DCEU

[Callate]

The current iteration of DC cinematic characters thus far have very little by way of inner life, which makes it difficult to care about them when the multi-million dollar special effects sequences are being thrown around.

(Potential spoilers ahead if you haven't seen the recent DC Universe movies... Also, what are you doing in this thread?)

I should feel like Superman is making a big, noble sacrifice at the end of BvS, and his loss is a terrible one, rather than wondering why he couldn't have just given the weapon to someone who wasn't vulnerable to Kryptonite. I should feel that Batman is actually carrying the weight of feeling responsible for all the vulnerable humans exposed to super-human conflicts, not that he's an extremist psychopath who's just been waiting for a chance to act out. I shouldn't laugh when the Suicide Squad gets a last-minute addition with a lame power, knowing that he's going to die fast in a vain attempt to suggest that we should be taking the tough-guy act of Waller and company seriously. I shouldn't feel that El Diablo giving up his oath of pacifism is trivial, or that his declaration that his team is his "family" is laughable.

Rocket Raccoon and Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy have more inner life, and a more credible and meaningful relationship, than anyone in the the cinematic DCU right now. And they're both made entirely out of CG!!!!

Nearly everything in the recent DC movies has been right out of Scriptwriting 101. You can map out the plot arc and the intended emotional arc beat by beat, and set a clock to their attempts at paying off. The unwillingness to indulge in humor between characters and the determination that everything be grand developments and artificial short-hand for sentiment shortchanges everything. You can imagine brackets around pieces of dialogue and whole scenes that say things like [THEY HAVE A WARM, INTIMATE BOND!] and [HE'S BEEN DRIVEN TO THE EDGE!] and [SHE CRAZY!] and [THIS MOMENT OF TENSION UNDERSCORES HOW STRONG THEIR LATER BOND WILL BE! NO, REALLY!]

But as to the original question: Can it be fixed?

Yes. But I don't know that it will be.

Having beaten chests and staked ground that THIS IS NOT THE MARVEL UNIVERSE. THESE SUPERHEROES ARE, AND WILL BE, VERY DIFFERENT, they can't now just crib the Marvel playbook. They'd probably muck it up if they tried, anyway.

But they need to turn down the volume, badly. These last few movies have been "comic book" in just the way that makes the phrase derogatory. Big melodrama, cataclysmic events, and very little to effectively build up the people behind all of that to make us invest. If you stand behind a jet all of the time, you don't become more impressed with the power of a jet engine; you just go deaf. We need quiet moments that aren't just obligatory set-up for later explosions, trying to give them meaning.

BvS was 151 minutes, and it felt like it. Possibly longer.

What if we had had two minutes of Bruce Wayne being a warm and efficient boss in his Wayne Enterprises building to give his character more dimension and a little more significance to what he felt when it was being torn apart? Surely that would have been worth a damn dream sequence or two?

And, you know, develop one of those characters who die in the attack. Don't write that off as time that could be better spent on things where the soundtrack overcompensates.

Captain Boomerang in SS carries around a plush unicorn. As it stands in the movie, that's not character- it's just quirk. It's "flair"- like the quirky buttons the waitresses in the chain restaurant in Office Space are required to wear. What if one of these supervillains made fun of him for it- and he was hurt, and embarrassed? Not macho-bravado, "I'm gonna kill you" hurt, not some cheap "ha, ha, tough guy has a plushie" joke, but just- stops talking, cuts himself off, shuts down? Even if the plush unicorn never gets its own neon-lit character introduction, even if they never brought it up again, it would suggest that maybe the character has a depth and a history that's deeper than what stands on the surface.

And it would take maybe a minute of precious running time.

And that's it in a nutshell. They need to stop taking intimate character moments as merely set-up for later stake-raising (hostages!) or sacrifices, and assuming that if they don't fulfill those requirements- and as expediently as possible- they're a waste of time. Good rhythm, good pacing, isn't just a series of moments that go "boom"; they're all the proceeding moments that go "Ha ha" and "huh..." and "aw...".

Will Wonder Woman do that...? I dunno, the previews seem awfully determined to pass of gray- and sepia-toned scenes as pseudohistorical and therefore meaningful, and there's a lot of crash and bang and not a whole lot of "and here's why you should care." Saddled with the additional burden of "And we can make a female hero who fights just as hard as the big boys, foiling every meme of the mean, sexist world while we're at it", we may have even less time and energy to invest in genuine heart.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope WW is where they turn it all around. But I wouldn't give it even odds.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan.

I'm sorry, but why would you want to make one of the more entertaining actors out there play the man without a personality?
Just do what the Timmverse did, and only acknowledge him in a 10-second joke at most.

Fillion has been voicing Hal Jordan for three or four films in the DCAU now. He has the appearance and the physical acting chops to do the part in live-action, and he's already demonstrated that he has the charisma to make it work.

Hal Jordan is a weird character because for ages, he was just "the" Green Lantern. Y'know, a soulless template. Then he turned evil and died, and then they realised they could have a bunch of Green Lanterns, and then Hal Jordan came back, and slowly they evolved a sort of four-man band, where Kyle Rayner was the emotional, compassionate one, John Stewart was the gruff and serious one, Guy Gardner was the angry hot-headed one, and Hal Jordan became the laughs-at-death comedian.

I mean, he is an interesting character. He refuses to take his job or anything else seriously, he can't commit to anything from relationships to galactic law enforcement, but at the same time he has a literally unstoppable need to prove himself by hurling himself face-first into suicidal situations. It's like he refuses to take life seriously because he's expecting to die. I mean, there's room for an actor to work in there. (But Ryan Reynolds was a miscast plain and simple.)

My ideal Green Lantern film would be an Earth-based origin story, set during the war between the Green Lanterns and the Sinestro Corps, based around John Stewart receiving a ring from a fatally wounded Green Lantern that crash-landed on Earth while fighting with Arkillo. Stewart gets the ring, but then he has to fight Arkillo. Put in themes of dealing with PTSD and overcoming fear and doubt, and have Fillion!Hal Jordan show up at the end as a cameo, like "Oh, hey, we've got another Earth dude in the corps!" And that sets up a sequel with the Green Lantern Corps waging war in space.

(all of that is copyright me, by the way. looking at you, Goyer. don't steal my shit.)

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

As long as the WB execs keep cutting the movies down (presumably behind the director's back), then No. The highest standard they can aim for will be mediocre.

