DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Anwar]

^ ...now appearing at The Laugh Factory....

Nah, just that truth factory.

Lazy and childish are films that use operatic monologues in place of having characters behave like real human beings.

Fixed.

Your statement is the opposite of how individual relate to each other

No, it's pretty truthful. You don't waste time trying to negotiate with madmen. You stop them.

Infinity War

was an Avengers movie

Yes, and as such we don't need to be spoonfed the way you want. You want spoonfeeding, go to DC.

The audience is there to see the Avengers in the here and now try to deal with the situation, and considering the gravity of the threat--in as many logical ways as possible, starting with

Stopping Thanos, who wouldn't listen to anything they had to say.

But its clear a few will try to justify glorified cartoon plotting, and try to repackage it as making any sort of sense.

No, just not being ashamed of comics.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

He also came too late, if he'd been earlier like Joker he'd have stuck around more. Seniority.

Bane has stuck around. Man-Bat stuck around. Ra's stuck around. Even the character that should be absolutely dated by now, KGBeast, stuck around. The Wrath didn't come too late, he was just not memorable enough, which is the danger when he's too close in concept to the main character.

Again, he also came too late. The 70s.

Ra's stuck around. He's considered one of the major villains. No, he did not come too late.

And coming too late, by that time Joker had already been around for decades.

If those characters were so much better than the Joker, they would have de-throned him as the main villain to the Batman. They didn't. It's not because they necessarily were bad characters (Ra's certainly wasn't), but because the Joker is just that good.

Exactly, flat and more plot device than anything else.

If he's so bad, how is it that fantastic writers like Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Paul Dini, Ed Brubaker, etc., wrote so many stories using that character, which are celebrated to this day? Just because you don't like a character does not make it a bad character.

Even then, he was still respected as one of the major baddies.

No more than the Penguin, or the Riddler. Shit, if any villain in that era made it big, it was the Riddler. It wasn't until O'Neil and Adams brought him back to his roots after the Comics Code was relaxed in the 70s that the Joker became the big star of the Batman rogues gallery again.

Which wouldn't have happened if she hadn't been around as early as she was.

It only wouldn't have happened if there had been another character to fill that void.

Catwoman is very important, and Clayface went down as one of the first legacy villains. A new concept for comics.

None of which makes them the most popular Batman villain, the most popular comic book villain, or one of the most popular villains, period.

Just like how no one pointed out the holes in Joker's philosophies, or Dents' philosophies or Alfred's story about the Burmese Bandit?

You misunderstand the role of the Joker in TDK. His famous "everyone loses their minds" speech and other such moments are supposed to hold a mirror to our current system and its inherrent hypocracies, but he's not there to provide a suitable alternative. He's there to challenge, not to rule.

At being lazy.

Now you're just trying to annoy me. That, or you're not debating in good faith, and your strategy is to tire me out. The Joker may not work for you, but that does not mean he doesn't work. He's proven to work.

It's more that you just want the movie to stop so they can stand around debating things. He's their enemy, he's attacked their people, they're there to stop him. That's their motive and they aren't going to waste time trying to talk him down.

If there was one thing the movie could have used more of, it was some slowing down. Three hours of non-stop action get pretty tiresome, really.

But, anyway, you're avoiding the problem. I didn't ask for a debate, I asked for a challenge of Thanos' plan based on his own ideology. And, please, ask the police whether they consider "trying to talk him down" is a waste of time.

That's why he used the Reality Stone (which causes temporary changes unless he's always concentrating) instead of the power stone to atomize them. Since that's Stone's destructive power isn't reversible.

Okay, you're still on this "the Reality Stone can't create Reality, just destroy Reality" thing. Okay, so the Reality Stone's creations are only temporary. But Thanos also has the Time Stone at the end, right? So, the Time Stone should be able to make the creations of the Reality Stone permanent. Or is this also not how the Stones work, and if not, where can I find the rules on how they work? Or do I always have to ask you, because you alone know the rules of the MCU?

MCU's flaws are relatively minor compared to DCEU's. They earned that trust.

- Avengers (2012):
Thanos hands one of the Infinity Stones to Loki, you know, one of those Stones he needs for his master plan and can't do without, his most precious, so to speak. In hindsight, huh?!
Thanos smiles at the prospect of the Earthlings not backing down. In hindsight, why?

- Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Thanos, after his bad experience with Loki, decides to keep sitting on his ass and have another untrustworthy ally go after an Infinity Stone. Shouldn't he be out, killing halves of planets at this point? I mean, he has his master plan, but either go execute that plan yourself, or go execute your old strategy in the meantime, just in case your plan doesn't work out, right? But, anyway, he loses another Stone due to trusting somebody else with it.

- Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Thanos takes the Infinity Gauntlet out of a vault, saying "Fine, I'll do it myself." Then, in hindsight, waits three more years before going to Nidavellir to get the Gauntlet made (huh?) then sends his henchmen to Earth.

- Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
It is revealed that the Infinity Gauntlet on Asgard is a fake, an imitation of the real one. That's in Thanos' vault. Before being made.

And that's just some of the flaws in one aspect, Thanos and the Infinity Stones, of the entire MCU.

I said it before, I say it again, nobody demands of you to like the DC movies as much as the Marvel movies. You are free to like or dislike anything you want. But you certainly don't have to make stuff up to justify liking one better than the other. That's fooling yourself more than fooling anybody else, because none of us care whether you like one better than the other. It's your constant partisan pretension that's annoying.

Your criticism is that they didn't stop the movie to have an operatic monologue.

