At last check, 156 critics are giving Justice League a 40% splat. Some of the positive reviews are noting the films weak points, but do point out that it is entertaining. I'll see it, because I never miss a superhero movie, and "entertaining" is usually good enough to satisfy me.
DC has some fascinating heroes and characters, but the DC movies, at least the recent offerings, don't seem to rise to level of Marvel. They should because the concept is pretty much identical. I loved Wonder Woman, but I didn't get as excited as I usually do watching a Marvel movie. I was enthralled by Christian Bale's Batman. Superman is always entertaining. But 40%?
Is DC missing some aspect of film making that Marvel consistently seems to nail? I can't put my finger on what that might be. Anyone have any ideas what might be going on here?
Quote from: SGOS on November 16, 2017, 04:09:01 PMIs DC missing some aspect of film making that Marvel consistently seems to nail? I can't put my finger on what that might be. Anyone have any ideas what might be going on here?
I dunno, I haven't seen enough DC movies to get much of a read on what they're doing wrong. They've relied pretty heavily on Superman/Batman in the past, so expanding their roster seems like it would be a good thing. It's strange that becoming more like the MCU isn't working out for them.
So what does Marvel do right? Imo, a lot. Not every movie is a hit, but they have hits fairly consistently. I dunno if I can put my finger on it exactly, but a lot of their successes seem to be based on 1) picking a theme and sticking with it 2) pleasing aesthetics (both Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor Ragnarok sport vibrant colors) 3) faithfulness to the source material 4) believing in what they're doing (they're not just here for a check)
Screenprism has some excellent analysis videos where they break this stuff down. Examples: Guardians of the Galaxy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubTD3ncdtwU) and Spiderman Homecoming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY4gTlJ0Rt4)
But I've gotta say as a guy with a very clear preference in the Marvel vs DC rivalry, I'm experiencing some major schadenfreude watching DC flop around like a dying fish, but I'm also kinda scared by it. Carthage burns today, Rome burns tomorrow.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 16, 2017, 11:04:05 PM
Screenprism has some excellent analysis videos where they break this stuff down. Examples: Guardians of the Galaxy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubTD3ncdtwU) and Spiderman Homecoming (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY4gTlJ0Rt4)
But I've gotta say as a guy with a very clear preference in the Marvel vs DC rivalry, I'm experiencing some major schadenfreude watching DC flop around like a dying fish, but I'm also kinda scared by it. Carthage burns today, Rome burns tomorrow.
To build on some things Screenprism suggests, it's like someone at Marvel is making lists of things that always work for Hollywood and goes out of their way to utilize them: The superhero fantasy of being near indestructible is the centerpiece, but other common scenarios relied on include things like secret identities, which are eventually revealed to the astonishment of another character. Guardians relied heavily on classic rock songs of my youth. I'm not sure how younger people today are affected by those songs, but utilizing that theme always gets my attention. Marvel even has the audacity of pointing out some of these sure fire Hollywood gimmicks as they unfold on the screen like "the unspoken thing" element of Hollywood romance. Of course, these have to be done in a context that makes some kind of sense. They can't just be used and expected to work if they are not done correctly.
DC does this too, but they don't seem to reach the same level of creative intuition. The stories are good, but the execution seems a little flat by comparison. They don't seem to be able to reach inside me and give me the same tingles that Marvel seems to go out of its way to do, even though we are talking about near identical themes.
But maybe Marvel will hit a wall at some time. DC was putting out Superman and Batman movies long before Marvel showed up in film, and as far back as the 60s DC was making a big impression on me. With the introduction of Batman Begins, as less comical approach than had been used, DC found their stride and seemed destined for the brightest of futures, but then they peaked or perhaps began to stale a bit. I could see this happen to Marvel. They are absolutely dominating the theaters, and producing hits as they ride the crest of a wave. I don't think this can go on forever. Eventually, creative teams max out and can't keep getting better, even though fans expect it. I keep wanting use the word "stunning" to describe Marvel's creative work, not stunning surprising like I don't understand why. I totally get it. Like everyone else, I'm caught up in the frenzy, which is perhaps the most stunning part of the whole thing for me.
Two words: Zach. Snyder.