 

[Cicada 5]

The current iteration of DC cinematic characters thus far have very little by way of inner life, which makes it difficult to care about them when the multi-million dollar special effects sequences are being thrown around.

They do have an inner life. What they don?t have is writers who feel their petty problems should overshadow plots with more interesting debates. An example would be how the Civil War movie promised an interesting examination of the consequences of superheroes? actions and whether one?s individual freedom should trump the needs of society. Instead what we got was the equivalent of a bunch of teenagers whining about how the adult don?t let them have any fun. We spend more time on the destruction of Steve and Tony?s non-existent friendship than we do actually looking at the effects of the Avengers? actions. Probably because if we did, we?d realize these guys are more harm than good.
The DCEU movies have decided to put the focus on how the heroes? actions affect the world around them without making them seem unsympathetic. Even in BvS, the fear of the danger Superman posed wasn?t simply dismissed as a villain?s agenda but a legitimate worry by the common man.

I should feel like Superman is making a big, noble sacrifice at the end of BvS, and his loss is a terrible one, rather than wondering why he couldn't have just given the weapon to someone who wasn't vulnerable to Kryptonite.

Because that someone was barely holding Doomsday in place and was exhausted from doing most of the fighting?

I should feel that Batman is actually carrying the weight of feeling responsible for all the vulnerable humans exposed to super-human conflicts, not that he's an extremist psychopath who's just been waiting for a chance to act out. I shouldn't laugh when the Suicide Squad gets a last-minute addition with a lame power, knowing that he's going to die fast in a vain attempt to suggest that we should be taking the tough-guy act of Waller and company seriously. I shouldn't feel that El Diablo giving up his oath of pacifism is trivial, or that his declaration that his team is his "family" is laughable.

I guess there?s not much I can say about this other than, I just didn?t see it your way.

Rocket Raccoon and Groot from Guardians of the Galaxy have more inner life, and a more credible and meaningful relationship, than anyone in the the cinematic DCU right now. And they're both made entirely out of CG!!!!

A relationship that consists of a running gag of Groot saying three words and Rocket reacting with snark.

But they need to turn down the volume, badly. These last few movies have been "comic book" in just the way that makes the phrase derogatory. Big melodrama, cataclysmic events, and very little to effectively build up the people behind all of that to make us invest. If you stand behind a jet all of the time, you don't become more impressed with the power of a jet engine; you just go deaf. We need quiet moments that aren't just obligatory set-up for later explosions, trying to give them meaning.

Just from the top of my head, we have the scene with Clark when his father tells him where he came from, the discussion after Clark saves the kids on the bus and the scene with Lois and Clark afyer the ordeal in Nairobi. These scenes do exist in the movies.

And, you know, develop one of those characters who die in the attack. Don't write that off as time that could be better spent on things where the soundtrack overcompensates.

Like they did with El Diablo.

Will Wonder Woman do that...? I dunno, the previews seem awfully determined to pass of gray- and sepia-toned scenes as pseudohistorical and therefore meaningful,

You mean this preview?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INLzqh7rZ-U&t=3s

and there's a lot of crash and bang and not a whole lot of "and here's why you should care."

Aka, every action trailer ever made. Maybe watch the film first before passing judgement?

Saddled with the additional burden of "And we can make a female hero who fights just as hard as the big boys, foiling every meme of the mean, sexist world while we're at it", we may have even less time and energy to invest in genuine heart.

What the hell does this even mean? Why is it that people automatically assume that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive despite plenty of evidence to the contrary?

 

[Callate]

They do have an inner life. What they don?t have is writers who feel their petty problems should overshadow plots with more interesting debates. An example would be how the Civil War movie promised an interesting examination of the consequences of superheroes? actions and whether one?s individual freedom should trump the needs of society. Instead what we got was the equivalent of a bunch of teenagers whining about how the adult don?t let them have any fun. We spend more time on the destruction of Steve and Tony?s non-existent friendship than we do actually looking at the effects of the Avengers? actions. Probably because if we did, we?d realize these guys are more harm than good.
The DCEU movies have decided to put the focus on how the heroes? actions affect the world around them without making them seem unsympathetic. Even in BvS, the fear of the danger Superman posed wasn?t simply dismissed as a villain?s agenda but a legitimate worry by the common man.

Yes, it's true that Civil War didn't do everything it could. It might also be noted that "the adult" in question was responsible for "The Abomination" being released on a city full of civilians. And after the Hydra-inside-SHIELD incident, Captain America had perfectly valid reasons for feeling that a bureaucratic authority dictating his activities was a bad idea. What I found harder to believe was that Tony Stark, the man who once told a Congressional committee that he had "privatized world peace" and spent multiple movies trying to keep his work under his own control, was now perfectly willing to submit to oversight.

...But at least there was that much there to wonder about.

BvS couldn't decide what the "common man" thought, or why, in any given scene. Like so much else in the DC movies, they were one more character twisting in the wind to the dictates of an under-thought plot, revering him as a god one moment, protesting outside a hearing in another. Not even a character- a contrivance, a background detail. That much less to worry about when a thousand are killed by a bomb, or ten thousand killed in a battle between super-beings, or ninety percent of the world's population is eradicated off-camera in an alternate future dystopia.

The "petty" problems of some of Marvel's heroes are part of what make it credible that they actually do care when their actions have consequences for the non-super-powered- they actually interact with them, relate with them. Talk with them.

To make a subject in a movie worthy of debate requires putting credible characters with compelling arguments behind different sides. General Ross may have been a poor choice for Civil War to head the "control" side, in that regard, as there was already reason to regard him as someone who wasn't genuinely responsible and didn't want power so much under control as under his control.

...But to put BvS's version of Luthor behind the "superheroes as a menace" side was as much as sweeping the issue off the table with a shower of confetti and a kazoo fanfare.

Because that someone was barely holding Doomsday in place and was exhausted from doing most of the fighting?

That seems like a stretch. If anything, that sounds like a good reason to say, "Here, why don't I hold Doomsday in place while you stab him"?

A relationship that consists of a running gag of Groot saying three words and Rocket reacting with snark.

Actually, it mostly consists of Groot saying three words and then Rocket interpreting them- and from what we're led to believe, correctly.

The brilliant thing about the Groot/Rocket relationship, to my mind, is that Rocket tends to be the meanest, snarkiest, and most wantonly violent of the GotG chracters- and then he's partnered with someone who he largely feels compelled to be nice to.

