Honestly, I just wish they would take the CWverse show runners and give them the reigns of DCU.I could live with that...
Hell I'd be ecstatic about that. Arrow hasn't been lighting my fire lately but between Flash and the upcoming Legends of Tomorrow? The TV universe knows what's up.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
They HAD George Miller working on a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie for them. But they didnt have enough faith in what he was doing or didnt want to shoulder the cost so they scuttled that. While not as financially successful MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is easily the best movie I've seen this summer and shows that Miller DEFINITELY had the chops to put together an entertaining action movie.
And to be fair to Miller, Fury Road has done very well at the box office for an R-rated film that hasn't even been released on DVD/Blu-Ray yet. The studio did pressure him to edit it down to a PG13 for better box office, but he refused to compromise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact it has six superheroes featured in it, with three coming into conflict for some reason, along with Lex Luthor, backstory on Batman, and more. It takes the main cast of Man of Steel (Clark, Lois, Perry, Ma Kent) and keeps those but adds over well over half-a-dozen new characters.IMO, DC still has to prove that they can make one decent movie before I get excited about anything. And trailer aside, there are a lot of signs that this movie will be a mess.Such as?Except for the fact that the group movie is coming before some of the stand-alones, swap out a couple of names and you've just described The Avengers.
This is an honest question, so please don't read it in the tone of an outraged fanboy, but why does everyone seem to be so convinced that DC (and therefore any attempt at an extended universe) is going to crash and burn? Is it the grimdark thing? Because I don't see that as a deal breaker (or a permanent tone).
The big difference is they need to establish the characters. They need to present Aquaman and Green Lantern and Flash and Cyborg and make us care about them despite each character getting only a small amount of screen time.
Marvel gave most of its heroes their own movie, so people walked into the Avengers caring about Iron Man and Thor and Captain America. People are going to walk into SvsB and think of Wonder Woman by way of the Linda Carter TV show. And see Aquaman through the lenses of Superfriends (at best). There's so much less time to give the character a motivation, a backstory, character growth, and a reason for the audience to give a s***.
DC really seems to be rushing things. They're jumping right to the mega-connected franchise rather than slowly building to it like Marvel Studios did. Sony tried the same thing with Spider-man and that didn't work well. So far, most attempts to purposely build a movie franchise have been so-so at best.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact it has six superheroes featured in it, with three coming into conflict for some reason, along with Lex Luthor, backstory on Batman, and more. It takes the main cast of Man of Steel (Clark, Lois, Perry, Ma Kent) and keeps those but adds over well over half-a-dozen new characters.IMO, DC still has to prove that they can make one decent movie before I get excited about anything. And trailer aside, there are a lot of signs that this movie will be a mess.Such as?Except for the fact that the group movie is coming before some of the stand-alones, swap out a couple of names and you've just described The Avengers.
This is an honest question, so please don't read it in the tone of an outraged fanboy, but why does everyone seem to be so convinced that DC (and therefore any attempt at an extended universe) is going to crash and burn? Is it the grimdark thing? Because I don't see that as a deal breaker (or a permanent tone).
The big difference is they need to establish the characters. They need to present Aquaman and Green Lantern and Flash and Cyborg and make us care about them despite each character getting only a small amount of screen time.
Marvel gave most of its heroes their own movie, so people walked into the Avengers caring about Iron Man and Thor and Captain America. People are going to walk into SvsB and think of Wonder Woman by way of the Linda Carter TV show. And see Aquaman through the lenses of Superfriends (at best). There's so much less time to give the character a motivation, a backstory, character growth, and a reason for the audience to give a s***.
DC really seems to be rushing things. They're jumping right to the mega-connected franchise rather than slowly building to it like Marvel Studios did. Sony tried the same thing with Spider-man and that didn't work well. So far, most attempts to purposely build a movie franchise have been so-so at best.
Sometimes I wonder if people remember the X-Men movies (the original ones) that had a *lot* of characters, with varied powers and stories, all introduced in the same movie. Nobody back then was saying that without getting a Cyclops, Storm, Xavier, Rouge and Wolverine series of standalones we would be unable to care about the characters.
X-Men proves that a big team-up of superheroes can easily work without 15 movies to set it up, if it is handled well. The reason I am skeptical of the DC endeavor is that Man of Steel bored me to tears, the Grimdarkness seems contrived and misused, and from what can be viewed fro, the decision making process it looks like the people in charge are in a state of constant panic to catch up to Marvel with their winning formula.
