I do not like MCU films

[Anwar]

Nonsense. For such a teary-eyed Marvel fanboy, you forget that Spider-Man was defined by his villains

Spider-Man was always about Peter Parker first and foremost, with the villains being plot devices at best.

Again, you know nothing about the character. For decades, Wayne's life--his desire, fears, joy and other matters have been explored...

Not until the 80s or so. Before then, Bruce was just a nonentity.

...and that is not an isolated case, so your "DC copied Marvel" line was more exaggeration

DC copied Marvel in how writing and characterization was done, not in character concepts.

Comic fans also praised the Nolan films, as well

Due to him being able to shake off the leftover hurt from Batman and Robin, mainly. If he'd done so in a way that didn't require being "grounded" they'd have liked that too.

No, but in your lie-zone where you think anyone wanted that, it would still be preferable to what you desire:

Un-ashamedness.

You are making the claim--prove it.

It's plain as day.

• 1. Your statement reveals a resentment of films that win Oscars, as they represent the polar opposite of the worst of the MCU you worship.

There's a reason the term "Oscar Bait" came into being, Tropic Thunder skewered these types of films for what they really are.

• 2. I'm not buying a word you say about "war zone" family members,

Tough, they exist and they aren't what you want them to be. Deal with it.

Translation:

Serious, big plot points be damned! We gotta get to more explosions, jokes and nerd-porn!

The Nuke wasn't the big plot point you make it out to be, nor is it the death of wonder you wanted it to be. Tough noogies for you.

You cannot stop embarrassing yourself--none of those characters were motivated by anything even remotely similar to Batman's origin.

The origin is irrelevant (it wasn't even that important to Bruce originally either), everything else about those characters clearly inspired Batman.

Poor excuses do not remove the colossal failings of so many Marvel movies.

"Failures" in how they refused to sell-out and be creatively bankrupt "grounded" films, maybe. All MCU is continuing to do is prove that people who want all CBMs to be grounded 100% with no fantastical elements are ashamed of comic books.

Dodge.

You need to be spoonfed, just own up to it.

 

[WebLurker]

I may not be entirely clear - I'm obviously not a professional editor and I don't understand or judge it the way a professional would. I agree IM2's pacing was worse, but I make some distinction between editing and pacing (even though editing obviously leads to pacing). IM2 was a moved that flowed reasonably well, nothing stood out to me as jarring or weird, it just didn't really flow in any logical overarching direction and that dragged the movie down. Ultron had a much better throughline and everything went in one logical direction, but it definitely did not flow smoothly. There were strange stops and starts and the whole thing just felt very choppy and awkward. IOW, the same basic problem as BvS and especially Suicide Squad. But, like I said, Ultron still wasn't nearly as bad in that respect as either of those two.

I'm not a pro editor either. I'm not sure I agree with you, but it's an interesting question. (I generally like IM2 and Ultron, so I don't exactly have a stake in proving one to be better.)

Nonsense. For such a teary-eyed Marvel fanboy, you forget that Spider-Man was defined by his villains--no analysis of the character's growth exists without large sections dedicated to the long-lasting, defining influence of his villains. From the Green Goblin (father & son), Dr. Octopus, The Punisher, Jackal or the Kingpin, they were both the structural supports and thrust to the very identity of Spider-Man.

Having read a bunch of Spider-Man comics and actively collecting some of them, I'm going to say "no." The villains were foils to him and there are certainly stories where the villains do force changes on him. However, in general, that's not really what defines Spider-Man. Cases in point, Doc Ock isn't that important to Peter's attempts to figure his life out in Spider-Man 2. In the Ultimate Spider-Man comic series, it's arguably Peter's friends and loved ones -- His aunt and uncle, Mary Jane Watson, Gwen Stacy, Kitty Pryde, etc. -- that define him and change his character. Also, you can give Spider-Man new villains and the character remains essentially the same (unlike say how Joker defines himself in contrast to Batman). On top of that, in the case of the Spider-Man character, the superhero identity is kind of secondary. The story is about Peter, who happens to be Spider-Man, unlike how Batman stories primarily focus on Bruce Wayne's calling as a superhero, with his personal life being secondary.

...and that is not an isolated case, so your "DC copied Marvel" line was more exaggeration.