Just from the top of my head, we have the scene with Clark when his father tells him where he came from, the discussion after Clark saves the kids on the bus and the scene with Lois and Clark afyer the ordeal in Nairobi. These scenes do exist in the movies.

Man of Steel did have its moments; I didn't turn on the movie as much as some. The Lois scenes in BvS felt to me like they were rushing to reach the next plot point- touching on her the bare minimum necessary to indicate that yes, this character was still in Superman's life and therefore an adequate reason for him to be manipulated into saving her.

Notably they didn't really bother establishing how the two suddenly moved as far as living together. I can almost forgive that because, yeah, everyone knows Clark and Lois end up together- but in a movie so barren of meaningful connections, the leanness of one possible outlet for same stands out.

Like they did with El Diablo.

El Diablo gets very little development. He's a pacifist, he gets taunted, then he's not. He had a family, he got angry, now he doesn't. He despises the other Squaddies, then he works along side them; suddenly, they're family. His control over his power is so precise that he can make fiery letters float in the air, unless he loses his temper- and then he lashes out to the point that he kills his whole family- except when he loses his temper with people he barely knows, and then he uses it against their enemies instead.

If SS actually wanted to make part of the movie about El Diablo learning to control his temper, or finding a new family, or seeking forgiveness for his acts, there's enough room for that there- it just wanted the audience to think that those elements and themes were there without spending time and energy on them.

He got a flashback. About thirty seconds of his past with voiced-over narrative. That's more than some of the "main" characters get, but that's comparing degrees of famine. We're told he feels terrible.

...But that's just it. We're told.

You mean this preview?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INLzqh7rZ-U&t=3s

That's better than some. I will admit I hadn't seen that one. But it's also- what, the third preview trailer? The fourth? How carefully did you have to be following the film to catch it?

Aka, every action trailer ever made. Maybe watch the film first before passing judgement?

I fully intend to watch it, assuming it gets even middling reviews. And good films sometimes get bad trailers, and vice-versa. And trailers can simply fail to accurately represent the films they're advertising accurately.

But I can't discard the impressions of prior movies in a franchise when seeing new entries offered up, nor should I. And there have been action movie trailers that managed to convey character and intrigue as well as "jangle shiny keys" moments. Sometimes if something isn't offered it's because it isn't there.

What the hell does this even mean? Why is it that people automatically assume that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive despite plenty of evidence to the contrary?

That's not what I said, thank you.

I'm coming off of a series of movies that have struggled with basic issues of characterization, motivation, and plot, even given fairly expansive running times to work with. Wonder Woman is a part of that series, and it has a lot to do. It needs to provide an origin story for a character who hasn't had a significant screen presence since a television show in the 1970s. It needs to rise above the mixed reception for its predecessors and renew interest going into Justice League. It needs to show that it can bring in audiences- not just in the United States, but world-wide. In parallel, it needs to show that a superhero action film with a female lead can succeed (not just for itself but for any similar enterprise that may follow), and be carried off by a female director. It needs to make its audience invest in it central character enough that we care about a raft of other characters accompanying her, knowing in advance that a) the lead comes through to show up in BvS and b) most or all of them are likely dead and only their influence with the heroine carries on.

It would be very easy to sprinkle the movie with characters and situations which exist for no purpose other than to get in Diana's way just because she's a woman; to use the time setting as an excuse, and revel in cheap applause when such one-note characters inevitably get their comeuppance.

It would also be very easy to have Wonder Woman demonstrate at every opportunity that she will overcome all obstacles on her own, that she needs no help from anyone, that anyone who might seek to protect her is only getting in her way.

The former is lazy screenwriting, and- given the precedent set by earlier works- could literally detract from time that might be better used elsewhere. The latter risks removing any real sense of conflict or stake from the movie- Diana will win, everyone who stands with her will be nothing more than a distraction and probably get slaughtered to generate more melodrama as convenient.

We don't come to care about characters merely based on what they overcome (especially when victory is both easy and fore-ordained.) We come to care based upon their struggle- even when they lose. Often, especially when they lose. There is a real danger that Wonder Woman will come to the screen arrayed only against opposition that she can defeat with relative ease in a manner the audience is expected to feel good about in the shallowest ways. It is entirely likely that there is pressure on the film to deliver exactly that.

None of the above means that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive. It means that WW in particular has a number of hurdles to jump and a number of easy pitfalls that could get in the way of it being that movie, and current existing precedent is running against it.

And again: that I believe it is likely to struggle with achieving all it seeks to in no way means I'm not hoping that it succeeds.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

 

[Cicada 5]

Yes, it's true that Civil War didn't do everything it could. It might also be noted that "the adult" in question was responsible for "The Abomination" being released on a city full of civilians. And after the Hydra-inside-SHIELD incident, Captain America had perfectly valid reasons for feeling that a bureaucratic authority dictating his activities was a bad idea. What I found harder to believe was that Tony Stark, the man who once told a Congressional committee that he had "privatized world peace" and spent multiple movies trying to keep his work under his own control, was now perfectly willing to submit to oversight.

And Steve Rogers released state secrets putting SHIELD agents in danger, sent Helicarriers into the Potomac River which should have caused more damage than the movies care to acknowledge, instigated a fight that endangered citizens in two cities, recruited a terrorist into his team and smuggled her into the U.S and withheld information about the murder of his team mate?s parents. Yeah, I can see why people might want him kept on a leash. Stark at least seemed like he was trying to learn from his mistakes.
Don?t even get me started on the film ignoring Wanda?s setting the Hulk on citizens back in AoU to make her detainment seem more like jack booted thuggery rather than keeping a dangerous woman from harming more people.

...But at least there was that much there to wonder about.

Yeah, because the writers ignored the better premise to focus on Steve?s drama with Bucky with the good hair.

BvS couldn't decide what the "common man" thought, or why, in any given scene. Like so much else in the DC movies, they were one more character twisting in the wind to the dictates of an under-thought plot, revering him as a god one moment, protesting outside a hearing in another.

They showed differing opinions on him. If you rewatch the protest scene outside the court room, you?ll see some signs defending him. We see their reactions and how this is affecting him. More importantly, Clark actually takes them into consideration. That?s way more than is done with the MCU where a man whose life is ruined by the Avengers is made into a villain.

The "petty" problems of some of Marvel's heroes are part of what make it credible that they actually do care when their actions have consequences for the non-super-powered- they actually interact with them, relate with them. Talk with them.

