Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well he made an appearance.  And I think his costume looks....bad.  Like 1970s TV show bad.  I do think the rest of the movie looks good.  My only problem is that I don't like that it's a "Captain America" movie - I think that skews the perspective and makes Cap right and Tony wrong.  And maybe that's right, but I think it should be more ambiguous than that. 

If it were me, I would've just made it Civil War unless it's truly a contract thing and Chris Evans has to star in 3 "Captain America" movies.

I also wonder, contractually, what's going to happen with Evans and Downey.  I don't remember if RDJ signed an extra deal for this movie, but they all signed 6-picture deals originally.  This would be Downey's 6th.  Evans would have one more.  And I have no idea how Infinity War being split into two movies affects any of that.  So does Civil War end the same way the comic ends?  Does it get flipped?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

For those who haven't seen:

I agree about the costume. It is bad. And the tween voice was also uninspiring. It's like a real movie trailer was cut short by a kid's fan film.

I agree that the movie shouldn't have been a Captain America movie. It should have probably been an Avengers movie, but those tend to be less character driven. The fact that it is a Cap movie (and thus so skewed) has fed into my feeling like this was an afterthought of a movie, or a reaction to Batman v Superman.

Contract statuses: … -universe/

Looks like RDJ will have two more, an Evans will have one more after this, unless he signs on for more.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Thanks for the contract link.  Interesting.  I know there's been talk of half of Infinity War having Phase One heroes and half of it having Phase Two-Three heroes.  That it's a "passing the torch" movie of sorts.  It should be interesting.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I was thinking about the contracts again and it occurred to me that this Civil War movie couldn't have been the plan all along. RDJ's contract didn't cover it. He didn't sign onto the film until sometime around October 2014. Work on the script (breaking the story) began in late 2013, with the writers talking as though they had a more specific grasp of the story around April 2014 (though it's pointed out that they're trying to keep other characters from overshadowing Captain America, since it's his movie... so I don't think it was a totally firm grasp of what they were making) … n-mcfeely/

Okay, I know it's annoying that I keep hammering the idea of Civil War being a direct response to BvS, but the evidence is there.

July 2013 - Batman vs. Superman is announced at Comic Con.

Late 2013 - Markus and McFeely are hired to write Captain America 3

February 2014 - Anthony and Joe Russo begin work on the film.

April 2014 - The writers discuss the film as a direct sequel to Winter Soldier and it's said that Cap has to remain the central character since it's his film.

October 2014 - RDJ enters final negotiations for the film, and as far as anyone can tell, becomes an equal star in a movie that was supposed to be a Captain America movie.

So over the course of that year, it went from being a Captain America movie, to being a Captain America sequel that heavily featured another hero in a starring role. I don't see any sign of this having been the plan all along, especially on this scale. I could see them planning to have heroes rebelling against the government, but all signs point to Iron Man being added way later in the game.

Given when that development happened, along with the release date of the film, I still have a really hard time believing that it's not a direct response to Batman v Superman. Could Marvel have released a run of the mill Captain America movie in between BvS and Suicide Squad?

Maybe it's just my silly geek conspiracy theories or my need to second guess everything that happens in Hollywood. I am willing to accept that I may be insane. But as far as I can tell, the numbers line up.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I still don't think so.  Is Suicide Squad is an attempt to capitalize on the market established by Guardians of the Galaxy?   Is the R-rated BvS on Blu-Ray is a response to Deadpool?

Civil War was one of Marvel's most popular stories, and it was finished before Iron Man even came out.  Since the MCU has rights to the main characters from that story, and since they've had a generally antagonistic (if still-friendly) relationship in the movies, I think it was bound to happen.  The two almost come to blows as soon as they meet up in the first Avengers movie, they bicker the entire movie in Age of Ultron, and there's (apparently, I haven't done the research myself) a ton of easter eggs chronicling the idea that Bucky killed Tony's parents (in movies that are already released). 

So I think it's clear the plan was to try and do Civil War at some point.  Now were all the I's dotted and the T's crossed?  I don't think so.  I think the plan was for Downey to do 3 Iron Man movies and 3 Avengers movies, and that was pretty much the common contract for the three key Avengers (not sure if Norton had that contract or not).  Now whether or not they knew Downey would get all three Iron Man movies in before the others got a sequel film is debatable.  Whether or not they knew Avengers 2 would be Ultron and 3 would be Thanos is debatable.  And whether or not they knew they'd do Civil War as a Captain America movie is debatable (I still think it's the wrong move, I would've done it as an actual Avengers movie).  But I absolutely think Civil War was in the plans.

Now did they see BvS and alter their plans?  Possibly.  But if so, I think it speaks to the strength of what the MCU has established.  By having one man in charge who is a step back from the people working on the films, they can react if they have to.  If they did make Civil War in response to BvS, they succeeded in making a movie with *huge* hype that is standing toe-to-toe with what should be the biggest comic book movie of all time.  Imagine 10 years ago thinking that a Captain America vs Iron Man film would be on equal footing with a Batman vs Superman movie.  It's ludicrous.  But that's what the MCU has established.

The problem with the way the DCCU works is who's in charge.  It's Zach Snyder by himself, right?  But what if BvS does bomb?  Or what if the direction is actually a problem?  That's why the Hitfix stuff had legitimacy - if Snyder is a problem, Justice League would *have* to be delayed because Snyder is so important to every part of that film.  When Joss struggled with Age of Ultron, Feige was able to make corrections and get everything transferred to another director/directors, and the ship moves on without a hitch.  If Snyder failed, or god forbid, couldn't direct Justice League due to something unforeseen, what would the DCCU do?  Hire whoever is directing Suicide Squad?  Whoever is directing Wonder Woman?  Would Ben Affleck have to do it, and would he want to?  Would that person be on the same page creatively?   Or would there simply have to be a delay for everyone to get on the same page?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

DC has had Geoff Johns working on the film/TV tie-in projects for a number of years now. He's listed as an executive producer on most of the upcoming movies, as far as I can tell. I don't think Snyder is solely responsible for the franchise.

It was hinted at in Winter Soldier that Hydra killed Stark's parents (which isn't a big stretch, since Howard has been dealing with Hydra since The First Avenger) but I don't think there have been any hints about Bucky being responsible.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the movies were probably working toward Cap fighting against this government body. I think a lot of those elements were in place. But I think that bringing in Iron Man and having two of their biggest heroes facing off was a direct response to BvS. It just doesn't make sense to have Iron Man starring in a movie that isn't an Avengers movie and which doesn't have his name on it. Especially since he is the biggest name they have. I think they decided to have them face off last minute and tied it to the Captain America franchise so that they could stay on schedule, and so that it would fall into Chris Evans' contract.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The idea that CIVIL WAR is a response to BATMAN VERSUS SUPERMAN strikes me as an error of assuming correlation and causation. The plan was always to do a CIVIL WAR movie, this has been in the works for years. What shifted was that when Robert Downey Jr. was negotiating a new contract, he expressed an interest in seeing a planned cameo in CIVIL WAR expanded to a full role (with his full salary, of course). Marvel executives Kevin Feige and Isaac Perlmutter started their own civil war over this; Feige thought it'd be a great idea to have Tony Stark and Steve Rogers in a CAPTAIN AMERICA movie, Perlmutter declared that Downey Jr. was simply trying to get more money and demanded that Downey Jr.'s cameo role be removed entirely, never mind giving him a full role.

Feige was furious and said that Perlmutter was sabotaging the franchise and pointed to numerous production problems during AGE OF ULTRON for which he blamed Perlmutter. The result: Disney reorganized so that Perlmutter was demoted to handling only the TV and Netflix side of Marvel while Feige was promoted to leading the film division entirely.

There was always going to be a CIVIL WAR movie; there was, however, not a lot of hope of making it a CAP VS. IRON MAN movie due to Downey Jr.'s contract expiring and the expectation that he'd do at most a cameo.

Internally -- Marvel regards DC as a joke. They don't take them seriously, pointing to Warner Bros. overbudgeted, overblown productions and their inability to market their characters effectively or meaningfully both in their comics and their films. Marvel thinks DC's movies and comics are laughable, although they do respect the DC television and animation division.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

How much of that information is verifiable? We we know that all of that happened, or is it just "inside information"? It's definitely interesting, if true. The Marvel TV productions have gone to a whole new level of quality. I mean, Jessica Jones was too long and had a lot of arc planning issues, but the production side of it, the acting, and the overall tone of Daredevil, Jessica Jones and even Agent Carter in some ways have definitely seemed separate from the movies. But I see that as a really good thing.

I believe that some version of this movie was always planned. However, I don't think that it was going to be Captain America v Iron Man until after Batman v Superman was announced. I don't think that Marvel could have released this movie with Captain America facing off against Black Widow instead of Iron Man, right after BvS came out. I think that the decision to turn Iron Man into a central character in the movie was definitely influenced by Batman v Superman. And you know, it's not even that big of a deal. I just point out this fact because I've spent the past three years listening to every commentator on the internet talking about how DC is trying to "catch up" to Marvel, or trying to copy Marvel's playbook. DC has been trying to get a Justice League movie together for almost a decade (there was a lot of talk about getting Routh and Bale to team up before Marvel movies were a thing, though they were not asked to sign onto the movie). They have been actively trying to get Wonder Woman made since at least 1999.

