DC Cinematic Universe ( The James Gunn era)
- Thread starter Samurai8472
- Start date
It's still by far my favorite MCU film. I don't really consider IW to even be in my top ten favorites. Endgame yes, but IW no.
"Rein, Reign, what is Rain?"
(Trek fans should get the joke)
LOL. You know it was Sting who taught me how to spell this.
Glad he put that teacher's certificate to good use.
You've provided good examples of why making characters and their situations relatable to real life works, but in other works of fiction, style--a tone also influences how well one might relate to the character's situation, for example, I would not expect Coming Home,(the 1978 Vietnam war-related drama) to have been effective if not for the tone and kind of world painted for the characters to inhabit (IOW, it would have been a tonal misfire if set in an emotionally/visually cheery world, and not used as a contrast to the Luke character's plight) . They're not in a stage play, so the entire visual and narrative combination needs to draw more from what a viewer might see as a familiar feeling / environment they share or understand with the characters.
From the moment of its release, the praise of The Winter Soldier was quite heavy, citing it as not only one of--or arguably the best MCU film, but superhero films overall (even in the shadow of the magnum opus for the genre--Nolan's Batman movies). The MCU has a boatload of films not worth revisiting after a first viewing, but CA:TWS is such a strong example of the synergy of the fantastic and realistic, serious themes that its eternally re-watchable, and set a gold standard for the MCU that has not been matched.
Comic book publishers such as DC and Marvel began their move toward more relatable, realistic settings (a desire from readers s well as many of the industry talents) in the late Silver Age (or, late 1960s) and certainly the dawn of the Bronze by 1970.
In the late 1960s, that kind of "defense" was not necessary. One, no matter the content, if a friend or passerby saw Batman or Spider-Man on the cover or a page, they were going to just think "comic book", in the general sense. Two, if they were so concerned with the risk of embarrassment regarding their reading choices, they could've turned to Warren and other publishers, but they did not for the hypothetical you presented. Three, by the mid-60s, the comic--particularly titles such as The Amazing Spider-Man--were increasingly popular on college campuses due to the far more relatable and realistic, serious situations married to the fantasy. Comic creators such as Stan Lee, et al. spoke to large college crowds about the changing nature of the superhero comic--why adults were a growing part of the readership. This phenomenon earned media coverage of the period as the superhero comic matured and was no longer "pow", "zap" and "its off to jail you evildoer!", but dealt with many real world issues the readers cared about / zeroed in on.
Hardly anything overrated about the Nolan Batman films. That trilogy set the standard for what the best of the genre and genre transcending film. In other words, the Nolan trilogy were not only great comic-book based films, but great films in general. Rarely has the filmed superhero genre ever come close to that level of magnificence, which in part was due to showing the world how a Batman would function in real world settings and some situations. Obviously, like CA: TWS, the Nolan Bat-films are eternally re-watchable.
You missed the point of that scene: Jonathan was protective of his alien son. No real, responsible parent is going to treat their child like a programmed soldier to leap into the fire with no thought of the potential consequences (coming from a family line with a long presence in the military, I know that parental viewpoint to be true), and in the case of the scene in question, Jonathan warns Clark that humans fear what they do not understand--and the potential risk to humankind's perceptions about themselves if Clark's true nature came to light. That conversation was powerful and is an extremely accurate comment on how human beings are about those who are different in general, although Jonathan was talking about an alien among humans. Just one of the reasons Man of Steel was a wonderful adaptation: no matter what one's good intentions are, one has to be aware of the world he's living in, especially if you--or the idea of your kind is already feared. A message innumerable people of the world can relate to.
Last edited:
Great points on all of what you said Trek_God_1.
The entire Infinity Saga except for a couple of misfires here and there are very re-watchable.
Same isn't true of the Multi-Verse saga.
That’s true. Nolan’s Batman-Flicks did f*ck up the entire comic-book and movie industry at large. And we still feel that, to this day. I mean, I call this thing “the curse of the Bat”. Batman & Robin, IMHO, one of the last good CBM until Wonder Woman came along, was critically and commercially panned, so the clowns at WB hired Nolan. Nolan, who had initially no interest in making a CBM, but did, what Nolan does best. The movie was successful, ‘cause it was something new and fresh and suddenly all movie-series and TV-Shows wanted to be like that. In that time, Bourne was successful, too – new and fresh – and so Bond went from “being an international superspy, with tons of gadgets and always a one-liner on the lips” to … well, “Pilcher mit Pistolen”, as Urban Priol once put it.