You?re kidding right? It?s flat out stated that Steve is incapable of interacting with anyone who isn?t an Avenger or superhero and thus avoid civilians life. His response to being confronted with the consequences of his actions is to do the same things over and over again and hope for different results. Same with Tony. Clint Barton and Scott Lang abandons their families at Steve?s word. Scarlet Witch shows nothing but contempt for people?s justified fear of her. Sokovia is used more as emotional torque for the Avengers than a tragedy in its own right.

To make a subject in a movie worthy of debate requires putting credible characters with compelling arguments behind different sides. General Ross may have been a poor choice for Civil War to head the "control" side, in that regard, as there was already reason to regard him as someone who wasn't genuinely responsible and didn't want power so much under control as under his control.

...But to put BvS's version of Luthor behind the "superheroes as a menace" side was as much as sweeping the issue off the table with a shower of confetti and a kazoo fanfare.

Notice that Luthor is not the only one on that side and even his arguments are about the danger Superman presents rather than his usual schtick of just being jealous because he can?t bench press the planet. Senator Finch is depicted as being actually sincere in her worry for the safety of the world rather than the straw man we usually get from the MCU.

That seems like a stretch. If anything, that sounds like a good reason to say, "Here, why don't I hold Doomsday in place while you stab him"?

Because people are always able to think clearly when in a fight to the death with a near unstoppable enemy.


Actually, it mostly consists of Groot saying three words and then Rocket interpreting them- and from what we're led to believe, correctly.

The brilliant thing about the Groot/Rocket relationship, to my mind, is that Rocket tends to be the meanest, snarkiest, and most wantonly violent of the GotG chracters- and then he's partnered with someone who he largely feels compelled to be nice to.

Just from the top of my head, we have the scene with Clark when his father tells him where he came from, the discussion after Clark saves the kids on the bus and the scene with Lois and Clark afyer the ordeal in Nairobi. These scenes do exist in the movies.

Man of Steel did have its moments; I didn't turn on the movie as much as some. The Lois scenes in BvS felt to me like they were rushing to reach the next plot point- touching on her the bare minimum necessary to indicate that yes, this character was still in Superman's life and therefore an adequate reason for him to be manipulated into saving her
Notably they didn't really bother establishing how the two suddenly moved as far as living together. I can almost forgive that because, yeah, everyone knows Clark and Lois end up together- but in a movie so barren of meaningful connections, the leanness of one possible outlet for same stands out.

This is a superhero film, not a sitcom or a tween movie. The movie established enough not to get bogged down by rom com antics.

El Diablo gets very little development. He's a pacifist, he gets taunted, then he's not. He had a family, he got angry, now he doesn't. He despises the other Squaddies, then he works along side them; suddenly, they're family. His control over his power is so precise that he can make fiery letters float in the air, unless he loses his temper- and then he lashes out to the point that he kills his whole family- except when he loses his temper with people he barely knows, and then he uses it against their enemies instead.

If SS actually wanted to make part of the movie about El Diablo learning to control his temper, or finding a new family, or seeking forgiveness for his acts, there's enough room for that there- it just wanted the audience to think that those elements and themes were there without spending time and energy on them.

He got a flashback. About thirty seconds of his past with voiced-over narrative. That's more than some of the "main" characters get, but that's comparing degrees of famine. We're told he feels terrible.

...But that's just it. We're told.

I?m not exactly sure what more you?d have wanted them to do with him, without having him completely over take the plot. Especially given how much flack the X-Men movies have gotten for their increasing focus on Wolverine to the detriment of other characters. El Diablo got as much development as is needed for a guy in an ensemble cast and frankly it?s on par with, if not better, than what we tend to get in the Avengers movies or any big budget action film, lest you start to think I?m singling out the MCU.

That's better than some. I will admit I hadn't seen that one. But it's also- what, the third preview trailer? The fourth? How carefully did you have to be following the film to catch it?

Doesn?t change the fact that it exists. If you wanna complain about things in previews, it helps to actually see them.

That's not what I said, thank you.

I'm coming off of a series of movies that have struggled with basic issues of characterization, motivation, and plot, even given fairly expansive running times to work with. Wonder Woman is a part of that series, and it has a lot to do. It needs to provide an origin story for a character who hasn't had a significant screen presence since a television show in the 1970s. It needs to rise above the mixed reception for its predecessors and renew interest going into Justice League. It needs to show that it can bring in audiences- not just in the United States, but world-wide. In parallel, it needs to show that a superhero action film with a female lead can succeed (not just for itself but for any similar enterprise that may follow), and be carried off by a female director. It needs to make its audience invest in it central character enough that we care about a raft of other characters accompanying her, knowing in advance that a) the lead comes through to show up in BvS and b) most or all of them are likely dead and only their influence with the heroine carries on.

It would be very easy to sprinkle the movie with characters and situations which exist for no purpose other than to get in Diana's way just because she's a woman; to use the time setting as an excuse, and revel in cheap applause when such one-note characters inevitably get their comeuppance.

It would also be very easy to have Wonder Woman demonstrate at every opportunity that she will overcome all obstacles on her own, that she needs no help from anyone, that anyone who might seek to protect her is only getting in her way.

The former is lazy screenwriting, and- given the precedent set by earlier works- could literally detract from time that might be better used elsewhere. The latter risks removing any real sense of conflict or stake from the movie- Diana will win, everyone who stands with her will be nothing more than a distraction and probably get slaughtered to generate more melodrama as convenient.

We don't come to care about characters merely based on what they overcome (especially when victory is both easy and fore-ordained.) We come to care based upon their struggle- even when they lose. Often, especially when they lose. There is a real danger that Wonder Woman will come to the screen arrayed only against opposition that she can defeat with relative ease in a manner the audience is expected to feel good about in the shallowest ways. It is entirely likely that there is pressure on the film to deliver exactly that.

None of the above means that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive. It means that WW in particular has a number of hurdles to jump and a number of easy pitfalls that could get in the way of it being that movie, and current existing precedent is running against it.

And again: that I believe it is likely to struggle with achieving all it seeks to in no way means I'm not hoping that it succeeds.

I should probably inform you that the premise of this movie is Diana being exposed to just how harsh and cruel the world can be and finding that her mom and her people had very good points for abandoning humanity. It also takes place during WW1, easily the most pointless war in human history. It just won?t be her overcoming obstacles via girl power.
If it helps, some of the people who saw her early screenings of it seem to like it.

