|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 18, 2017 10:38:35 GMT
My taking taking sides with anyone has zero to do with which series they prefer. As I've removed posts calling people Marveltards I've also done the same for those who call people DC Fanatics. Nobody on either side is to insult anybody. Though in general it does seem that that it is the DC Fans that cause more of the conflict. As someone who has been on the receiving end of many insults (1 MCU fan has repeatedly called me a "retard"), I can say that it's actually MCU fans who cause most of the conflict. Nah, they're just getting payback for the decade of insults that FoX-Men fans and Nolanites and DCEU fans have been tossing at them for years while the MCU has been under non-stop attack the entire time too. Naturally, DC fans are fine dishing it out but can't take it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 18, 2017 10:48:19 GMT
No thank you, that would be anticlimactic. Building up characters rather than tossing them in half-baked is anticlimactic? Straw man due to reading comprehension issues. Try again.
Lol, that's a non sequitur. Logic was not my point (except with your fallacy now of course).
Your opinion, not mine. I prefer fresh faces, and the overused old ones should come back at a later time, when the audience is hungry again and there are proper ideas to delinate, reinvent or deconstruct the character.
Nolan Dark Knight trilogy transcended the genre and are generally accepted as great movies even by CMB haters (all in 250 charts, TDK even on 4, and does not sink despite it being a decade!). That is hard to beat or even reach, maybe Logan, maybe WW, maybe Watchman.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 18, 2017 10:56:06 GMT
Straw man due to reading comprehension issues. Try again. But it's true, most of them are half-baked and didn't line up with everything else (Batman, for one thing). Logical progression should be the point in building up characters and stories. If we had other movies before BvS showing Superhumans inadvertently causing collateral damage when they revealed themselves to the world, Batman's Anti-Superman stance would've been more organic. Batman was always going to be a major part of things, that was unavoidable. The way to avoid seeming stale with him is to put him in a new context compared to how Nolan did things. They're taking the first painful steps with that, but stumbled a little with BvS. They didn't transcend much of anything, it was just Nolan doing his usual "No real characters, just archetypes and 1-Note fanatics" approach he did with Memento and the Prestige (and still does, like in Inception). It's just that there wasn't much real competition at the time until TDKR, and then Ledger dying made it "bad taste" to criticize the movies and what landed them in any "top movies" lists. Put his movies out in today's environment and they wouldn't do as well and people would be more willing to note their flaws. |
|
Austra
Sophomore
I would do anything for Pavlova. Anything!
@austra
Posts: 114
Likes: 76
 
|
Post by Austra on Oct 18, 2017 11:16:24 GMT
As a long time reader of comic books distributed by both companies, I'll say this: Current Marvel comics are crap in comparison to DC comics, whom are killing it. Nah, DC has to keep rebooting every few years. Marvels' never needed a full on reset like they have. Right now all people are complaining about at Marvel is how they can't stand that they gave minority characters and female characters bigger roles. But all those attributes WERE from the comics though. People who complain about that don't know that to begin with. DC's Rebirth titles, which you count as a reboot, actually builds off of the New 52, you'd know this if you read a comic. No, fans of the comics are complaining that Marvel have gone full retard with their writing (In the comics), and I agree. Those characters didn't all follow the arrogant hero story beat, some carried the attributes, however they were dealt with differently. The movies constantly reuse the same story beats, hence the repetition complaint. You insinuate that I don't read read comics, you assumed wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 12:16:56 GMT
If you're ashamed of comics. As a long time reader of comic books distributed by both companies, I'll say this: Current Marvel comics are crap in comparison to DC comics, whom are killing it. The Marvel cinematic universe deviates from the source material drastically, even for their character attributes. Iron Man, Thor, Ant-man, Doctor Strange all share the same values, and pace of progression. This is due to the Marvel formula. A respect for comics would demand that Marvel try harder when it comes to writing, for both the comics, and the movies. Don't try to use their comics to defend their movies.  |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 18, 2017 12:35:43 GMT
Nah, DC has to keep rebooting every few years. Marvels' never needed a full on reset like they have. Right now all people are complaining about at Marvel is how they can't stand that they gave minority characters and female characters bigger roles. But all those attributes WERE from the comics though. People who complain about that don't know that to begin with. DC's Rebirth titles, which you count as a reboot, actually builds off of the New 52, you'd know this if you read a comic. And the new 52 itself was a reboot (or an attempt at it). Then we've been dealt stuff like Convergence and everything too. Which was mainly the result of them feeling insulted at stuff like Jane Foster getting the power of Thor, the Asian Hulk, etc. Scott Lang was not portrayed as an arrogant hero type in his movie, Dr Strange's origin is pretty much how he was in the comics (if anything, in the comics he was totally unlikable when he was a normal Doctor), Thor WAS banished from Asgard for his arrogance but they just sped things up instead of doing the whole Donald Blake thing. People saying that are the same ones complaining there are too many MCU movies to begin with and how they hate the MCU for interconnecting things instead of making everything totally standalone and 100% unconnected and in separate Universes. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Oct 18, 2017 13:39:52 GMT
What’s done is done.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 18, 2017 19:26:18 GMT
Man of Steel was not a standalone movie as it directly lead into Batman vs Superman. Yes, it was a direct lead to Batman v. Superman, but there's no mention of the other heroes, no pointless cameos. It just Clark Kent's story. There was a Waynetech satellite. So, yes, it did mention other heroes. The thing that people are still stuck on is characters being their own thing. Superman being in a movie by himself, Spider-man being in a movie by himself. The comics were never really like that. They mentioned other heroes all the time. And no "cameo" is pointless. If a lead character goes to a grocery store and had a conversation with the cashier, would you say that the cashier was a pointless cameo? No, you'd say s/he was a character in the movie. Same goes for if Booster Gold showed up in a Batman movie. You only call it a "pointless cameo" because you know that character has a name in the comics. A character is a character. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Oct 18, 2017 20:09:01 GMT
Man of Steel was not a standalone movie as it directly lead into Batman vs Superman. MoS was a standalone by every definition of the word. All plot points were resolved, Clark went through his arc from troubled, confused child to angry young man to finally someone grown up and knowing where he belongs (role, careeer etc - thus last shot: BIG smile). He defeated his enemies (really dead), got the girl and Martha was alive. There is nothing open and no need to resolve anything.