Both DC and Marvel have ripped each other off countless times in the past and will continue to do so (which is why we get fan theorizing that DC Convergence was to jump on Marvel Secret Wars 2015's bandwagon, and that Marvel's upcoming Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows ongoing is to cash in on DC's Lois and Clark material). Not really sure how debating who came up with the idea first is as useful as examining why one version worked better than the others (like how X-Men is a household name, while Doom Patrol is virtually unknown).

No, but in your lie-zone where you think anyone wanted that, it would still be preferable to what you desire: the superhero equivalent of The Expendables: mindless action, paper-thin characterizations and explosions from frame one to the last.

Can't speak for the other guy, but one of the reasons I like the MCU movies is that they aren't just mindless action. I like the characters and get invested in their struggles. So, even if Avengers 1 was just a simple beat-the-bad-guy story, the characters elevated it and made it worth watching. (Bear in mind, my favorite superhero movies of all time are The Incredibles and the original Spider-Man trilogy. That's my yardstick for what good superhero movies look like.

Your statement reveals a resentment of films that win Oscars, as they represent the polar opposite of the worst of the MCU you worship.

Can't speak for the other guy, but not all worthwhile movies win Oscars, so I'm not too worried about the fact that few superhero movies do.

2. I'm not buying a word you say about "war zone" family members, as real veterans are not saying they were in brutal situations cracking jokes and make making self-effacing wisecracks like the junk movies you love. Again, you simply disrespect the reality and struggle innumerable combat veterans experienced--all to support idiotic cartoons posing as live action superhero movies.

Can't speak for the other guy, but there is a difference between real life and fiction.

Translation:

Serious, big plot points be damned! We gotta get to more explosions, jokes and nerd-porn!

Can't speak for the other guy, but not all good movies need to be about big things. At the end of the day, there's no one size fits all formula for a good movie. Some are good because they're a serious drama. Others are good because they're a more lighthearted story with fewer stakes.

Poor excuses do not remove the colossal failings of so many Marvel movies.

It might help the discussion if we knew what failings you're taking about, since then we could respond to specific points, rather than blanket statements.

Dodge.

Can we please get away from the proof of repeated assertion regarding the nuke? We know you don't like the nuke thing. There are ways to no-prize it, if you wish. If you still don't like it, that's fine, but the MCU doesn't fall apart because of that one little oversight, esp. given that they're generally very good about building off of stuff like that.

 

[fireproof78]

2. I'm not buying a word you say about "war zone" family members, as real veterans are not saying they were in brutal situations cracking jokes and make making self-effacing wisecracks like the junk movies you love. Again, you simply disrespect the reality and struggle innumerable combat veterans experienced--all to support idiotic cartoons posing as live action superhero movies.

I've been around Vietnam vets, including my uncle. Yes, they made jokes, both about their terrible situations and in the middle of terrible situations. It may not be your experience, it may not be the majority experience, but it does happen.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Spider-Man was always about Peter Parker first and foremost, with the villains being plot devices at best.

Have you ever read a Spider-Man comic? Your statement says "no." The life and problems of Norman Osborn or Fisk were developed plots in ASM that established them as their own character as well as defining the hero. The fact you do not know this suggests you have not read much of the character's history in depth.

Not until the 80s or so. Before then, Bruce was just a nonentity.

Enough with the lies. It is clear you do not know what you are talking about, and have not read more than a few Batman comics--if that.

DC copied Marvel in how writing and characterization was done, not in character concepts.

More fanboy BS. Denny O'Neil, Frank Robbins, Arnold Drake, Bob Haney, and Robert Kanigher already had a vision and method of writing serious and often socially relevant stories not influenced by Marvel. Kanigher in particular wrote some of the most realistic war stories in the medium, leaving titles like Marvel's Sgt. Fury seem lighthearted in comparison.

Due to him being able to shake off the leftover hurt from Batman and Robin, mainly. If he'd done so in a way that didn't require being "grounded" they'd have liked that too.

They judged the films on their own merits; they were not still suffering / apologizing for previous versions in the way Marvel fans do regarding the Fantastic Four movies, and the terrible Garfield Spider-Man films.

It's plain as day.

Again, you were the one making the claim. Prove it.

There's a reason the term "Oscar Bait" came into being,

Its a childish pejorative used by those who resent films that are the opposite of the forgettable, Wal-Mart 1 dollar video bin junk they worship.

Tough, they exist and they aren't what you want them to be. Deal with it.