The fact is, none of these ideas are new and none of these movie ideas popped up since Marvel's movies came along. What happened was that the old way of making comic books movies simply didn't work. Technology allows them to make these movies look the way they need to look, and the mindset that is needed to make these movies is finally where it needs to be (thanks in no small part to Nolan's Batman films). No sense or logic has gone into any of these reports about DC copying Marvel or trying to catch up to Marvel, and I would just like to point out that Marvel isn't exactly the golden child in this genre. DC had a huge win when they announced BvS, and Marvel answered the only way they knew how. Ultimately, each movie will have to be judged on their own (though they will undoubtedly be compared to each other, which is ridiculous, since they're two completely different types of movies).

As for whether Marvel regards DC as a joke... they would be foolish, if that's true. There are third-tier DC characters who are more familiar and iconic than some of the most prominent Marvel characters, to this day. Look at Suicide Squad. Harley Quinn was the most popular Halloween costume last year, and I don't even know if she would qualify as a third-tier DC character. DC is doing just fine in terms of their characters and their marketing.

Marvel... This isn't a slam or anything like that. It's just the reality of the situation. Marvel is Disney. It's whole machine is the same machine that put out Frozen. The product itself is not great, but they know how to market the crap out of it. They're doing the same thing with Star Wars. It's obviously a legitimate business model. It works for them. But it's not even the same game that DC is playing with their movies.

People talk about how "dark" the DC movies are, but I think the major difference is that the approach to the DC movies has been to make them seem like real films. Chris Terrio, who wrote Bvs and Justice League part 1 said:

"I initially thought I wasn’t the guy to do Justice League and went off to work on something else. But the first day I went to the set, I saw Jesse [Eisenberg] in a scene with Holly Hunter and I really did feel like I was watching some strange, great performance in an independent film. At that moment, I thought, ‘I’m not done with this yet. I want to go back and keep telling the story.’ "

That quote says a lot to me. You wouldn't mistake any of the Marvel characters for an independent film character. They're not trying to be grounded or make their characters feel real. They want Frozen, minus the annoying song.

Whatever you say about Man of Steel, you have to admit that there was some truly beautiful filmmaking involved. There was a level of consideration there that is not present in any of the Marvel movies. DC's movies are going to be divisive. Not everyone will like them. They're not Frozen. I think that by this time next month, we are going to be debating what we liked or didn't like about BvS, and if it's anything like Man of Steel, those conversations will go on for the next three years. Marvel shouldn't be laughing at that fact.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The idea that Marvel is copying DC strikes me as putting conclusion before evidence; Marvel, whether they're right or wrong, don't really like DC's stuff. DC is trying to do Serious Cinema; Marvel's doing COMMUNITY with superpowers.

I don't have time to dig up all the articles right now. I will confess that my perspective is that of an outsider reading between the lines, but there is sufficient evidence in favour of my take. CIVIL WAR has been in the works since the first AVENGERS, confirmed by Whedon. … -asked-him

The original plan was for Downey Jr.'s appearance in CIVIL WAR to be filmed in three weeks as a small, supporting role, maybe a cameo -- although, when plans for CIVIL WAR were being made, Downey Jr.'s contract was still unknown. … 201312229/ Marvel didn't think they could get Downey Jr. to do more than that.

Even after BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN was announced, this was the plan. Then, in negotiating for a new contract, Downey Jr. campaigned for an equal role with Evans in CAP3. Marvel executive Isaac Perlmutter ordered Downey Jr.'s supporting role in CAP3 be scrapped entirely -- even after BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN had been announced the previous year. Downey Jr. was basically fired.

This prompted an internal war inside Marvel between Kevin Feige and Isaac Perlmutter, Feige declaring that Downey Jr. in a main role was worth the extra money and too important to Marvel to alienate -- and he personally asked Downey Jr. for patience while Perlmutter was dealt with. Perlmutter said that hiring Downey Jr. was too expensive for a CAP movie and that it was a waste of money because it wasn't an IRON MAN movie or an AVENGERS movie.

Disney decided to remove Perlmutter from Marvel's film division for this. He had a lengthy record of unpleasant behaviour, but being vindictive towards Marvel's leading man was the last straw. Perlmutter was also blamed, fairly or unfairly, for AGE OF ULTRON going overbudget resulting in less profit, with the claims that his obstruction slowed down production and necessitated reshoots (although Perlmutter's camp claims that had Perlmutter been obeyed, reshoots would have been avoided). Downey Jr. was given the contract he wanted and the role in CAP3 that he wanted. Do a search for Perlmutter & Feige and you'll find all this.

I can't say which side is right or wrong. Perlmutter could be right that CIVIL WAR's earnings will never make it worth the budget $170 million. But I feel comfortable in saying none of these issues have anything to do with BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.

My theory, based on the original plan of a three-week shoot for Downey Jr.: Cap would have fought Iron Man in any version of CIVIL WAR. Likely, the original use of Downey Jr. would have been much like how Spider-Man scenes were being filmed before the actor had even been cast -- a stuntman and a computer-generated version of the costumed character. Iron Man would probably fight Captain America, but Downey's performance would be via insert shots and voice performance and he'd be a special guest star.

At one point, Downey Jr. was fired, but I doubt any production work was ever made on a Downeyless version of CIVIL WAR. Feige kept talks going with Downey Jr., Perlmutter was removed and Downey Jr. was rehired.

In terms of Marvel's dismissive attitude towards DC: this has been documented overtly in the pre-film years when Joe Quesada and Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Millar (all who moved into Marvel film consultancy roles, although Millar's now with FOX) spoke derisively of DC's inability to market their characters successfully -- SUPERMAN RETURNS, the failure to do successful SMALLVILLE comics. Quesada made a serious effort to license the SMALLVILLE comic, saying he'd do a better job than DC and compared the poor sales of Superman comics to a well-endowed porn star with erectile dysfunction. Downey Jr. infamously called THE DARK KNIGHT a pretentious waste of time. Quesada remarked that MAN OF STEEL's Superman seemed just as destructive as the villains. Mark Millar called a JUSTICE LEAGUE movie a great way to throw away $200 million.

Millar and Quesada expressed reverence for the DC animated shows, though.

Internally, Perlmutter, during his time at Marvel's film division, took a very different approach to handling Warner Bros. type blockbusters: Marvel has firm shooting schedules, minimal star perks and salaries, no costly press junkets with lavish food -- completely unlike major studios where films go into production with unfinished scripts, unprepared location filming, hiring actors that are cut from the film, costly reshoots.

There's also the fact that MAN OF STEEL was seen as a bit of a failure -- it made money, but not enough to justify its $225 budget, something Marvel undoubtedly noted. As a result, Superman isn't getting a solo-sequel; every planned MAN OF STEEL follow-up has Batman or the Justice League. In contrast, CAP3 has Downey Jr. and Evans because Feige thought it would be great to have a movie devoted to their friendship instead of just a fight scene -- but they would have made the movie whether Downey Jr. wanted to be in it or not. Meanwhile, MAN OF STEEL's direct sequel has been put on indefinite hiatus.

This has nothing to do with quality, of course, and more to do with how a SUPERMAN movie is much more expensive than a CAPTAIN AMERICA movie, but it does indicate that Marvel would not benefit from copying DC's playbook -- and they don't care to. They don't want to do high-priced superhero blockbusters; they want to use TV-level resourcefulness with a bigger budget, hence their finding TV directors like Whedon, the Russo brothers and Alan Taylor and finding directors who will work on that level.

I cannot find a shred of evidence to indicate Iron Man was added to CIVIL WAR (a comic story in which Iron Man fought Captain America to begin with) in order to compete with BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Fair enough. You may be right (though I still argue that the movie's Iron Man vs. Captain America theme, at least as it appears in the trailers, still seems like incredible coincidence if they didn't up Iron Man's role to counter BvS).

That said, for as long as people can argue that DC/Warner Bros. is trying to catch up to Marvel or copy Marvel, I can argue that at least they didn't directly copy the idea for the movie's plot after it was announced. That seems fair, since the original claim isn't based on rational thought or logic in the first place. Deal? smile

As for them thinking that DC is a joke... I may agree that DC hasn't always handled their characters in the best way (neither has Marvel). However, Batman or Superman can keep the company afloat on the power of their logos alone. That's not a laughing matter. The fact is that if Robert Downey Jr. walked away from Iron Man and a new movie came out three or four years from now, with Matt Damon in the role, the excitement wouldn't be there. The people making these movies have to be aware of that. RDJ *is* Iron Man to most of this audience, and the second he walks away from it, Iron Man will go back on the shelf where RDJ found him. No actor has ever defined Batman or Superman. The closest they came was Christopher Reeve, and even that was different.

Batman vs Superman can bomb, and those characters will still walk away whole. And that's the difference. Man of Steel might not have made a billion dollars at the box office, but just having a new version of the logo to put on products will make DC money for years to come. Aside from Spider-Man, I can't think of any Marvel characters who have that power. Marvel is cashing in on this franchise while they can, but I don't know how sustainable this is. How many of these movies are classics that will be revisited over and over again? Whereas DC is making movies like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Man of Steel (I like others, but these are the big three) that are able to sit on a shelf with movies like Dances with Wolves or Field of Dreams (why am I only listing Kevin Costner movies?!).

