Well, that's a fair point. And, I realized that I implied that they were dumb, which is not what I meant to say. I should have said they are more slow to change. No, they are not dumb and will utilize what they know makes money.
DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
Slow to change, yeah, I agree. Sometimes it's out of ego/ignorance, other times it's business. It take a lot of time to get a movie made, there are a lot of moving parts. Quick change can cost a lot of money. Especially if you're talking blockbusters, which it feels like that's all Hollywood wants to make nowadays.
I'm still waiting for anyone to illustrate what the Transformers films did that could be considered right, unless one is ready to just call it (and similar films) out for what they were/are. You see, that's the issue, which I will get into soon--
Then some (not you) should not have fits when others see certain MCU films (or the Transformers for the sake of example) for what they are. If they accepted it as "show business" alone, there would be no reason--or even urge to aggressively defend it as they tend to do.
Ask those around there here who again, defensively defend/argue in a manner trying to sell junk as quality instead of accepting the Big Mac and a Coke for what they are, and not trying to repackage it as top quality...or attack any production that naturally does not have a Saturday morning-esque nature about it, as if its "unnatural" for fantasy to actually play like other kinds of fiction--a contradictory position held by certain die-hard MCU-ers.
Fantasy can be a creation with quality.
McDonald's. That's not "doing something right." Its junk that is wrapped up in enough of a type of marketing coupled with being omnipresent. Nowhere in that combination is quality, the promise or intent that its products are created with that in mind, yet certain people around here (not meaning you) defensively argue it does mean quality, but they (as mentioned to Zoom) contradict their position by attacking films that are naturally productions of quality, as if that is "unnatural"...
Cap begins a bold misfit, gains powers, ends up a bold and defiant misfit.
Cap was never particularly deferential to authority, although he was enough to want to join the military in WWII and he quickly felt and acted non-deferential to it, I guess it's believable when his final movie he admits even then he didn't so much feel part of it (so I guess that is character Escalation). Stark was only particularly against authority in bits of the second movie or first two movies when it was critical or unappreciative of him while liking a lot the idea of himself being in authority and I don't think he (through Civil War) changed from that.
A whole lot less believable was, for example, that so many, especially Ant-Man and Clint would become fugitives, risk jail, just to help Steve and fight Tony for no reason other than that they were a bit or, apparently, a lot closer, friendlier, more trusting of Steve than Tony and/or they just didn't believe Tony and his government allies would actually indeed put their opponents in jail.
The MCU films are indeed commercially successful and do some things right to gain that. I think the main things they do right to get that is to cast and write leads (particularly Iron Man and Captain America) that a lot of people find appealing, have a lot of special effects and have enough humor that people who don't like superheroes in general can still like the movies more as self-mockery without too much humor that longtime fans would be offput.
Edit: A big part of the MCU's success relative to the DC films is also, I think, that people don't have past film or live TV adaptation(s) of the characters or comics to either compare them with or already have had enough of.
Every person does.
Last edited:
Maybe it was timing? People wanted to see clear good guys and bad guys punch each other in a post 9-11 world? Maybe it was the action, which easily translates well in the international market? Maybe it was nostalgia?Maybe it was Bay's visuals? Maybe it was Megan Fox's shorts?
The truth is no one can say what a movie does "right" to win at the box office. If there was a formula, a checklist, for certain success, there would be no bombs. There would be no, "eh, it shoulda done better."
But, the fact remains, The Transformers franchise did INCREDIBLY well at the box office. It did something right.
People defend what they like. Why is that a problem? One could ask you why do you have the urge to so aggressively attack the movies...
It sounds like it's more your problem. It seems you're upset that people aren't taking the world of movies on in YOUR terms. YOUR definitions.
Of course. But, quality isn't an objective thing. Fantasy can be quality, it can be fast food, it can be serious and thought provoking, and it can just be fucking fun.
Fantasy doesn't have to be one thing.
What is right?
Oh, lord, don't drag me into your definitions of natural and unnatural.
I don't quite agree with this, but your next point brought up something else I wanted to talk about.
I've spoken with female viewers who've stated their lack of interest in other CBMs about why they enjoy the MCU's characters. They mentioned they like the character interactions and the emotional depth portrayed on screen. Minor things, like that bit in the first Thor movie where Selvig and Thor go out to a bar just to have a (relatively) friendly chat about Jane and who she is and what she means to them. That sort of stuff was relatively new for CBMs at the time and appeals to a much wider audience than people expect.
So yeah, they write their characters and leads well.
Two things:
1. "Quality" or not, most folks enjoy the occasional "sleaze with cheese" (as an old boss of mine used to refer to McDonald's). In my experience, all "quality" and no frivolity generally makes Jack a pretentious, joyless bore.
2. Portentous self-seriousness, a la Zack Snyder's DCEU films, does not equate to quality, artistry, or intellectuality. Snyder's good at fooling a subset of fandom with it, though, I'll give him that.
Yeah, I don’t think Snyder’s work is quality. He can take a well constructed photograph, but he doesn’t know how to tell a story and his characters are one emotional note. I won’t go in MOS, as it’s been done to death. I don’t think I’ve seen a movie of his more than once, and haven’t bothered since MOS.