Star Trek – our Star Trek – went from the style of Voyager and Enterprise into a hiatus, and when it came back with Discovery, I thought “great, now Star Trek is Pilcher with Phasers”. Thank god, they got rid of that “taking itself waaayy too seriously” after season one.
Stargate had SG-1 and SG:A – two shows that had serious topics, but didn’t take itself too seriously, so that, even after an episode about Carters Dad having cancer, they could return to Jack being sarcastic. But in the same time, that Stargate Universe was being created, there was New BSG, which was a hardcore survival-drama and the Stargate Creators wanted their part of the pie, too – so Universe was more like BSG. And all of these new, fresh, “dark” shows are like the Nolan-Batman-Movies.
By the way: The Nolan-Flicks – to me – suffer from the same problem, as ZSJL. If it takes itself seriously, I can’t help but think “Just a second”.
The whole Idea of Bruce becoming Batman – in a movie, that takes itself seriously – is entirely ridiculous. In some world resembling “the real world”, Thomas Wayne would never had gone to the opera. You know, what a real, rich dude would’ve done? He would’ve said “Okay, Monday, December 2, we bring the opera here. Each and everyone of the Gothamites can come, see us, see the Opera, it costs 3,99 Dollars entry.”
Or at least, he wouldn’t have gone through “Crime alley”, he would’ve let his chauffeur wait in the lobby: “Johann, be ready for us.”, he would’ve said.
No, the conversation was bland and boring and completely messed up the whole thing. ‘Cause what’s what Clark could’ve learned from that? “Keeping my secret, keeping my true identity, is far more important, than helping people.” That’s not the right lesson.
The lesson is – as I already said – “If you want to help: Okay, but wear some disguise.”
That would’ve been “Jonathan being protective of his alien son”, too. And it would’ve been a good way of getting Clark into his Superman-Costume. Ma Kent could’ve put this together. She could’ve overheard, what Clark and Jonathan were debating, could’ve taken her old “Singer”-Sewing-machine and could’ve gone to work: “Here, Clark, your costume for your secret identity”.
After all, the idea, that the Superman-Identity and the Clark-Identity is a group-effort of Martha, Jonathan and Clark, is a far more wholesome idea, than Jonathan being all “No, don’t save them and don’t save me, I die in a tornadooooooooo”.
Plus: if “humans fear, what they don’t understand” is true, then Snyder really dropped the ball in the ending-sequence of ZSJL. Who is standing next to Bruce? Clark Kent. Who was buried in the aftermath of BVS? Clark Kent. What about “humans fear, what they don’t understand”, Clark? How do you explain, that you’re back from the dead, to the people of Smallville?
Sorry, I don’t get that.
Last edited:
Really, though, the Nolan films were far more faithful to what Batman comics had actually been doing tonally and stylistically since 1987, in the post-Crisis era where they were basically DC's most grounded, gritty, street-level titles. The campy Schumacher films were a throwback to the tone of 1950s-60s comics and the Adam West sitcom, and an embodiment of the outdated stereotype of what superhero comics were assumed to be like by people who'd never read any.
I have a more generous view. The network may have wanted a BSG clone, but I think SGU's creators wanted to challenge themselves by trying something different rather than just doing more of the same thing they'd been doing for a decade. Creative people get tired of doing the same thing too long and like to exercise different muscles after a while.
FIrst off, it was only in Batman Begins that the murder happened at the opera. In the original version and most adaptations, it was when the Waynes were walking home from a movie theater. (The first time the name of the movie was identified was in the Super Powers Team episode "The Fear" by future Batman: TAS writer Alan Burnett, which was the first time Batman's origin story had been dramatized onscreen. There, the movie was Robin Hood, although a couple of years later, Frank Miller established it as The Mark of Zorro, which has stuck ever since.)
Second, in the original version, the murder happened out in the open under a corner streetlamp. In the 1970s story that introduced the name "Crime Alley," that was merely a nickname for a street actually called Park Row, which was an upscale neighborhood at the time. The shocking brazenness of a double murder happening right out in the open tainted the area and the well-to-do people moved away, so the street deteriorated into a crime-ridden slum and gained the "Crime Alley" nickname. Unfortunately, nearly every screen adaptation from "The Fear" onward has mistakenly depicted the murder site as a literal dark alley, which makes no sense. (B:TAS is the only adaptation that got it right, depicting Park Row as a brownstone residential street, but later depictions in the DC Animated Universe revert to showing it as an alley.)