Bull. You are posting lies about veterans in order to protect MCU's joke/garbage entries. You are as out of touch with reality about war as anyone suggesting people were spewing quips as the World Trade Center fell on them. But anything--no matter how offensive--to defend piss poor Marvel movies.

The Nuke wasn't the big plot point you make it out to be, nor is it the death of wonder you wanted it to be. Tough noogies for you.

Translation, the sequel: Serious, big plot points be damned! We gotta get to more explosions, jokes and nerd-porn!

The origin is irrelevant (it wasn't even that important to Bruce originally either), everything else about those characters clearly inspired Batman.

Again, you have proven you have never read any of the characters' origins, and certainly did not listen to the Green Hornet radio programs.

"Failures" in how they refused to sell-out and be creatively bankrupt "grounded" films, maybe. All MCU is continuing to do is prove that people who want all CBMs to be grounded 100% with no fantastical elements are ashamed of comic books.

Most of Marvel's output will be forgotten in less than one generation. It is no more artistically satisfying or enduring than Rambo movies were in the 1980s, or Transformers movies are now. but I'm sure you will be somewhere, complaining that the big 'ol bad world just had it in for poor Marvel from the start.

 

[WebLurker]

Have you ever read a Spider-Man comic? Your statement says "no." The life and problems of Norman Osborn or Fisk were developed plots in ASM that established them as their own character as well as defining the hero. The fact you do not know this suggests you have not read much of the character's history in depth.

Can't speak for the other guy, but, as I mentioned before, I do know something about Spider-Man comics first-hand and can say that, from my experience, your exaggerating your position on the topic.

They judged the films on their own merits; they were not still suffering / apologizing for previous versions in the way Marvel fans do regarding the Fantastic Four movies, and the terrible Garfield Spider-Man films.

I thought the Garfield Spider-Man movies were generally liked. I myself did think they where terrible, too, but I always got the impression that I was in the minority. And why do we automatically assume that the Nolan Batman movies were judged by their merits, but assume otherwise for the MCU? That's sounds like a double standard.

Its a childish pejorative used by those who resent films that are the opposite of the forgettable, Wal-Mart 1 dollar video bin junk they worship.

On the flip side, how many Oscar winners remain evergreen films that are viewed years afterwards? A lot of the most beloved movies still going strong never won an Oscar.

Bull. You are posting lies about veterans in order to protect MCU's joke/garbage entries.

For the record, which entries were allegedly garbage or jokes? I have no frame of reference and can't even begin to guess which ones were bad enough.

Translation, the sequel:

Serious, big plot points be damned! We gotta get to more explosions, jokes and nerd-porn!

I seem to recall that Iron Man 3, the first post-Avengers sequel, dealt with Tony Stark being shell-shocked from his experience in New York. Thor: The Dark World, didn't deal with the events of The Avengers much, but the movie took place in England and Asgard, so the story was already removed from anything relevant to New York. And the came Captain America: The Winter Soldier, where we learn that Project Insight was created in response to what happened in New York.

So, based on that evidence, I submit that you are mistaken.

Most of Marvel's output will be forgotten in less than one generation. It is no more artistically satisfying or enduring than Rambo movies were in the 1980s, or Transformers movies are now. but I'm sure you will be somewhere, complaining that the big 'ol bad world just had it in for poor Marvel from the start.

I wouldn't be too quick to judge what will be remembered a generation from now. Not only is that impossible to tell, but between the continued popularity of the Marvel characters and the odds that todays fans will share the movies with their own kids, it could have longer legs than you think. At minimum, I could see Winter Solider and Guardians of the Galaxy hanging around.

 

[Neroon]

@TREK_GOD_1 , you need to back off. Your replies are becoming unnecessarily aggressive and personal, so please tone it down or you risk incurring a warning

 

[Anwar]

Have you ever read a Spider-Man comic?

Yes, and for the most part the stories never forgot that Peter was the main character. Which is more than Batman can say.

Enough with the lies.

Do get over yourself, you're starting to sound like a Cultist.

More fanboy BS. Denny O'Neil, Frank Robbins, Arnold Drake, Bob Haney, and Robert Kanigher already had a vision and method of writing serious and often socially relevant stories not influenced by Marvel.

And still couldn't make Batman the main character in his own stories.

They judged the films on their own merits;

Nah, they had the leftover sting from B&R which made Begins welcome relief.