 

[Natemans]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

Even Harry Potter's other movies had more color than just black and white.


The reason I say DC doesn't know what they are doing is because they don't. I mean they hit the panic button and screwed up the production of Suicide Squad, lost 3 or 4 directors for the Flash along with a page one rewrite, Ben Affleck quit directing the Batman movie (I know they got a different guy, but Ben is the only one who felt like he gave a damn), they are letting an immature and incompetent filmmaker like Zack Snyder make these films, these people don't get these characters or this universe.

 

[Cicada 5]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

Even Harry Potter's other movies had more color than just black and white.


The reason I say DC doesn't know what they are doing is because they don't. I mean they hit the panic button and screwed up the production of Suicide Squad, lost 3 or 4 directors for the Flash along with a page one rewrite, Ben Affleck quit directing the Batman movie (I know they got a different guy, but Ben is the only one who felt like he gave a damn), they are letting an immature and incompetent filmmaker like Zack Snyder make these films, these people don't get these characters or this universe.

Films lose directors all the time and Affleck quit directing the Batman movie because of the stress and because he felt someone else was more qualified.

 

[Natemans]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

Even Harry Potter's other movies had more color than just black and white.


The reason I say DC doesn't know what they are doing is because they don't. I mean they hit the panic button and screwed up the production of Suicide Squad, lost 3 or 4 directors for the Flash along with a page one rewrite, Ben Affleck quit directing the Batman movie (I know they got a different guy, but Ben is the only one who felt like he gave a damn), they are letting an immature and incompetent filmmaker like Zack Snyder make these films, these people don't get these characters or this universe.

Films lose directors all the time and Affleck quit directing the Batman movie because of the stress and because he felt someone else was more qualified.

They have messed up and made 3 bad movies, some of them have underperformed to barely make even, they hit the panic button and made the production of Suicide Squad a complete mess, they keep throwing all of these movie ideas without a single thought or just rushing out to compete with Marvel instead of building a cinematic universe, their characters are completely bland or one dimensional, they lost 4 directors for the Flash and a page one rewrite (dude, that's not a good sign. This feels like their Gambit movie in terms of production problems), Ben Affleck is the only guy with talent and the way this cinematic universe is run, I'd want him to get out of it badly. Zack Snyder is an incompetent filmmaker and BvS is the worst superhero film I've ever seen. And yes, even worse than Fant4stic and I still thought that was garbage too.

 

[Cicada 5]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

Even Harry Potter's other movies had more color than just black and white.


The reason I say DC doesn't know what they are doing is because they don't. I mean they hit the panic button and screwed up the production of Suicide Squad, lost 3 or 4 directors for the Flash along with a page one rewrite, Ben Affleck quit directing the Batman movie (I know they got a different guy, but Ben is the only one who felt like he gave a damn), they are letting an immature and incompetent filmmaker like Zack Snyder make these films, these people don't get these characters or this universe.

Films lose directors all the time and Affleck quit directing the Batman movie because of the stress and because he felt someone else was more qualified.

They have messed up and made 3 bad movies, some of them have underperformed to barely make even, they hit the panic button and made the production of Suicide Squad a complete mess, they keep throwing all of these movie ideas without a single thought or just rushing out to compete with Marvel instead of building a cinematic universe, their characters are completely bland or one dimensional, they lost 4 directors for the Flash and a page one rewrite (dude, that's not a good sign. This feels like their Gambit movie in terms of production problems), Ben Affleck is the only guy with talent and the way this cinematic universe is run, I'd want him to get out of it badly. Zack Snyder is an incompetent filmmaker and BvS is the worst superhero film I've ever seen. And yes, even worse than Fant4stic and I still thought that was garbage too.

Underperformed by whose standards? They've made more money than the first three MCU films.

Do you know how many big budget American movies haven't been "screwed" by the studios in the last century? A grand total of two, perhaps: Orson Welles' Citizen Kane and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: a Space Odissey. Everything else can be considered as utterly compromised, according to that insanely restrictive canon.

It all comes down to perception. If someone ignores that the average first draft of an original screenplay is doomed to see at least two thirds of its content left out of the final one or preserved but modified until it's unrecognisable and that that percentage gets even higher once it comes in contact with the director (if he's another person) and the actors themselves, no final script can ever be considered a coherent artistic vision. But how many are/were pulling their own hair out because Whedon's script (I repeat, Joss effing Whedon's script) for Age of Ultron was pretty much scrapped?

And in case a director is hired to direct a big studio product, the chances that the selection process follows the "one shot, one kill" rule are more or less non-existent. Unfortunately, if a company has to cope with an unstoppable rumour mill that feeds clickbait websites always hungry for reasons (it doesn't matter if true, false or vastly exaggerated) to sh*t on the DCEU because it's become fashionable and profitable (Disney's situation is different... you don't want to speak ill of the Mouse if you care for your job, just ask Whedon and Favreau) and the MCU has turned making comic book movies into a list of boxes to fill, even having some problems with your first choice as a substitute director for the guy who has wisely chosen to step down from that position becomes the end of the universe as we know it.

And while perception and reality have been ever diverging entities ever since the beginning of the mass media era, I'm personally baffled that, after this very same studio offered the world a performance detailing what precisely happens when a planned franchise implodes and dies an undignified death no more than nine years ago (Green Lantern anyone?), it is now being accused of being screwing everything up!

As for bland characters, frankly, I've seen this seems to mean, they don't act like the Silver Age versions.

Btw, we've got James Wan, Matt Reeves, Patty Jenkins and Joss Whedon attached so even if Affleck is out we're not lacking in talent.

 

[Mangod]

Underperformed by whose standards? They've made more money than the first three MCU films.

Iron Man - $585.2 million on a $140 million production budget.
The Incredible Hulk - $263.4 million on a $150 million production budget.
Iron Man 2 - $623.9 million on a $200 million production budget.

Man of Steel - $668 million on a $225 million production budget.
Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice - $873.3 million on a $250 million production budget.
The Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad - $745.6 million on a $175 million production budget.

I guess you could argue that they've underperformed because the DC movies had bigger budgets, and wheren't stuck with the B-listers of DC's library, yet the results are comparable (excepting the Hulk Movie).

That the Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad is the most profitable after dividing the box office and subtracting the production budget is hilarious given the controversy surrounding it.

