DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

[TREK_GOD_1]

TREK_GOD_1 hates humor. Hates. It. He'll deny it, but if he's ever expressed enjoyment or appreciation of anything light or comedic, I've missed it. It's always stern
lectures about "realistic" this and "serious" that. Fuck of a way to go through life, if you ask me.

The Realist has some sort of issue where he needs to giggle at the most inappropriate moments and seeks that in films where it has no place, hence his love for the shitstorm that was Shazam. He will try to pass it off as liking "joy", but he ignores the fact that enjoyment comes from many forms of storytelling, and wants to sell the false idea that "joy" is irrevocably linked to comic relief or giggles. Nope. I suggest he dig up episodes of the TV superhero spoof Captain Nice to suit those needs.

 

[Tosk]

This is just gonna go around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around...

Superhero movies can be light and fun. They can be dark and moody. They can be fantastical, and they can be realistic. They can be a mix of all those things, and anywhere in between. Some of the lightest ones have dark moments, and some of the darkest have dumb jokes.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I would rather the films feel a bit more standalone. I mean, I knew Avengers would be the beginning of something but I can watch it and not concern myself with any other film.

There is a lot of benefit in having that ability to watch a movie without concern that it is going to set up a franchise.

True. Films often lose the integrity of building a lone story when everything is Easter eggs ad forecasting to other productions.

Your dull as dishwater views on how life is don't add up to the reality of things.

As everyone knows, you are as acquainted with accurate history as a cigarette butt on the sidewalk. Its always been clear you are in this thread to lie and shove anything into your blender of childish "thinking" to support the one and only thing you worship: the MCU. Its the reason you spent pages in the Joker thread (and other threads), first jumping on the utterly false idea that "incels" were going to take to the streets to commit violence after seeing the film. Its the reason you ranted when that serious DC film became a global phenomenon as a pop-cultural moment and financial success (when you were predicting failure), then you bitched about its award nominations and wins, all because your precious MCU usually came up empty while the serious Joker--a DC property (ohhhhhh the HORROR!) succeeded in that regard.
Same with the Nolan Batman movies, where you disrespectfully claimed Ledger only won his posthumous Oscar because he died. That's how low you will always go.

You are transparent as they come, only in this DC thread to support anything that is the opposite of DC's successes, as if they "threaten" your love of all things MCU.

 

[fireproof78]

The Realist has some sort of issue where he needs to giggle at the most inappropriate moments

And he is not alone in that so maybe not mock him for that.

 

[Anwar]

Then go see a comedy. The best superhero films are not played as light romps / comedies, because their very nature dictates that they are not.

Tell that to the first Reeves Superman movie (and the ONLY truly good Superman movie ever). It was full-on camp once Luthor showed up.

True. Films often lose the integrity of building a lone story when everything is Easter eggs ad forecasting to other productions.

Nah, one and done films are usually lazier nowadays. No ambition.

As everyone knows, you are as acquainted with accurate history as a cigarette butt on the sidewalk.

Is that why I found just as many examples of real life quips in death scenarios?

Its the reason you spent pages in the Joker thread (and other threads), first jumping on the utterly false idea that "incels" were going to take to the streets to commit violence after seeing the film.

It's really more because Joker was a step backwards and just another example of that "head-up-the-ass" type of directing that set CBMs back for so long.

Its the reason you ranted when that serious DC film

It wasn't. The director and Phoenix made it clear they mere hijacked the Joker name to do an original story they knew wouldn't fly on its own.

all because your precious MCU usually came up empty while the serious Joker--a DC property (ohhhhhh the HORROR!) succeeded in that regard

Again, Joker was an INO movie. That's why it attracted folks who otherwise didn't want to do CBMs like Phoenix and Marc Maron. Because they knew it wasn't really a movie about Joker.

Same with the Nolan Batman movies, where you disrespectfully claimed Ledger only won his posthumous Oscar because he died. That's how low you will always go

There's nothing low with the harsh truth. Plenty have been saying he only won because he died.