For me at least, the artistic direction DC has taken is what just completely destroys it for me. There is absolutely zero chance for immersion, because it looks like they are in some weird comic-book/cheap CGI bullshit. Look at Wonder Woman... it was amazing, and it didn't rely on making every city look like a post-apocalyptic blur being lit by flares. Everywhere looked generally believable (except for the Ares fight, which I would argue was one of the weakest points of the otherwise great movie).
But except for Wonder Woman, even when they get the environment right the story has been lacking as well. Bale's Batman was solid because it was "believable", there was seriousness and depth to it. DC seems to be stuck in this middle ground of not wanting to be as blatantly fun and light-hearted with serious undertones like Marvel, but they don't want to go with what has worked for them and go with the the very realistic setting either. They seem to want the best of both worlds, and get neither right.
I'm going to see Justice League because it's fun, but I have not been hyped for one day about it and I am glad I didn't get on the hype train. Hopefully my standards are as low as I think they are, because I think it means I will enjoy the movie alot more than I expect...
Quote from: Shiranu on November 17, 2017, 04:04:37 AM
Bale's Batman was solid because it was "believable", there was seriousness and depth to it. DC seems to be stuck in this middle ground of not wanting to be as blatantly fun and light-hearted with serious undertones like Marvel, but they don't want to go with what has worked for them and go with the the very realistic setting either. They seem to want the best of both worlds, and get neither right.
Superman Returns is where DC started to take off. It was darker and more realistic, but they still held on to an absurd and cheesy villain, trying for a more realistic Superman but not wanting to introduce a serious foil.
Batman Begins was probably where DC could have taken off and become a phenomenon. Some people complained that it was too dark, but I welcomed the less laughable Batman. Then they started to let go of aspects which made the movie a milestone. Katie Holmes was not available in the second movie for the part of the love interest because she was having a baby in real life. So they introduced a less convincing actress to play the same character. That was jarring. In addition, the new actress never had much of a role. She was just there to let everyone know Batman had a girlfriend, but there was no chemistry between them. He saved her life a couple of times, but never seemed like she was important to him. I think there was no love interest in the last movie at all.
I suppose a brooding and dark Batman shouldn't have a love interest, so he became a dedicated but one dimensional crime fighter whose only humanity was expressed in constant agonizing introspective self hatred. Yee Gods! What were the writers thinking? It was like having to live with a clinically depressed and unmediated mental patient for 3 hours. OK, the movie has some other redeeming qualities, but they should have left out all the serious emotional issues. Then came Batman vs. Superman, and I never understood the point of making that movie at all.
Wonder Woman breathed some new life into DC and added some fan compassion for a character. Will DC throw all that away too now that they have something to capitalize on?
DC has been terrible with its shared universe films. Marvel at least gave its major characters their own feature films first, each of which can (mostly) stand on their own. With DC we get a Superman movie followed immediately by throwing Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman together in a single film. Like, hello, these are DC's 3 biggest characters and you're not even giving two of them their own film before the crossover? What the fuck, DC? What. The. Fuck.
I don’t like DV in general with exceptions. I loved Adam west Batman hard the dark knight rapist voice Batman we got now. Thought joker was stupid and still do. Suicide squad was bad man of steel was alright, I’m in the minority for thinking WW was a solid C movie. And justice league was flat out meh. Not bad but not good. It was just meh.
DC is trying so hard to be dark and gritty and serious they’re losing themselves. But then again Batman has been their poster child for ages and I’ve hated him for virtually my whole life.
I dont Want DC to fail but I dont care if they succeed. Except Batman stuff, id love to see that end.
Just kill joker
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on November 17, 2017, 07:03:20 PM
DC has been terrible with its shared universe films. Marvel at least gave its major characters their own feature films first, each of which can (mostly) stand on their own. With DC we get a Superman movie followed immediately by throwing Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman together in a single film. Like, hello, these are DC's 3 biggest characters and you're not even giving two of them their own film before the crossover? What the fuck, DC? What. The. Fuck.
Batman vs Superman struck me as a competitive attempt to counter Marvel's Captain America: Civil War. Maybe an attempt to capitalize on the theme of Superheroes fighting among themselves. It may have seemed more original if Marvel hadn't got there first. But even then, Batman and Superman fighting each other goes against my perception of Super crime fighters being too smart to be distracted from their common interest. It never made sense to me, and Superman vs Batman isn't even a reasonably fair match to begin with.