First let's clear out the technicality, "Why don't you do this instead of that?" is the opposite of a monologue. It's a question, it's the start of a dialogue.
Second, one question, one answer (whether it's "The Stones' creations don't last" or "Because I really want to do it this way") is not operatic, it's a very short exchange, really. The whole thing would have taken less than a minute.
And another chance to do this would have been with Gamora. She spend some time with Thanos where they didn't fight, so the question would have easily fit in there, even mood-wise.

 

[Christopher]

You misunderstand the role of the Joker in TDK. His famous "everyone loses their minds" speech and other such moments are supposed to hold a mirror to our current system and its inherrent hypocracies, but he's not there to provide a suitable alternative. He's there to challenge, not to rule.

Also, his role was to be proven wrong. He believed the people of Gotham would sink to his level, and they didn't. The value system that the Joker tried to prove illusory turned out to be real after all. His "alternative" was discredited.

 

[JD]

Bane has stuck around. Man-Bat stuck around. Ra's stuck around. Even the character that should be absolutely dated by now, KGBeast, stuck around. The Wrath didn't come too late, he was just not memorable enough, which is the danger when he's too close in concept to the main character.



Ra's stuck around. He's considered one of the major villains. No, he did not come too late.



If those characters were so much better than the Joker, they would have de-throned him as the main villain to the Batman. They didn't. It's not because they necessarily were bad characters (Ra's certainly wasn't), but because the Joker is just that good.

I think the best example of a new Batman villain who has managed to take off, would be Harley Quinn. She was just introduced back in the '90s and has managed to become even more popular that a lot of older villains.

If he's so bad, how is it that fantastic writers like Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Paul Dini, Ed Brubaker, etc., wrote so many stories using that character, which are celebrated to this day? Just because you don't like a character does not make it a bad character.

I think the fact that the Joker doesn't have a super complicated motivation and goal actually works in his favor, it allows the character to a lot more unpredictable, and gives the writers freedom to surprise us.

 

[Anwar]

Bane has stuck around. Man-Bat stuck around. Ra's stuck around.

And that's 3 villains out of how many new ones they kept trying to introduce over the decades?

The Wrath didn't come too late, he was just not memorable enough, which is the danger when he's too close in concept to the main character.

That, and they killed him off in his first appearance. They decided to make a new Wrath instead of bringing him back to life. They wanted to actually respect the "Comic Death" thing here. If they'd decided to keep him around past his one story he'd be around.

Ra's stuck around. He's considered one of the major villains. No, he did not come too late.

And he's 1 out of how many new villains that's been attempted?

If those characters were so much better than the Joker, they would have de-throned him as the main villain to the Batman. They didn't. It's not because they necessarily were bad characters (Ra's certainly wasn't), but because the Joker is just that good.

If they'd come out at the same time as him, they likely would have.

If he's so bad, how is it that fantastic writers like Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Paul Dini, Ed Brubaker, etc., wrote so many stories using that character, which are celebrated to this day?

He's flat, easy to write for. It's like how Riddler is harder to write for because writers wrack their brains thinking up complex plots for him as opposed to how Joker's plot are easy and can get away with being nonsensical.

No more than the Penguin, or the Riddler. Shit, if any villain in that era made it big, it was the Riddler. It wasn't until O'Neil and Adams brought him back to his roots after the Comics Code was relaxed in the 70s that the Joker became the big star of the Batman rogues gallery again.

He still was in no danger.

It only wouldn't have happened if there had been another character to fill that void.

But there wasn't, just like how they didn't bother making a bigger villain like Ra's until it was too late to threaten Joker.

None of which makes them the most popular Batman villain, the most popular comic book villain, or one of the most popular villains, period.

But still important ones who set new concepts for comics.

You misunderstand the role of the Joker in TDK.

Tell that to everyone who thinks he was right about everything. You see all the folks who point out the holes in Thanos' views (because the writers never intended him to be right) and hardly anyone points out the real holes in Joker and Dent and Alfreds' stories because Nolan didn't think there were any. Until that cliché bit at the end where after a whole movie of people just doing what Joker wanted them to they randomly choose not to. As opposed to people not all acting in uniform and there being a varied reaction throughout the film.

His famous "everyone loses their minds" speech and other such moments are supposed to hold a mirror to our current system and its inherrent hypocracies, but he's not there to provide a suitable alternative. He's there to challenge, not to rule.

So he points out flaws, no one bothers to counter him on how those reactions are reasonable. Lazy.

The movie shouldn't have waited til the end to have ONE instance of people not acting that way, we should've had varied reactions throughout.

Now you're just trying to annoy me. That, or you're not debating in good faith, and your strategy is to tire me out. The Joker may not work for you, but that does not mean he doesn't work. He's proven to work.

Due to being lazy.

If there was one thing the movie could have used more of, it was some slowing down. Three hours of non-stop action get pretty tiresome, really.

Stopping everything for operatic monologues isn't good writing.

But, anyway, you're avoiding the problem. I didn't ask for a debate, I asked for a challenge of Thanos' plan based on his own ideology. And, please, ask the police whether they consider "trying to talk him down" is a waste of time.

When he's already more heavily armed and committed multiple cases of Genocide, do you go for "Shoot on sight" or "Talk him down."?

Okay, you're still on this "the Reality Stone can't create Reality, just destroy Reality" thing. Okay, so the Reality Stone's creations are only temporary. But Thanos also has the Time Stone at the end, right? So, the Time Stone should be able to make the creations of the Reality Stone permanent.