The inherent problem is *not* that DC are using a different approach then what we became used to in the last few years, it's that they seem to be going about it in a sloppy and wrongheaded way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...The fact it has six superheroes featured in it, with three coming into conflict for some reason, along with Lex Luthor, backstory on Batman, and more. It takes the main cast of Man of Steel (Clark, Lois, Perry, Ma Kent) and keeps those but adds over well over half-a-dozen new characters.IMO, DC still has to prove that they can make one decent movie before I get excited about anything. And trailer aside, there are a lot of signs that this movie will be a mess.Such as?Except for the fact that the group movie is coming before some of the stand-alones, swap out a couple of names and you've just described The Avengers.
This is an honest question, so please don't read it in the tone of an outraged fanboy, but why does everyone seem to be so convinced that DC (and therefore any attempt at an extended universe) is going to crash and burn? Is it the grimdark thing? Because I don't see that as a deal breaker (or a permanent tone).
The big difference is they need to establish the characters. They need to present Aquaman and Green Lantern and Flash and Cyborg and make us care about them despite each character getting only a small amount of screen time.
Marvel gave most of its heroes their own movie, so people walked into the Avengers caring about Iron Man and Thor and Captain America. People are going to walk into SvsB and think of Wonder Woman by way of the Linda Carter TV show. And see Aquaman through the lenses of Superfriends (at best). There's so much less time to give the character a motivation, a backstory, character growth, and a reason for the audience to give a s***.
DC really seems to be rushing things. They're jumping right to the mega-connected franchise rather than slowly building to it like Marvel Studios did. Sony tried the same thing with Spider-man and that didn't work well. So far, most attempts to purposely build a movie
It's funny that you should mention the X-men movies as July 14th was the 15th anniversary of the release of the first movie. I know this because July 14th is also my 15th wedding anniversary. And yes, I did attempt to cajole my Best Man into getting to an early showing of X-Men.
His reply?
"Listen, if anything goes wrong and I dont get you to your wedding on time? She'll Kill you. But she'll Kill AND torture ME. So no we'll go another time."
Back on topic though, the first X-men movie wasn't very good either. And yes it had a bunch of characters to introduce and set up but basically it was the WOLVERINE & THE X-MEN movie. The core story was centered around Wolverine and Rogue's relationship. Everyone else aside from the Professor and Magneto was kinda just THERE. Jean served more as a romantic object than a character. and Cyclops and Storm? eh.
Not a fan of that first movie. There are good parts (the stand off at the train station between Xavier and Magneto) and some good lines ("How do I know it's you?" "Youre a DICK." *beat* "OKAY") but it wasnt what I'd call a GOOD movie.
Now X-2...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people don't judge Xmen the same way if only because the Xmen have always been a super hero team up. So there is no expectation that you need to set up each individual character for their own movie.
Although the X men movies have suffered from just throwing too many characters on the screen with little set up or attempt to match the original comics. That is why the new Deadpool movie has to have a separate origin built from scratch, because his earlier appearance was absolutely horrible with no relevance for the comic character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The X-Men are also set up so that each character has an established shtick and they have a united origin and motivation. They set it up as an introduction to 4 groups, 2 independant characters (Rogue and Wolverine), a villain with lackeys (Magneto and people with simple powers to be beat up), and the good guy team (Storm, Jean, Cyclops, Professor X). They barely touched on interpersonal relationships, and half the team you barely get to see any emotion from past cliches. And they let Rogue be a stand in for the past motivations of most of the good guy team, as they showed what she went through and used it as a surrogate for everyone else's story of coming together.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other side of that coin is that we really don't need another origin story. Is there really anyone at all who doesn't know the origins at this point? That's one of the mistakes Sony keeps making. How many times do we need to see Peter Parker get bit by that damn spider?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand origin films for more obscure characters, or even for characters that haven't every really had their origins explored on screen before (like Wonder Woman). But for the next 20 years or so, no Superman/Batman/Spider-Man movie or TV show needs to devote more than a 5 minute flashback to their origin stories. And frankly, even that is 5 minutes wasted.
The only x-men movies I enjoyed were first class and the most recent one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only x-men movies I enjoyed were first class and the most recent one.
The first one was enjoyable and I really liked Days of Future Past.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the origin that the Ed Norton HULK movie gave us.
Then again, I like a lot about the way that movie worked.
The opening credits rolled into origin flashback? Yeah i thought that was handled brilliantly. Any other 'Done to death' superhero origin can take a page from that and be perfectly fine IMO.
Don't make me hungry.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"The red capes are coming. Red capes are coming!"
