DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[The Knappos]

Also, it was fun, but how the hell did Aquaman make so much?

It took $300million in China.
It came out in 2018, riding a wave of Black Panther & Infinity War when the superhero craze was at the zenith of its fever pitch.
And was counter programming during a Christmas season where no one really wanted to see the Mary Poppins sequel or another Transformers film.

 

[Sci]

BvS was superior to Aquaman,

Nope.

and one of the best of this century's superhero films,

Nowhere near the top.

being the very rare example of a mature

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is one of the most immature films I've ever seen. There's nothing mature about using deconstructionism if you have no hidden truth or deeper insight for your deconstructonism to reveal. That's not maturity or insight, that's just cultural vandalism. Batman v. Superman is the very embodiment of the phrase "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

comic book character team up movie not littered with Saturday morning cartoon-level plotting.

"Let's combine World's Finest, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Death of Superman into one movie" is the very definition of Saturday morning cartoon-level plotting.

 

[Set Harth]

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is one of the most immature films I've ever seen.

As opposed to the masterclass in maturity we call Aquaman?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

As opposed to the masterclass in maturity we call Aquaman?

Do not confuse the matter with rational observation. It gets in the way of the latest examples of Obsessive Snyder Hatred Syndrome.

 

[JD]

Zack Snyder's idea of maturity is the same as you'd get from a 13 year old boy. Just make something as dark and gritty as possible, and throw some surface level philosophical sounding ideas into the mix, and everyone will think you're mature.
And I say this as someone who has enjoyed some of his movies, but only as big dumb action movies at about the level of the Transormers movies.
I'd say the MCU movies are actually more mature, since they're smart enough to actually embrace their source material and the things people love about it.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Zack Snyder's idea of maturity is the same as you'd get from a 13 year old boy

Astounding that anyone could post that, yet be a big fan of the MCU, a franchise with a history of being--more often than not--relentlessly childish and the textbook example of immature, Saturday morning cartoon plotting, cocooned in feeble, hollow attempts to be "epic".

 

[JD]

The difference is the MCU movies know and embrace what they are, and don't try to be any more than that. I'd take that over Snyder's attempts at "maturity" in his DCEU movies any time.

 

[Rich Watson]

Zack Snyder's idea of maturity is the same as you'd get from a 13 year old boy. Just make something as dark and gritty as possible, and throw some surface level philosophical sounding ideas into the mix, and everyone will think you're mature.

When I was 14 I thought "The Dark Knight Returns" was the greatest comic ever made. Thankfully I grew up, but Snyder never did.

 

[fireproof78]

Is it Snyder bashing o'clock already?

 

[Sci]

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is one of the most immature films I've ever seen.

As opposed to the masterclass in maturity we call Aquaman?

Sure. A film that knows it is just a silly little action film and doesn't pretend to be smarter than it actually is? That's more mature and respectable than a film that pretends it has something deeper to say but offers no meaningful content.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The difference is the MCU movies know and embrace what they are,

Oh, sure, JD. A great example of that is the MCU Spider-Man reduced to a hero-worshiping sidekick chasing after "Mr. Stark", because wanting to be a boy sidekick to Iron Man was exactly how comic-book Spider-Man was portrayed in comparable points of his career. Or turning Thor into a dullard in most of his films. Yep, that's the character exactly as Lee, Kirby & Lieber created and developed him. Great examples of the MCU really knowing and embracing what they are.

Is it Snyder bashing o'clock already?

...only for those suffering from Obsessive Snyder Hatred Syndrome.

 

[JD]

To be clear I don't hate Zack Snyder, I just don't think he's some auteur directing these deep philosophical movies. I really enjoyed Army of the Dead, and Rebel Moon looks awesome.

Oh, sure, JD. A great example of that is the MCU Spider-Man reduced to a hero-worshiping sidekick chasing after "Mr. Stark", because wanting to be a boy sidekick to Iron Man was exactly how comic-book Spider-Man was portrayed in comparable points of his career. Or turning Thor into a dullard in most of his films. Yep, that's the character exactly as Lee, Kirby & Lieber created and developed him. Great examples of the MCU really knowing and embracing what they are.

You do realize that The Amazing Spider-Man #1, his second appearance after Amazing Fantasy #15, was about him going to the Baxter Building to try to join the Fantastic Four.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You do realize that The Amazing Spider-Man #1, his second appearance after Amazing Fantasy #15, was about him going to the Baxter Building to try to join the Fantastic Four.

Limp example. Spider-Man's comic book version (including that one attempt to join the F.F.) was not chasing after another hero like a chattering, star-struck fanboy / sidekick wannabe (the point you're trying to dance around), which is the characterization of the MCU version. You do realize Lee, Ditko, Romita, et al. always reinforced the idea that Spider-Man was a loner who--ultimately--had to go his own way? Missed that? The people behind the MCU certainly missed it in their dedicated acts of "knowing and embracing what they are".

 

[Sci]

the MCU Spider-Man reduced to a hero-worshiping sidekick chasing after "Mr. Stark"

I don't like that choice either, but all three MCU Spider-Man movies still execute their creative goals better than Batman v. Superman executes its creative goals.

Or turning Thor into a dullard

He's not.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Limp example. Spider-Man's comic book version (including that one attempt to join the F.F.) was not chasing after another hero like a chattering, star-struck fanboy / sidekick wannabe (the point you're trying to dance around), which is the characterization of the MCU version. You do realize Lee, Ditko, Romita, et al. always reinforced the idea that Spider-Man was a loner who--ultimately--had to go his own way? Missed that? The people behind the MCU certainly missed it in their dedicated acts of "knowing and embracing what they are".

