DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[Professor Zoom]

His creative choices are what made the DCEU interesting in the first place. Whedonizing it made it more cookie cutter, thus less interesting.

Sure. Interesting. Not particularly appealing, but, sure, interesting.

I don't fault Whedon too much for Justice League, he was tasked with a very difficult job--turning something into something it was never meant to be. That said, I'm not a super fan of Whedon either.

I think what Jenkins and the screenwriters did on Wonder Woman was both interesting and appealing.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't think there's any point in blaming Whedon at all, nor is there any truth to the claim that the DC movies had to use (or even still need) Snyder's style to be interesting.

However, the way the change was made was stupidity only a studio executive could imagine and that was never going to work no matter who was in charge.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

The whole "we have to copy Marvel's recipe" thing was itself the problem. Do your own thing and believe in it.

Warner Bros. not believing in their own thing wasn't THE problem. They believed in it alright. The problem was the general audiences didn't buy into it because it was generally bombastic nonsense. In fact they repeatedly rejected it to the point where they had to fire "visionary" Zack Snyder and then performed a panicked re-edit of Justice League. Kevin Feige has focused on story and character with special effects there to support them. Snyder was just enough story to support the special effects. MCU, to date, substance over style. DCCU style over substance.

I grew up in the rarified air of being more a DC fan than Marvel in my comic book collecting days so it brings me zero joy to knock the DCCU. In fact it saddens me. I will say Ben Affleck really surprised me as Batman. He was excellent. Henry Cavill's casting as Superman was great. They've done a brilliant job in casting. The DCCU bench of acting talent was, on paper, built to be competitive with that of Disney's MCU. Sadly they've all been letdown by the writing and over reliance on special effects to carry the day.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Snyder was just enough story to support the special effects.

This is basically every single Snyder movie. He was always style over substance. Which is fine for photography. But, style doesn't tell a story. Style can only take something so far.

 

[Anwar]

This is basically every single Snyder movie. He was always style over substance. Which is fine for photography. But, style doesn't tell a story. Style can only take something so far.

You'd think Studios would've learned their lesson after Sucker Punch.

 

[Professor Zoom]

You'd think Studios would've learned their lesson after Sucker Punch.

I wished they had learned their lesson from 300. But, then, it did really well at the box office, and that's all the matters.

They should've learned it from Watchman, which, probably after advertisement, was not exactly a box office winner.

 

[The Realist]

Warner Bros. not believing in their own thing wasn't THE problem. They believed in it alright. The problem was the general audiences didn't buy into it because it was generally bombastic nonsense.

General audiences, philistines that they are, expect to take actual enjoyment from their pop cartoon movies: laughing, crying, rooting for the good guys, hissing the baddies, being thrilled and dazzled and entertained. Buncha lowbrows.

And that's how we end up with movies like this:

God, I miss Zack Snyder so much.

 

[JD]

Sarcasm?

 

[The Realist]

Sarcasm?

Moi?

 

[fireproof78]

You'd think Studios would've learned their lesson after Sucker Punch.

No, I wouldn't. Hollywood is a slow learner.

 

[JD]

Moi?

Yes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Warner Bros. not believing in their own thing wasn't THE problem. They believed in it alright. The problem was the general audiences didn't buy into it because it was generally bombastic nonsense. In fact they repeatedly rejected it to the point where they had to fire "visionary" Zack Snyder and then performed a panicked re-edit of Justice League. Kevin Feige has focused on story and character with special effects there to support them. Snyder was just enough story to support the special effects. MCU, to date, substance over style. DCCU style over substance.

There's more character development--and the story that supports it--in MOS, BVS, and WW than in most of the MCU, which substitutes any of the mature underpinnings of the source in favor of Power Rangers stunts, overblown "biggest lightshows / explosions ever!" jokes every 50 seconds, all to sell the idea of a universes that is not exactly coherent..

 

[Ovation]

General audiences, philistines that they are, expect to take actual enjoyment from their pop cartoon movies: laughing, crying, rooting for the good guys, hissing the baddies, being thrilled and dazzled and entertained. Buncha lowbrows.

And that's how we end up with movies like this:

God, I miss Zack Snyder so much.

While I enjoyed all three of the above movies, I do miss Snyder's take on Superman as a 21st century character--I re-watch Man of Steel far more often than I'd rewatch any of the three pictured here. These takes (less so Aquaman, but still) are much more "traditional" than Man of Steel's version of Superman, so I can understand (without sharing) the general public's preference. But I've already got, between comics, cartoons, five movies, several TV shows, radio shows--THOUSANDS of versions of the "traditional" Superman. Far less true (outside comics) for the three movies referenced here.

 

[Professor Zoom]

There's more character development--and the story that supports it--in MOS, BVS, and WW than in most of the MCU, which substitutes any of the mature underpinnings of the source in favor of Power Rangers stunts, overblown "biggest lightshows / explosions ever!" jokes every 50 seconds, all to sell the idea of a universes that is not exactly coherent..

Perhaps. But I know which ones I rewatch and enjoy. And it’s not MOS.

 

[Set Harth]

So CNN has a historical docu-series coming out next month called "The Movies". They run promos for it. The promos show a bunch of film clips and they're set to a certain musical theme.

Guess what film the theme is from.

 

[theenglish]

Regarding DC vs. Marvel, I like movies from both companies; however, overall Marvel's movies have been more entertaining and have been more successful in delivering the feel of a comic book (to me).

WB has never realized what Marvel did. They formed a full film division overseen and caretaken primarily by comic creators. They started small and were content with their small wins. They built a loyal fan base over a period of time and are now reaping the rewards.

WB have just taken a shotgun approach and had hits and misses. I've really enjoyed most of the movies but I understand why they were divisive when they were.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Perhaps. But I know which ones I rewatch and enjoy. And it’s not MOS.

...and there's only a handful of MCU films that are worth seeing more than one time / have stores that are developed in any logical/entertaining sense. The majority is a scream of Saturday morning cartoon noise.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

The DC vs Marvel debate at this point is like

but less entertaining.

 

[Ovation]

The DC vs Marvel debate at this point is like

but less entertaining.

Besides, everybody knows it’s really baseball season.

 

[Professor Zoom]

...and there's only a handful of MCU films that are worth seeing more than one time / have stores that are developed in any logical/entertaining sense. The majority is a scream of Saturday morning cartoon noise.

Sure. Saturday morning cartoons were appointment TV. And I would rewatch any of them before Man of Steel. I didn’t even bother with Bats v Supes, and no, I’m not gonna try it— blame that on MOS.

Ok, maybe not Thor The Dark World... but I do love mew mew.