Remember how they talked about how continual usage of the Time Stone wasn't good for reality either?

- Avengers (2012):
Thanos hands one of the Infinity Stones to Loki, you know, one of those Stones he needs for his master plan and can't do without, his most precious, so to speak. In hindsight, huh?!

That's why he killed him in IW.

Thanos smiles at the prospect of the Earthlings not backing down. In hindsight, why?

"Let him have his fun". He isn't above a decent fight occasionally.

- Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Thanos, after his bad experience with Loki, decides to keep sitting on his ass and have another untrustworthy ally go after an Infinity Stone.

He didn't know Ronan wasn't trustworthy until he betrayed him.

Shouldn't he be out, killing halves of planets at this point?

That's how the Nova Corps knew about Thanos in the first place. He IS doing that.

I mean, he has his master plan, but either go execute that plan yourself, or go execute your old strategy in the meantime, just in case your plan doesn't work out, right?

What makes you think he just wasn't on some downtime at that particular moment?

But, anyway, he loses another Stone due to trusting somebody else with it.

And then because he now knew exactly where it was (he didn't before) he knew where to get it.

- Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Thanos takes the Infinity Gauntlet out of a vault, saying "Fine, I'll do it myself." Then, in hindsight, waits three more years before going to Nidavellir to get the Gauntlet made (huh?) then sends his henchmen to Earth.

That scene was a flash-forward.

- Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
It is revealed that the Infinity Gauntlet on Asgard is a fake, an imitation of the real one. That's in Thanos' vault. Before being made.

What makes you think someone didn't try to have something made to contain the Stones' power before? What makes you think that this prior Gauntlet wasn't his inspiration for the one he had made?

It's your constant partisan pretension that's annoying.

If one is better written and more successful and been going twice as long, a few slip ups will show. But even these flaws you bring up are explainable, unlike the DCEU's major plot flaws. MCU hasn't done something like make Thor ridiculously powerful in his first movie and then depower him for no reason in his next appearances.

First let's clear out the technicality, "Why don't you do this instead of that?" is the opposite of a monologue. It's a question, it's the start of a dialogue.
Second, one question, one answer (whether it's "The Stones' creations don't last" or "Because I really want to do it this way") is not operatic, it's a very short exchange, really. The whole thing would have taken less than a minute.
And another chance to do this would have been with Gamora. She spend some time with Thanos where they didn't fight, so the question would have easily fit in there, even mood-wise.

Because talking him down would've been futile.

 

[dahj]

In DCEU news, Birds of Prey have apparently started filming.

 

[crookeddy]

In DCEU news, Birds of Prey have apparently started filming.

Wow, it's very unusual for a DC movie to get to this stage! lol

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Nah, just that truth factory.

No, more like you're appearing at the MCU-Obsessive with Blinders-On Factory.

No, it's pretty truthful. You don't waste time trying to negotiate with madmen. You stop them.

No one behaves like characters from an episode of the 80's G.I. Joe cartoon or a mindless Rambo movie. The audience--many if not most adults--do have the expectation of logical behavior from the characters they are meant to support and/or follow. Infinity War--like so many MCU films failed in that regard.

Yes, and as such we don't need to be spoonfed the way you want. You want spoonfeeding, go to DC.

If you want material that's on the level of the Power Rangers where logical plots seem to cause allergic reactions, jump to the MCU, with the exception of less than a handful of its catalog.

Stopping Thanos, who wouldn't listen to anything they had to say.

No one knew that ahead of the conflict, or how he would even respond to the one approach no one seemed bright enough to try, so going into it looking for a fight was idiotic beyond belief.

Ra's stuck around. He's considered one of the major villains. No, he did not come too late.

Agreed, but some do not even know Ra's history unless they're running to Wikipedia.

If those characters were so much better than the Joker, they would have de-throned him as the main villain to the Batman. They didn't. It's not because they necessarily were bad characters (Ra's certainly wasn't), but because the Joker is just that good.

Well observed. Its the same with Spider-Man; his die-hards claim he has a deep rogues' gallery with great characters, but the reason the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn continues to reappear in the comics (they could not keep him dead--says much) almost every adaptation has used the Goblin as the go-to "Biggest Bad", and its because he's that good. Only the Sony/Disney films have not used the Goblin, but that should be punctuated with a "yet".

If he's so bad, how is it that fantastic writers like Denny O'Neil, Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Paul Dini, Ed Brubaker, etc., wrote so many stories using that character, which are celebrated to this day? Just because you don't like a character does not make it a bad character.

Exactly--that's a legion of some of the greatest talents in the medium's history. Telling. The only person still crying about the Joker's status is one who cannot stand that he's almost-inarguably the greatest comic book antagonist ever created, no matter the company. That burns one who breathlessly tries to sell Marvel, yet they do not have a villain on that level--one who had grown beyond comic book fandom long ago. It sure as Hell is not Thanos.

You misunderstand the role of the Joker in TDK. His famous "everyone loses their minds" speech and other such moments are supposed to hold a mirror to our current system and its inherrent hypocracies, but he's not there to provide a suitable alternative. He's there to challenge, not to rule.

This was clear as day. Only one who A) Did not see the film, B) Just did not get what was--as mentioned before--clear as day, or C) Will look for any dreamed up excuse to criticize the most celebrated superhero film ever made.

I asked for a challenge of Thanos' plan based on his own ideology. And, please, ask the police whether they consider "trying to talk him down" is a waste of time.

Again, well said, but you will never get a reasonable response to that.