Granted, I get that. And maybe, it’s just a me-problem, but I can’t help, but think “This is supposed to be good? This Batman with his “ Swear to meeee”-growly-voice that must kill him every time he used that? I’m supposed to take this seriously, while people, who take this seriously are rolling their eyes, when it comes towards something like a bat-credit card?”
The network / the studio always wants to copy the most recent, big thing, which is, why I’m looking at the MCU and think “Hu, fascinating – they didn’t go the route, how Superhero-Movies were made back in that days” They didn’t go all “Grim’n’gritty”, although the first Iron Man has it’s grim and gritty moments. But it’s not overshadowing the rest.
That’s true. But then it would’ve been far lot easier, to not getting killed in that alley. They’re the Waynes, it’s not unreasonable to think, that they have a Heimkino. And if they want to mingle then, great: Make it a movie-party at the Waynes. Let it be an event for the Wayne-Foundation – 3,99 Dollars entry-fee.
Granted, I admit, I didn‘t know that. Thanks for the crash-course. And yes, if it would’ve been this dark alley, at least I as Thomas Wayne would’ve said “Okay, we don’t go through that. Let’s try another way” – or, like I said “Okay, Johann (the Chauffeur – sorry, I stole the name from Dagobert Ducks Chauffeur in the Original Duck Tales), you wait here and park the car right here.”
I can't speak for the general population, but most of the people in my circle absolutely considered it a high watermark for that period. It was a really more mature political thriller than your standard superhero film. But it was a great adaptation of different eras of Captain America's continuity, and it worked beautifully. The characters were engaging, there was a combination of personal stakes along with more overreaching consequences which changed the course of the MCU going forward.
I prefer it over the third Captain America movie, Civil War. That came across as more of an Avengers film. However, all three of the Captain America movies were fantastic.
^ Gobsmacked might to mild a word to describe my reaction to the quote above.
All I can say is that Batman and Robin was garbage attempting to ape the Dozier TV series, which had been largely rejected by those with an interest in seeing another live-action Batman and without a doubt, the next significant Batman production after it--1989's Batman. Batman and Robin is--supposedly--the same universe as the Burton-directed films, but it was a garish, loud and senseless would-be spectacle-fest splattered by moronic attempts at humor where it had no place...gee, it sounds similar to certain modern-day superhero films.
If he had no interest, yet created a trilogy of genre defining, genre-transcending films, then he's a filmmaking genius. Thanks for adding to that obvious point.
It did not matter what kind of tonal shift Discovery had, as it was never embraced and/or considered a great Star Trek series. No loss, no gain there.
This might come as a shock to you, but some people--of the Wayne's socioeconomic station--attend the opera, so the above compliant misses the point of being part of establishing the cultural rearing of young Bruce and his parents, and how he would be perceived in his urbane civilian life as a contrast to his other half's brutal campaign against crime in the future.
Wrong again. Clark is essentially an analogue of a racial minority in an exceedingly hostile land. Jonathan, being the responsible, loving parent wisely informed his son of the dangers his very existence poses to the frightened, the inherently hateful majority of the world. Personally, as a minority, I understood and related to similar instruction about various parts of the country (USA) and abroad, as again, no loving, responsible parent is going to consciously draft his child into a hostile world as if he was born to serve.
In the scene in question, Clark was a child. He did not need to place himself--an alien being--on the chopping block of exposure to a hostile world--one hos parents had no ability to protect him from should the worst happen. There's no sense, or depth of parental understanding in some shaky-handed urge to throw a child into some superhero role.
Same here.
Agreed.
I certainly agree with your Civil War view. Its best scenes were the Cap/Bucky-centric arc, and I did not get a thing from Spider-Man shoved into the plot because of behind-the-scenes maneuvering, not a need of the script.
Last edited:
That’s where you’re wrong. You see it as this garbage attempt – and all you do is a completely reductive reading of the movie. Sure, it is loud, it is “toyetic”, as Schoemacher himself said, it is a movie making sure, that all of the toys are bought – and yet, it has heart. It has even more heart, than the immediate predecessor “Batman Forever”, since it’s in the end all about three persons, trying to save their beloved ones. Alfred, Nora Fries and the earth – all are suffering. Alfred and Nora from the “MacGregor”-Syndrome, earth from pollution.
Batman / Bruce wants to save Alfred, Mr. Freeze/Doctor Victor Fries wants to save his wife, Poison Ivy / Pamela Isley wants to save earth. Granted, Bruce doesn’t go through the extreme lengths, that Victor and Pamela go through, but in the end, it’s all about these three wanting to save that, what they hold dearest. And Pamela, as well as Victor, use their criminal energy and their technology, to get, what they want.