Ultimately, they're just playing different games. Who is doing better probably depends on how you define "better". I just think it's a mistake if anyone is not taking the other seriously, because both have lessons that the other could stand to learn.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Wow. This has been a fascinating conversation with eloquent speakers on both sides.

Here are some random thoughts I had while reading the thread:

--I really like Spider-Man's costume. After years of filmmakers trying to make it more "modern," we finally get a design straight out of the Silver Age. This article explains pretty well what I love about it: … r-1649510/

If that's too long for you, here's a key piece that stands out for me:

"The cool thing about the Civil War Spider-Man suit (besides the extra cartridges for his web-shooters) are the mechanical eyes. You can hear them whir as the black borders on the lenses contract, amazingly, from a John Romita-sized eye to a Steve Ditko-sized eye."

--Civil War was a very well-received story, so it would have been done at some point. Was it decided to do Civil War to better compete with Batman v Superman? Probably. But DC didn't move forward with an expanded universe until after The Avengers. Although attempts had been started before, DC didn't fully commit until they felt they had to step up their game to compete with Marvel.

And the two companies really do compete with each other on an absurd level. Once DC found out that Marvel was doing Civil War, they started adding a bunch of other Justice Leaguers to their movie without a proper introduction to them, even though the movie should really just focus on Batman and Superman. Meanwhile, I can't imagine a Civil War movie that doesn't have Iron Man in a major role, but yeah, at this point the movie might as well just have the Avengers label on it.

The funny thing is that DC has the more impressive stable of characters; they just don't know how to handle them right. There's no good reason why Batman and Superman haven't met on screen in live action long before now. The Justice League is way more famous than the Avengers; it's absurd that the Avengers managed to get movies made before the Justice League did. But Marvel has been doing a much better job handling their characters. Ten years ago, I didn't care about Iron Man or Captain America. But Marvel made amazing movies that got me to care.

Meanwhile, while Nolan's movies were amazing, DC continues to struggle with Superman. There was no need to do a sequel to the Christopher Reeve movies that took place "five years later" while clearly taking place in 2006 rather than the '80s. But MoS managed to make things even less interesting, by doing a remake of Superman I and II while giving us a needlessly bleak ending.

To the DC fans who may be frustrated by reading my opinions, I reiterate that DC should be kicking Marvel's butt all over the place because of their great stable of characters. They may be able to get on track at some point, but everything about BvS has made me cringe. If everyone says it's great when it's released, though, I will keep an open mind.

--I agree that RDJ is Iron Man in a way that no one actor is Batman or Superman. However, I don't think we'll get Matt Damon or anyone else recast in the role of Tony Stark. I think that part of the plan with rolling out new-to-film characters with each phase is to have an endless roster of new Avengers to fill in when other actors' contracts are up. Tony can retire, and while there probably won't be any War Machine movies, Rhodey can be a supporting character in an Avengers movie,* while Star-Lord and Ant-Man step up to become main Avengers, and (if the comics are followed on this point) maybe Bucky takes over the Captain America mantle.

*I realize that things look pretty grim for Rhodey in the latest Civil War trailer, making his participation in later films unlikely, but the trailer could be doing a deliberate misdirection.

--I think Agent Carter is terrific, even if the ending of Season 2 was a little anticlimactic. It felt like the story went on two episodes longer than it needed to. Still, I love the tone and feel of the show, and I look forward to Season 3.

--Agents of SHIELD started out pretty rough, but the great plot twist in the second half of Season 1 really kicked things into high gear, and the characters and mythology have greatly deepened since then. I will agree that Fitz's mental problems seem to appear and disappear with an asburd level of plot convenience, though.

--I haven't seen Daredevil Season 2 yet, but Season 1 was amazing. The characterization was rich and deep in that particular show. Wilson Fisk in particular was so well-drawn that all previous incarnations I've seen of him seem laughable in comparison.

--I tried one episode of Jessica Jones, but it wasn't for me. I like a little dash of realism in my comic book stories, but if I wanted to watch a story about serial rapists, I'd watch Law & Order: SVU or something. Well-made, of course, but just not my taste.

--By contrast, Supergirl is something of a guilty pleasure for me. There are usually plot holes that I'm complaining about after each episode, but (like Agent Carter), I enjoy the tone and the feel of the show so much, and it's a good cast. I also enjoy all the geeky casting choices and references. (I realize that this is a Marvel thread, but since we're comparing Marvel and DC, and since I've had some harsh words to say about DC, I wanted to balance it out a bit.) smile

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'll try to respond to what I can smile

Spider-Man... I don't get the eyes. I don't get why they need to grow and shrink. Is it supposed to serve a purpose? How does narrowing his field of vision help him? When I saw that, my only reaction was "Why?".

Civil War/Justice League... I actually don't think that the Justice League element was added because of the Marvel franchise. The way it played out seems like they brought Batman in to serve a specific purpose, and as the process went on, Batman's role became bigger and he was given full-on star status, complete with name in the title (which Iron Man should be getting, but isn't)
Snyder recently said that when the idea to have Batman fight Superman came up, it sounded crazy to him that they would really be fighting at all, but it opened up this whole world of possibilities. If Batman and Superman exist together, the whole Justice League could exist together in the same movie universe, which has never happened before.

I would call BS on that, since it could easily be a response to Marvel, but it kinda makes sense. The way it played out in the press, from the earliest buzz about a Man of Steel sequel, which turned into Batman v Superman, which turned into a chance to introduce this whole world... the progression of those elements felt natural, as though they were being added as the story called for them. I don't think it was as much a "We need our own Avengers movie NOW!!!" reaction as it was "What if this coming together of Batman and Superman in such a public way draws the attention of others out there? What if their conflict exposes a whole world of heroes and villains?"

People say that the movie is too crammed with other heroes, but I think they're misunderstanding what happens. I think it will play out like the introduction of Kendra at the end of season 1 of The Flash. A glimpse of who is out there, setting up what is to come. I think the trailer is making Wonder Woman's role look bigger than it is, just because this is her first appearance on the big screen and that's a big deal.

I think that DC's approach has been better, honestly. They're making real movies, not live action cartoons. The look of the Marvel movies is very simple. The lighting is basic and too perfect. The coloration is bright, with no atmosphere. The shots are very basic, just to convey the idea of what's happening, without much art behind it. Marvel is creating products as quickly as they can, and it's working for them. But DC's movies are epic and beautiful. People didn't care when aliens attacked New York and the government ordered a nuke attack on the city. There was really no reaction to that at all from the public, and why not? That should be a big deal, right? So where is the investment?

Say what you will about Man of Steel, but it got people talking. People cared about how much damage happened to Smallville and Metropolis. People cared about Zod's end. We still debate the emotional motivation of the final shot in the movie, whereas nobody cared that the Avengers were joking around with each other while people were picking up the pieces of their lives around them at the end.

Treatment of characters... I disagree that Marvel is handling their characters better. They are managing their products better, perhaps, but not their characters. There is very little actual character work put into Marvel's characters. They're pretty two-dimensional, with special recognition given to RDJ for infusing life into one of those characters. The others have no real arcs. No emotional center. No real personalities. There really is no Steve Rogers, there is only Captain America. They keep throwing away chances to make him more than that. First, by bringing him to the future too soon. Second, by not really focusing on how out of place he is here. And poor Black Widow (who also has no real story... and I don't even think Scarlett Johansson has been given a multi-film contract yet, much less her own character arc) is tossed around from movie to movie, being the love interest of whoever needs one at the moment.

The business side of their movies, Marvel has handled well. They make unoffensive movies that almost everyone in the family can watch and enjoy, and they have a ton of merchandising to go with it. The Disney model. It works for making money. But the characters themselves have been treated horribly.

Going ahead with the next phases... yeah, they will probably just swap out the old characters with new ones. But what I mean is that while people are praising the popularity of Iron Man right now, it's not really Iron Man that's popular. It's RDJ. I don't think that these movies have propelled Iron Man to the level of Batman or Superman, as some people suggest. I don't think that the character will continue to be as popular once RDJ is gone.

Daredevil... I've only watched the premiere of season 2 so far, but the quality of that show is far beyond anything else that Marvel has put out. There is more care put into that TV series than any of the huge Marvel movies. The lighting and use of shadows, the camera placement, the coloration, the line delivery... it looks more DC than Marvel, quite honestly. I mean that in a very good way. I can't speak for the overall writing of season 2, but the other stuff is still strong.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't get the last episode of Agents of SHIELD. Why would Bobbi and Hunter have to be disavowed by an organization that has already been disavowed? Aren't all of the SHIELD agents already considered terrorists by the world?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

VAL: "Why is Barry working cases fresh out of a coma? Every defence lawyer in the world would get his work thrown out of court."

ME: " ... shut up... "

VAL: "And does he work in that lab all by himself? Like, there's only one criminal scientist in the whole police department? And nobody worked there while he was in a coma?"

ME: " ... shut up... "

VAL: "And when the sky rips open from the black hole -- why did they include that random shot of that one actress for no reason whatsoever?"