Okay, you're still on this "the Reality Stone can't create Reality, just destroy Reality" thing. Okay, so the Reality Stone's creations are only temporary. But Thanos also has the Time Stone at the end, right? So, the Time Stone should be able to make the creations of the Reality Stone permanent. Or is this also not how the Stones work, and if not, where can I find the rules on how they work? Or do I always have to ask you, because you alone know the rules of the MCU?

- Avengers (2012):
Thanos hands one of the Infinity Stones to Loki, you know, one of those Stones he needs for his master plan and can't do without, his most precious, so to speak. In hindsight, huh?!
Thanos smiles at the prospect of the Earthlings not backing down. In hindsight, why?

- Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Thanos, after his bad experience with Loki, decides to keep sitting on his ass and have another untrustworthy ally go after an Infinity Stone. Shouldn't he be out, killing halves of planets at this point? I mean, he has his master plan, but either go execute that plan yourself, or go execute your old strategy in the meantime, just in case your plan doesn't work out, right? But, anyway, he loses another Stone due to trusting somebody else with it.

- Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Thanos takes the Infinity Gauntlet out of a vault, saying "Fine, I'll do it myself." Then, in hindsight, waits three more years before going to Nidavellir to get the Gauntlet made (huh?) then sends his henchmen to Earth.

- Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
It is revealed that the Infinity Gauntlet on Asgard is a fake, an imitation of the real one. That's in Thanos' vault. Before being made.

And that's just some of the flaws in one aspect, Thanos and the Infinity Stones, of the entire MCU.

...which makes both the people behind the MCU's master plan and their Thanos's schemes appeared scattered and certainly not the threat the marketing tried to make him out to be. Your examples above illustrate just how all over the place Thanos and his grand scheme were.

First let's clear out the technicality, "Why don't you do this instead of that?" is the opposite of a monologue. It's a question, it's the start of a dialogue.
Second, one question, one answer (whether it's "The Stones' creations don't last" or "Because I really want to do it this way") is not operatic, it's a very short exchange, really. The whole thing would have taken less than a minute.

Nope--they had to get to CG blasts and explosions.

 

[LJones41]

MCU's flaws are relatively minor compared to DCEU's. They earned that trust.

I don't agree with the above comment AT ALL. I'm not claiming that the DCEU franchise is better. But I certainly don't agree that the MCU is better. To me, the latter has been around longer and nothing else.

As for the story arc surrounding Thanos, I think it is flawed as fuck. Sorry, but I do.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

And that's 3 villains out of how many new ones they kept trying to introduce over the decades?

I could name a few more, but the point has been made. You're just trying to move the goalposts.

That, and they killed him off in his first appearance. They decided to make a new Wrath instead of bringing him back to life. They wanted to actually respect the "Comic Death" thing here. If they'd decided to keep him around past his one story he'd be around.

Well, there does not have been much demand for him. Not even from his creators.

And he's 1 out of how many new villains that's been attempted?

First off, that's the same attempt of moving the goalposts as above. Second, you brought up Ra's. Your own argument backfired, deal with it.

If they'd come out at the same time as him, they likely would have.

Well, that's a statement that, due to its inherent speculative nature, can neither be proven nor disproven. That's a fanciful way to say that you're talking out of your ass.

He's flat, easy to write for. It's like how Riddler is harder to write for because writers wrack their brains thinking up complex plots for him as opposed to how Joker's plot are easy and can get away with being nonsensical.

Morrison delivered a study of the Joker's psyche, Miller explored the way the joker is emotionally bound to Batman, Moore explored the Joker's claim of insanity being the real sanity, etc.. "Easy to plot around" is not the main feature of the Joker, despite your claims.

He still was in no danger.

Well, maybe not among the Batman rogues gallery, but considering the Bat-books themselves were in danger of being cancelled shortly before the TV show became a thing, it shows that the appeal of the Joker in comic fandom in general at that time wasn't that big. Plus, he was/is also visually appealing. He's an evil clown, and we all know kids are afraid of clowns.

But there wasn't, just like how they didn't bother making a bigger villain like Ra's until it was too late to threaten Joker.

Let's see, the Penguin debuted in 1941, so did the Scarecrow, Two-Face came in 1942, 1948 was another good year with both the Riddler and the Mad Hatter, ... Seriously, show some respect for Bill Finger and the rest of the guys. Batman's rogues gallery is renowned as the greatest in all of comics, with only Dick Tracy's and Spider-Man's anywhere near it, and a very large number of those were created before the Silver Age.

But to your point (which is really beside the point of debating the Joker), Catwoman is filling out her role as fantastic as the Joker does his. It's just not the same role, that of the big villain.

But still important ones who set new concepts for comics.

Yes. And that they aren't the most popular comic book villain is not due to any shortcomings on their part, but because of the heavy competition, at the top of which is the Joker.

Tell that to everyone who thinks he was right about everything. You see all the folks who point out the holes in Thanos' views (because the writers never intended him to be right) and hardly anyone points out the real holes in Joker and Dent and Alfreds' stories because Nolan didn't think there were any. Until that cliché bit at the end where after a whole movie of people just doing what Joker wanted them to they randomly choose not to. As opposed to people not all acting in uniform and there being a varied reaction throughout the film.

The holes in the Joker's and Dent's views are directly adressed in the movie itself. Alfred was right about some people (whether they be psychopaths or extremists driven by desperation) just wanting to see the world burn, they actually are real. To make Bruce understand that he can't expect to reason with the Joker is the point in-universe, and the point of his story in the greater narrative of the movie was that the solution, to burn to forest down, could be too high a price. The point was that, ultimately, Batman can't win against the Joker, as he's the unstoppable force crashing against Batman's immovable object.