But you're derailing things with your vendetta against anything but dour self-important pomposity.

 

[fireproof78]

Nah, one and done films are usually lazier nowadays. No ambition.

100% wrong on that one. Films can be many different things and I am coming to appreciate standalones more and more, and the MCU was probably the biggest proof of that.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Tell that to the first Reeves Superman movie (and the ONLY truly good Superman movie ever)

Whatever helps you sleep.

Nah, one and done films are usually lazier nowadays. No ambition.

No sense at all in that statement, other than you're simply defending the largely hollow MCU that has trouble establishing a solid single character sans endless Easter eggs and plugs for other films, as if none can stand on their own.

Is that why I found just as many examples of real life quips in death scenarios?

I'm not taking anything seriously from anyone who tries to twist real world events as support for gloried Power Rangers episodes.

It's really more because Joker was a step backwards and just another example of that "head-up-the-ass" type of directing that set CBMs back for so long.

Thankfully, Joker's phenomenal success tosses your nonsensical statement into the trash bin where it belongs.

There's nothing low with the harsh truth. Plenty have been saying he only won because he died.

Indeed you are from the low side of life, as you--with no evidence whatsoever--pisses on the work/success and award of a dead man all because Ledger (and by association, a DC movie) achieved something no one in the MCU ever will. Again, you're only in only in this DC thread to support anything that is the opposite of DC's successes, as if they "threaten" your love of all things MCU. If you're that insecure about fictional characters, you need professional help.

 

[Anwar]

Whatever helps you sleep.

It's true, and even THAT film devolved into over the top camp once Luthor showed up. Superman II was full of too many poor characterizations, especially a very unheroic Superman.

No sense at all in that statement, other than you're simply defending the largely hollow MCU that has trouble establishing a solid single character sans endless Easter eggs and plugs for other films, as if none can stand on their own.

This is like saying DS9 should've been 100% standalone stories every episode with no greater arc to it.

I'm not taking anything seriously from anyone who tries to twist real world events as support for gloried Power Rangers episodes.

So you have no rebuttal to the fact that people DO quip in real life death scenarios?

Thankfully, Joker's phenomenal success tosses your nonsensical statement into the trash bin where it belongs.

Joker's success was because they used the Joker name to tell a story about their own original character, and that name attracted said character's fanatical fanbase.

Indeed you are from the low side of life, as you--with no evidence whatsoever--pisses on the work/success and award of a dead man all because Ledger (and by association, a DC movie) achieved something no one in the MCU ever will.

The Academy had wanted to give Ledger the award since Brokeback Mountain and realized they'd never be able to since he OD'd, so they chose the last big profile project he was in. It's easy.

Again, you're only in only in this DC thread to support anything that is the opposite of DC's successes, as if they "threaten" your love of all things MCU. If you're that insecure about fictional characters, you need professional help.

I'd say you going ballistic over anyone pointing out holes in DC's "success" are a better example of insecurity.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's true, and even THAT film devolved into over the top camp once Luthor showed up. Superman II was full of too many poor characterizations, especially a very unheroic Superman.

Again, whatever helps you sleep, kid.

This is like saying DS9 should've been 100% standalone stories every episode with no greater arc to it.

Single character films that are supposed to be designed to introduce and establish the lone character above all else is not comparable to a running TV series, with its very nature being serialized plotting. Once again, another poor attempt to defend the largely weak MCU's thin plots which cannot support a solo character with few exceptions.

Joker's success was because they used the Joker name to tell a story about their own original character, and that name attracted said character's fanatical fanbase.

Thankfully, your ilk do not speak for the millions around the world who supported the film because it was a great film and handling of the character.

The Academy had wanted to give Ledger the award since Brokeback Mountain and realized they'd never be able to since he OD'd, so they chose the last big profile project he was in. It's easy.