ME: "Because she's going to play Hawkgirl in a spinoff. I mean -- shut up... "

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

I don't get the last episode of Agents of SHIELD. Why would Bobbi and Hunter have to be disavowed by an organization that has already been disavowed?

They were double secret disavowed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

I don't get the last episode of Agents of SHIELD. Why would Bobbi and Hunter have to be disavowed by an organization that has already been disavowed? Aren't all of the SHIELD agents already considered terrorists by the world?

Because spinoff.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

AoS doesn't deserve a spinoff. Don't get me wrong, those are two of the better characters/actors (though they never really made up for Bobbi's double cross last year, in my opinion) but that whole foundation is broken. Looking at AoS next to something like Daredevil makes it look so amateurish... Even if it does look more like the movies than Daredevil does.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Deserve or not, Hunter and Bobbi are getting a pilot for a spinoff.  Not sure how far along it is, but that's why they were disavowed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Adrianne Palicki (Mockingbird) certainly deserves a show. She played a false Kara in SMALLVILLE's Season 2 finale and put in a splendid performance but with a crap script. She's had a lot of strong roles in neat shows (SUPERNATURAL, LONE STAR, ABOUT A BOY) and strong roles in weak films (GI JOE II, WOMEN IN TROUBLE) and some strong roles in various pilots (LOST IN SPACE, WONDER WOMAN, AQUAMAN). Despite being a super-talented actress who matches magazine girl looks with genuine action woman physicality, Palicki has never gotten a strong, sustained leading role in any film or show despite being an excellent representative for feminine hypercompetence. There's something quite sad about how talentless pin-ups like Megan Fox and Jessica Alba score prime role after prime role while Adrianne Palicki has taken twelve ****ing years to get a lead role on a show.

So, there's that?

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I fully support Adrianne. She is a great actress who does deserve as much success as she can possibly get. And on top of that, she is even more beautiful in person than she is on TV. I don't know how that happened, but it did.

I just hope that her show is created, written by, and produced by people who care about the product a lot more than most of the Marvel properties. She is capable of Daredevil-level television, so let's not keep her stuck with Agents of SHIELD level material.

That said, I don't know that I'd call Fox or Alba talentless. Fox turned in a surprisingly impressive arc on New Girl this year, showing that she does have some talent. And I've been a fan of a lot of Alba's work for a long time. Plus, she knows business, so she deserves some props for that.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Oh. I've only seen Megan Fox in the two TRANSFORMERS movies,  JENNIFER's BODY, NINJA TURTLES and JONAH HEX and I've only seen Alba in the two F4 movies, INTO THE BLUE and GOOD LUCK CHUCK. So okay. Maybe they got better or I only saw them in their Razzie performances.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Was Jessica Alba good in Dark Angel?  I never watched it.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's hard to say. Her character was trained from birth to be detached and kinda withdrawn. She got a lot of criticism for being "cardboard" but it was kinda within character.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Question about Daredevil - do people know that he's blind?  On the show there's a limited sample to work with, but in the comics is it something that is known?

I'm liking season two so far.  Just finished episode 4.  They've done a good job with Frank Castle.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I just saw a great TV spot for Civil War - showed clips from Captain America: The First Avenger, Iron Man, Avengers, Avengers:Age of Ultron, and finally the new movie.  It's pretty cool what Marvel has done, no matter what you think of their movies.

In other news, the Doctor Strange trailer came out.  Looks pretty good.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't know if the public knows Daredevil is blind or not. From 1964 - 2002, his identity was a secret and Daredevil presumably having sight was often used to hide Matt's identity. Batman figured out that Daredevil was blind within a few minutes of meeting him, however, based on how Daredevil's body language reacted to noise and how he angled towards sounds of interest.

In 2002, Daredevil's identity was outed by an FBI agent who sold his story to the Daily Globe newspaper. Since then, Matt has been in a state of publicly denying his alter-ego identity with barely anyone believing him, even after Iron Fist made sure Daredevil and Matt Murdock were seen in two different places at the same time.

However, due to a recent cosmic event called Secret Wars, nobody except Foggy Nelson and Matt know the truth anymore. It's not clear what the current situation is.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The Civil War trailer is well made, but ultimately, the movies that those clips are pulled from are still weak (aside from the first Iron Man, which was a fun movie). Someone could probably edit together clips from Modern Family and make it look like an epic buildup to Civil War. I would be very impressed with what they've done with their movie franchise if it were well done. As it is, I think they got ahead of themselves, got in over their heads, and now they're on a treadmill that they don't know how to turn off or slow down.

I'm not familiar with Doctor Strange at all. This movie looks more like a Thor type movie than one of Marvel's better movies.

I'm genuinely not trying to be a downer here. I enjoy some of the Marvel movies and think they're fun to watch. But they lack soul, so it's hard to get excited over them. Captain America is four movies in now, and I still don't feel like the character is established. A lot has happened to him, but they never take the time to show us what any of it means to Steve Rogers. Is there a Steve Rogers? Or did he cease to exist when he became Captain America?

You know I love the character stories. Daredevil is a great show. Even the smaller characters are well formed. The show looks beautiful and rich. This leaves me wondering why Marvel's Netflix series has better production value than it's billion-dollar-earning top shelf products.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I saw a commercial for Civil War the other day. In it, Black Widow and Hawkeye are fighting each other. He has her pinned down. And then they start exchanging witty banter about how they're still friends.

Which makes me wonder why they're fighting. You don't seriously fight someone that you are still on good terms with. You don't go to "war" unless you intend to win that war. Assuming that the movie isn't about a mock battle to train new Avenger trainees, how serious is this supposed to be? Initial clips made it out to be pretty serious. People possibly dying, and other people trying to shoot their opponent in the face at close range. The one moment in the trailer that caught my attention was Tony's reaction when Bucky tries to kill him.

But if they cut that tension with characters who aren't really willing to be enemies and who are goofing around while battling each other, what is the point of the movie? Batman was legitimately trying to kill Superman for most of that movie. Their banter only started when they were on the same team.

Will Marvel's need to keep things "fun" prevent this movie from taking itself seriously?

Back to being critical. It feels like wrapping myself in a warm blanket.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, you can fight someone you don't necessarily want to hurt or kill.  In the comic, and I assume in the movie, they only fight each other in terms of trying to capture Captain America.  So Captain America fights to escape, and Iron Man fights to capture.  No one is really using lethal force - it's all about trying to disable the other team.

Imagine if your buddy was about to drunkenly drive home, and you were trying to stop him from getting behind the wheel.  You'd use physical force if you had to, even though you'd be potentially inflicting harm with the intention of keeping him from greater harm.  That's basically what Cap and Tony (and their respective teams) are doing. 

The reason why Tony is so surprised, I assume, is that Tony never expected Cap's team to take it that far.  There's a part in the comic where someone does use lethal force, and it's a huge deal.  At the heart of both sides, it's a disagreement that's escalated beyond the ability to talk it out.  Both make their cases, and both sides are too entrenched to be swayed.  So they fight.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Which means it isn't a Civil War, it is just a cry for group therapy?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Definition of war:

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Definition of civil:

courteous and polite

So a courteous and polite state of armed conflict.  Sounds like it applies smile  Your problem seems to be with the use of "civil war" in the 1860s - a war most people call "The War Between the States....because there was nothing civil about it." tongue

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Definition of war:

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Definition of civil:

courteous and polite

So a courteous and polite state of armed conflict.  Sounds like it applies smile  Your problem seems to be with the use of "civil war" in the 1860s - a war most people call "The War Between the States....because there was nothing civil about it." tongue

"The War of Northern Aggression" is the preferred phrase around here.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I was always taught that you don't point a gun at anything that you don't intend to destroy/kill. So the idea of these people using the same weapons against each other that they used to destroy that poor shawarma family's life in The Avengers just strikes me as dangerous, and silly.

These people are using advanced weaponry. Captain America could probably flick someone to death. Tony's suit allows him to do the same. The movie is packed with people who could easily kill someone (like snapping Gwen Stacy's neck while trying to save her). I am not going to go after someone with that sort of weapon unless I intend to destroy them.

This highlights the absurdity of a no-kill policy for superheroes.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I mean I guess we'll see how much actual force they use.  If Tony and Cap are fighting, Cap could punch Tony in the face as hard as he can without hurting Tony too bad.  And Tony could fire a repulsor ray at him without hurting him too bad.

Superman fought Zod for a while without killing him.  He never intended on killing him - it's why being "forced" to kill him was so upsetting.  Same with Clark and Batman - "if I wanted it, you'd be dead already."  In both instances, Clark was fighting because there was no other choice.  The only difference, in this fight, is that they're both in that mindset.  They both want to disable the other, but neither is going to just let that happen.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I don't know.

I just have a hard time processing this stuff. They are firing explosives at each other, crashing vehicles, etc... while making friendly chit-chat. I hope that the movie is more even and this is just a case of bad commercial making, but I just don't get it. I don't care if my friend is wearing a bullet proof vest, I'm not going to shoot him. And I'm certainly not going to do it in the middle of an airport (though to be fair, it looks like the least used airport in the history of man).