As to those people unreflectively repeating the Joker's lines on the internet, yes, I've encountered them, too, though mostly when the movie was still new. They are idiots, or, if I may be so hopeful, they were just at the beginning of a longer thought process which would result in a more nuanced and reasonable critique of the current system.

So he points out flaws, no one bothers to counter him on how those reactions are reasonable. Lazy.

The movie shouldn't have waited til the end to have ONE instance of people not acting that way, we should've had varied reactions throughout.

The movie's main protagonists, both Batman and Gordon, didn't act that way through-out the movie. Neither did the judge, the commissioner, or the mayor, and two of those died for their choices.

Due to being lazy.

Well, given your kindergarten level of arguing, I feel completely justified in my judgement that you're lazy.

Stopping everything for operatic monologues isn't good writing.

Again, one question with one answer is pretty much at the opposite side of the verbal spectrum to an operatic monologue.

When he's already more heavily armed and committed multiple cases of Genocide, do you go for "Shoot on sight" or "Talk him down."?

Are you telling me that when faced with an opponent that you are most unlikely to beat by force, you wouldn't even try a hint of diplomacy first? Just for my peace of mind, you're not in a position of power, are you?

Remember how they talked about how continual usage of the Time Stone wasn't good for reality either?

Quite honestly, no.

That's why he killed him in IW.

Well, yes, but why did he trust him in the first place? He's the God of Mischief, for cryin' out loud. And how long could they have known each other? Besides, Loki acted just as Thanos wanted him to, it just turned out that he was not powerful enough to overcome the Avengers. The flaw here is that Thanos entrusting Loki with the Mind Stone is completely out-of-character in hindsight.

"Let him have his fun". He isn't above a decent fight occasionally.

How does that fit his "noble" motivation in IW? Besides, he didn't just not get the Tesseract, but he also lost the Mind Stone in the process. And he's still in a good mood?!

He didn't know Ronan wasn't trustworthy until he betrayed him.

Didn't he, though? I remember quite a bit of shouting between the two of them.

That's how the Nova Corps knew about Thanos in the first place. He IS doing that.



What makes you think he just wasn't on some downtime at that particular moment?

Well, at that point, we had seen Thanos standing with his back to an underling, not doing anything, and sitting on that weird space throne, not doing anything.
Also, Gamora was raised by Thanos. Wouldn't she know his ideology, and if she did, shouldn't she have shared that information at some point? And don't say that happened off-screen, because that is truly lazy.

And then because he now knew exactly where it was (he didn't before) he knew where to get it.

Yay, I guess?!

That scene was a flash-forward.

Wait, post-credit scenes now jump ahead a few years? And why did Thanos keep the freshly-made Gauntlet in a vault? And why, after saying "I'll do it myself" did he stay in space and send other people to get the Stones on Earth?

What makes you think someone didn't try to have something made to contain the Stones' power before? What makes you think that this prior Gauntlet wasn't his inspiration for the one he had made?

Because IW gave the impression that Thanos was the first to come up with the Gauntlet. And because that's a revision of what actually happened. Truth is, they put the Gauntlet on Asgard as an Easter Egg in the first Thor movie, and then were in the pickle of having to explain it away later on.

If one is better written and more successful and been going twice as long, a few slip ups will show.

What?

But even these flaws you bring up are explainable, unlike the DCEU's major plot flaws.

No, both can be explained away, if one tries hard enough and doesn't mind bending their own brain in the process.

MCU hasn't done something like make Thor ridiculously powerful in his first movie and then depower him for no reason in his next appearances.

Right, they just made a big deal of Thor destroying the Bifrost and never being able to return to Earth and see the woman he loves again, only to have him show up on that plane in The Avengers. Yeah, that was some brilliant planning ahead of Marvel's part there.

Seriously, though, for every flaw in a DC movie, I can point to a flaw in a Marvel movie. Several, actually, as there've been more Marvel movies. But what's the point? It's how I said before, you just don't like the DC movies, and for whatever reason feel the need to justify your opinion. Let it go. It's okay, like the Marvel movies, hate the DC movies, nobody here will blame you for anything. But you constantly come to the DC movie threads to make these broad statements of how DC movies suck and Marvel movies do such a better job and presenting these opinions as facts, that we blame you for.

Because talking him down would've been futile.

Again, please don't be in a position of authority.

 

[Anwar]

No, more like you're appearing at the MCU-Obsessive with Blinders-On Factory.

Nah, I just like unashamed stuff that doesn't sell-out. Plenty of "fans" brought on by Singer and Nolan dislike that though.

No one behaves like characters from an episode of the 80's G.I. Joe cartoon or a mindless Rambo movie. The audience--many if not most adults--do have the expectation of logical behavior from the characters they are meant to support and/or follow.

And IW gave us that. Just no operatic monologues.

If you want material that's on the level of the Power Rangers where logical plots seem to cause allergic reactions

I'll watch DC. Or Fox.

No one knew that ahead of the conflict, or how he would even respond to the one approach no one seemed bright enough to try, so going into it looking for a fight was idiotic beyond belief.

They knew this was the guy who sent the Black Order to Earth, that's all the justification needed to know talking wasn't an option.