Quote from: GrinningYMIR on November 17, 2017, 07:23:34 PM
I don’t like DV in general with exceptions. I loved Adam west Batman hard the dark knight rapist voice Batman we got now. Thought joker was stupid and still do. Suicide squad was bad man of steel was alright, I’m in the minority for thinking WW was a solid C movie. And justice league was flat out meh. Not bad but not good. It was just meh.
DC is trying so hard to be dark and gritty and serious they’re losing themselves. But then again Batman has been their poster child for ages and I’ve hated him for virtually my whole life.
I dont Want DC to fail but I dont care if they succeed. Except Batman stuff, id love to see that end.
Just kill joker
As a kid, I only got to peek at Batman comics at a friend's house, and never actually read an entire episode that I can remember. But I thought he was one of the most interesting comic characters. He had just the right amount of spooky edge, demonic in appearance, and a little scary. I wasn't familiar with him enough to know for sure if he was supposed to represent good or evil. I leaned towards thinking he was a good guy, but some adult told me he was evil. But then, even with the minimum of knowledge I had about him, I'm pretty sure I knew way more than whoever the adult was that told me he was evil.
I still think he's potentially the most interesting superhero character of all, but except for Batman Begins, he could get some better writers.
kinda disappointed from the look of things. I don't care much for batman and superman, while I prefer batman more, its only due to certain actors and how they act or voice him I enjoyed.
What disappointed me was the idea of there actually being a live action aquaman to enjoy, just for the movie to bomb. Lot of people consider aquaman a lame hero, and the golden age aquaman, he was lame. But seeing him in the JLU series and liking his redesign, i hoped for someone to pick up on that and realize that was the best way to portray aquaman. And I thought they had it with Jason Momoa, he looked the part, and Momoa is a good actor.
But if all looks of is as expected from curren DC, you know, one good here and there and a bunch of crap movies any other time (the opposite of marvel) then its not very encouraging them making him badass.
Quote from: Munch on November 17, 2017, 07:50:49 PMWhat disappointed me was the idea of there actually being a live action aquaman to enjoy, just for the movie to bomb. Lot of people consider aquaman a lame hero, and the golden age aquaman, he was lame. But seeing him in the JLU series and liking his redesign, i hoped for someone to pick up on that and realize that was the best way to portray aquaman. And I thought they had it with Jason Momoa, he looked the part, and Momoa is a good actor.
Yeah, I figured Momoa would crush it, regardless of whether the movie was good or bad overall. He crushed it, didn't he?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/31/bb/17/31bb17a0278910d9938b0ee3ed57e120.gif)
I suppose so, given the script, he, like Gal Gadot, gave it their all.
DC has always had high school level characters while Marvel had college level ones. The difference isn't in the characters powers, it is in their personalities flaws and struggles to understand their place in the world. DC is 2D, Marvel 3D.
I'm not really interested in Justice League. Ever since Batman v Superman, I've been turned off from the DC cinematic universe. Skipping giving Batman his own movie before giving him a crossover with Superman felt like a desperate attempt to catch upt to Marvel without actually doing any of the world building first. Funnily enough, the trailers did still have me interested at first, until that last trailer came out and revealed...the CGI monster. I mean, jeez. What was the point of even seeing the movie at that point? The trailer already told me the whole story. After the movie came out, I heard that the plot made no sense and was overly convoluted.
Then everyone hyped up the Suicide Squad movie, yet another movie about a team of characters we didn't know, with a plot that made no sense. At this point, I started sensing a pattern. A pattern I expected to be repeated with Justice League.
At least now, we've had a movie for Wonder Woman. But The Flash and Cyborg are completely new characters to this crossover. I expect the whole movie turned out feeling rushed and underdeveloped.
And the designs. My god, the costumes for Batman, The Flash, and Cyborg are terrible. Batman looks boring, The Flash has way too much going on with those random wires all over his suit, and Cyborg is almost entirely made up of bad CGI. What's with all the sharp edges? Why couldn't they have gone with a sleeker look, rather than the look of the aftermath of a high speed car crash? At least Aquaman looks good. The one character whose original design could not be taken seriously on the big screen actually got an appropriate redesign, while those whose comic book designs were perfectly fine were ruined.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 18, 2017, 02:15:24 AM
Then everyone hyped up the Suicide Squad movie, yet another movie about a team of characters we didn't know, with a plot that made no sense. At this point, I started sensing a pattern. A pattern I expected to be repeated with Justice League.
the costumes for Batman, The Flash, and Cyborg are terrible. Batman looks boring, The Flash has way too much going on with those random wires all over his suit, and Cyborg is almost entirely made up of bad CGI. What's with all the sharp edges? Why couldn't they have gone with a sleeker look, rather than the look of the aftermath of a high speed car crash? At least Aquaman looks good. The one character whose original design could not be taken seriously on the big screen actually got an appropriate redesign, while those whose comic book designs were perfectly fine were ruined.