A loner wouldn't headline multiple series literally called "Team-up".
Or a two cartoons called "AND his amazing friends".
He's the most team-up friendly character Marvel has.
There's more to all of these characters than the limited view of "but.... 60 years ago, the creators did this!!!"

Edited to add: Coming back to DC (didn't realize which thread this was when I responded), looking at that box office chart of movies, Batman solo projects really are bulletproof, aren't they? I thought Batman in general might be, but it seems team-ups (BvS, JL, Flash) don't seem to matter as much as solo outings to the movie going public.

 

[Christopher]

A loner wouldn't headline multiple series literally called "Team-up".
Or a two cartoons called "AND his amazing friends".
He's the most team-up friendly character Marvel has.

Granted, how often a comics character gets teamed up has more to do with their popularity with the audience than with their in-character sociability, which is why Batman and Wolverine are the other most teamed-up characters in comics.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

A loner wouldn't headline multiple series literally called "Team-up".

Marvel Team Up--a pure (Lee-admitted) marketing cash grab due to the character's popularity--was launched in March of 1972--a decade after the character's debut, and well after his central personality traits / status were well-established in 106 monthlies and 8 annuals of the parent title published up to that point.

MTU was not designed to be any narrative shift in Spider-Man's loner character / status for the reason stated above. In fact, in the parent title, he was still a loner wanted by the police (implicated in the death of Capt. Stacy, among other "crimes"), and not chasing after anyone to be a boy sidekick wannabe, and one year later, he would be wanted by the police--again--due to the belief he was associated with Norman Osborn's murder. The parent title carried on the drama of a Parker/Spider-Man who knew he was on his own, carried burdens he was not sharing (or seeking to share) with anyone, and he was not chasing after Iron Man (or anyone else) trying to be a Boy Wonder.

The missed point is that Lee, Ditko, Romita, et al. always reinforced the idea that Spider-Man was a loner who--ultimately--had to go his own way (and was one the few Marvel characters in-universe law enforcement viewed as a criminal). The MCU turned him into a boy sidekick wannabe chasing after "Mr. Stark" instead of the emotionally struggling, misunderstood character he was developed to be over the course of decades, thus J.D.'s "knowing and embracing what they are" assertion is nonsense.

Or a two cartoons called "AND his amazing friends".

Really? Products generated by the ancillary market had no bearing on the creation and development of this comic character whatsoever, no more than the 1967 or 1981 solo Spider-Man cartoons had on the source, similar to Filmation's 1977 The New Adventures of Batman having no influence on the characters or stories in Batman or Detective Comics published at that time.

None.

 

[Set Harth]

don't try to be any more than that

I just don't think he's some auteur directing these deep philosophical movies

pretends it has something deeper to say

doesn't pretend to be smarter than it actually is

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

Marvel Team Up--a pure (Lee-admitted) marketing cash grab due to the character's popularity--was launched in March of 1972--a decade after the character's debut, and well after his central personality traits / status were well-established in 106 monthlies and 8 annuals of the parent title published up to that point.

MTU was not designed to be any narrative shift in Spider-Man's loner character / status for the reason stated above. In fact, in the parent title, he was still a loner wanted by the police (implicated in the death of Capt. Stacy, among other "crimes"), and not chasing after anyone to be a boy sidekick wannabe, and one year later, he would be wanted by the police--again--due to the belief he was associated with Norman Osborn's murder. The parent title carried on the drama of a Parker/Spider-Man who knew he was on his own, carried burdens he was not sharing (or seeking to share) with anyone, and he was not chasing after Iron Man (or anyone else) trying to be a Boy Wonder.

The missed point is that Lee, Ditko, Romita, et al. always reinforced the idea that Spider-Man was a loner who--ultimately--had to go his own way (and was one the few Marvel characters in-universe law enforcement viewed as a criminal). The MCU turned him into a boy sidekick wannabe chasing after "Mr. Stark" instead of the emotionally struggling, misunderstood character he was developed to be over the course of decades, thus J.D.'s "knowing and embracing what they are" assertion is nonsense.

Really? Products generated by the ancillary market had no bearing on the creation and development of this comic character whatsoever, no more than the 1967 or 1981 solo Spider-Man cartoons had on the source, similar to Filmation's 1977 The New Adventures of Batman having no influence on the characters or stories in Batman or Detective Comics published at that time.

None.

Every time this debate comes up with any character, you travel back in time to the development of the character and ignore any and all progression through the decades, what is now the majority of their time in print. For many people's whole comic reading life now, he can be known for being a team player, regardless if it's only to sell more comics (real world reasons don't matter to a kid reading an awesome story in front of them).

Yes. Spider-Man was a loner. He's also been an Avenger for almost 20 years now. Been married. Been separated. Been a teacher. The head of a Stark-like corporation. Things have changed. And the MCU is picking and choosing from 60 years of history. (DC has even more years of stories to pick and choose from). Not a narrow few from early on. And to any open minded individual, it's easy to see that there's more to all of these character than what was established in a simple fraction of the stories told in their lifetime and being true to the character means any of these eras can be mined for adaptation and still be true to the source material.

 

[Christopher]

Every time this debate comes up with any character, you travel back in time to the development of the character and ignore any and all progression through the decades, what is now the majority of their time in print.

It's weird to me when people insist the earliest version of a character or concept is the correct one and any change is a mistake. I mean, any creator will tell you that the earliest version of any idea is usually the worst -- it's the process of revision and rethinking that makes it better. Especially in comics, when they were churning things out so quickly that they didn't have time to refine the ideas before the fact, but had to figure them out as they went.