Also, are we really going to have a group of heroes picking on little Spider-Bite? That seems uncool.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

86 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-04-26 14:23:15)

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Okay, but I really don't see the difference between these fights and Superman's side of Batman vs Superman.  I'll acknowledge that Batman was trying to kill Superman, but Superman wasn't trying to kill Batman.  And if Superman had done to, say, Perry White, what he'd done to Batman, Perry would've died.  "Lethal force" to Pepper Potts is different than "lethal force" to Iron Man.

I mean this isn't even the first time these guys have fought under similar circumstances.  In Avengers, Cap and Iron Man fought Thor.  In Age of Ultron, Iron Man fought Hulk.  In both cases, there was a misunderstanding of some sort, and one side was fighting with huge force with no intention of killing the other.

Now it's true that whenever these guys fight, there's a chance that an accident could happen.  Someone could fire an explosive at Tony (which would simply disable him) but accidentally kill Black Widow.  It's possible.  And we do see a disabled/unconscious/maybe dead War Machine outside the airport.  So it's possible that something like that happens.

Now if this is just Civil War vs. BvS, I see them as very different movies.  BvS is going to have way more emotional weight to it because emotional weight isn't Marvel's style.  They're always going to play off an emotional moment with a joke, and the movie is going to end on a happy/hopeful note no matter what.  A Marvel movie is never going to win an Academy Award.  But it's going to be fun, it's going to get positive press and positive reviews, and it's going to make a lot of money.  Probably more than BvS just because of repeated viewings and because it's kid-friendly.

And Spider-Man always jokes when he's fighting, no matter how serious it is. tongue

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I'm not necessarily comparing it to BvS. Different tones, as you say. But Batman was trying to kill Superman. That fact alone changes the dynamic. Martha Kent's life is on the line. That changes the dynamic. It is still life or death, with more people than not opting for death.

I hate the in-group fighting in The Avengers. It just seemed like fan film fluff. But this movie is supposed to be about an actual conflict between these parties. If there is nobody there opting for death (as Batman was, and Lex Luthor was), it seems petty, foolish and incredibly dangerous for them to be fighting like this. Especially in what I assume is a working airport, where their destruction is real.

I know I'm over thinking it, but all of the lesson I've had in regards to use of weapons has taught me to take them pretty seriously. And when it comes to not having to worry about killing someone... There are all kinds of things that I could throw at my brothers when we are having a real disagreement about something, but as an adult, I know how to control myself. Throwing a glass at their face probably isn't going to kill them, but I don't do it.

People have spent years giving MoS crap because of the battle of Metropolis (which again had at least one side opting for death). I think that Civil War could be much worse, even if there aren't mass casualties, because it is looking more and more like a petty, immature squabble. What lesson does that teach?

My main issue with Spider-Bite is that he sounds like he is thirteen (he is actually fifteen in the movie, I've read). Having him in the middle of a fight between adults strikes me as inappropriate. This is why you really never see a very young Robin in the Batman movies. It works in the comic books, but when you actually see it on screen, you're wondering why that kid is being put in danger. Now, if that 15 year old were forced to face a serious threat that was out to endanger lives, it could be seen as heroic. But to have a hero recruit this kid, and another hero attack him... it's weird. He was in high school in other Spider-Man movies, but you never really saw him as a child. He was played by older actors, and usually as someone who was at least 17 or 18.

All of these opinions are based on trailers, which rarely represent the actual movies. So maybe my opinion of the movie itself will be different. Regardless, you're right. It will be beloved by everyone and it will make a trillion-zillion dollars... but it will probably be quickly forgotten.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant's issues seem to largely center on how the combat in CIVIL WAR is not realistic. I don't really go to superhero films or comic books for realism. Superhero combat in comics has always been a hyperexaggerated escapist fantasy with the powers being forms of emotional expression, acting as metaphor and imagery for internal states of mind. A lot of your issues with CIVIL WAR and with the Marvel Universe in general are fundamentally due to the genre having never prized realism.

For example, the Hulk. He has never killed an innocent person in the comics. This is a central aspect to Bruce Banner's character because the second the Hulk kills an innocent and Banner doesn't find some way to off himself, Banner becomes a villain. In realistic, physical terms, this makes no sense whatsoever given how the Hulk would appear to be an uncontrollable, rampaging force of nature smashing through buildings and streets.

There are various cod psychological explanations for this. Most of them are that Banner has some small splinter of control over the Hulk and Banner's conscience prevents the Hulk from stomping on innocent people or harming them. Writer Dan Slott took the view that this may be crazy, but it would be far crazier to take a heroic figure created in 1962 and turn him into a supervillain in the name of a realism that is inherently alien to this genre.

Slott also pointed out that anyone who has been to New York City and seen the vast spaces between buildings and blocks would find it absurd that Daredevil can bound across rooftops with ease, something even the most highly trained Olympic level athlete would fail to perform.

There's also the collateral damage. Spider-Man, Iron Man and Thor have regularly smashed apart buildings and had battles across New York City in the course of their adventures. They have never been responsible for innocent people getting killed. That's ridiculous, as MAN OF STEEL would indicate, but again -- this is part of the nature of the superhero genre. Superheroes in the Marvel Universe rarely if ever kill no matter how bad the situation -- and that's simply an aspect of their fictional existence. It's also in the nature of superhero comics that characters engage in lengthy conversations while beating each other up, something that couldn't happen in real life because no fighter would waste their breath on chatter.

There are other aspects of non-realism to the Marvel Universe. The technology created by Reed Richards and Tony Stark should turn the Marvel Universe into a futuristic wonderland, but it's always the twentieth to twenty-first century.

The floating timeline is absurd; Hawkeye, Iron Man and the Black Widow were contemporaries, but while the Black Widow's Communist origins have been maintained with a retconned immortality serum, Spidey and Iron Man have been relocated to the present day -- yet Black Widow's origin story is inextricably tangled up in Hawkeye and Iron Man despite them having been born years after her origin.

The shared universe aspect of the Marvel Universe is at best nonsensical. For some weird reason, the superpowered X-Men are seen as freaks and outcasts, but the superpowered Avengers and Fantastic Four are regarded as beloved celebrities. The constant deaths and resurrections stagger even the most willing sense of disbelief; Spider-Man and Captain America seem to die and return two or three times a decade.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has allowed its heroes to use lethal force now and then, but the Marvel comic book universe has never been able to wrap themselves around that narratively for whatever reason. The Hulk was briefly given a body count, but the editors, for the reasons above, decided it was a mistake and to reverse that entirely.

Ultimately, this is the Marvel Universe. A world where nobody ever really dies, where the Hulk has never killed an innocent person, where fighters can chat while battling -- and ultimately, a world of escapist comfort. I find that you're taking issue with the Marvel Universe being the Marvel Universe.

This is of course your right and I will defend your right to express your disdain for the superhero genre -- but to me, it's a bit like saying ONCE UPON A TIME is a stupid show because fairy tales are lame.

But not to worry. Your BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN DAWN OF JUSTICE re-release is coming soon enough. The ULTIMATE EDITION, rated R and retitled DAWN OF JUSTICE VERSUS APOKALIPS OMEGA SANCTION WONDER AQUA FLASH SUICIDE BAT. Mixed with Extra Grimness where every moment of Henry Cavill grimacing has been extended by 40 per cent just to get just a few more frames of misery into the movie. Augmented with Additional Nihilism in which Ben Affleck will not only declare the brutal murders of his parents as a vital life lesson, he'll also narrate a slideshow about the nature of radical self-interest. Enhanced with Supplemental Horror in which instead of just hearing about the drowning horses, we'll get to see them drown while intercut with Jonathan eating cake! Uplifted by a new sequence in which Superman sits in the ash and dust of incinerated human corpses after the bombing. And a closing scene where Kenny Braverman, the lead bully from MAN OF STEEL, visits the Kent farm to rob Clark Kent's grave only to be accidentally pulped by Superman hitting him while flying out of the coffin at top speed.


I suppose we could mock the Marvel movies in much the same way, just to be fair. I'll do that tomorrow! :-D

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Once Upon a Time is a stupid show. Not because fairy tales are stupid, but because they completely tossed the concept of the show after season 1 and it has been an embarrassing mess ever since. The point was to contrast between "reality" and fantasy. The second they destroyed the reality of that world, it was pointless. Also, killing Sheriff Graham was stupid, but Jamie Dornan is great on The Fall, so he is better off.

I don't need realism in comic book movies. However, when you take these characters and put them in a real world setting, with flesh and blood actors, things change. If you have a real adult waving a gun around, shooting bullets in random directions like they do in cartoons, it comes across very differently. If you have flesh and blood actors simply behaving like cartoons, why are you spending hundreds of millions of dollars? Flesh and blood is an investment in reality.

I think it is irresponsible to show real people using high powered weapons so recklessly. They are minimizing the seriousness of weapons in the minds of kids. They are turning a real-looking gun (/missile/whatever) fight into a game without consequences, and unlike BvS, they are inviting small kids to watch this.

Things that work in comic books and cartoons don't work in live action. Dropping an anvil on Dean Winchester's head was funny, but it also killed him.