 

[Natemans]

They do have an inner life. What they don?t have is writers who feel their petty problems should overshadow plots with more interesting debates. An example would be how the Civil War movie promised an interesting examination of the consequences of superheroes? actions and whether one?s individual freedom should trump the needs of society. Instead what we got was the equivalent of a bunch of teenagers whining about how the adult don?t let them have any fun. We spend more time on the destruction of Steve and Tony?s non-existent friendship than we do actually looking at the effects of the Avengers? actions. Probably because if we did, we?d realize these guys are more harm than good.
The DCEU movies have decided to put the focus on how the heroes? actions affect the world around them without making them seem unsympathetic. Even in BvS, the fear of the danger Superman posed wasn?t simply dismissed as a villain?s agenda but a legitimate worry by the common man.

Yes, it's true that Civil War didn't do everything it could. It might also be noted that "the adult" in question was responsible for "The Abomination" being released on a city full of civilians. And after the Hydra-inside-SHIELD incident, Captain America had perfectly valid reasons for feeling that a bureaucratic authority dictating his activities was a bad idea. What I found harder to believe was that Tony Stark, the man who once told a Congressional committee that he had "privatized world peace" and spent multiple movies trying to keep his work under his own control, was now perfectly willing to submit to oversight.

...But at least there was that much there to wonder about.

BvS couldn't decide what the "common man" thought, or why, in any given scene. Like so much else in the DC movies, they were one more character twisting in the wind to the dictates of an under-thought plot, revering him as a god one moment, protesting outside a hearing in another. Not even a character- a contrivance, a background detail. That much less to worry about when a thousand are killed by a bomb, or ten thousand killed in a battle between super-beings, or ninety percent of the world's population is eradicated off-camera in an alternate future dystopia.

The "petty" problems of some of Marvel's heroes are part of what make it credible that they actually do care when their actions have consequences for the non-super-powered- they actually interact with them, relate with them. Talk with them.

To make a subject in a movie worthy of debate requires putting credible characters with compelling arguments behind different sides. General Ross may have been a poor choice for Civil War to head the "control" side, in that regard, as there was already reason to regard him as someone who wasn't genuinely responsible and didn't want power so much under control as under his control.

...But to put BvS's version of Luthor behind the "superheroes as a menace" side was as much as sweeping the issue off the table with a shower of confetti and a kazoo fanfare.

Because that someone was barely holding Doomsday in place and was exhausted from doing most of the fighting?

That seems like a stretch. If anything, that sounds like a good reason to say, "Here, why don't I hold Doomsday in place while you stab him"?

A relationship that consists of a running gag of Groot saying three words and Rocket reacting with snark.

Actually, it mostly consists of Groot saying three words and then Rocket interpreting them- and from what we're led to believe, correctly.

The brilliant thing about the Groot/Rocket relationship, to my mind, is that Rocket tends to be the meanest, snarkiest, and most wantonly violent of the GotG chracters- and then he's partnered with someone who he largely feels compelled to be nice to.

Just from the top of my head, we have the scene with Clark when his father tells him where he came from, the discussion after Clark saves the kids on the bus and the scene with Lois and Clark afyer the ordeal in Nairobi. These scenes do exist in the movies.

Man of Steel did have its moments; I didn't turn on the movie as much as some. The Lois scenes in BvS felt to me like they were rushing to reach the next plot point- touching on her the bare minimum necessary to indicate that yes, this character was still in Superman's life and therefore an adequate reason for him to be manipulated into saving her.

Notably they didn't really bother establishing how the two suddenly moved as far as living together. I can almost forgive that because, yeah, everyone knows Clark and Lois end up together- but in a movie so barren of meaningful connections, the leanness of one possible outlet for same stands out.

Like they did with El Diablo.

El Diablo gets very little development. He's a pacifist, he gets taunted, then he's not. He had a family, he got angry, now he doesn't. He despises the other Squaddies, then he works along side them; suddenly, they're family. His control over his power is so precise that he can make fiery letters float in the air, unless he loses his temper- and then he lashes out to the point that he kills his whole family- except when he loses his temper with people he barely knows, and then he uses it against their enemies instead.

If SS actually wanted to make part of the movie about El Diablo learning to control his temper, or finding a new family, or seeking forgiveness for his acts, there's enough room for that there- it just wanted the audience to think that those elements and themes were there without spending time and energy on them.

He got a flashback. About thirty seconds of his past with voiced-over narrative. That's more than some of the "main" characters get, but that's comparing degrees of famine. We're told he feels terrible.

...But that's just it. We're told.

You mean this preview?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INLzqh7rZ-U&t=3s

That's better than some. I will admit I hadn't seen that one. But it's also- what, the third preview trailer? The fourth? How carefully did you have to be following the film to catch it?

Aka, every action trailer ever made. Maybe watch the film first before passing judgement?

I fully intend to watch it, assuming it gets even middling reviews. And good films sometimes get bad trailers, and vice-versa. And trailers can simply fail to accurately represent the films they're advertising accurately.

But I can't discard the impressions of prior movies in a franchise when seeing new entries offered up, nor should I. And there have been action movie trailers that managed to convey character and intrigue as well as "jangle shiny keys" moments. Sometimes if something isn't offered it's because it isn't there.

What the hell does this even mean? Why is it that people automatically assume that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive despite plenty of evidence to the contrary?

That's not what I said, thank you.

I'm coming off of a series of movies that have struggled with basic issues of characterization, motivation, and plot, even given fairly expansive running times to work with. Wonder Woman is a part of that series, and it has a lot to do. It needs to provide an origin story for a character who hasn't had a significant screen presence since a television show in the 1970s. It needs to rise above the mixed reception for its predecessors and renew interest going into Justice League. It needs to show that it can bring in audiences- not just in the United States, but world-wide. In parallel, it needs to show that a superhero action film with a female lead can succeed (not just for itself but for any similar enterprise that may follow), and be carried off by a female director. It needs to make its audience invest in it central character enough that we care about a raft of other characters accompanying her, knowing in advance that a) the lead comes through to show up in BvS and b) most or all of them are likely dead and only their influence with the heroine carries on.

It would be very easy to sprinkle the movie with characters and situations which exist for no purpose other than to get in Diana's way just because she's a woman; to use the time setting as an excuse, and revel in cheap applause when such one-note characters inevitably get their comeuppance.

It would also be very easy to have Wonder Woman demonstrate at every opportunity that she will overcome all obstacles on her own, that she needs no help from anyone, that anyone who might seek to protect her is only getting in her way.