Again, you were the one making the claim. Prove it.

It's obvious.

Its a childish pejorative used by those who resent films that are the opposite of the forgettable, Wal-Mart 1 dollar video bin junk they worship.

Nah, they just realized the Academy has a soft spot for certain types of movies regardless of their actual quality and started making fun of t

Bull. You are posting lies about veterans in order to protect MCU's joke/garbage entries.

Nope, just pointing out that you have a overly narrow viewpoint of how people act over this stuff. You're practically a Reactionary now.

Translation, the sequel:

Serious, big plot points

To you, maybe. To the rest of us, it's not a deal-breaker as it's just not that important.

Again, you have proven you have never read any of the characters' origins, and certainly did not listen to the Green Hornet radio programs.

Rich Socialite Moonlights as Vigilante.

Most of Marvel's output will be forgotten in less than one generation.

Like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr Who, etc? This nonsense about how the MCU will implode is part of the abuse MCU's had to deal with from day one, and no matter what they survive. So once again, do get over yourself.

 

[Neroon]

Do get over yourself, you're starting to sound like a Cultist.

And the same caution to you as well, @Anwar , to please back away from a building confrontation.

 

[JD]

I just watch Age of Ultron for the first time since I saw it in theaters and I really don't see anybody can say there is not characterizations.
First all of the whole creation of Ultron is based around Tony Stark's character, and his issues.
Then there's all of the stuff with Wanda getting screwing with the character's heads. That whole sequence was pure character development.
One of the things I love about the Marvel movies is that they are able to give us big action scenes and good stories, with well developed characters.

 

[crookeddy]

And the same caution to you as well, @Anwar , to please back away from a building confrontation.

Lol this isn't a building confrontation... it's been a circular three way personal attack for like 20 pages now!

 

[ancient]

The DC films are all over the place in style, Marvel definitely has a formula that they use for everything. If you happen to like their formula you're all set. I've only really watched Iron Man and Avengers, then lost interest. (not counting Sony's stuff) My only fear with DC is that they are trying to create a unified formula for their movies. BVS, MoS might be starting that. The risk of a formula not being appealing to me is too high.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes, and for the most part the stories never forgot that Peter was the main character. Which is more than Batman can say.

You cannot say that because:

1. It is a false statement.
2. Your repeated misrepresentation of the source material (Batman & Spider-Man comics) have demonstrated that you have not read much of either.

Do get over yourself, you're starting to sound like a Cultist.

Cultists often create entirely fabricated notions of they--or the group they support being under attack. Based on your fiction-soused rant of Marvel being under attack, one can safely conclude you fall on the cult side of this matter.

...and to continue, enough with the lies / fairy tales about what you have not read, or veteran recollections you do not know.

And still couldn't make Batman the main character in his own stories.

Again, your repeated misrepresentation of the source material (Batman & Spider-Man comics) have demonstrated that you have not read much of either title.

Nah, they had the leftover sting from B&R which made Begins welcome relief.

Where is your evidence, other than attempting to place DC fans in the same, pockmarked skin of Marvel fans who have watched studios spend millions on Fantastic Four movies + a reboot they cannot come close to getting right, and a Garfield Spider-Man reboot no one cared about?

Would it be located in that same fantasy world where the MCU has been "attacked" from the "beginning?

It's obvious.

You are making the claim. Prove it. No one is buying you posting "its obvious," as that--in what is apparent--has no weight.

Nah, they just realized the Academy has a soft spot for certain types of movies regardless of their actual quality and started making fun of t

Translation: Its a childish pejorative used by those who resent films that are the opposite of the forgettable, Wal-Mart 1 dollar video bin junk they worship, like the Avengers movies.

Nope, just pointing out that you have a overly narrow viewpoint of how people act over this stuff. You're practically a Reactionary now.

Just the opposite:you will shame yourself by soiling the real life experiences of those who served in combat situations to protect junk movies, which clearly mean more to you than real human beings.


[quote[To you, maybe. To the rest of us, it's not a deal-breaker as it's just not that important.[/quote]

There is no "rest of us," for if that were true, you would have no need to spin and re-write history.

Rich Socialite Moonlights as Vigilante.

You make this easy--you have not read or (in the Green Hornet's case--listened to) any of that you refer to.