I don't think it needs to be realistic though. They just need to take the writing of it more seriously when dealing with flesh and blood.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant has regularly accused Marvel of reacting to Batman v Superman with Civil War.  ireactions has responded with evidence that it wasn't a direct reaction.  But what's funny is that, from the trailers, it seems like the movie is actually a Marvel response to the end of Man of Steel.

Basically, the government is saying "listen, I know you guys saved people in the Battle of New York/Metropolis" but people died.  We can't do our job as the government(s) of the US/the world without doing our best to make sure people are safe.  It's certainly a big deal in these movies - there's collateral damage in all these movies, and most movies don't really deal with it.

What's crazy is that the goofier of the two movies seemed to deal with it more realistically/seriously.  The government says "hey, we have to come up with a plan to defend normal people" and heroes choose sides.  And they believe in their sides enough that they're willing to fight for it.  Yeah, it's a bit illogical that Tony would side with government control and Cap would side against the system, but at least they're acknowledging that something should be done.

DC, however, had most people in that universe gloss over the whole thing.  Yeah, Batman is mad.  Yeah, Luthor is mad.  But in-universe, most people seemed to unilaterally agree that Superman did what was necessary.  There's zero mention of rebuilding the city, what that took, or anything.  I was shocked that the government hearings from the trailer wasn't about the battle with Zod.  Absolutely shocked.  I was less shocked (but still startled) that there wasn't more of those protest scenes we saw in the trailers.  It seemed like a relatively minor (and extremely calm/unemotional) mob that Superman faced.  And, again, the statue was "beloved" in Metropolis.

In the movie, the hearing was about interfering with some random terrorist, and only three people were all that upset that Superman was responsible for any civilian deaths.

So, yeah, the Marvel stuff is silly.  But for the serious movie to basically say "nah, Superman did nothing wrong and everyone but crazy murderers agree" was a bit mystifying to me.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

And for the record, the whole plot of the comic Civil War is that it's a disagreement that gets crazy out of control and a series of overreactions. 

The explosion at the school -> the government wants control.
Cap disagrees -> SHIELD tries to arrest him -> Cap goes underground
Cold war starts -> Both sides start building armies
Trap is set -> One side goes too far
One side starts losing people -> Supervillains are recruited to replace them

It isn't until they have this big battle amidst civilians that Cap realizes how far things have gone.  That a simple disagreement turned into a full-fledged battle.  That both sides wanted to protect innocent people, and that their disagreement put innocent people directly in danger.

So the joking might be the character's ways of telling themselves that they're not really fighting.  And it isn't until someone (either civilians or one of the heroes) gets hurt that they realize that they've *all* gone too far.  And it's at that point that someone needs to be the bigger person and surrender so the insanity stops.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

The thing about the city-scale fights in AVENGERS, WINTER SOLDIER and AGE OF ULTRON is that the entire planet would have been destroyed if the Avengers hadn't intervened, whereas Superman didn't seem to make much effort to shift the battle out of Metropolis or Smallville in MAN OF STEEL. It's also a problem in BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, where Superman is shown to be hovering above a flooded town but making no effort to save people, rescuing someone from a garment factory fire but not putting out the fire, standing in the midst of an explosion without any attempt to try to get a few people out of the blast and to the hospital.

The weird, weird, weird thing is that the MAN OF STEEL script treatment indicated that Superman tries to move the Kryptonian fights away from populated areas, but they keep knocking him back into the buildings. The dialogue in BVS makes it clear that Superman did save the people in the flood and attempted to put out the fire and tried to get people to the hospital -- but all these onscreen moments were apparently cut from the final edit, which is why Superman seems cold and indifferent.

In AVENGERS and AGE OF ULTRON, the heroes saving civillians was thoroughline connecting every action setpiece, although Informant is certainly correct to note that there is a certain weightless lack of consequence to the onscreen action of Marvel movies.

Informant wrote:

I don't need realism in comic book movies. However, when you take these characters and put them in a real world setting, with flesh and blood actors, things change. If you have a real adult waving a gun around, shooting bullets in random directions like they do in cartoons, it comes across very differently. If you have flesh and blood actors simply behaving like cartoons, why are you spending hundreds of millions of dollars? Flesh and blood is an investment in reality.

I don't really see the Marvel Cinematic Universe as realistic even with live action. I see the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the Marvel comic book universe in terms of COMMUNITY's flexible, contradictory terms of realism, specifically the paintball episodes where everyone develops high functioning combat skills, Pierce can build a fort inside a day, the damage to the school is cleared away within hours.

While Dan Harmon himself would characterize this as parody, Abed would call it homage --and the Marvel Universe is an existence where that kind of absurdity is a daily fact of life -- which was a factor in why they hired COMMUNITY directors Joe and Anthony Russo.

One of the definitive moments of the Marvel Universe, for me, is when Nick Fury's old war buddies are in a bar when they learn of Nick Fury having been killed by the Punisher. A somber moment passes -- and then all of Nick's friends start laughing uncontrollably, joking to each other that they've all 'died' on multiple occasions ("Hey, aren't you dead too? "Naw, you the dead guy!") and none of them expect Fury to be dead for long.

In the CIVIL WAR comic, Peter Parker unmasked as Spider-Man; Flash Thompson observed that Peter was being a very good pal to Spidey to participate in this ruse, but that at some point during or after the Civil War, Peter and Spidey would be seen in the same place together and everything would go back to normal. Spider-Man is also friends with a talking duck named Howard.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has largely embraced this absurdity by hiring comedians like Downey Jr., Paul Rudd and Chris Pratt as well as virtuosos of deadpan lunacy like Joss Whedon and the Russo brothers.

That said -- part of the Marvel Universe's initial appeal was the illusion of realism in that all the stories were set in New York City with photo referenced landmarks and references to current events and celebrities. However, the Marvel Universe also played up the absurd factors that were totally at odds with real life such as Reed Richards' flying car. This created the amusing effect where the Marvel Universe and the real world would overlap; the MU would be relevant to the real world without being the real world.

This would wax and wane over the decades; the 90s were when the MU detached almost entirely from real world overlap as the stories began to take place in an exaggerated macho fantasy. In the 2000s, a new editor, Joe Quesada, made a number of interesting initiatives to move back to overlapping with the real world -- first through increased referencing to current events and celebrities, then with incorporating real-world situations like Captain America visiting Guantanamo Bay and Tony Stark in Afghanistan, the Red Skull renounced Nazism and declared himself a Republican.

The first was effective -- Spider-Man met Jay Leno and nearly got him killed, Tony Stark dated Shannon Elizabeth, Emma Frost told the X-Men trainees that their first telepathic assignment was to find the real truth behind Tom and Nicole's split, George Bush guest-starred in numerous issues as a cunning political strategist who liked to play stupid, etc..

The incorporation of real-world situations, however, turned out to be a problem for the editors who led this charge. Given that the majority of comic book readers were left of center, there was no backlash from the fans, but editors found it awkward to have Captain America fighting Al Qaeda one week and purple dragons the next.

It was awkward to have 9-11 treated as a monumental event in the Marvel Universe when the X-Men tear up the city monthly without any issues. The editors eventually decided that the comics were not a soapbox for their personal politics and moved towards apolitical allegory. Captain America would stick to fighting AIM and HYDRA, but they might use methods that resembled modern terrorist tactics. The heroes would debate the Superhero Registration Act instead of the Patriot Act. But Spider-Man was still allowed to declare that teachers are underpaid and to meet Barack Obama.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's weird how differently I see Man of Steel and Batman v Superman than you guys. When I watch Man of Steel, I absolutely see Clark trying to get the fight away from the city, and Zod trying to inflict as much damage as possible. The whole battle seemed like a desperate attempt on Superman's part, at least to me. And when it comes to BvS, I don't see it as the world adoring him as much as you do. I see a world where there are a lot of different views of Superman. Some love him. Some hate him. He doesn't know what to do with either side.

A lot of what we see of Superman in that movie is from the perspective of others though. We see the flood from the perspective of a victim, looking up at him. We see the Mexican fire from the perspective of the crowd that envelops him. We see the Battle of Metropolis from Bruce's point of view. We even see his statue from the perspective of a guy who hates him. There is a lot of perspective going on in the movie, and not much of it comes from Clark's point of view. So a lot of the criticism about him seeming above it all, or angry or whatever is just the result of how those other people are seeing him.
It's an interesting take. I would have liked to have seen this movie from Superman's point of view, but it would have been a totally different thing.

The thing with Marvel is...

Okay, even Community (which was largely unrealistic and often just spoof work) had something to connect with. Strong characters, portrayed by a team of incredibly talented actors and Chevy Chase. The writers cared about what they were doing. They didn't just throw crap at the wall when they were spoofing something, they were doing very specific jokes about things that they usually felt very strongly about. Even the Glee episode was full of nuance that most people wouldn't even recognize. They understood that despite the complete lack of reality, they needed to take the work seriously. That is why it worked.

The Marvel movies don't care about character. They don't care that Steve Rogers lost everything he ever knew or loved. He lost every bit of life he ever dreamed about. He lost everything, and wound up transplanted into a world where he genuinely does not belong. Every thought in his head is probably a hate crime by today's standards. They did nothing with that story, which should be *the* story for one of their two central characters, who has appeared in four movies now.