I intuitively figured out that the fast red guy must be "the Flash." Somehow I was aware of that character. I recently read that Moamoa was going to play Aqua Man, so I was kind of up to speed on that one, even though I'd never heard of Aqua Man. And Cyborg? I thought they just invented some new guy on the spur of the moment because they were short of a six man team.
Suicide Squad did get hyped, but came across pretty flat to the critics, much for the same reasons you noted. It made more sense to me after I watched it a second time on disk. The problem was that it didn't make sense because the story was disjointed and didn't flow, so it took a second watch for me to figure it out. If it wasn't for Harley Quinn, I don't think I would have bothered watching it a second time.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 02:36:14 AM
I intuitively figured out that the fast red guy must be "the Flash." Somehow I was aware of that character. I recently read that Moamoa was going to play Aqua Man, so I was kind of up to speed on that one, even though I'd never heard of Aqua Man. And Cyborg? I thought they just invented some new guy on the spur of the moment because they were short of a six man team.
Suicide Squad did get hyped, but came across pretty flat to the critics, much for the same reasons you noted. It made more sense to me after I watched it a second time on disk. The problem was that it didn't make sense because the story was disjointed and didn't flow, so it took a second watch for me to figure it out. If it wasn't for Harley Quinn, I don't think I would have bothered watching it a second time.
You must not remember the TV show The Flash ... from 1990. And I did see him in a few comics when I was young.
Quote from: SGOS on November 18, 2017, 02:36:14 AM
I intuitively figured out that the fast red guy must be "the Flash." Somehow I was aware of that character. I recently read that Moamoa was going to play Aqua Man, so I was kind of up to speed on that one, even though I'd never heard of Aqua Man. And Cyborg? I thought they just invented some new guy on the spur of the moment because they were short of a six man team.
Suicide Squad did get hyped, but came across pretty flat to the critics, much for the same reasons you noted. It made more sense to me after I watched it a second time on disk. The problem was that it didn't make sense because the story was disjointed and didn't flow, so it took a second watch for me to figure it out. If it wasn't for Harley Quinn, I don't think I would have bothered watching it a second time.
I find it funny how we're supposed to believe that these characters are supposed to be on the same tier as Superman. "What if Superman decided to kidnap the President," they asked. Well, in that case, what is a girl with a baseball bat going to do? Superman can reflect bullets, ain't none of them gonna hurt Superman. And then they were hyping up the new Joker, who I was unconvinced of from the beginning, but he has only about five minutes in the actual movie. Like, WTF? They were making it look like he was going to have such a huge presence in the movie, and he's barely in it. There wasn't even enough time to decide if there was anything redeemable about the new interpretation of the character, or if he was just completely annoying.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 18, 2017, 12:03:23 PM
I find it funny how we're supposed to believe that these characters are supposed to be on the same tier as Superman. "What if Superman decided to kidnap the President," they asked. Well, in that case, what is a girl with a baseball bat going to do? Superman can reflect bullets, ain't none of them gonna hurt Superman. And then they were hyping up the new Joker, who I was unconvinced of from the beginning, but he has only about five minutes in the actual movie. Like, WTF? They were making it look like he was going to have such a huge presence in the movie, and he's barely in it. There wasn't even enough time to decide if there was anything redeemable about the new interpretation of the character, or if he was just completely annoying.
The actor who played the Joker didn't do much for me in the Suicide Squad, but he plays a brief role in the new Blade Runner as Tyrell, the owner of the Tyrell Corporation. In that role, he was truly foreboding and gave me the creeps. I'll be watching for him in the future to see where his career takes him. I think he has potential.
Quote from: Blackleaf on November 18, 2017, 12:03:23 PM
I find it funny how we're supposed to believe that these characters are supposed to be on the same tier as Superman. "What if Superman decided to kidnap the President," they asked. Well, in that case, what is a girl with a baseball bat going to do?
The huge disparities in power levels really pissed me off, too.
