describe only the lighthearted action-comedy kind of superhero movies. I have fun watching The Dark Knight. I find smart drama, ambitious practical stunt-effects, and the thrill of it all to be fun. I also have fun watching The Avengers. They are different kinds, but both are still fun.
 
Yeah? Just imagine how much you'll hate it after you've actually seen it. :techman:

People will be able to heard me screaming through the computer screen. Good try at being smug, but I watch almost all bad superhero films, even knowing how bad they're going to be (with Logan being the only really shit mainstream superhero film that I've been able to completely avoid even on home video so far, although New Mutants will probably be in the same boat of "I won't even watch it for free" as Logan).
 
There is no reason a dark superhero movie can't be good. The problem is that some productions have assumed that only dark superhero movies are any good and have applied that darkness thoughtlessly to the wrong characters, or as a substitute for having something worthwhile to say. Man of Steel made the mistake of beginning Superman's story with darkness; he's a character who should initially come from a place of light and hope, so that if a dark story befalls him later, the contrast is more meaningful. Then there's the misbegotten David Kelley Wonder Woman pilot, which totally misunderstood the character, assuming that Wonder Woman was just a generic violent, angry vigilante rather than attempting to understand what's distinctive and important about her.

The thing is, there was a time when telling superhero stories in a darker, grittier way was an innovative departure from cliche, and so it was often impressive as a result. But people took the wrong lesson from it and assumed it was the darkness rather than the innovation that mattered, and so now, 3 or 4 decades later, dark-and-gritty has become the lazy, cookie-cutter approach, the first resort of the unimaginative. Of course it's still possible to make a darker movie work -- Captain America: The Winter Soldier is probably the darkest MCU film and probably the best one as well, but that's because the franchise had adequately established Cap as a figure of hope and positivity and managed to put him into a darker situation without losing that. The problem is when you start from the assumption that darkness is the only option, or that it will automatically make your story work.
 
The problem is when you start from the assumption that darkness is the only option, or that it will automatically make your story work.

What are you talking about?


This is the exact opposite of what I go to superhero movies for, I go to have fun and watch superheroes beat the crap out of bad guys.

I watch a super hero movie for a good, entertaining or fascinating story - whether it is serious and challenging or fun and light-hearted. I don't believe in limiting my choices in what a super hero movie should be. Nor do I believe that only a certain kind of super hero movie should be made. I find that kind of mentality rather restrictive and unoriginal.
 
Then there's the misbegotten David Kelley Wonder Woman pilot, which totally misunderstood the character, assuming that Wonder Woman was just a generic violent, angry vigilante rather than attempting to understand what's distinctive and important about her.

This applied even to publicity stills. Posters at the John Byrne forum posted comparison pictures of Adrianne Palicki and the porn star featured in the porn parody of similar vintage, and were appalled that the porn star, and her costume, appeared more like the comics they remembered. I looked at the same pictures and noticed that it wasn't the suit, it was the presentation. The porn star wore a costume just as dissimilar to the one in the comic books (and on Lynda Carter) that Adrianne Palicki was wearing, but each one's posture and presentation was completely different. The porn star's was heroic, while Palicki looked like she'd been bullied as a child, and was trying to look tough to compensate.
 
The thing is, there was a time when telling superhero stories in a darker, grittier way was an innovative departure from cliche, and so it was often impressive as a result. But people took the wrong lesson from it and assumed it was the darkness rather than the innovation that mattered, and so now, 3 or 4 decades later, dark-and-gritty has become the lazy, cookie-cutter approach, the first resort of the unimaginative. Of course it's still possible to make a darker movie work -- Captain America: The Winter Soldier is probably the darkest MCU film and probably the best one as well, but that's because the franchise had adequately established Cap as a figure of hope and positivity and managed to put him into a darker situation without losing that. The problem is when you start from the assumption that darkness is the only option, or that it will automatically make your story work.

So basically, what Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen did to comics...Nolan did to comic movies? Give them the totally wrong idea of how to make one?
 
I especially don't get this knee jerk reaction of everything must be "fun"!!! whenever anyone suggests they like something different, because if anything the "fun" superhero movies are in no danger of disappearing from cinemas, they're the easiest sell to mass audiences and there's half a dozen scheduled every year for the foreseeable future. They're not going anywhere, so hide your pitchforks every time someone mentions they'd also like to see something more on the serious side...
Precisely this. There is plenty of space for both styles and a mix of each as well. Things don't need to be dark nor do they need to be lighthearted just because they are comic book films.
 