That’s what the movie is about, in its core. Oh, sure, it has “This is why Superman works alone”, it has Batnipples etc, and yet. In its center, it’s all about Bruce and Victor and Pamela trying to cure Alfred and Nora and the Earth. Granted, Pamela falls in love with Victor and that throws a wrench in her plan, but in the end, this movie is better, than people are willing to give it credit for – even now. And we see that with this discussion, with You, Trekgod1 and with the other dude, who just posts gifs, instead of contributing something to the discussion.
You could call it “genre defining, genre-transcending”, I call it, what it is – at least to me – “Liebigs Fleischextrakt”. Granted, that’s not my term, a critic in the early 20.th century said this about a novel. He said “Liebigs Fleischextrakt. Man kann es nicht essen, aber, Tausende werden daraus ihr Süppchen kochen.“
Meaning in this context: „It‘s an okay movie, but since enough people went into this flick, studios will do their best, to recreate that.”
At least not by you.
And yet, they could’ve attended the opera in a different way. I mean, they’re rich, aren’t they? So – what’s to say against make a socioeconomic event at Wayne Manor, getting the whole production there, complete with a fundraising gala, with a fair for the kids? The cultural education can work that way, too.
And of course, this all is bollocks, since the only reason for this whole “They go to the opera”-idea, is, that Martha and Thomas can get killed. I get that. But then stop, pretending, that there was a reason for it, besides “they need to get killed”.
And that’s where you’re wrong. If Jonathan would’ve been a “ responsible, loving parent wisely informed his son of the dangers his very existence poses to the frightened, the inherently hateful majority of the world”, he’d put it exactly that way.
“Son”, he’d say, “okay, so, there are persons out there, who don’t understand you and your gifts, and are likely afraid of you. Of course, you don’t let innocent people die, only an idiot would say, that that’s okay, you use your powers for good – but in secret.”
No, but he wanted to help – that’s the whole reason of the Jonathan/Clark-Discussion in MoS. Clark wanted to help, Clark did help, and when his father heard about that, he said “Oh, no no nooo, you can’t do that. People are afraid of what they don’t understand.”
This whole scene is utterly moronic.
In the 70s, the murder of the Wayne's on Park Row was a major news story and was, in the Batman universe, an event the was symbolic of Gotham falling from what was considered to be a friendly and safe city to a place where the criminals ruled.
Personally, I'd rather watch these two over Batman V Superman (both versions). But that's just me, and as we all found out today, I'm a bit of an idiot. ^^
And before we all now call each others names, I just want to point out, that I just see things a tadbit different and am generally not a fan of this grim'n'gritty-stuff.
Last edited:
Most of the moviegoing world who suffered through it believe the same, including the person you're responding to.
^ Translation: you're singed by legitimate criticism of a wreck of a film in three categories: part of a series, a superhero movie and as a film in general. You can love Batman and Robin as much, but it is a historically and objectively terrible, misguided disaster, one innumerable fans of the Burton-helmed Bat-films see as a total degradation of what he established.
More than enough people saw the Nolan Bat-films due to how he went far and above to bring a well-defined mirror of various versions of the comic to life, in a setting that appealed to audiences who wanted to see a Batman fighting not in some garish Ronald McDonald-land (with characters just as silly), but a world that played in a similar fashion to their own, making the conflicts (and victories) that much more potent.
Nope. There's no great embracing of Star Trek: Discovery. Believe whatever you want, but it is one of least embraced entries in the franchise's history (I doubt you will ever see the greenlighting of a DISCO movie due to mass fan interest), and I'm sure you have evidence to counter that opinion?.
Nothing you posted above gives a logical reason why the Waynes did not need to attend the opera. You seem to just have some thing against operas, or are arguing for the sake of it.
My quote in yours was Jonathan's message, as understood when first watching the film. Some seem to think characters should just be reckless with chest barreled out, jumping out into the field with not a thought about consequences or the bigger picture. What you're not understanding is that Jonathan was keenly aware of the potential global danger to his alien (read: racial minority) son's life if he were exposed. That was far from the first time superhero characters had to seriously weigh their interaction / exposure to the public, because anyone alive for more than 10 seconds knows a minority--a powerful minority poses a threat to majorities and those in power. Man of Steel played Jonathan and Clark's scene perfectly, just a responsible parent in a similar situation (only with a real, regular human). Clark is the outsider in a dangerous world, not a soldier or some cartoonish caricature of a hero.
Similar threads
