|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 31, 2017 20:14:15 GMT
and its creative decision-making, with and without Marvel in the picture. Some would love what he has to say and others might call him traitor to the cause or some weird thing like that. Still waiting for Man of Steel 2 at any rate. TEXT: The DC films created by Warner Bros. (formerly known as the DCEU) have proven divisive since the release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. While the films have made money at the box office, critically, they have had mixed results. This contradiction has spawned inevitable comparisons to Marvel's financially and critically successful films. This fact is not lost on the stars of the film, including Superman himself, Henry Cavill. The actor recently explained his nuanced take on why the DC movies have struggled, noting, Even if Marvel didn't exist, we'd struggle. There was a style they [DC] were going for, an attempt to be different and look at things from a slightly different perspective, which hasn't necessarily worked. Yes, it has made money but it has not been a critical success; it hasn't given everyone that sensation which superheroes should give the viewer.
Henry Cavill's take here is pretty intriguing. He seems to be judging the DC films on their own merits and not based on how they compare to Marvel's films. He believes that the tonal and stylistic differences compared to other superhero films may have been admirable in their attempt, but he feels they didn't necessarily work for the subject matter or what the audience expects. This is an honest and sober analysis that doesn't defer to the standard refrain of 'we didn't make this for the critics' that so often accompanies blockbusters that fail critically. Despite the struggle thus far, Henry Cavill seems optimistic and positive about the future of the DC films. He also told The Rake (via @sliickslack):
I feel like now the right mistakes have been made and they haven't been pandered [to], and we can start telling the stories in the way they need to be told. It is even better to come back from a mistake or stylistic error into the correct vein because it will make it seem that much stronger. Wonder Woman was the first step in the right direction.
Wonder Woman could not have come at a better time for Warner Bros. and the DC film universe. The film was a massive critical and commercial success that Henry Cavill sees as the first course correction down a better path for the DC films. In sports, it is often said that you learn more from a loss than you do from a win and that silver lining outlook will hopefully serve the DC films well going forward. The hope would be that fans would give DC's superhero movies the benefit of the doubt and judge each movie on its own merits. And they will get that chance soon as Henry Cavill will presumably be seen in the upcoming Justice League. www.cinemablend.com/news/1719709/why-the-dc-movies-have-struggled-according-to-henry-cavill |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Oct 31, 2017 20:21:16 GMT
and its creative decision-making, with and without Marvel in the picture. Some would love what he has to say and others might call him traitor to the cause or some weird thing like that. Still waiting for Man of Steel 2 at any rate. TEXT: The DC films created by Warner Bros. (formerly known as the DCEU) have proven divisive since the release of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. While the films have made money at the box office, critically, they have had mixed results. This contradiction has spawned inevitable comparisons to Marvel's financially and critically successful films. This fact is not lost on the stars of the film, including Superman himself, Henry Cavill. The actor recently explained his nuanced take on why the DC movies have struggled, noting, Even if Marvel didn't exist, we'd struggle. There was a style they [DC] were going for, an attempt to be different and look at things from a slightly different perspective, which hasn't necessarily worked. Yes, it has made money but it has not been a critical success; it hasn't given everyone that sensation which superheroes should give the viewer.
Henry Cavill's take here is pretty intriguing. He seems to be judging the DC films on their own merits and not based on how they compare to Marvel's films. He believes that the tonal and stylistic differences compared to other superhero films may have been admirable in their attempt, but he feels they didn't necessarily work for the subject matter or what the audience expects. This is an honest and sober analysis that doesn't defer to the standard refrain of 'we didn't make this for the critics' that so often accompanies blockbusters that fail critically. Despite the struggle thus far, Henry Cavill seems optimistic and positive about the future of the DC films. He also told The Rake (via @sliickslack):
I feel like now the right mistakes have been made and they haven't been pandered [to], and we can start telling the stories in the way they need to be told. It is even better to come back from a mistake or stylistic error into the correct vein because it will make it seem that much stronger. Wonder Woman was the first step in the right direction.