Well observed. Its the same with Spider-Man; his die-hards claim he has a deep rogues' gallery with great characters, but the reason the Green Goblin/Norman Osborn continues to reappear in the comics

Is purely because of his association with the Gwen Stacy death story and how his actions led to the legacy of the other Green Goblins and the Hobgoblin. Norman wasn't even that great or successful a villain before that story.

(they could not keep him dead--says much)

They did for over 20 years til they sold out in the 90s. Before that they did the logical thing and merely made new Green Goblins or a new Goblin altogether (Hobgoblin).

Exactly--that's a legion of some of the greatest talents in the medium's history. Telling.

Yeah, even they want a lazy villain easy to write for and do multiple contrasting analysis of because of how blank he really is.

That burns one who breathlessly tries to sell Marvel, yet they do not have a villain on that level

Marvel is about its heroes, not its villains. And no, I don't believe in that lazy "A hero is only as good as the villain" stuff either.

This was clear as day. Only one who A) Did not see the film, B) Just did not get what was--as mentioned before--clear as day, or C) Will look for any dreamed up excuse to criticize the most celebrated superhero film ever made.

If Ledger hadn't died, Dark Knight wouldn't have half the respect it does.

Again, well said, but you will never get a reasonable response to that.

If you're fighting a genocidal maniac who heavily outguns you, you honestly going to say "talk him down at all costs"?

...which makes both the people behind the MCU's master plan and their Thanos's schemes appeared scattered and certainly not the threat the marketing tried to make him out to be. Your examples above illustrate just how all over the place Thanos and his grand scheme were.

No, you're just not paying attention to all the plot points because IW didn't spoonfeed you.

Nope--they had to get to CG blasts and explosions.

That's what it means to be unashamed and embracing the wondrous as opposed to trying to kill it.

 

[Dick Whitman]

In DCEU news, Birds of Prey have apparently started filming.

Great to hear that. The sign that these things are close to that are casting announcements for new characters. Which we got already. As a opposed to some films which got a release year, a few back and no information on casting at all.

I hope they learn their lesson to wait until they are moving forward. Look at the new Ghostbusters sequel. All of a sudden we have a release date next year and a teaser trailer. But clearly they have been working on that quietly before we knew it.

 

[Anwar]

I could name a few more, but the point has been made.

Yes, the major Batman baddies were all introduced around the same time and there's been very limited success with later additions.

Well, there does not have been much demand for him. Not even from his creators.

The creators intended him to be a one-shot, despite him being a good villain. Integrity.

First off, that's the same attempt of moving the goalposts as above. Second, you brought up Ra's.

And he shows the limited success of introducing villains after the initial bunch. Out of several attempts, his was one of the only success stories.

[quote[Well, that's a statement that, due to its inherent speculative nature, can neither be proven nor disproven.[/quote]

Stalemate.

Morrison delivered a study of the Joker's psyche, Miller explored the way the joker is emotionally bound to Batman, Moore explored the Joker's claim of insanity being the real sanity, etc..

Do all of those depictions and analysis totally match up? No? Well, that's the benefit of being a plot device and not a character.

Well, maybe not among the Batman rogues gallery, but considering the Bat-books themselves were in danger of being cancelled shortly before the TV show became a thing, it shows that the appeal of the Joker in comic fandom in general at that time wasn't that big. Plus, he was/is also visually appealing. He's an evil clown, and we all know kids are afraid of clowns.

So now it just comes down to visual appearance?

Let's see, the Penguin debuted in 1941, so did the Scarecrow, Two-Face came in 1942, 1948 was another good year with both the Riddler and the Mad Hatter

All later than Joker.

But to your point (which is really beside the point of debating the Joker), Catwoman is filling out her role as fantastic as the Joker does his. It's just not the same role, that of the big villain.

She's arguably as important to the Batman mythos as Joker.

Yes. And that they aren't the most popular comic book villain is not due to any shortcomings on their part, but because of the heavy competition, at the top of which is the Joker.

Let me put it this way, if Ra's had debuted first and Joker decades later, can you honestly say that wouldn't have affected his popularity?

The holes in the Joker's and Dent's views are directly adressed in the movie itself.

Hardly, if the movie wanted to punch a hole in Dent's view they'd have had Bruce or Rachel immediately bring up guys like Cincinnatus, George Washington, Diocletian, etc.

Alfred was right about some people (whether they be psychopaths or extremists driven by desperation) just wanting to see the world burn, they actually are real.

His story about the Burmese Bandit is also full of holes. It never occurred to him that there was a 100% logical reason for him stealing the jewels and throwing them away. Like wanting to hamper the British attempts to establish relations with the natives. Not some random loon.

The movie's main protagonists, both Batman and Gordon, didn't act that way through-out the movie. Neither did the judge, the commissioner, or the mayor, and two of those died for their choices.

And everyone else just did whatever Joker told them to, like sheep. Until the cliché bit with the boats.

Well, given your kindergarten level of arguing, I feel completely justified in my judgement that you're lazy.

Stalemate, then.

Again, one question with one answer is pretty much at the opposite side of the verbal spectrum to an operatic monologue.

One question with one answer wouldn't be enough, those wanting that kind of explanation would insist every last detail be hammered out in a big monologue.

Are you telling me that when faced with an opponent that you are most unlikely to beat by force, you wouldn't even try a hint of diplomacy first?

Not if he'd already shown he wasn't interested in talking. Sometimes you just have to fight for your life.

Quite honestly, no.

It was there.

[quote[Well, yes, but why did he trust him in the first place?[/quote]

He used the Mind Stone to make him more obedient. It didn't take as well as he'd hoped, so he just chose to kill him next they met.

