Sony makes a reboot of Spider-man, the first of which looked very good, and one where the actor finally seems right for the role.
Public reaction: enough with the reboots, we know who Spider-man is, we don't want origin tales, we want action going forward.
Marvel tosses yet another actor into the role, transposes him into their Avengers MCU, and everyone: "YAY!!!"

Batman, with even more movies to his credit than Spider-man, shows up in DC's new franchise as they build to their Justice League (their "Avengers"):
"wait, where's the standalones to establish this version? If we reboot him, we have to have his movies to flesh him out. People need to understand him and his motives."

No we don't

Wonder Woman: "so she just shows up, and we're supposed to accept her with no history, other than a single B&W photo and the in-story comment that she's 100 yrs old?"

Can't win with people; if they made the WW movie before this, you'd have a lot of folks hesitant with that. Is this a one-off, the way Green Lantern was?
GL sucked, and MoS gets criticized a lot. DC is very uneven with their movies, so maybe I'll wait to catch it on HBO, and decide from there if I want to explore the character further.

Contrast to Marvel films- the Hulk films are also uneven, the first Captain America movie required a certain taste, and lots of people didn't really love the Thor movies.
Fine- and now, you can't skip them, or the other movies going forward; not if you want to keep up with the overall story. Even if you're just an Iron Man fan, if you skip the other films, you lose a whole lot of what motivates him, as well as cameos (or in the case of CW, a co-starring role). Skip Ant-Man, that sounds safe, right? Well, not after CW it isn't.
GotG- that was just a Marvel scifi, right? Ok to skip? Nope- we get more Infinity Stone and Thanos development from that movie, than we do in the entire rest of the series.

Marvel has built a multi-movie story, that will include various characters. Sometimes, these characters will seem completely different in different movies; Tony Stark is 100% don't trust the government in the early Iron Man films, yet in Civil War he's the big Hero Registry supporter.
Some films seem disjointed as standalones, but taken in a run of films, make a lot more sense.

DC is trying to build a multi-movie story, just like Marvel. While BvS seems a little disjointed, it does make more sense if you also saw MoS. Maybe it will make even more after Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batman come out. Probably those films will make more sense, if you see BvS.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by Freauxzen

Utah

Member since Feb 2006

37483 posts

Posted on 6/29/16 at 11:29 am to Scoob

quote:
Sony makes a reboot of Spider-man, the first of which looked very good, and one where the actor finally seems right for the role.
Public reaction: enough with the reboots, we know who Spider-man is, we don't want origin tales, we want action going forward.
Marvel tosses yet another actor into the role, transposes him into their Avengers MCU, and everyone: "YAY!!!"

Batman, with even more movies to his credit than Spider-man, shows up in DC's new franchise as they build to their Justice League (their "Avengers"):
"wait, where's the standalones to establish this version? If we reboot him, we have to have his movies to flesh him out. People need to understand him and his motives."

No we don't

To be fair, we had 2 versions of Spider-Man within the last 10 years. Both telling origin stories, that was the problem. We've only had 1 Batman. It doesn't seem like a big difference, but I actually think from 1 to 2 is a huge leap in media representations in a similar format.

quote:
Wonder Woman: "so she just shows up, and we're supposed to accept her with no history, other than a single B&W photo and the in-story comment that she's 100 yrs old?"

Can't win with people; if they made the WW movie before this, you'd have a lot of folks hesitant with that. Is this a one-off, the way Green Lantern was?
GL sucked, and MoS gets criticized a lot. DC is very uneven with their movies, so maybe I'll wait to catch it on HBO, and decide from there if I want to explore the character further.

I mean, DC can start by making compelling movies. The second piece is they CAN win with people. Much of the conversation before BvS was DC's plan to build the Universe. People said, "Why not just copy Marvel?" They didn't, they didn't and forged their own path. And by trying to do SO much in one film, Batman, WW, Luthor, Superman, Doomsday, they ended up with a bad film.

So it's possible, at least, that their plan isn't exactly working well. And that's what people predicted.

quote:
Contrast to Marvel films- the Hulk films are also uneven, the first Captain America movie required a certain taste, and lots of people didn't really love the Thor movies.
Fine- and now, you can't skip them, or the other movies going forward; not if you want to keep up with the overall story. Even if you're just an Iron Man fan, if you skip the other films, you lose a whole lot of what motivates him, as well as cameos (or in the case of CW, a co-starring role). Skip Ant-Man, that sounds safe, right? Well, not after CW it isn't.
GotG- that was just a Marvel scifi, right? Ok to skip? Nope- we get more Infinity Stone and Thanos development from that movie, than we do in the entire rest of the series.