So basically, what Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen did to comics...Nolan did to comic movies? Give them the totally wrong idea of how to make one?

That is the perfect way of putting it. Nolan did something that worked for his particular situation, then it got copied by people who didn't get that his style of story just doesn't work for most superhero movies (plus a director or two who just don't "get" superheroes at all, regardless of what style was being used). I don't even really like Nolan's Batman films that much, but at least they didn't feel like they were really off, tonally speaking (even if I prefer a less gritty, more fantastic Batman with colorful villains, like the Batman TAS version).
 
There is no reason a dark superhero movie can't be good. The problem is that some productions have assumed that only dark superhero movies are any good and have applied that darkness thoughtlessly to the wrong characters, or as a substitute for having something worthwhile to say. Man of Steel made the mistake of beginning Superman's story with darkness; he's a character who should initially come from a place of light and hope, so that if a dark story befalls him later, the contrast is more meaningful. Then there's the misbegotten David Kelley Wonder Woman pilot, which totally misunderstood the character, assuming that Wonder Woman was just a generic violent, angry vigilante rather than attempting to understand what's distinctive and important about her.

The thing is, there was a time when telling superhero stories in a darker, grittier way was an innovative departure from cliche, and so it was often impressive as a result. But people took the wrong lesson from it and assumed it was the darkness rather than the innovation that mattered, and so now, 3 or 4 decades later, dark-and-gritty has become the lazy, cookie-cutter approach, the first resort of the unimaginative. Of course it's still possible to make a darker movie work -- Captain America: The Winter Soldier is probably the darkest MCU film and probably the best one as well, but that's because the franchise had adequately established Cap as a figure of hope and positivity and managed to put him into a darker situation without losing that. The problem is when you start from the assumption that darkness is the only option, or that it will automatically make your story work.

Filmmakers failing to make any effort to understand characters can be a problem, but that doesn't mean that every character has one specific style that must be respected or else it's invalid. Henry Cavill is no farther removed from Christopher Reeve than Michael Keaton was from Adam West. I have zero problem with Man of Steel as a Superman story.

Also - not really relevant - but how exactly is Winter Soldier 'darker' than Infinity War?
 
Bucky killed Howard and Maria Stark.

Which wasn't that amazing when it happened... But we got a lot of time with Howard on Agent Carter, which connects us to the dead man a little more palpably after the fact.
 
Bucky killed Howard and Maria Stark.

Which wasn't that amazing when it happened... But we got a lot of time with Howard on Agent Carter, which connects us to the dead man a little more palpably after the fact.

And we had no time at all with Loki, Heimdall, Gamora and, also, like half of all MCU heroes?

WS has darkness, but at the end of the day it's a story about a hero's refusal to ever give up hope, no matter how dark things seem. And that hope is rewarded at the end of the movie.

IW has the same element of insistant hope, but at the end of the day it's a story about how sometimes sacrifice is inevitable and even the brightest hope or most painful sacrifice doesn't actually guarantee victory in the end.
 
Filmmakers failing to make any effort to understand characters can be a problem, but that doesn't mean that every character has one specific style that must be respected or else it's invalid. Henry Cavill is no farther removed from Christopher Reeve than Michael Keaton was from Adam West. I have zero problem with Man of Steel as a Superman story.

My problem with MoS has nothing to do with Henry Cavill. He was a potentially great Superman poorly served by the material. And yes, of course in general it's possible for more than one style to work, but it is logically invalid to respond to a criticism of a specific work with empty generalizations. Of course a dark Superman story could work, but not that specific dark Superman story. Darkness is a tool in the kit, like any other. Whether it works depends on how it's used in each specific case.


Also - not really relevant - but how exactly is Winter Soldier 'darker' than Infinity War?

Because it's more grounded in reality. Because it deals with issues that strike close to home in real life rather than being pure fantasy. Because it's a story about seemingly good, trusted individuals and institutions being compromised and corrupt, rather than a story where the evil is unambiguous and easy to define. And because it has time to really delve into its story and characters so that we can feel the impact on a personal level, rather than cramming in so many characters and subplots that everyone except the villain is treated superficially. Because quality matters more than quantity.
 
Of course a dark Superman story could work, but not that specific dark Superman story
It works just fine. The fact an uncharacteristic take that didn’t meet expectations by giving people something other than the status quo does NOT mean it failed to work. Rather, it revealed how resistant to challenged expectations most people are.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top