So, if they don't care about character, they need to care about plot, right? Except, they don't. The movies are filled with completely irrational writing, doing everything they can think of simply to get to the next big action sequence, which was obviously thought up before they considered the rest of the story that they would later try to construct around it.

So, we have no character and no plot. Okay, well at least they will shoot it well and make it look pretty, right? Except, no. They don't. They have second-rate directors with second-rate crews, creating shots with no thought behind them. The lighting is bad. The visuals are usually pushed too far, removing any sense of reality. And without some ounce of reality, there is nothing to connect with.

The movies are fun and entertaining, but they are fun and entertaining in the same way that cotton candy is. It's a treat with no substance, which leaves you hungry the second you're done with it.

Some of the movies are entertaining. I don't hate everything about the Marvel universe. The Captain America movies are watchable. Guardians and Ant-Man were solid entertainment (with notably more character work and attention to scene construction). But the only things worth discussing about the Avengers movies were how they compare to the DC movies. One and a half Iron Man movies are forgettable at best. The Thor movies... does anyone go back and watch them? The problem is, unlike Community, I don't get the sense that the writers love these characters or take the work seriously. I get the feeling that they just need to churn out another movie because it's on the schedule.

Say what you will about Man of Steel or Batman v Superman, but you can't deny that thought was put into them. The framing of a scene, the lighting of a scene, how characters would be portrayed... you may not agree with it, but there was obviously some time and effort put into it.

I just don't understand how people could apparently care so little about characters that they have to spend so much time with. I don't need it to be realistic in every sense. I don't need bodies dropping every time a punch is thrown. I just need *something* to sink my teeth into.

I will admit that at this point, my dial is set to "dislike" when it comes to Marvel. It's not impossible to come back from that. Smallville came off of its worst season and went right into its best. Supernatural did the same (season 7 is apparently a really harsh year for TV shows). Once the switch is flipped from "like" to "dislike", it takes work to flip it back. So I can't deny that there is some bias going into my watching Marvel trailers or discussing their movies at this point.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Informant wrote:

And when it comes to BvS, I don't see it as the world adoring him as much as you do. I see a world where there are a lot of different views of Superman. Some love him. Some hate him. He doesn't know what to do with either side.

Yeah, I just think you're reading too much into stuff that wasn't directly stated.  I'd need to see the movie a second time because my memory of it is fading, but I know the statue is in the middle of a park.  And I would expect, if there was any level of animosity in that city, for there to be protests at that statue around the clock.  Occupy Wall Street style protests every minute of every day, saying "How dare you build a statue to this guy?  He killed my friend/mom/brother/dad/etc!"

There's none of that.  When the statue is defaced, no one celebrates.  No one says "hell, yeah!"  Then, it's declared that the statue was "beloved" - not controversial or mixed opinionated.  Beloved. 

I mean look at protests outside of Donald Trump events.  People are mad because the guy is gaining power - he hasn't actually done anything wrong, but they're protesting because something could be wrong.  People protest all the time for dumb reasons.  Not to trivialize anything, but I'd equate it to building a statue of Osama Bin Laden in the middle of Ground Zero for some people.  This is the guy who destroyed the city right here, and you're building a STATUE to him?

Because you clearly can't follow Superman around.  There's no way to protest at his appearances because he could be anywhere at any time.  So the only place to protest, if a protest were to happen, would be at his statue.  It'd be the place to do it.

Now, yes, there's a protest in Washington.  But I think that goes even further to say that Metropolis doesn't hate him.  The world might.  But Metropolis loves him.

Maybe there were protests.  18 months passed - maybe they protested for a year and then gave up.  Occupy Wall Street died down eventually too.  But why explicitly say that the statue was beloved?  Why are the only people shown to be angry Lex, Bruce, and Wally?  Three people who are absolutely murderers in this very movie.  People who are absolutely crazy in this very movie.  They're the only ones who actually show that people are upset with Superman.

In the prequel comics, people are worried but there doesn't seem to be any animosity.  There doesn't seem to be any indication that there's any discussion on whether or not Superman has been a force for good.  No one shares Bruce's opinions.  The Senator goes out of her way to block Lex's idea of building kryptonite weapons. 

I don't honestly think Clark wanted anyone to die.  He absolutely might've tried to move the fight away from people and couldn't.  If he flies off to draw Zod out, Zod might kill 50 people in that time and it's not worth leaving the fight.  And we as the audience know that Clark is a good guy.  That it *destroyed* him to take one life.  Why would he have played any part in any innocent people dying.

The problem is that no one else would know that.  And just like the repeated mentions of "no civilians in the area" or "this area is abandoned" I think it was Snyder sorta making fun of the dissenters by saying "listen, you guys, no one in Metropolis is upset at Superman.  Why should you be?"

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

It's an odd paradox where the Marvel Cinematic Universe is largely a bloodless one. The Battle of New York in AVENGERS was in many ways nonsensically low key in terms of collateral damage. It makes absolutely no sense that Hawkeye's quiver of arrows and Black Widow's handguns could maintain any kind of perimeter that kept the attacks confined to a handful of blocks -- which is the explanation given onscreen.

Slider_Quinn21 was fine with it, Informant and I thought it was stupid. But I did applaud the effort, the genuinely well-intended goal that the Avengers were focused on containing the battle and isolating it from the civillians. It's a key point in the visuals.

AGE OF ULTRON takes the same style, only this time, it makes narrative sense: the focus is on evacuation and AGENTS OF SHIELD spent half a season building up a secret weapon of inestimable power -- the weapon turns out to be a Helicarrier and its power is to evacuate the innocent. It's a bit like SUPERGIRL for me where so long as the values are appreciable and meaningful and the visual storytelling has momentum and drive, I'm willing to go with it -- and ULTRON was far more coherent than the Battle of New York. Nobody complained that the Avengers were indifferent to human life.

In terms of MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN, it's a constant complaint. Universal among most of the reviewers. Most of the reviewing audience remarked on Superman's flat emotional affect, his deadened expression, his lack of warmth and charm -- and while that doesn't require that any individual person to agree with that, this sample size would indicate that a sizable segment of the audience found Superman unpleasant.

And I think it's simply because the editing and shot composition were not focused on Superman saving lives and sequences of him performing humanitarian acts were undoubtedly scripted and filmed -- but cut. The MAN OF STEEL treatment includes a segment where Clark tries to fly Zod away from Metropolis; I suspect it was cut because the creators felt the shots of Superman smashing through skyscrapers was more exciting. It is likely, given the original running length of BVS, that we were going to see more of Clark rescuing the space shuttle and the flood victims and trying to save someone, anyone, in the Senate explosion -- but this was cut in favour of shorthanding it to individual shots of Superman standing at a distance.

As a result, even though the dialogue says Superman cares about people and tries to help them, the visuals are not there to *sell* it. For the Marvel Cinematic Universe, however, the visuals are absolutely there; Cap setting up an evacuation route in AVENGERS, IRON MAN III's standout sequence being Tony saving freefalling plane passengers, AGE OF ULTRON's action climax being an emergency evacuation. With MAN OF STEEL and BVS, saving people was incidental to fighting -- and since it was incidental, it was considered expendable and cut from the film.

In LOIS AND CLARK, there's an amusing episode where Superman is refereeing a Little League baseball game and gamely enduring the taunts of a child complaining about one of his calls. I can't really see Henry Cavill doing that, but that's one of the absurdist aspects of superheroes I tend to enjoy and the Warner Bros. studio clearly does not enjoy.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I just watch movies differently. One of my favorite movies is Signs. If you ask most people, they will say that Shyamalan is a hack, and Signs was a movie about an alien invasion. If you ask me to describe the movie, I would say that it is a fascinating film about faith and the demons that we face. I don't see aliens at all... I'm not even talking like alien were a metaphor. I don't think they were aliens at all. Everything that we were told about the situation were from the point of view of people who had no idea what was happening, so they came to the most sensible explanation, in their minds.

If you ask me about The Happening and how people react to it, I tend to laugh. People talk about how air is killing people and how stupid it was. I love it because that is what they tell us in the movie, but one of the first scenes in the movie tells us that people will always come up with an explanation to explain things that have no real explanation. The movie is an homage to 1950's paranoia films. Everything from the dialog to the costumes points to this. If you watch it in black and white, it actually works better as a movie. I enjoy it quite a lot, despite the fact that its Rotten Tomatoes scores are far, far worse than Batman v Superman.

I just watch movies differently than most people. I think that if Hitchcock were making movies today, he'd be considered a horrible failure with movies like The Trouble with Harry or even The Birds. Those movies just wouldn't go anywhere today.

That doesn't mean that I just go making up my own meaning for bad movies and make them good in my head. I don't think that every movie is intended to be viewed this way, just like not every book is meant to be examined and discussed. Sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not.

So yeah, they never have a shot of Lois pointing at Clark and Zod fighting and saying "Look! He's trying to get Zod away from the city!", but watching the movie, I see it. I see him punching for distance rather than pain. I see him dragging the fight into space, only to have Zod drag it back down. I see that scene on screen. I don't know how it was scripted, but I've seen the movie a lot of times and I know that there is footage of him trying to take the fight out of the city.