The former is lazy screenwriting, and- given the precedent set by earlier works- could literally detract from time that might be better used elsewhere. The latter risks removing any real sense of conflict or stake from the movie- Diana will win, everyone who stands with her will be nothing more than a distraction and probably get slaughtered to generate more melodrama as convenient.

We don't come to care about characters merely based on what they overcome (especially when victory is both easy and fore-ordained.) We come to care based upon their struggle- even when they lose. Often, especially when they lose. There is a real danger that Wonder Woman will come to the screen arrayed only against opposition that she can defeat with relative ease in a manner the audience is expected to feel good about in the shallowest ways. It is entirely likely that there is pressure on the film to deliver exactly that.

None of the above means that representation and telling a good story are mutually exclusive. It means that WW in particular has a number of hurdles to jump and a number of easy pitfalls that could get in the way of it being that movie, and current existing precedent is running against it.

And again: that I believe it is likely to struggle with achieving all it seeks to in no way means I'm not hoping that it succeeds.

I disagree completely with Agent Z. I felt Civil War did a great job of showing consequences with its heroes and their own conflicts hurting each other.

BvS failed completely at everything and so did Suicide Squad.

 

[Natemans]

Underperformed by whose standards? They've made more money than the first three MCU films.

Iron Man - $585.2 million on a $140 million production budget.
The Incredible Hulk - $263.4 million on a $150 million production budget.
Iron Man 2 - $623.9 million on a $200 million production budget.

Man of Steel - $668 million on a $225 million production budget.
Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice - $873.3 million on a $250 million production budget.
The Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad - $745.6 million on a $175 million production budget.

I guess you could argue that they've underperformed because the DC movies had bigger budgets, and wheren't stuck with the B-listers of DC's library, yet the results are comparable.

That the Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad is the most profitable after dividing the box office and subtracting the production budget is hilarious given the controversy surrounding it.

I think he gets his "facts" from Andre Cedeno.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

So, let's start this of with a statement sure to generate some controversy: Batman v Superman is a misunderstood masterpiece, one of the best super hero movies of the last decade, many people legitimately didn't get it and a lot of its themes and messages completely flew over their heads. In five years it's probably gonna be seen as a cult classic, one of the best live action movies to feature Batman or Superman and many of the self declared "movie nerds" who bought into the hate are gonna claim they liked it all along.

And I'm not saying that to assert my superiority over them, I was on the same boat. When the reviews came in I was readily buying into the Schadenfreude because it's fun to see a big budget franchise movie I'm not personally invested in (which, to me, are... pretty much all of them. Except for The Fast and the Furious. I'm the biggest fan of those that I know) crash and burn. Then I actually watched it preparing to dislike it and I did because I didn't get what it was trying to do. Then I watched it again, actually paying attention and entertaining the possibility that it might be smarter than I was giving it credit for and I gained some newfound respect for it. And I'm pretty sure many are gonna feel the same if they'd give it another chance and just consider that it might not actually be as full of shit as critics were telling them it is.

Of course Batman V Superman got bad reviews and mediocre sales so it's all but safe to say that other DCU movies are gonna be nothing like it. You now, I never liked Man of Steel much. Seen it only once and it might be another Batman v Superman but... eh, unlike that one it didn't even have individual elements I enjoyed the first time. And then there's Suicide Squad which is honestly almost baffling, and not in a good way.

Suicide Squad is a fascinating movie just in how dedicated it is to being basically the worst thing ever. It went out of its way to do everything wrong an action movie can do wrong and when it was done with that it boldly went on to find new things to do wrong. It's like it belongs in a museum as the platonic ideal of a bad action movie. The action was terrible. The story was terrible. The dialogue was terrible. The humour was terrible. The visuals were terrible. The editing was terrible. The characters were terrible and it went out of its way to focus on the most terrible ones! I mean, how do you even manage to fuck up the Joker like that? Who's idea was it to make one of the most iconic comic book villains into pimp Marilyn Manson?

And, you know, describing it like that I'm probably almost making it sound like it's worth seeing just to watch it fuck up absolutely everything but, by all means, don't bother, you're not gonna have a good time.

So, uh, what were we talking about? Future of the DCU? I'm not getting my hopes up, pretty sure Batman v Superman was a fluke and the studio's gonna make sure nothing like it is ever gonna happen again. Wonder Woman might be decent but I don't like Gal Gadot much, she doesn't really look the part and she talks like Tommy Wiseau. I mean, it might not be terrible but there's little about it that makes it look interesting to me. Justice League should technically have me a bit more curious but I'm assuming they ditch all that made Batman v Superman for a generic "There are super heroes. They fight an evil alien overlord" storyline and I didn't care about that the last ten times I saw it. Perhaps Snyder and Terrio can salvage it but... I doubt it.

 

[Mangod]

Wonder Woman might be decent but I don't like Gal Gadot much, she doesn't really look the part and she talks like Tommy Wiseau.

"I did nat hit her, it's not true, it's bullshit, I did not hit her, I DID NAT! Oh, hi Soups!"

I dunno... something tells me that BvSoJ (fuck me, but that title is just unwieldly; it's like something I'd expect from a parody), whether you liked it or not, probably won't see that kind of re-appraisal. I'm not saying it won't happen, but I just don't think anyone will care enough about it in 5 years to even bother.

Honestly, I have no idea how to fix the DCEU (or whatever it's called), but, from the looks of things, steaming ahead on their current course seems like it'd be more liable to backfire than not, so... do anything other than what they're currently doing?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Suicide Squad is a fascinating movie just in how dedicated it is to being basically the worst thing ever. It went out of its way to do everything wrong an action movie can do wrong and when it was done with that it boldly went on to find new things to do wrong. It's like it belongs in a museum as the platonic ideal of a bad action movie. The action was terrible. The story was terrible. The dialogue was terrible. The humour was terrible. The visuals were terrible. The editing was terrible. The characters were terrible and it went out of its way to focus on the most terrible ones! I mean, how do you even manage to fuck up the Joker like that? Who's idea was it to make one of the most iconic comic book villains into pimp Marilyn Manson?

And, you know, describing it like that I'm probably almost making it sound like it's worth seeing just to watch it fuck up absolutely everything but, by all means, don't bother, you're not gonna have a good time.