You are a disgusting creature in the extreme. Aside from your aversion to historical evidence (as none exists in anything posted above), this suggests you are leaning in the homophobia direction (assuming an Academy preference to award him for Brokeback Mountain, yet conveniently leaving out the "why"...no need, as you've gone in this direction elsewhere) mixed with your resentment of a DC--anything achieving what Marvel cannot after 20 films is all anyone will ever need to know about you.

 

[Anwar]

Again, whatever helps you sleep, kid.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but Superman's only ever had one good movie.

Single character films that are supposed to be designed to introduce and establish the lone character above all else is not comparable to a running TV series, with its very nature being serialized plotting.

Actually, long running movie series are by their nature serialized storytelling. Your subscribing to the outdated "One and Done" method. By your logic, Indiana Jones and the various Star Wars movies shouldn't have existed. Or James Bond.

Once again, another poor attempt to defend the largely weak MCU's thin plots which cannot support a solo character with few exceptions.

Actually, the plots are intentionally designed to build to a larger payoff. And have worked beautifully in a way DC could never pull off.

And BTW, the MCU's "Thin" plots are as sturdy as anything DC has put out.

Thankfully, your ilk do not speak for the millions around the world who supported the film because it was a great film and handling of the character.

The millions of whom admitted it's a typical clichefest of "Loner goes psycho" and were attracted merely by the name "Joker" even if it wasn't really about him.

You are a disgusting creature in the extreme. Aside from your aversion to historical evidence (as none exists in anything posted above), this suggests you are leaning in the homophobia direction (assuming an Academy preference to award him for Brokeback Mountain, yet conveniently leaving out the "why"...no need, as you've gone in this direction elsewhere)

Fine, back in 2005 it would've been seen as too controversial to award him for the homosexual love scenes because homophobia was more prevalent then. But they all agreed he should've gotten it and were looking for any excuse, like the next big thing he'd have been in.

mixed with your resentment of a DC--anything achieving what Marvel cannot after 20 films is all anyone will ever need to know about you.

DC achieved it by exploiting a dead man. I'm glad Marvel didn't have to sink that low.

 

[fireproof78]

By your logic, Indiana Jones and the various Star Wars movies shouldn't have existed. Or James Bond.

Yes, please.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

This is just gonna go around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around...

This thread is like that Star Trek episode where the two Lazarus go at it for eternity.

 

[The Realist]

The Realist has some sort of issue where he needs to giggle at the most inappropriate moments and seeks that in films where it has no place, hence his love for the shitstorm that was Shazam. He will try to pass it off as liking "joy", but he ignores the fact that enjoyment comes from many forms of storytelling, and wants to sell the false idea that "joy" is irrevocably linked to comic relief or giggles. Nope. I suggest he dig up episodes of the TV superhero spoof Captain Nice to suit those needs.

You got me. I like to laugh and feel happy. Guilty as charged.

So, prove me wrong about you. Name one silly, sunny, funny, frivolous entertainment you love. Tell us how it fills you with giddiness and glee.

Or (much more likely) dodge the question again, pontificate your way through yet another self-important post, and retain your reputation as the most humorless scold on these boards.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I made the mistake of showing ignored content. Rookie mistake. Won’t do that again.

 

[JD]

Then go see a comedy. The best superhero films are not played as light romps / comedies, because their very nature dictates that they are not.

That's the great thing about superheroes, "their very nature" is so open that they can be anything. We can have been grand sci-fi epics like Infinity War and Endgame, and we can have grounded, gritty, stuff like the Nolan movies, and we can have more comedic stuff like Shazam, the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, or the Ant-Man movies, and they're all great. I'll admit, I got a bit carried away with my insistence that all superhero movies had to be light hearted..
Hell, just look at the source material, which includes everything from The Killing Joke to Deadpool. If we can get that kind of variety from the source material, then there is absolutely no reason we can't get that kind of variety from the movies.