That line boggles me. I think it's reference to superheroes in general, not to the Superman. Or it is the name of those Superman-logo wielding soldiers. Line that would have made more sense is "superheroes are coming!" since it sounds more mocking, fitting of Luthor's.
I think he was just poking fun at the old line 'the redcoats are coming' (referring to British troops in the colonies), and it wasn't meant to be much deeper than that (other than the Lex-ish notion that superheroes are inherently oppressive to 'normal folks' in a Harrison Bergeron-sort of way and that a 'war for independence' from them might be necessary).
Wow, neither of you realize they gave away the plot of the movie, right? Lex gets Zod's body as seen in the trailer. Lex experiments on Zod. Lex clones Superman to make him look like an invading alien and gives him an 'army' to go to work. 'The Red capes are coming' is a reference to this army and his plan. The 'Superman' kneeling to Lex as Lex looks him over is the clone. He even looks angrier. This clone will probably become Bizarro. This is a similar plot to Superman: Birthright, which they already stole parts of for Man of Steel. Can't wait to see if I am right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the origin that the Ed Norton HULK movie gave us.
Then again, I like a lot about the way that movie worked.
same here
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, neither of you realize they gave away the plot of the movie, right? Lex gets Zod's body as seen in the trailer. Lex experiments on Zod. Lex clones Superman to make him look like an invading alien and gives him an 'army' to go to work. 'The Red capes are coming' is a reference to this army and his plan. The 'Superman' kneeling to Lex as Lex looks him over is the clone. He even looks angrier. This clone will probably become Bizarro. This is a similar plot to Superman: Birthright, which they already stole parts of for Man of Steel. Can't wait to see if I am right."The red capes are coming. Red capes are coming!"
That line boggles me. I think it's reference to superheroes in general, not to the Superman. Or it is the name of those Superman-logo wielding soldiers. Line that would have made more sense is "superheroes are coming!" since it sounds more mocking, fitting of Luthor's.
I think he was just poking fun at the old line 'the redcoats are coming' (referring to British troops in the colonies), and it wasn't meant to be much deeper than that (other than the Lex-ish notion that superheroes are inherently oppressive to 'normal folks' in a Harrison Bergeron-sort of way and that a 'war for independence' from them might be necessary).
....it's possible....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The X-Men are also set up so that each character has an established shtick and they have a united origin and motivation. They set it up as an introduction to 4 groups, 2 independant characters (Rogue and Wolverine), a villain with lackeys (Magneto and people with simple powers to be beat up), and the good guy team (Storm, Jean, Cyclops, Professor X). They barely touched on interpersonal relationships, and half the team you barely get to see any emotion from past cliches. And they let Rogue be a stand in for the past motivations of most of the good guy team, as they showed what she went through and used it as a surrogate for everyone else's story of coming together.
This is a good point, but MeanDM makes the perfect counter point - we don't really need to know how Batman started anymore to understand him. Though I admit Wonderwoman might be unfamiliar to younger audiences (me included...) and Aquaman never made a big splash in pop culture.
I liked the first three X-Men movies (the second is by far the best), really dislike the new ones. But either way, they do demonstrate that there are more valid ways to approach the superhero genre than Marvel's.
Marvel are still the best by quite a wide margin, but their formula is not magic. A better one could potentially be found, and equally valid ones exist already.
|
|
This is a good point, but MeanDM makes the perfect counter point - we don't really need to know how Batman started anymore to understand him. Though I admit Wonderwoman might be unfamiliar to younger audiences (me included...) and Aquaman never made a big splash in pop culture.
Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?
I liked the first three X-Men movies (the second is by far the best), really dislike the new ones. But either way, they do demonstrate that there are more valid ways to approach the superhero genre than Marvel's.
You're in a vast minority about the last two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the second X-men movie is the best as well. I also like the last two X-men movies really well (well, actually NOT the last two if you count "The Wolverine" which I really didn't like all that well. I mean First Class and Days of Future Past).
|
|
Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?
Sure, but you can't assume the general public will, and so you can't relay on everyone knowing exactly who wonder woman or Aquaman is the same you can assume they do about Spiderman or Superman or Batman.
You're in a vast minority about the last two.
*shrug*. Throughout most of history, majorities have been wrong about almost everything :)
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, neither of you realize they gave away the plot of the movie, right? Lex gets Zod's body as seen in the trailer. Lex experiments on Zod. Lex clones Superman to make him look like an invading alien and gives him an 'army' to go to work. 'The Red capes are coming' is a reference to this army and his plan. The 'Superman' kneeling to Lex as Lex looks him over is the clone. He even looks angrier. This clone will probably become Bizarro. This is a similar plot to Superman: Birthright, which they already stole parts of for Man of Steel. Can't wait to see if I am right.