Suicide Squad had a lot of room for improvement, but I don't think it was all that bad. IMHO, while the Joker wasn't at all good, the main problem for me was that he'd wandered into someone else's movie. Should have been Deadshot shooting things dead and Harley Quinn annoying him with other characters wandering round in the background.

Having said that, I'm generally in the minority with these sorts of films.

 

[Cicada 5]

Underperformed by whose standards? They've made more money than the first three MCU films.

Iron Man - $585.2 million on a $140 million production budget.
The Incredible Hulk - $263.4 million on a $150 million production budget.
Iron Man 2 - $623.9 million on a $200 million production budget.

Man of Steel - $668 million on a $225 million production budget.
Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice - $873.3 million on a $250 million production budget.
The Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad - $745.6 million on a $175 million production budget.

I guess you could argue that they've underperformed because the DC movies had bigger budgets, and wheren't stuck with the B-listers of DC's library, yet the results are comparable (excepting the Hulk Movie).

That the Academy Award Winning Suicide Squad is the most profitable after dividing the box office and subtracting the production budget is hilarious given the controversy surrounding it.

Suicide Squad was not made of A listers and Superman hasn't been a big draw at the movies since the second Superman film. Add in how many superhero films we're getting and I can't see how anyone can expect more than what we got here.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Two things: First I call it the DC Film Universe (DCFU) and the second thing is kind of a 'get out of fuck-up free' card and it's the one that DC has always had up its sleeve:

Just slap that onto every DCFU film (and pre-DCFU film I guess) and push the idea that all of these films are their own things taking place in their own Elseworlds variation of the DCU. This also opens them up to have a film adaptation of Infinite Crisis once they find a writing/directing team that starts making objectively great films again. Nerds like me already assume that the movies are Elseworlds tales already but pushing the Elseworlds brand on the general viewing public could be a great boon for DC and WB if only because it's an easy out to explain why there have been so many Batmen, why there are so many Flashes, etc.

As for actual things that I would do...Zack Snyder and Nolan can be retired from here on out. Batman should also be benched for a few years but that would be unrealistic considering how profitable he is. When it comes to the animated films though, I don't know what to do with those. On paper they seem to be fine but something happens during production that just...screws them up. The most direct thing I could do would be to make them completely sexless since Killing Joke and Judas Contract (mostly Killing Joke) had their weird, weird sex bits that should have just been left out.

I still want Zacky boy to make movies. He has talent.

I don't agree. Zack Snyder's style of filmmaking is kinda lame the more I think about it. His cinematography in 300 and Watchmen was decent even if it was way too forced in places, but around Sucker Punch, he started to really go downhill. I don't get when people tell that BvS is gorgeous in cinematography because honestly its one of the most grey, ugly looking movies I've ever seen.

If you like it, that's cool. This is just how I felt.

All I read from that is Blah Blah Blah Zack is shit now

But seriously why is being grey conisder bad? Does everything have to be as colorful as a Mario game? And the cinematography in the movie good. Especially the Batman origin scene.

Really? You're using blah blah blah as your argument? What are you, 2? No, I've honestly found Zack bad.

The grey color palette makes the film look bland and uninspiring to look at. You can have dark, but put color as a contrast. Hell, there is no contrast in color between Batman and Superman in this movie. Both are dark and muted colors. I can't even tell the difference between Gotham and Metropolis because both look the same to me. Also I'm fine if you like it, but I find the cinematography very dour and ugly to look at. Even the origin scene. While it was well done and the origin was completely pointless, the deaths were kinda dumb. Thomas Wayne goes charging to punch the guy? No duh he's gonna get shot. As for Martha, (btw screw that moment in the climax) how is her head not wrecked since she got her brains blown out?

No its that I argued this so many times its like I already know the answer I am gonna get. I haven't stopped talking about Batman v Superman since it came out.

And to be frank I have been tired of it ever since...but I keep getting pulled back in.

Well, don't use blah blah blah. Its a lazy excuse for an argument. If you don't like it, then just ignore or don't respond the answer. Sadly it keeps getting brought up because DC doesn't know what they are doing.

They know what they are doing, they want to turn all there superheroes movies to look and feel the same as the Dark Knight because that's what made them a billion dollars.

Heck Harry Potter got dark and gritty by its 3rd movie and they made billions of dollars.

Not really. DC and WB are acting like a bunch of wild monkeys making promises, but poor decisions. And again they miss this point with the Dark Knight. The Dark Knight wasn't great because it was dark and gritty; it was good because it had a good screenplay, great characters, solid performances, good cinematography and filmmaking.

Harry Potter works differently because they know how to adapt the book and display what makes their films work. Hell, those movies even had color too along with good cinematography.

Only the first 2 movies (which are my favorite) Have you seen movies 3 through 7? Its was almost a black and white film?

Even Harry Potter's other movies had more color than just black and white.


The reason I say DC doesn't know what they are doing is because they don't. I mean they hit the panic button and screwed up the production of Suicide Squad, lost 3 or 4 directors for the Flash along with a page one rewrite, Ben Affleck quit directing the Batman movie (I know they got a different guy, but Ben is the only one who felt like he gave a damn), they are letting an immature and incompetent filmmaker like Zack Snyder make these films, these people don't get these characters or this universe.

Films lose directors all the time and Affleck quit directing the Batman movie because of the stress and because he felt someone else was more qualified.

They have messed up and made 3 bad movies, some of them have underperformed to barely make even, they hit the panic button and made the production of Suicide Squad a complete mess, they keep throwing all of these movie ideas without a single thought or just rushing out to compete with Marvel instead of building a cinematic universe, their characters are completely bland or one dimensional, they lost 4 directors for the Flash and a page one rewrite (dude, that's not a good sign. This feels like their Gambit movie in terms of production problems), Ben Affleck is the only guy with talent and the way this cinematic universe is run, I'd want him to get out of it badly. Zack Snyder is an incompetent filmmaker and BvS is the worst superhero film I've ever seen. And yes, even worse than Fant4stic and I still thought that was garbage too.

STOP PUSHING ME!!!

Zack Snyder is a brilliant director and his movies are aweseom, the action, the visauls, the music.

 

[COMaestro]

. The sixth thing I would do is hire Nathan Fillion as Hal Jordan.

Nathan Fillion hal Jordan and idris Elba Jon Stewart in a green Lantern buddy cop movie

I haven't finished reading the thread yet, but I am calling this the greatest idea for the DCEU ever posted! I want this so badly and I didn't even know it until now!