I don't see Clark as grim or dark or cold or inhuman just because he doesn't smile and play baseball with kids. I see him as a person, like most of the people I know. Because he is like most of the people I know, I relate to him more. I get what he is thinking. I know what it feels like to be scared of leaving the house as a kid, and to take those first steps of freedom.

With Batman v Superman, you say that we don't see enough about people hating him or being mad at him. I disagree. Most of the movie is from the point of view of those people, and the result is that we see a Superman who comes across as angry or inhuman a lot of the time. That is how they see him.
And then we see him from the perspective of the people who love him, but even there he isn't seen as human. He is seen as a mythical savior. I don't think we would see more shots of him connecting with those people, because those people are the ones that we are seeing those scenes through. It isn't about him.

The problem with the movie is that we see Superman from the perspectives of everyone around Superman, but not from the perspective of Superman. It's an interesting choice. I didn't dislike the movie because of it. But if people see Superman in a scene and think that he is the hero of that scene by default, they will be let down. The movie was Batman vs. Superman, the same way a movie would be Batman vs. Clayface. Batman was the star and Superman was the target. We were expecting a movie that was equal parts Batman and Superman, or that Superman would at least be a strong point of view character in the movie. That isn't what we got. This is not a Superman sequel, which is where the problem comes in. His perspective takes up about as much time as Wonder Woman's. Maybe it should have been a Superman movie. I don't know.

Wait... this is the Marvel thread? smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Oh, let's run with it for now. I'll reorganize the posts later.

The key point I'm trying to make is that Slider_Quinn21 says you're seeing things that aren't there in MOS and BVS -- but they were there in the scripts (at least, I feel 85 per cent sure they were) and they were most likely filmed (I'm 80 per cent sure) -- but then they were cut from the film.

The film would appear to indicate that Superman did try to move the fight in MOS (since he's not an asshole) and that Superman was rescuing people (because why else would the movie have Bruce describe the flattering Daily Planet coverage and have Clark express depression that he failed to stop the bomb "because I wasn't looking for it") and that tons of people blame Superman for the Black Zero crisis (because Batman sure as hell does) -- but the visuals aren't entirely there to support this, leading to a coldly dispassionate distance from the character that seems to be unintentional.

Whereas with the Marvel movies, you *couldn't* cut this stuff from the film; they're the core of the action sequences and cannot be removed.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

How could I have seen things that were cut from the film, especially if I have never read the scripts?!

I don't think that perception of Superman was unintentional at all. I think that we were seeing Superman the way various people around the world saw him, and I think that it was done very intentionally. It wasn't flattering, because whether the people wanted him dead or they wanted to worship him, they were all dehumanizing him. They were turning him into whatever they needed him to be for their own sake, and disregarding the person he actually was. When we see him through the eyes of Bruce, he is a monster and a threat to humanity. When we see him through the eyes of those he saves, he is an untouchable god. The Daily Planet will make him into whatever sells papers that day. The only time he is actually a person in the movie is when we get to see him the way Martha or Lois see him. Even when he is alone, he is struggling with that identity and what it all means.

I think I'm just way more intellectual than you guys. smile

Okay, so let's talk about the various layers and motivations of the Marvel characters...



Maybe one of you should go first.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

Well, I look at it this way.

You take a movie like Dumb and Dumber.  My mom likes to say she hates that movie because "it's dumb."  My response is, and always will be, "it's in the title twice.  What did you expect?"  There's an expectation going in that you're going to watch a movie that is actively going for the lowest common denominator.  And you base your idea on it accordingly.  There are literally thousands of movies that are better made, better acted, and better done than Dumb and Dumber.  But pretty much none of that matters because it's judged on one thing - is it funny?  And it either is or isn't.

To me, it's the same with Marvel films.  Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me if the action on screen makes perfect sense.  If the characters are interacting in a meaningful way.  Or if anything that is happening on the screen truly matters.  It mattered a bit in Iron Man I, but as soon as Steve Rogers is wearing his ridiculous costume and fighting Loki in some sort of World War II parallel in Germany and Iron Man flies in blasting AC/DC, my brain basically shuts off.  "You're watching a movie for children," it says.  "I'm going to take a nap."

And to me, that's fine. 

DC wants to take itself more seriously.  Well, sort of.  I watched Superman Returns and Green Lantern in the exact same way I watched a Marvel movie.  I see Superman in his bright costume picking up a plane, and I cheer.  I see Ryan Reynolds in a cartoon suit fighting a cartoon pig monster, and my brain tells me I'm watching a cartoon.  Literally nothing matters.

Christopher Nolan upped the stakes.  His movie made you honestly believe that a man would wear a bat costume and run around punching a clown.  That sentence is supposed to make no sense, but it does because Nolan made us care about it.  That's why Heath Ledger won an academy award for it.  He transcended comic book movie and made a really good movie that features comic book characters.

Snyder doubled down on that.  Tried to bring Superman into the real world.  What would it be like if this man with all these powers was real.  And it's realistic.  It has weight to it.  It's trying to be a real movie.  And my brain never tells me it's going away.  I watch with my brain activated.  And so when I see a building collapse, my brain is there to tell me, "HOLY SHIT, THAT BUILDING IS FULL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ALL GOING TO DIE."  I get 9/11 flashbacks because 9/11 is a real thing, and the aliens from Avengers are fake.  Those buildings are empty because people don't die in cartoons.

So if you want to compare character development between Marvel and DC, I ask you to compare Dumb and Dumber and A Few Good Men in a way that's meaningful.  You can't do it.  Lloyd Christmas isn't real.  Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee is real.

People freak out about the deaths in Man of Steel because that movie made us care.  Avengers doesn't really want us to care.  What's funny is that people like to compare the Battle of New York to the Battle of Metropolis.  But there was another movie that came out in 2013 that people never talk about.

How many people die in that scene?  The Vengeance flies into what's clearly shown is a busy city in broad daylight.  It *completely* demolishes a half dozen skyscrapers.  Maybe more.  Every single person it shows is killed - no doubt.  Every person in those buildings is probably dead.  I'd say more people die in that scene than Avengers and Man of Steel combined. 

But no one cares.  Because Star Trek Into Darkness made it very clear from the beginning that it's a dumb movie that you don't have to care about.

In movies like Dumb and Dumber, you either think it's funny or not.  That's all that matters.  It's why Dumb and Dumber is a classic and Dumb and Dumber To is a disaster.  Same qualifications - one is good, one is bad.  Marvel movies and Star Trek movies and Independence Day movies and Ninja Turtle movies and Transformers movies usually only have one question - did you have any fun?  Avengers yes, Star Trek Into Darkness sorta, Independence Day yes, Transformers 2 and 3 no.

But when you make a Man of Steel, when you make a Dark Knight, when you make a Batman v Superman, you're ditching the bright and colorful costumes and the one-liners and the gadgets and the goofiness.  You have emotional weight.  Bruce Wayne actually has to work out to win a fight.  When buildings collapse, there's a guy in that building praying that he'll go to heaven.  A guy loses his legs and loses his hope and suicide bombs a room full of people. 

And there's even proof of this - people hate Iron Man 3.  It's a movie that features very little Iron Man and chooses to focus on Tony Stark.  He isn't laughing or joking around.  He's suffering from panic attacks.  His friend ends up in the hospital.  The villains are scary and powerful, and Tony is constantly in danger.

Iron Man 3 is clearly a better movie than Captain America: The First Avenger.  It's a better movie than Avengers.  But people don't like it as much (Rotten Tomatoes has higher ratings for both those movies).  I think it's because people try to compare it to other MCU films, and it doesn't gel.  They're too different.  One wants you to care about Tony Stark the character isn't of Tony Stark the one-liner machine.  Your brain stays on too long and asks too many questions.  You realize the Mandarin bait-and-switch is stupid even though it's a median-stupid thing in the MCU.  He's just as ridiculous as Mickey Rourke's character in Iron Man 2.  You realize it's reckless for Tony to give out his home address to a terrorist in IM3 but never thought it was ridiculous for Tony to race in a Grand Prix or throw a nuclear missile into space.

Because Avengers is dumb.  Iron Man 2 is dumb.  But Iron Man 3 tries to be smart.  "Is it fun?" no longer is the only question to ask.  There are more questions to ask, more thinking to be done, more things the movie has to accomplish.

And one of the better movies in a franchise becomes one of the lesser liked movies in a franchise.  Because it dared to cross that line that takes you from a movie to a film.  When you make a movie, we'll forgive a lot.  Just let us feel like you deserve our $10.  But films?  Films make us think.  Films make us believe and question and wonder.  Films win awards.  We hold films to a bigger and better standard.  And that's why I don't care when the USS Vengeance crashes into San Francisco.  Or when a giant dragon ship crashes into a building in New York.  Those are movies.  Movies are supposed to be fun, and they're supposed to be dumb.

Re: Marvel Cinematic Universe by Slider_Quinn21

I... Agree.

I agree! We agree on something!!!

Which is why I think that comparing the franchises is a mistake. They're playing entirely different games, aimes at entirely different audiences. There is no "will DC catch up to Marvel?" competition, because they're not remotely similar, beyond being "comic book movies", which only sounds like one specific thing if you don't actually read comic books.

Also, Dumb and Dumber sucked. I hate that movie so much. I hate that entire brand of comedy. I side with your mother. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of