That's actually a good theory. I had that idea as well, except that I did not connect it to the red capes are coming-thing. Yeah, Zod's body is gonna be Bizarro so fast. Or as Luthor calls him, Test Subject B-Zero. It's been a while since I read Birthright, should probably pick that up again.
|
|
same hereI like the origin that the Ed Norton HULK movie gave us.
Then again, I like a lot about the way that movie worked.
I thought it was a more consistent movie than the first Hulk movie (and the 'super-soldier' scene with Blonski pre-Abominable was pretty awesome), but Ed Norton was horrible miscast as Bruce Banner, since Banner's supposed to be kind of sympathetic, and I'm not sure Norton can do anything other than 'guy you want to punch.' Bana was a better Banner. Ruffalupagus is even better-er.
Plus, Jennifer Connelly vs. Liv Tyler? Not even in the same sport, let alone the same league.
Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?Sure, but you can't assume the general public will, and so you can't relay on everyone knowing exactly who wonder woman or Aquaman is the same you can assume they do about Spiderman or Superman or Batman.
You're in a vast minority about the last two.*shrug*. Throughout most of history, majorities have been wrong about almost everything :)
like whedon.
:-D| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a good point, but MeanDM makes the perfect counter point - we don't really need to know how Batman started anymore to understand him. Though I admit Wonderwoman might be unfamiliar to younger audiences (me included...) and Aquaman never made a big splash in pop culture.Read comic books? Watch Justice League animated?
I'm a geek, as shown by the fact that I spend time on these boards. I love superheroes. I hang out with people who love superheroes. I don't read comics because I don't want to invest the time into a story with no end with that many plot inconsistencies.
I'm probably more invested and knowledgeable than the average fan is going to be going in, and I can't tell you anything relevant about Wonder Woman or Aquaman's backstory. Hell, about all I know about Aquaman is that he is comic relief like this. If you want to lose your general audience, you can hope they watch/read other material, but the audience for comics and "children's" TV shows is tiny compared to the audience for these movies, and no director in their right mind should assume their audience has more than a passing familiarity with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Hell, about all I know about Aquaman is that he is comic relief like this.
Fixed link
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree about Wonder Woman and Aquaman. I guess I represent the kinda person that origin stories. I don't read comics, but I like super hero movies. I'd guess they'll treat Batman's origin as something people know, and Superman's as the last movie. They'll then introduce Wonder Woman and Aquaman as already fleshed characters with references to their origin which they'll then explore in the solo movies. That's my guess anyway.
I'm guessing Batman vs. Superman will be a continuation of Superman's origin. The last movie saw him reluctant to use his powers until Zod and company showed up. I think they'll expand on how he never really realized just how much destruction happened or that he was capable of. I have a feeling that this movie will see him start to climb toward the Superman we know, with Justice League turning less grim as Superman adopts his more heroic persona as a reaction to what happened. Just my two cents.
...with Justice League turning less grim as Superman adopts his more heroic persona as a reaction to what happened. Just my two cents.
You have more faith in DC than I
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the premise refreshingly intriguing for DC-based movies: a direct sequel exploring the ramifications of everything that happened in the first film.
Catastrophic damage should engender a WTF reaction from the gov't and the people, especially to the Big Apple. I mean, look how we reacted with 9/11. By comparison, the trailer is showing a remarkably restrained reaction, 'though some of this was demonstrated at the end of MoS.
The trailer hints at all kinds of coolness:
fanatics for and against Supes;
the realization that currently (being relative) we don't have much of anything that can stop him except perhaps overwhelming firepower and a willingness to use WMD's that quite possibly cannot hurt him even as it annihilates everyone else in the vicinity [or testing out certain direct energy weapons and railguns that one can find footage of on the interwebz];
a really cheesed-off Bruce Wayne once more donning his alter ego;
Joker as a wild card and thorn in Batman's side - maybe Leto's Joker has a cameo (getting his teeth punched out by Hulk-Batman), maybe he doesn't;
a wonderfully intriguing not-bald Lex Luthor doing his best to play one side against the other;
Wonder Woman (oh wow, THAT's a spiffy defense!).
I haven't yet picked out Aquaman in the trailer the few times I've watched it.
Aquaman appears in the trailer?
According to rumor, yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find the premise refreshingly intriguing for DC-based movies: a direct sequel exploring the ramifications of everything that happened in the first film.