How does that fit his "noble" motivation in IW?

It's called being 3 Dimensional.

Didn't he, though? I remember quite a bit of shouting between the two of them.

Some arguing, but that's it.

Well, at that point, we had seen Thanos standing with his back to an underling, not doing anything, and sitting on that weird space throne, not doing anything.

The Nova Corps knew of him as the Mad Titan.

Also, Gamora was raised by Thanos. Wouldn't she know his ideology, and if she did, shouldn't she have shared that information at some point?

She did, with the other Guardians. That he was a Madman she was happy to leave.

Yay, I guess?!

Yes, better than some guesses about where it COULD be.

Wait, post-credit scenes now jump ahead a few years?

That one did.

And why did Thanos keep the freshly-made Gauntlet in a vault?

Why not?

And why, after saying "I'll do it myself" did he stay in space and send other people to get the Stones on Earth?

So he could the Power Stone from Xandar and the Space Stone from the Asgardians.

Because IW gave the impression that Thanos was the first to come up with the Gauntlet.

That's never stated.

No, both can be explained away, if one tries hard enough and doesn't mind bending their own brain in the process.

The DCEU much harder than MCU.

Right, they just made a big deal of Thor destroying the Bifrost and never being able to return to Earth and see the woman he loves again, only to have him show up on that plane in The Avengers. Yeah, that was some brilliant planning ahead of Marvel's part there.

You missed how it was stated that it took all of Odin's power to do that? And the only one who said that about the Bridge was Loki, who was trying to talk Thor out of it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It occurs that a Flashpoint movie could end with a reset timeline that merges Phoenix's Joker with whoever stars in The Batman with Momoa's Aquaman and Gadot's Wonder Woman. Lampshade it with Harley Quinn meeting Athur Fleck and being completely confused.

 

[Christopher]

Are they even still doing Flashpoint? Besides, movie series have never needed time travel to rewrite their continuities or recast actors. The DCEU already has its share of quietly retconned history, e.g. going from BvS's "Half the world mistrusts and fears Superman" to JL's "Everyone adored Superman and his death has created more despair than anything else in history."

 

[crookeddy]

Are they even still doing Flashpoint? Besides, movie series have never needed time travel to rewrite their continuities or recast actors. The DCEU already has its share of quietly retconned history, e.g. going from BvS's "Half the world mistrusts and fears Superman" to JL's "Everyone adored Superman and his death has created more despair than anything else in history."

I wouldn't call that a retcon. They kind of showed why - it was from his deeds, and then sacrifice fighting Doomsday.

 

[dahj]

I hope they learn their lesson to wait until they are moving forward. Look at the new Ghostbusters sequel. All of a sudden we have a release date next year and a teaser trailer. But clearly they have been working on that quietly before we knew it.

The rumors are the next one to enter production will be The Batman, and if that's the case I doubt they'll have the luxury of peace and quiet...

 

[crookeddy]

So the DC movies are commonly described as under-performers, but it seems that really isn't true... It's actually only Snyder DC movies not called MOS that flopped...

BvS minor flop and JL major flop. MOS was a success compared to both expectations, and SR.

Outside the 2 flop we have
WW - huge hit
SS - surprise hit
AM - surprise mega hit

It looks like formula for DC success is to not use Snyder - and that's a little disappointing to me, since I like Snyder's movies (for the most part)

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Yes, the major Batman baddies were all introduced around the same time and there's been very limited success with later additions.

Yeah, that's not gonna work. I've provided several examples disproving your point, and you just going "Yeah, but were they enough?" is just plain silly. But just to put this to an end, here's a Wikipedia list of Batman villains including where and when they first appeared, so you and everybody else interested can see that major Batman villains were introduced in every decade since the 40s.

The creators intended him to be a one-shot, despite him being a good villain. Integrity.

So, what, you're pissed that an intended one-shot villain didn't de-throne the Joker?

And he shows the limited success of introducing villains after the initial bunch. Out of several attempts, his was one of the only success stories.

Again, I invite you to check the Wikipedia list I linked above to learn that this is simply not true.

Well, that's a statement that, due to its inherent speculative nature, can neither be proven nor disproven.

Stalemate.

No, just a shit argument. I could just as well say "Spider-Man would have been way cooler if he were a DC character". Just as your statement, this'd be neither provable nor disprovable, and just the same, it's just plain silly.

Do all of those depictions and analysis totally match up? No? Well, that's the benefit of being a plot device and not a character.

So, a character being interpreted in different ways is enough to claim that it is not a character at all? I guess Sherlock Holmes is just a plot device, as well, then. As is Thanos, come to think of it, as the Russos' version is so completely different than the Starlin version.

So now it just comes down to visual appearance?

No, but considering comic books are a visual medium, it would be idiotic to claim that visual appearance wasn't at least a factor to a character's popularity.

All later than Joker.

Are you betting on me having a bad memory or something? I listed those characters because you claimed they didn't bother creating big time villains after they did the Joker.

She's arguably as important to the Batman mythos as Joker.

So is Alfred, and Gordon, and Robin, and the Batmobile. Do I get through to you at all?

Let me put it this way, if Ra's had debuted first and Joker decades later, can you honestly say that wouldn't have affected his popularity?

That's another statement that is neither provable nor disprovable due to a highly speculative nature. But, since you ask my personal opinion, I say, in full honesty, no, I don't think it would have affected his popularity.