Wonder Woman could not have come at a better time for Warner Bros. and the DC film universe. The film was a massive critical and commercial success that Henry Cavill sees as the first course correction down a better path for the DC films. In sports, it is often said that you learn more from a loss than you do from a win and that silver lining outlook will hopefully serve the DC films well going forward. The hope would be that fans would give DC's superhero movies the benefit of the doubt and judge each movie on its own merits. And they will get that chance soon as Henry Cavill will presumably be seen in the upcoming Justice League. www.cinemablend.com/news/1719709/why-the-dc-movies-have-struggled-according-to-henry-cavillI kinda think it's both. Them trying to be different from what came before (and follow Nolan's successful approach) and be different from Marvel. That's not a bad thing because we do need different or it gets stale having 2 different superhero companies doing the same thing. But at the same time. You gotta be true to what you are doing and not changing things just for the change. But anyway. I hope Cavill gets what he wants when it comes to how the movies are being made. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 31, 2017 20:32:33 GMT
I kinda think it's both. Them trying to be different from what came before (and follow Nolan's successful approach) and be different from Marvel. That's not a bad thing because we do need different or it gets stale having 2 different superhero companies doing the same thing. But at the same time. You gotta be true to what you are doing and not changing things just for the change. But anyway. I hope Cavill gets what he wants when it comes to how the movies are being made. I was digging up stuff from way back, and found an interview with JL writer Chris Terrio and it was a week or two before BVS was out. He said that JL wasn't going as dark as BVS then. So I'm left wondering what the movie was gonna be like before the backlash against BVS, the reshoots, Snyder leaving, all that jazz. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 20:48:43 GMT
The only DCU film that I think was unfairly criticized was MoS. That film was exactly what it was promoted to be: a more realistic take on the Superman origin story. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's fine. But some people got butthurt at it for it NOT being just like Dick Donner's film, and that's retarded. The real "problem" with MoS was that it came out the year after the Avengers. That's when tastes started to change. People gave the more grounded superhero films a more critical eye and gave the lighthearted romps a pass. Even TDKR got complaints about being "too moody" after the Avengers came out (which was also retarded, as it was perfectly in line with BB and TDK). Does MoS have flaws when judged by its own merits? Of course. All films do. But it wasn't the "trash" that some people made it out to be. And you know that people are being biased when they claim shit about the movie that isn't even true (like Superman personally knocking down buildings and dumb shit like that).
So MoS received unfair treatment. But WB didn't respond the right way. They became super reactionary and didn't know how to proceed.
I'm a fan of the UE of BvS, but I can completely see why the TC got trashed. It was a grim, bloated, and sometimes incoherent mess. I happen to think the UE was rather ambitious (though it was still pretty grim and somewhat bloated), but it at least executed against what it was TRYING to do. And I blame the studio for the whole debacle. If they didn't want Snyder to make a three-hour movie, then they should have told him that up-front. But you don't let him make the movie he wants to make and then tell him to shave 30 rather essential minutes out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 31, 2017 20:55:35 GMT
The only DCU film that I think was unfairly criticized was MoS. That film was exactly what it was promoted to be: a more realistic take on the Superman origin story. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's fine. But some people got butthurt at it for it NOT being just like Dick Donner's film, and that's retarded. The real "problem" with MoS was that it came out the year after the Avengers. That's when tastes started to change. People gave the more grounded superhero films a more critical eye and gave the lighthearted romps a pass. Even TDKR got complaints about being "too moody" after the Avengers came out (which was also retarded, as it was perfectly in line with BB and TDK). Does MoS have flaws when judged by its own merits? Of course. All films do. But it wasn't the "trash" that some people made it out to be. And you know that people are being biased when they claim shit about the movie that isn't even true (like Superman personally knocking down buildings and dumb shit like that). So MoS received unfair treatment. But WB didn't respond the right way. They became super reactionary and didn't know how to proceed. I'm a fan of the UE of BvS, but I can completely see why the TC got trashed. It was a grim, bloated, and sometimes incoherent mess. I happen to think the UE was rather ambitious (though it was still pretty grim and somewhat bloated), but it at least executed against what it was TRYING to do. And I blame the studio for the whole debacle. If they didn't want Snyder to make a three-hour movie, then they should have told him that up-front. But you don't let him make the movie he wants to make and then tell him to shave 30 rather essential minutes out of it. I agree wholeheartedly. I have not seen the UE and am not that interested. I found MoS a solid foundation for sequels or opening up the DC universe. Then as you said, WB panicked and threw everything including literally a kitchen sink (or was it from a bathroom?) at BVS. Incredibly irresponsible. Going back to Cavill, assuming things go well, Wonder Woman is a great model for the DCEU to move forward. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 21:16:23 GMT