Catastrophic damage should engender a WTF reaction from the gov't and the people, especially to the Big Apple. I mean, look how we reacted with 9/11. By comparison, the trailer is showing a remarkably restrained reaction, 'though some of this was demonstrated at the end of MoS.
The trailer hints at all kinds of coolness:
fanatics for and against Supes;
the realization that currently (being relative) we don't have much of anything that can stop him except perhaps overwhelming firepower and a willingness to use WMD's that quite possibly cannot hurt him even as it annihilates everyone else in the vicinity [or testing out certain direct energy weapons and railguns that one can find footage of on the interwebz];
a really cheesed-off Bruce Wayne once more donning his alter ego;
Joker as a wild card and thorn in Batman's side - maybe Leto's Joker has a cameo (getting his teeth punched out by Hulk-Batman), maybe he doesn't;
a wonderfully intriguing not-bald Lex Luthor doing his best to play one side against the other;
Wonder Woman (oh wow, THAT's a spiffy defense!).
I haven't yet picked out Aquaman in the trailer the few times I've watched it.
For all of these reasons (and, let's face it, hope springs eternal), I am wiling to put aside DC's iffy track record and look forward to seeing the movie. I still think Wonder Woman is going to have something to do with brokering a detente between Bats and Supes.
Well this certainly raises my spirits.
Given what appears to be a flop-in-the-making with Fantastic Four ... ;)
Color me intrigued by BvS and Suisquad based on the current trailers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this certainly raises my spirits.
I'm torn. On the one hand, more comic-booky yet serious Batman movies would be spectacular. But Man of Steel was...ehh. I'm worried they'd do something like THAT again.
And "Definitive Batman?" Have these guys even HEARD of Kevin Conroy?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The worst thing about this movie that I can see is that they lack...comic-booky ness? If that makes sense?
Because (in my not so very humble opinion) the Arkham Games
"This is a world that takes this comic book stuff seriously and does not make excuses for it." TAS also did this to a lesser degree.
Now imagine the Nolan version of
"This is Waylon Jones...aka The Croc", and he'd be a muscly guy with a skin condition and (maybe) filed teeth. Not once would anyone call him "Killer Croc".
The Nolan movies seemed a bit ashamed of their roots, and I think the work suffered a bit because of it. I'm hoping against hope that BvS doesn't make that mistake.
|
|
Because (in my not so very humble opinion) the Arkham Games
I've never been a huge Batman fan, in any of the various mediums which I have seen him in....BUT the Arkham games are the exception. Loved Asylum, liked City. Playing thru Origins now, and liking it as well. Pre-ordered Knight on PC, but I'm gonna hold off on it until they deem it suitable for re-release. (Although I heard it makes the unfortunate choice of being more of a Batmobile sim than anything else :(
|
|
I love Arkham City the most, but the first two (don't get me started on the Tankmobile) clicked with me because of the writing. It just feels...RIGHT. Does that make sense?
|
|
Yeah, although Arkham City lost that feeling for me. I know open world is a big rage in gaming now (and for most of the past decade or so), but something that's too open detracts from the central storyline (assuming the game has one). Arkham Asylum wasn't nearly as open, and as a result the story felt a lot more focused. Whereas City and Origns are a LOT more open, but the story is nowhere near as focused.
I also feel like City and Origins throw too many side-quests at you that are mostly (or completely) unrelated to the many objective. I know it's to squeeze in more of Batman's gallery of rogues, but again, it detracts from the main storyline.
If either of them substantially improved the gameplay, I'd probably forgive that lack of focus, but all three of them essentially play the same.
|
|
Yeah, although Arkham City lost that feeling for me. I know open world is a big rage in gaming now (and for most of the past decade or so), but something that's too open detracts from the central storyline (assuming the game has one). Arkham Asylum wasn't nearly as open, and as a result the story felt a lot more focused. Whereas City and Origns are a LOT more open, but the story is nowhere near as focused.
I also feel like City and Origins throw too many side-quests at you that are mostly (or completely) unrelated to the many objective. I know it's to squeeze in more of Batman's gallery of rogues, but again, it detracts from the main storyline.
If either of them substantially improved the gameplay, I'd probably forgive that lack of focus, but all three of them essentially play the same.
Main storyline is not be-all end-all you know?
|
|
If either of them substantially improved the gameplay, I'd probably forgive that lack of focus, but all three of them essentially play the same.Main storyline is not be-all end-all you know?
Yes, I do. But like I said, the gameplay was essentially the same. Gameplay without substantial improvement + unfocused narrative = inferior game.