In Suicide Squad, you have a guy who can climb walls really well, a guy with a boomerang, a psycho girl with a baseball bat and a revolver, a sane woman with a magic sword, an amphibious guy with a wrestler physique, a marksman with wristguns and an AR-15, and a literal goddess.
Half these people don't technically even have powers, and the few that do vary from mildly superhuman to god-like. That's far too wide a spread.
Granted, Marvel has some issues in this department as well. In the Avengers, Black Widow and Hawkeye have noticeably weak abilities compared to their teammates. But generally speaking, Marvel hits this sweet spot where most characters are strong enough to take out gangsters or cops but not strong enough to destroy the world. At least, not directly. Most heroes are on a roughly comparable playing field. That's why Civil War felt more or less balanced. Black Panther could fight Winter Soldier and it wasn't immediately obvious who would win.
But Superman VS Batman? Not much of a contest. And I assume Justice League had a similar problem. I suppose you can write a way for the big guns to be indisposed to give the second-stringers a chance to shine. But at that point, you're no longer following one team, but two.
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 18, 2017, 12:34:47 PM
The huge disparities in power levels really pissed me off, too.
In Suicide Squad, you have a guy who can climb walls really well, a guy with a boomerang, a psycho girl with a baseball bat and a revolver, a sane woman with a magic sword, an amphibious guy with a wrestler physique, a marksman with wristguns and an AR-15, and a literal goddess.
Half these people don't technically even have powers, and the few that do vary from mildly superhuman to god-like. That's far too wide a spread.
Granted, Marvel has some issues in this department as well. In the Avengers, Black Widow and Hawkeye have noticeably weak abilities compared to their teammates. But generally speaking, Marvel hits this sweet spot where most characters are strong enough to take out gangsters or cops but not strong enough to destroy the world. At least, not directly. Most heroes are on a roughly comparable playing field. That's why Civil War felt more or less balanced. Black Panther could fight Winter Soldier and it wasn't immediately obvious who would win.
But Superman VS Batman? Not much of a contest. And I assume Justice League had a similar problem. I suppose you can write a way for the big guns to be indisposed to give the second-stringers a chance to shine. But at that point, you're no longer following one team, but two.
I would disagree with you about Black Widow and Hawkeye. Black Widow stayed ahead of the Hulk on a rampage, and is a world class athlete, gymnast, acrobat, aerialist capable of numerous complex maneuvers and feats, expert martial artist. She is also a master of psychological manipulation and tactics. She also carries electro-static energy blasts that can deliver charges up to 30,000 volts.
Hawkeye is an exceptional fencer, acrobat and marksman, having been trained from childhood in the circus and by the criminals Trick Shot and Swordsman. This includes considerable strength, as a supervillain found out when he tried to use the superhero's 250 pounds-force (1,100 newtons) draw-weight bow and found that he could not draw back the string to launch an arrow.
Hawkeye has also been thoroughly trained by Captain America in tactics, martial arts, and hand-to-hand combat. Hawkeye excels in the use of ranged weapons, especially the bow and arrow, and carries a quiver containing a number of customized "trick arrows".
Both are among the group of non-super-powered humans capable of holding their own against those with such powers. They would not be members of the Avengers otherwise.
Cavebear, I'll refer you to my ol' standby - could a gangster with a TEC-9 plausibly take them out? If so, they're probably not durable enough to survive many missions against planetary threats.
While kicking and punching might work against street-level threats, it might not work so well against Demagorg the God-Eater or any other threat capable of outmatching the world's militaries. Plus, it seems kinda dumb to send heroes specializing in arrows/bullets against villains vulnerable to neither.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9l988kqL4
Quote from: Hydra009 on November 26, 2017, 12:05:11 PM
Cavebear, I'll refer you to my ol' standby - could a gangster with a TEC-9 plausibly take them out? If so, they're probably not durable enough to survive many missions against planetary threats.
While kicking and punching might work against street-level threats, it might not work so well against Demagorg the God-Eater or any other threat capable of outmatching the world's militaries. Plus, it seems kinda dumb to send heroes specializing in arrows/bullets against villains vulnerable to neither.
Against an army of street-level threats, street-level threat killers are very useful. Which allows the more potent heroes to focus on the non-street-level threat threats.
I admire DC for creating the concepts of Superman and Batman. But I love Marvel more for complexity and angst. And, quite frankly, wit.