The only DCU film that I think was unfairly criticized was MoS. That film was exactly what it was promoted to be: a more realistic take on the Superman origin story. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's fine. But some people got butthurt at it for it NOT being just like Dick Donner's film, and that's retarded. The real "problem" with MoS was that it came out the year after the Avengers. That's when tastes started to change. People gave the more grounded superhero films a more critical eye and gave the lighthearted romps a pass. Even TDKR got complaints about being "too moody" after the Avengers came out (which was also retarded, as it was perfectly in line with BB and TDK). Does MoS have flaws when judged by its own merits? Of course. All films do. But it wasn't the "trash" that some people made it out to be. And you know that people are being biased when they claim shit about the movie that isn't even true (like Superman personally knocking down buildings and dumb shit like that). So MoS received unfair treatment. But WB didn't respond the right way. They became super reactionary and didn't know how to proceed. I'm a fan of the UE of BvS, but I can completely see why the TC got trashed. It was a grim, bloated, and sometimes incoherent mess. I happen to think the UE was rather ambitious (though it was still pretty grim and somewhat bloated), but it at least executed against what it was TRYING to do. And I blame the studio for the whole debacle. If they didn't want Snyder to make a three-hour movie, then they should have told him that up-front. But you don't let him make the movie he wants to make and then tell him to shave 30 rather essential minutes out of it. I agree wholeheartedly. I have not seen the UE and am not that interested. I found MoS a solid foundation for sequels or opening up the DC universe. Then as you said, WB panicked and threw everything including literally a kitchen sink (or was it from a bathroom?) at BVS. Incredibly irresponsible. Going back to Cavill, assuming things go well, Wonder Woman is a great model for the DCEU to move forward. Depending on what your problems with the TC of BvS are, I might recommend actually watching the UE if you have some time to kill. It's not a "different" movie, but it is a MUCH better executed version of the same movie. The editing issues are mostly fixed (scenes are reordered and extended so that it actually flows like a movie should flow). And they add in a bunch of pretty essential character moments for Clark, thus fleshing out his arc in the film and giving his death a lot more weight. Also, you get a clearer picture of the overall story. BvS is trying to tell like 5 loosely connected stories that all merge together about halfway through (Bruce and the White Portuguese, Clark and the Batman, Senator Finch and Superman, Lois and the Bullet, and Wonder Woman and the Photograph). The TC makes these stories feel rather disjointed, but the UE makes it extremely clear that Lex is the common denominator in all of them, so his "master plan" is highlighted more, which helps. If you thought it was boring or too dark, then the UE won't make much of a difference for you. But if you had issues with execution rather than "inherent" stuff (like how Snyder views the characters), then it's a significant improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 1, 2017 0:40:36 GMT
Man of Steel was real good. The best DCEU movie still in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 2:10:10 GMT
The real problems with MOS came from how they later tried to use it as the starting point for a DC Shared Universe when it was meant to be standalone and the mentions of stuff like Wayne Enterprises just being an Easter Egg.
When BvS made mention of stuff like WW being around and Clark suddenly caring about Batman, that's when more retroactive problems with MOS started (why didn't Clark care back in MOS if Batman had been around for years? Why didn't WW do anything about the Kryptonian invasion?). But as a standalone there are fewer problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 1, 2017 2:23:00 GMT
The real problems with MOS came from how they later tried to use it as the starting point for a DC Shared Universe when it was meant to be standalone and the mentions of stuff like Wayne Enterprises just being an Easter Egg. When BvS made mention of stuff like WW being around and Clark suddenly caring about Batman, that's when more retroactive problems with MOS started (why didn't Clark care back in MOS if Batman had been around for years? Why didn't WW do anything about the Kryptonian invasion?). But as a standalone there are fewer problems. He didn't know about Batman in Man of Steel. He didn't even become a reporter until the very end of the movie and then found out about him for the first time in Batman vs Superman. As for why Wonder Woman didn't do anything in Man of Steel can apply to comics in general. Individual heroes are always dealing with big problems in comics without other heroes showing up to help all the time. Where were The Avengers when the Dark Elves were wrecking London or when Hydra were using helicarriors to almost kill a million people in Washington? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 2:31:59 GMT