Of course MoS is now embedded into a bigger narrative structure. But BvS just picked up events and plot points from MoS starting new plot points and narrative arcs (Bats hostile because of superhuman destruction, ending in another arc).
Even serializes shows have standalone episodes. In the end MoS is a standalone movie, as is is WW. Dakprescotfan is right. Maybe you confuse terms like Elseworld, Multiverse with standalone.
I'm not sure what definition you're using because according to this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standalone_filmStandalone film – is a film that does not have any relation with other films.
In a canonical meaning, standalone film is the film that is not part of any franchise. The Sixth Sense, The Shawshank Redemption, and Inception are examples of standalone films.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 18, 2017 20:42:59 GMT
I'm not sure what definition you're using because according to this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standalone_filmStandalone film – is a film that does not have any relation with other films.
In a canonical meaning, standalone film is the film that is not part of any franchise. The Sixth Sense, The Shawshank Redemption, and Inception are examples of standalone films.
Fair enough. Obviously, context wise we did not mean "standalone" in that sense here. The user above and I referred to the popular use of a term that describes a film that is not merely episodic but a closed 3-act story that does not (per se) require a sequel/resolution, it stands on it's own. And you do not have to watch other films to understand it - like with MoS. This aspect is e.g., currently discussed with the SW anthology films Wookiepedia:
The Star Wars Anthology Series[5] is the banner title for a series of upcoming stand-alone Star Wars films, beginning with Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December 2016. It was first announced at Celebration Anaheim on April 19, 2015.[1]
starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars_Anthology_Series
or:
Solo: A Star Wars Story is an upcoming stand-alone Star Wars film, the second such project since...
or
"A stand alone film is supposed to be a movie that doesn’t take place within a larger story. It’s a way to describe a film that may happen inside a well-known fictional universe, but exists to the side of that central narrative. Or maybe it focuses on the characters and decisions that take place at the same time as a story we already know. "
www.polygon.com/2016/12/20/14024616/rogue-one-star-wars-standalone-marvel-avengers
or the Guardian
www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/17/star-wars-disney-obi-wan-kenobi-film
17.08.2017 - A standalone film focused on the character played by Alec Guinness and Ewan McGregor is in the works, with Stephen Daldry in talks to..... |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 18, 2017 23:49:26 GMT
If they did than people would accused them of copying Marvel. At least with the DCEU they're trying something else. Whatever you think they are succeeding or failing in terms of quality is an entire different discussion (you cannot deny that they are successful financially). But at least DC doing their own thing without following marvel in their footsteps.
The real question is will both Marvel and DC have the balls to do what Fox is doing (Deadpool, Logan and the upcoming New Mutants).
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 19, 2017 0:18:30 GMT
If they did than people would accused them of copying Marvel. At least with the DCEU they're trying something else. Whatever you think they are succeeding or failing in terms of quality is an entire different discussion (you cannot deny that they are successful financially). But at least DC doing their own thing without following marvel in their footsteps. The real question is will both Marvel and DC have the balls to do what Fox is doing (Deadpool, Logan and the upcoming New Mutants). Using blood and gore to substitute a plot? |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 19, 2017 19:40:00 GMT
If they did than people would accused them of copying Marvel. At least with the DCEU they're trying something else. Whatever you think they are succeeding or failing in terms of quality is an entire different discussion (you cannot deny that they are successful financially). But at least DC doing their own thing without following marvel in their footsteps. The real question is will both Marvel and DC have the balls to do what Fox is doing (Deadpool, Logan and the upcoming New Mutants). Using blood and gore to substitute a plot? Nah, it's called making movies with hair on their balls. (When you get some on yours you'll appreciate them! And your word search. Innit?) |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 19, 2017 20:23:46 GMT
Using blood and gore to substitute a plot? Nah, it's called making movies with hair on their balls. (When you get some on yours you'll appreciate them! And your word search. Innit?) By that logic, the Friday the 13th movies are all masterpieces. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 19, 2017 21:41:27 GMT
Nah, it's called making movies with hair on their balls. (When you get some on yours you'll appreciate them! And your word search. Innit?) By that logic, the Friday the 13th movies are all masterpieces. They are. What's your point?  |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Oct 19, 2017 21:43:43 GMT
By that logic, the Friday the 13th movies are all masterpieces. They are. What's your point? Admittedly, I have a soft spot for them. But I think that you need more than gore and blood. |
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Oct 19, 2017 21:50:50 GMT
Nah.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 19, 2017 22:17:14 GMT
They are. What's your point? Admittedly, I have a soft spot for them. But I think that you need more than gore and blood. Well, yeah. You also need naked teenagers that can't act their way out of a paper bag. Duh. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Oct 19, 2017 23:19:34 GMT
No, the writing and quality of the MCU is crap. No, BvS is criminally underrated. No, it didn't try to copy the MCU formula. I don't see kiddie jokes, non-threatening villains, nor bad writing in BvS. The whole cinematic universe needs to be connected is stupid. More standalones like Man of Steel and Wonder Woman. Clearly you didn't see Lex Luthor... |
|