 

[crookeddy]

Superhero movies can be light and fun. They can be dark and moody. They can be fantastical, and they can be realistic. They can be a mix of all those things, and anywhere in between. Some of the lightest ones have dark moments, and some of the darkest have dumb jokes.

End of discussion.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but Superman's only ever had one good movie.

You are the only person saying that, all as part of your transparent, rattled-nerve attack on present era DC movies--many being far superior to MCU entries.

Actually, long running movie series are by their nature serialized storytelling

No, they are not, hence the reason a majority of the Bond films (particularly Connery - Dalton) have little to nothing to do with others. Aside from random references to Tracy in a couple of films, entire plots (and however important the film's missions were) are rarely mentioned and/or have any bearing on the films that followed. A TV series is designed to be serialized, so again, your DS9 comparison--like so much of what you're posting--is not supported by facts.

Actually, the plots are intentionally designed to build to a larger payoff. And have worked beautifully in a way DC could never pull off.

DC did not need 200 films to make great individual films payoff. That's the inherent weakness of a film series (the MCU) that rarely develops its individual components as they should have been, instead leaning heavily on wafer-thin Easter eggs and set-ups for the next film.

And BTW, the MCU's "Thin" plots are as sturdy as anything DC has put out.

Not even close.

The millions of whom admitted it's a typical clichefest of "Loner goes psycho" and were attracted merely by the name "Joker" even if it wasn't really about him.

Translation: you're still incredibly bitter that a DC movie was one of the most celebrated films of the year, while those operating on the other side of the street used up an already dead battery with predictable plotting and no lasting impact.

Fine, back in 2005 it would've been seen as too controversial to award him for the homosexual love scenes because homophobia was more prevalent then.

YOU are the one making a completely unsubstantiated claim all to attack a dead man who won for a DC role--which drives you to daily fits of rage. Key: your assumption is that the Academy had a preference to give him an award for Brokeback Mountain, which is another of saying you think the voters had some sort of gay agenda, otherwise his performance was not deserving of recognition. A double slap. That is exactly what you're saying, and again, aside from kicking a dead man, you're a straight-up homophobe.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Hell, just look at the source material, which includes everything from The Killing Joke to Deadpool. If we can get that kind of variety from the source material, then there is absolutely no reason we can't get that kind of variety from the movies.

But if you notice, the better individual films either lean in one direction or the other: The Winter Soldier did not season itself with guffaw-inducing moments/scenes as the film moved from one intense and/or solemn development to another. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Dawn of Justice, Joker or The Incredible Hulk ('08) all played it straight and seriously because their nature demanded it. There are few superhero stories or characters that lend themselves to being comical or laced with light humor and still achieve the dramatic/emotional punch of the aforementioned films.

 

[JD]

I'd say Infinity War, Endgame, and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies did a great job of giving us a lot of humor, but still managing to give us big dramatic emotional moments that worked.

No, they are not, hence the reason a majority of the Bond films (particularly Connery - Dalton) have little to nothing to do with others. Aside from random references to Tracy in a couple of films, entire plots (and however important the film's missions were) are rarely mentioned and/or have any bearing on the films that followed. A TV series is designed to be serialized, so again, your DS9 comparison--like so much of what you're posting--is not supported by facts.

Hell, out of 13 Star Trek movies, only 3 have any kind of serialized story.
It's really only in the last couple decades that we've really started to see a lot of serialization in movie series, so it's ridiculous to say to act like a long running movie series will automatically be serialized.
Yes, I know, I'm actually agreeing with something you said in this thread, I'm as shocked as you are.

 

[The Realist]

I'd say Infinity War, Endgame, and both Guardians of the Galaxy movies did a great job of giving us a lot of humor, but still managing to give us big dramatic emotional moments that worked.

Humor and drama are not all-or-nothing propositions. The best movies, TV shows, etc. usually have some of both.

I was watching this old Cheers clip the other night. I was laughing, then crying, then laughing through my tears:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

That's entertainment.