He didn't know about Batman in Man of Steel. He didn't even become a reporter until the very end of the movie and then found out about him for the first time in Batman vs Superman. Batman was around long enough that the common layman would've known about him. He doesn't need to be a reporter to know and formulate opinions. And the movies in a shared Universe are meant to be written and developed in such a way to avert this and give explanations. The battle with the Elves took place over only a few hours (maybe shorter), it was resolved by the time they had assembled a team of whoever was available (It probably would've just been Steve, Natasha and Clint available that fast since Tony was still dealing with the aftermath of IM3 and no one knew where Banner was but him). Winter Soldier took place over like 2 or 3 days, and Hydra made sure to keep Cap and Widow from communicating with anyone to warn them of the truth. SPECIFICALLY the Avengers. MOS simply didn't KNOW that WW was out there and thus never bothered with any explanation. Also the Phase 1 MCU movies realized that the best way to introduce all the characters without having them meet until the end of Phase 1 would be to NOT make their first movies all involve planetary level stuff that should've attracted all superbeings and instead made them smaller more personal stuff with SHIELD (and Coulson) being the link. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 1, 2017 12:55:11 GMT
Batman was around long enough that the common layman would've known about him. He doesn't need to be a reporter to know and formulate opinions. Evidently not, going by the story, Clark Kent is a reporter who when he went to Gotham only then found out about the Batman's existence. So there's no way he would have known about him in Man of Steel so the average person not from Gotham wouldn't know him. The battle of New York took place over an hour or two itself. They never mentioned that they attempted to put a team together only for them to be too late. Thor didn't mention them. Nothing. Nick Fury could have contacted The Avengers. The commotion that it caused would have been all over TV where they would have quickly known about it. Maria Hill knew that Nick Fury was alive. Maria Hill could have contacted The Avengers. There were plenty of ways they could have got them involved. Well Superman is more powerful than any of Marvel's heroes. He requires an equivalent level of threat and it was still made personal. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 13:55:45 GMT
Evidently not, going by the story, Clark Kent is a reporter who when he went to Gotham only then found out about the Batman's existence. Like I said, poor planning due to MOS not being written with the rest of DC in mind. Just Superman and Superman alone. They don't need to mention it, we should logically be able to deduce it ourselves. Just like in Iron Man 3, we're supposed to know that when Rhodey told Steve that the Government was sending teams to find out where the Mandarin was that Steve and Natasha were on those teams. Nothing. Clint was supposed to be in the movie, but Renner wasn't available so he got written out. Aside from them, there was no way to reach Thor. No one knew where Banner was hiding except maybe Tony and Tony was in semi-retirement until AOU. Plus Hydra would've been keeping an eye on Tony in case Fury contacted him. It was too risky so Fury went with Cap and Widow. They could easily tell a less-than-world class threat story about Superman, if they'd put the effort in. Or an off-world one. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 1, 2017 14:41:15 GMT
formersamhmd1. Well that's not really poor planning, it just wasn't planned for period. Batman isn't supposed to be someone that the average person in America is familiar with anyway. That's Superman. 2. There wasn't anything to deduce. A major city was under attack by evil forces from another planet like in The Avengers except this time they weren't involved at all. Iron Man and War Machine has super sonic suits, they could have been there in no time. 3. Saying Hydra were keeping an eye on Tony Stark speculation. At which point you could speculate why Wonder Woman wasn't involved either. It was too risky to contact Iron Man so they went with Captain America and Black Widow who everyone was looking for? Also Banner wasn't in hiding. 4. They did that with Superman Returns and it was boring as shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 14:46:45 GMT
formersamhmd 1. Well that's not really poor planning, it just wasn't planned for period. Batman isn't supposed to be someone that the average person in America is familiar with anyway. That's Superman. It is poor planning. If not for MOS (they didn't know what would happen after MOS) then for BvS. They can't just have him act concerned out of nowhere like that with no buildup. Tony was still out of commission wondering whether he'd continue or not after IM3, and Rhodey's suit was probably being checked to make sure AIM didn't do anything else to it and couldn't get there in time. He was on their hitlist. I DO wonder why BvS didn't bother explaining why she did nothing in MOS. You can say she was fighting Kryptonians elsewhere, but they were all in Metropolis. Fury went to Cap because Cap already knew something was up. Widow was already in on Fury's plot. Pretty sure he was. That's because Singer isn't a Superman fan, he's a Richard Donner fan and wasn't interested in anything but a love letter to Donner. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 1, 2017 14:54:55 GMT