Like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Dr Who, etc? This nonsense about how the MCU will implode is part of the abuse MCU's had to deal with from day one, and no matter what they survive. So once again, do get over yourself.

The original IJ ('81 - '89) & SW ('77-'83) series are remembered, as they--to varying degrees--made an impact for their genres, but did not run it all into the ground with increasingly childish nonsense only there for nerd-porn / over the top cartoon material, and that's not a recipe to be remembered or respected by generations to come.

 

[Anwar]

You cannot say that

Yes I can. Deal with it.

Cultists often create entirely fabricated notions of they--or the group they support being under attack.

You're going into the personal attacks again, I suggest you calm down a bit.

...and to continue, enough with the lies / fairy tales about what you have not read, or veteran recollections you do not know.

Do get over yourself, not every survivor of war is going to fit your preconceptions or what Oscar Bait war films tell you.

Again, your repeated misrepresentation of the source material (Batman & Spider-Man comics) have demonstrated that you have not read much of either title.

I've read enough to know that if Batman was more than an archetype, then there'd be more focus on how Bruce Wayne was more than just a plot device to explain Batman's resources.

That didn't happen until DECADES after his creation.

Where is your evidence,

The whole "the only good CBMs are the grounded ones!" attitude.

You are making the claim. Prove it.

You wouldn't be reacting this way if I were wrong.

Translation:

Some people just can't handle how exploitative Oscar Bait films are.

Just the opposite:you will shame yourself by soiling the real life experiences of those who served in combat situations

Utter dung. And my own family members who were in warzones and can recollect about it in non-oscar bait fashion will agree.

There is no "rest of us," for if that were true, you would have no need to spin and re-write history.

So the WSC weren't mostly killed off in Winter Soldier, then? There were only two movies between Avengers and TWS, and there's no point in a Thor film dealing with insignificant stuff like that.

You make this easy--you have not read or (in the Green Hornet's case--listened to) any of that you refer to.

I know more than you, otherwise you'd have accepted Batman being little more than an archetype until about 30 years ago.

The original IJ ('81 - '89) & SW ('77-'83) series are remembered, as they--to varying degrees--made an impact for their genres, but did not run it all into the ground with increasingly childish nonsense only there for nerd-porn / over the top cartoon material, and that's not a recipe to be remembered or respected by generations to come.

So now you're just ignoring the continuing series like Trek or Dr Who. And showing a double standard.

(Maybe this is just becoming personal attacks...)

 

[WebLurker]

You cannot say that because:

1. It is a false statement.
2. Your repeated misrepresentation of the source material (Batman & Spider-Man comics) have demonstrated that you have not read much of either.

I do read Spider-Man stuff and think that Anwar's generally accurate as far as that's concerned.

Cultists often create entirely fabricated notions of they--or the group they support being under attack. Based on your fiction-soused rant of Marvel being under attack, one can safely conclude you fall on the cult side of this matter.

I actually agree that the MCU doesn't have that many enemies, so I'm not entirely sure where Anwar is getting that opinion.

Again, your repeated misrepresentation of the source material (Batman & Spider-Man comics) have demonstrated that you have not read much of either title.

With characters that have changed drastically over the years, I'd be pretty careful about judging whether someone "knows" the character or not. Case in point, the Spider-Man I know and love is not the one that's been in use since 2007.

Where is your evidence, other than attempting to place DC fans in the same, pockmarked skin of Marvel fans who have watched studios spend millions on Fantastic Four movies + a reboot they cannot come close to getting right, and a Garfield Spider-Man reboot no one cared about?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Garfield Spider-Man movies. I've seen a lot of arguments over which of the original two Spider-Man series were the best, and the Garfield ones have some very spirited support. Also, by all accounts, both DC and Marvel have had their share of hits and flops over the years. The interesting question is why Marvel has had a string of hits, and DC is only experiencing marginal success now?

You are making the claim. Prove it. No one is buying you posting "its obvious," as that--in what is apparent--has no weight.

No offense, but I find it hard to follow your discussion due to a lack of specific examples, too. I don't feel like I understand where you're coming from.

Translation:

Its a childish pejorative used by those who resent films that are the opposite of the forgettable, Wal-Mart 1 dollar video bin junk they worship, like the Avengers movies.

Avengers got 91% on Rotten Tomatoes (pro critics) and 91% from viewers who shared their opinions. It's not the most scientific analysis, but it does argue that the movie is far more than a 1 dollar bin junk video.