Hardly, if the movie wanted to punch a hole in Dent's view they'd have had Bruce or Rachel immediately bring up guys like Cincinnatus, George Washington, Diocletian, etc.

You don't really need to go through all this to punch a hole through a villains logic. Sometimes, it's quite enough to ask a question. Like "Why didn't you just create more resources?".

His story about the Burmese Bandit is also full of holes. It never occurred to him that there was a 100% logical reason for him stealing the jewels and throwing them away. Like wanting to hamper the British attempts to establish relations with the natives. Not some random loon.

Well, it still goes to the point that they couldn't negotiate with that bandit. Besides, what would the point for the larger narrative have been to bring that up? What would the audience have gotten out of it?

And everyone else just did whatever Joker told them to, like sheep. Until the cliché bit with the boats.

Again, should I just name examples, waiting for you to say when?

Stalemate, then.

Again, no. The character of the Joker being lazy is up for debate. You not even attempting an argument anymore and just repeating "lazy" over and over is, in fact, lazy.

One question with one answer wouldn't be enough, those wanting that kind of explanation would insist every last detail be hammered out in a big monologue.

Well, that's a strawman argument if I've ever seen one.

Not if he'd already shown he wasn't interested in talking. Sometimes you just have to fight for your life.

Again, chances for victory by force were miniscule, so trying everything including asking a question is most reasonable.

It was there.

Well, since I'm not gonna re-watch the movie just to check, I'm gonna take your word for it. It still feels kind of wanky, they didn't establish the rules of what the Stones could do together very well. And, no, "because he didn't use it that way" is not establishing anything.

He used the Mind Stone to make him more obedient. It didn't take as well as he'd hoped, so he just chose to kill him next they met.

Yeah, I've heard about that updated character bio. That was pure revisionism on Marvel's part. Not that they can't do that, but it does feel weird. Also, if I remember correctly, Thanos didn't kill Loki because he didn't accomplish his goals, but because Loki was trying to deceive and kill Thanos.

It's called being 3 Dimensional.

So, if the Joker's logic is flawed, it's lazy writing, but when Thanos' logic is flawed, the writing is threedimensional.

Some arguing, but that's it.

Yeah, they were your regular old married couple.

The Nova Corps knew of him as the Mad Titan.

Yeah, he's so mad, he's gonna have to sit down before he does something ill-advised.

She did, with the other Guardians. That he was a Madman she was happy to leave.

That's a very flippant way to describe Thanos' ideology.

Yes, better than some guesses about where it COULD be.

Well, considering the henchmen were going for the Stone at the start of the movie, didn't Thanos already know where to find it, and just not bother going himself?

That one did.

And they couldn't be bothered to put a caption there to let us know?!

Why not?

Well, presumably, he would have decided to "do it himself" before going to Nidavellir to have the Gauntlet made, then wear it while going after the Stones. Because that's how IW seemed to present the chain of events.

So he could the Power Stone from Xandar and the Space Stone from the Asgardians.

But he was on Xandar before the movie even started, and he had his henchmen with him on the Asgardian ship. In any event, he was, once more, willing to trust others with getting the Stones for him. No "I'll do it myself" about it.

That's never stated.

It's never stated otherwise. And the concept seemed novel even to those heroes who already knew of the Stones.

The DCEU much harder than MCU.

Still partisan.

You missed how it was stated that it took all of Odin's power to do that?

Yeah, but it was supposed to be impossible, and definitive. Turns out, they could just build a new Bifrost. Good way to preserve the drama.

And the only one who said that about the Bridge was Loki, who was trying to talk Thor out of it.

So, Thor didn't know anything about the Bifrost? Because that would have had to be the case for Loki's lies to have any effect.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Nah, I just like unashamed stuff that doesn't sell-out. Plenty of "fans" brought on by Singer and Nolan dislike that though.

Its okay to admit you like Power Rangers-level explosions and noise. Just do not try to pass it off as coherent without inspiring laughs or eyerolls.

And IW gave us that. Just no operatic monologues.

In comes the laughter.

They knew this was the guy who sent the Black Order to Earth, that's all the justification needed to know talking wasn't an option.

Nonsense. In real world history, governments have tried to negotiate before and during conflicts because that's what adult, logical minds naturally do--seek options--unlike Infinity War, where the kids with a lighter tossed into the box of fireworks just to "go boom."

Is purely because of his association with the Gwen Stacy death story and how his actions led to the legacy of the other Green Goblins and the Hobgoblin. Norman wasn't even that great or successful a villain before that story.

Nonsense. Posted like one who never read any of the comics to know why the Green Goblin was Spider-Man's greatest (and most revisited) villain before the Stacy death issue.

Marvel is about its heroes, not its villains

More nonsense. Spider-Man: Homecoming was as much about Toomes/Vulture as it was about Spider-Man. The greatest of all Spider-Man films--Raimi's Spider-Man 2--was a showcase for Octavius/Doctor Octopus. Again, you must have been in a different theater, or you have some gross misunderstandings about how stories actually work..

If Ledger hadn't died, Dark Knight wouldn't have half the respect it does.

Aside from your utter disrespect of the late Ledger, you are reaching at anything to try (and fail) to tear down the greatest superhero film and a great film in general. Something the majority of Marvel movies will never be able to claim.

If you're fighting a genocidal maniac who heavily outguns you, you honestly going to say "talk him down at all costs"?

Because the plan of earth tech vs. galaxy-traveling giant alien with overpowered magic stones made sooo much sense. It did not, hence the reason viewers can easily see the endless nonsensical structure of Infinity Rangers.