Yep. That must be it. I was fooled into finding Man of Steel a refreshing take on a character because it was different from the 19,649 traditional representations of the character I’d already been exposed to.
I get that you loathe Snyder’s version. Doesn’t make those of us who like it “fools” nor does it indicate we don’t “get the character”.
By playing everything all miserable and po-faced, Snyder gives his funnybook movies a superficial gloss of "seriousness" that appeals to those who like to consider themselves above the mere entertainment enjoyed by the Great Unwashed. I would have been all over that shit when I was 14 and looking to distinguish myself intellectually from my brutish peers, but thankfully I got over myself.
That sounds nice but isn't human nature.
I would have been all over that shit when I was 14 and looking to distinguish myself intellectually from my brutish peers, but thankfully I got over myself.
Yes it is totally obvious by this post that you've grown out of all that snobbish pretentiousness to presume to tell people what they should or shouldn't enjoy.
Yes it is totally obvious by this post that you've grown out of all that snobbish pretentiousness to presume to tell people what they should or shouldn't enjoy.
It's definitely a disputable point.
Jury’s still out.
By playing everything all miserable and po-faced, Snyder gives his funnybook movies a superficial gloss of "seriousness" that appeals to those who like to consider themselves above the mere entertainment enjoyed by the Great Unwashed. I would have been all over that shit when I was 14 and looking to distinguish myself intellectually from my brutish peers, but thankfully I got over myself.
Yeah, I find his work to be of brute force. But, not much else. Well, that's not true. As, I've said, he has a great eye for image.
He should go into photography.
That said, people like his work. That's cool. Let them spend their money, I say. Plenty of other things to watch.
Possibly I should have said, "I got over myself in this specific and limited context."
I agree with so much of what you've said, but I do have a nit to pick. A hair to split if you will. It IS about "adapting" which is a byproduct of "learning." I would also say it is primarily about profit, however, projected profits and not necessarily real ones. The future of Star Trek motion pictures became imperiled at Paramount not because Star Trek, Into Darkness, or Beyond failed to make a profit, rather, that they've failed to make the desired profit. Star Wars for Disney has been much the same story regarding profit(and for similar reasons) though it is by no means "imperiled". The studios are smart, however, they are investment houses and must meet projections and targeted goals or heads do roll (that's why Snyder was finally axed).
Yet its difficult to find a sizable number pf people actually claiming they enjoyed it. More like the opposite reaction.
I don't know, Try asking that of this board's most aggressive MCU fans who cannot accept DCEU fans enjoying / defending those films, and spend thread after thread, page after page attempting to tear down the films, the kind of fan of such films and of course, their constructed Boogeyman in Synder (with Nolan coming in second place)..
You mean exactly what the DCEU haters are doing when they whine on and on and on about DC films being "ooh...too dark!" or the ever-nonsensical "ashamed" to be superhero films charge (including the Nolan Bat-trilogy, with serious resentment about their success and the fact Ledger won an Oscar). That's attempting to drag all superhero movies into THEIR particular toybox which only accepts one kind of product, and it appears to shake them to their bones to see other interpretations actually work / enjoyed by others. They behave as if they are threatened by the idea of superheroes painted with a different brush.
You're making my point. Certain people are on this board breathlessly defending the MCU as the best/perfect way to produce superhero films, when the point is that there are different ways--some preferable--to the Power Rangers type of delivery that runs through a great number of MCU films.
Right back at you!
Quality does not mean its not enjoyable. For example, there's not an ounce of frivolity in The Godfather, Edge of the City and Platoon yet they are all beyond satisfying as film experiences. On the fantasy side, The Dark Knight trilogy and yes, Dawn of Justice were not weaving jokes and grins throughout their scripts, but they worked and were completely entertaining in truly knowing their characters and the various source experiences which influenced each.
Yep. That must be it. I was fooled into finding Man of Steel a refreshing take on a character because it was different from the 19,649 traditional representations of the character I’d already been exposed to.
Thank you. Quoted for absolute truth.
...only the "19,649 traditional representations of the character" would be a film taking inspiration from the George Reeves TV series (God forbid), a Super Friends take, or a certain run of comics. One of the best things about Superman as a character was his flexibility to break out of what was essentially as Golden Age cage; since the 80s, there have been periods of the comics where he (believably) felt alien, and/or struggled to adapt to humanity. Despite his very earth-normal upbringing he cannot forget how different he is, or how some humans (including Luthor) would resent his presence. Man of Steel successfully addressed what so many Superman adaptations should have all along, and the results of his alien ways put on full display (the battle against Zod) logically led right into the consequences / events of BvS. On the other hand, there are some superhero films that barely finish their run time without contradicting their own plots.
Well said.
Last edited:
You mean it's difficult HERE or online. Sure. But, clearly there are a sizable number of people. Because you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Is that what this is about? Because others don't like what you like? At a certain point, does it matter? If you like something, great! But, it takes two to tango, you're as much a part of it as them.
It's a tit for tat thing... huh. Doesn't that get boring? At a certain point don't you find it exhausting to try and convince people who just won't ever agree?
So, let them defend it.
But, your hands aren't so clean. You keep demeaning the MCU films as "Saturday Morning Cartoons," that doesn't sound like someone who sees there are different ways to create fantasy.
Dude, I didn't drag you into posts with other people.