[quote[To you, maybe. To the rest of us, it's not a deal-breaker as it's just not that important.

There is no "rest of us," for if that were true, you would have no need to spin and re-write history.[/quote]

You're actually the first person I've heard to question the nuke, so maybe it doesn't bother than many people?

The original IJ ('81 - '89) & SW ('77-'83) series are remembered, as they--to varying degrees--made an impact for their genres, but did not run it all into the ground with increasingly childish nonsense only there for nerd-porn / over the top cartoon material, and that's not a recipe to be remembered or respected by generations to come.

I would suggest that Transformers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles prove that franchises that are known for silliness and low ambitions and being run into the ground can have long-lasting impact and can be not only remembered and respected, but also loved generations after their initial creations. (I can testify to that. I became a TMNT fan watching the Nick show in college. I had no previous history with the franchise, but am a fan now of a lot of the stuff they've made.) Also, Marvel is already very beloved by a lot of people, many who came to it through the MCU movies.

The whole "the only good CBMs are the grounded ones!" attitude.

Not sure if that's what TREK_GOD_01 was going for, but I think there's room for both.

So the WSC weren't mostly killed off in Winter Soldier, then? There were only two movies between Avengers and TWS, and there's no point in a Thor film dealing with insignificant stuff like that.

I agree with this reasoning, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Look, TREK_GOD_1 and Anwar, I think this could be an interesting discussion, but so far, all it's been are a lot of blanket statements, hostility and personal attacks (on both sides, IMHO). If this thread is going to continue, can we please be polite about it and actually discuss the opinions we have. If not, then I think the moderators will have to intervene and that's going to be bad for all of us (esp. since there's already a warning issued). So, can be please prove ourselves to be mature and reasonable adults here?

 

[Anwar]

Trek God and I aren't going to reach an agreement on anything, the way things are going. It's best if we just walk away from this.

 

[crookeddy]

In an attempt to get rid of the circular arguments plaguing this thread I shall offer my thoughts -

First of all the arguments somehow turned into ALL Marvel vs all DC movies which is a useless argument. Prior to the universe building, Marvel movies were handled by multiple studios and had no intention of having a unified tone whatsoever. Same for DC - there is no need to compare the MCU to the Nolan movies IMO. The Nolan movies were a trilogy and it's now over.

With the above rules this takes us to a more reasonable discussion - Marvel Cinematic Universe vs DC Cinematic Universe. Thus here are the eligible movies:

Marvel
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: First Avenger
Marvel's The Avengers
Iron Man 3
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man
Captain America: Civil War

DC
Man of Steel
Batman V Superman
Suicide Squad

So with the ground rules that these are the only movies worth comparing here, let me offer my opinions.

The MCU was absolutely brilliant by starting with Iron Man - the most grounded character. They introduced the Marvel tone in that movie, and as future movies got more and more fantastical, it was the tone that brought people back. The tone was not "cartoony crap" as described by some posters here, but it wasn't a "kill yourself now" tone either. Iron Man managed to deal with issues such as weapon production without losing the ability to illicit a chuckle from the viewer. Comic book fans were drawn to it because they got the character of Tony Stark right, and non-comic book fans were drawn to it because it was just a good movie.

The DC Universe started with Man of Steel (though it is not really clearly if Zack Snyder knew that he was helming a universe starting film at the time). I enjoyed this movie a lot, but it felt unnecessarily dark... In the comics, Pa Kent is the man who instilled the sense of duty into Superman. In Zack Snyder's movie Pa Kent chastised superman for saving kids from drowning! This guy thought that keeping Clark's powers a secret was more important than the lives of kids! That's just darkness for the sake of darkness IMO.

After the universe opening movies, the studio's intentions really diverged. The MCU gave Thor, Hulk, and Captain America their own movies before putting them together into the Ultimate Nerd Fantasy movie that was the Avengers. WB (the studio responsible for all DC movies) went straight from a Superman movie into a Batman v Superman movie with Wonder Woman in it. This robbed us of having a deeper understanding of each character. How much more emotional would Batman's fight with Superman have been if we actually had a previous Batman movie, possibly chronicling Bruce Wayne's descent into madness? Imagine a movie in which we see the Batman we know and love fighting crime with his trusty sidekick Robin. He runs into Joker and about half way through the movie Joker kills Robin. This starts Batman's emotional spiral, with him giving up on his no-kill rule at the very end of the movie. Next time we see him is in a Batman v Superman movie, and his actions suddenly make perfect sense. And the emotional impact of having the goodness of Superman drawing him out of his madness (hopefully for better reasons than both of them having a mother named Martha) would be so much greater!