There is a risk here too, people can, and have, become bored.

quote:
Some films seem disjointed as standalones, but taken in a run of films, make a lot more sense.

If anything, the films are often TOO similar, too easy to follow. That's a common criticism of the Marvel movies, and possibly a valid one.

quote:
DC is trying to build a multi-movie story, just like Marvel. While BvS seems a little disjointed, it does make more sense if you also saw MoS. Maybe it will make even more after Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batman come out. Probably those films will make more sense, if you see BvS.

So instead of the current Marvel plan, where you build small movies that lead to big movie moments in the future, DC is building retroactively in that future films will make past films more cohesive and higher quality? So we wait for 5 years and 4 more films for BvS to be "good?" Does that make any sense?

I see your point only because, I do find the pre-CW and post-CW reactions to the First Avenger kind of telling, but plenty of people loved that film before CW. But I don't think Marvel actively planned to make TFA better in the future by releasing CW, it just took those people who didn't "get it," to finally buy in to everything and "get it." In fact, CW wasn't even written when TFA was released.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by ThoseGuys

Wishing I was back in NC

Member since Nov 2012

1983 posts

Posted on 6/29/16 at 12:23 pm to Scoob

quote:
Sony makes a reboot of Spider-man, the first of which looked very good, and one where the actor finally seems right for the role.
Public reaction: enough with the reboots, we know who Spider-man is, we don't want origin tales, we want action going forward.
Marvel tosses yet another actor into the role, transposes him into their Avengers MCU, and everyone: "YAY!!!"

Batman, with even more movies to his credit than Spider-man, shows up in DC's new franchise as they build to their Justice League (their "Avengers"):
"wait, where's the standalones to establish this version? If we reboot him, we have to have his movies to flesh him out. People need to understand him and his motives."

No we don't ?

They still gave us Batman's origin in this movie. In CW we didnt get all of that. They didn't have to show us how he got his powers. They rebooted him without insulting our intelligence. Spider-Man/Batman is a bad comparison because they were handled differently and thus to response was different. DC established who Batman was when we already knew but never fully set up why he is so different from other versions other than a line here or there. How about instead of wasting our time with killing his parents, use that time to show what happened to Jason Todd. You double benefit because that also gets rid of the horrid Martha scene so many people hate.

quote:
Wonder Woman: "so she just shows up, and we're supposed to accept her with no history, other than a single B&W photo and the in-story comment that she's 100 yrs old?"

Can't win with people; if they made the WW movie before this, you'd have a lot of folks hesitant with that. Is this a one-off, the way Green Lantern was?
GL sucked, and MoS gets criticized a lot. DC is very uneven with their movies, so maybe I'll wait to catch it on HBO, and decide from there if I want to explore the character further.

I saw a very large amount of praise for Wonder Woman. I, myself, saw her as one of the best parts of the movie. My wife was glad a woman was able to be showcased as both sexy and strong. People are pumped for her movie so this was a great movie by DC. If they handled Batman the same way it would have extremely well received I feel.

quote:

Marvel has built a multi-movie story, that will include various characters. Sometimes, these characters will seem completely different in different movies; Tony Stark is 100% don't trust the government in the early Iron Man films, yet in Civil War he's the big Hero Registry supporter.
Some films seem disjointed as standalones, but taken in a run of films, make a lot more sense.

DC is trying to build a multi-movie story, just like Marvel. While BvS seems a little disjointed, it does make more sense if you also saw MoS. Maybe it will make even more after Suicide Squad, Wonder Woman, and the new Batman come out. Probably those films will make more sense, if you see BvS.

Marvel has had their characters grow over the course of their movies similar to how tv shows handle characters. Iron Man is different from Iron Man to Civil War because New York has been invaded, he created a robot that wanted to kill everyone, and Potts left him. Cap is different because the organization and country he fought for turned out to be ran by Nazis.

Batman changed by the end of BvS in a clunky and badly handled way. They wanted to do the same stuff Marvel was doing in their 13th film in their 2nd. No one was giving them a free pass for wanting to take a short cut. Not saying they have to make 12 other films, but you need to handle it better.

0 ...

Report Post

Movie/TV Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board