Other then the lack of character introductions, BvS had other serious problems described previously - weird editing where a lot of the movie felt like a clip show, terrible dream sequences that are not in character for Batman, and then the biggest sin of them all - the death of Superman! What a waste! One of the most iconic moments in comic book history wasted - the death didn't look necessary, didn't make sense, came wayyyy too soon in the character's screen life, and the guy was shown to be alive in the damn after-credits scene! Yikes.

 

[Makarov]

This robbed us of having a deeper understanding of each character. How much more emotional would Batman's fight with Superman have been if we actually had a previous Batman movie, possibly chronicling Bruce Wayne's descent into madness? Imagine a movie in which we see the Batman we know and love fighting crime with his trusty sidekick Robin. He runs into Joker and about half way through the movie Joker kills Robin.

Personally I'm really, really glad that they didn't do that. We just had three solo Batmans with Nolan's stuff that can't be topped, it would be weird to attempt to do a simple Batman & Robin fighting crime as their next movie. I don't need to see the character established yet again. I preferred they just get on with it instead of half a dozen movies to set up Superman fighting Batman, it was done well enough in the movie imo. Now after Suicide Squad and BvS I'm interested in seeing this new batman on his own.

 

[crookeddy]

Personally I'm really, really glad that they didn't do that. We just had three solo Batmans with Nolan's stuff that can't be topped, it would be weird to attempt to do a simple Batman & Robin fighting crime as their next movie. I don't need to see the character established yet again. I preferred they just get on with it instead of half a dozen movies to set up Superman fighting Batman, it was done well enough in the movie imo. Now after Suicide Squad and BvS I'm interested in seeing this new batman on his own.

I'd agree with you 100% if we had gotten a familiar Batman in BvS, be it a Batman similar to the comics or a Batman similar to Nolan's Batman. We didn't - instead we got some totally new Batman with a backstory we can barely piece together. This is the root cause of almost half of the complaints about the movie!

 

[fireproof78]

I'd agree with you 100% if we had gotten a familiar Batman in BvS, be it a Batman similar to the comics or a Batman similar to Nolan's Batman. We didn't - instead we got some totally new Batman with a backstory we can barely piece together. This is the root cause of almost half of the complaints about the movie!

This is my chief complaint as well, and the MCU, for good or for ill, took it's time to introduce different facets and characters to the point that people unfamiliar with comic books could appreciate the world building.

Secondly, and, more importantly to me, we got to know the characters. Now, in fairness to anyone who doesn't a lot of the Marvel films, I get that the multi-tiered, long form, cinematic universe, is rather tiring and cumbersome. Personally, I would have been satisfied with Captain America, and Iron Man, with the culmination of the Avengers, but that's me. Those films presented some interesting character moments that really worked well for me. Mileage will vary.

As for the DC films, I think that they tried to do too much too fast. It isn't that we had an Aquaman film or a Wonder Woman film or even a film where they had been featured before! There hasn't been a Black Widow or Hawkeye film but the characters would pop up from time to time.

I think DC was too fast for the Superman vs. Batman film, and left me wanting more from the characters. I could care less about editing or production values or big explosions-that's a "Whatever" thing to me. But, if I can't buy in to the characters and their motivation, then how am I supposed to care that they are fighting?

 

[Makarov]

I mean Batman's backstory is all there in the movie, tied in very well with the opening showing some of MOS. It's just not spelled out word for word for the viewer. It's a little open to interpretation and that's also why I think the knightmare scene is great. It works as showing Batman's fear of a world with Superman out of control and also as set up for some other story if they want, but it leaves it up to the viewer to think about. It's different than anything we have ever seen in a Batman movie before. I really haven't found anything that in the recent Marvel movies which trusted the audience like that.

To each his own but sometimes imo people's complaints don't make for a better movie - when John Carpenter's The Thing came out people said it was too dark and the effects were too gruesome, can anyone imagine a toned down version of that? It don't believe people who didn't care for this new batman would actually be swayed by a Batman set-up where he decides to start killing people at the end. Although I would definitely like to see that myself.