formersamhmd1. He wasn't concerned out of nowhere, he was concerned after being made aware of him in the following movie. He wouldn't have been concerned beforehand because he didn't know if him. 2. Something that wasn't a factor when he was still Iron Man in The Avengers. Also again the speculation about War Machine can apply to Wonder Woman. 3. If he's on their hit list regardless then it doesn't matter. Infact it would make far more sense to contact him to warn him so to help get rid of the people who put him on their hit list. 4. Wonder Woman might not have even been in the US at the time. She's shown to live in a other country and unlike Iron Man can't fly nor does she have any means of quick air travel unlike The Avengers. 5. Banner wasn't hiding. He was in Iron Man 3 having a therapy session with Tony Stark. He was at the party in Avengers Age of Ultron. He hadn't gone anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 15:02:17 GMT
formersamhmd 1. He wasn't concerned out of nowhere, he was concerned after being made aware of him in the following movie. He wouldn't have been concerned beforehand because he didn't know if him. Him suddenly being aware of him out of nowhere is what I'm talking about. If he's just learning of him now it's kind of silly. Dark World and Winter Soldier happened after IM3, though. When both Tony and Rhodey would've been out of commission. It does, it means they're monitoring him and trying to contact him would give them away before they could strike at Hydra. It'd be nice if this was implied or explained. IM3 was the only indication of where he'd been before the Avengers activated again for AOU. Of course Hulk on his own without anything to aim him right isn't that much of an advantage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 15:09:12 GMT
Batman is often presented as an urban legend. People in Gotham know about him and believe in him, but people outside of the city think he's a kook, think he's a myth, or don't know about him at all. He's local news. Superman is global news.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 1, 2017 15:12:06 GMT
I ALWAYS hated that idea of Batman being an Urban myth. It was stupid when it started and its stupid now.
No one at the Planet treat him like he's a myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Nov 1, 2017 22:58:36 GMT
The only DCU film that I think was unfairly criticized was MoS. That film was exactly what it was promoted to be: a more realistic take on the Superman origin story. If that's not your cup of tea, then that's fine. But some people got butthurt at it for it NOT being just like Dick Donner's film, and that's retarded. The real "problem" with MoS was that it came out the year after the Avengers. That's when tastes started to change. People gave the more grounded superhero films a more critical eye and gave the lighthearted romps a pass. Even TDKR got complaints about being "too moody" after the Avengers came out (which was also retarded, as it was perfectly in line with BB and TDK). Does MoS have flaws when judged by its own merits? Of course. All films do. But it wasn't the "trash" that some people made it out to be. And you know that people are being biased when they claim shit about the movie that isn't even true (like Superman personally knocking down buildings and dumb shit like that). So MoS received unfair treatment. But WB didn't respond the right way. They became super reactionary and didn't know how to proceed. I'm a fan of the UE of BvS, but I can completely see why the TC got trashed. It was a grim, bloated, and sometimes incoherent mess. I happen to think the UE was rather ambitious (though it was still pretty grim and somewhat bloated), but it at least executed against what it was TRYING to do. And I blame the studio for the whole debacle. If they didn't want Snyder to make a three-hour movie, then they should have told him that up-front. But you don't let him make the movie he wants to make and then tell him to shave 30 rather essential minutes out of it. I think the only parts of MoS that people frown upon is Jonathan Kent and the neck break. The rest of the movie is actually good. And was that the complaint about TDKR? I thought it was Bane and that Batman retired. And yes, the WB flinched and flinched hard. Sharks smelled that blood in the water and are on a frenzy. |
|
|
|
Post by merh on Nov 2, 2017 7:24:12 GMT
The real problems with MOS came from how they later tried to use it as the starting point for a DC Shared Universe when it was meant to be standalone and the mentions of stuff like Wayne Enterprises just being an Easter Egg. When BvS made mention of stuff like WW being around and Clark suddenly caring about Batman, that's when more retroactive problems with MOS started (why didn't Clark care back in MOS if Batman had been around for years? Why didn't WW do anything about the Kryptonian invasion?). But as a standalone there are fewer problems. He didn't know about Batman in Man of Steel. He didn't even become a reporter until the very end of the movie and then found out about him for the first time in Batman vs Superman. He was dealing with his own stuff. A lot of crap goes on that doesn't affect everyone. Hell, we just fricken disasters where other agencies sent help. We're in the top 10 largest cities in the US & we sent a whole 50 responders. Too many heroes in one spot get in one another's way. Didn't Snyder claim Aquaman saved Kal in MoS? How Kal got to the shore from that platform? She withdrew from the world. Why the puck don't LA cops show up for our crap here? Cops are notoriously picky about jurisdictions. County Sheriffs work their areas & not SDPD's areas. I was involved in an accident pulling off an exit ramp onto a city street. I called the cops to report it & was told it was CHP's problem, not SDPD. Scattered, remember? Dealing with their own crap. Narcotics offenders have to register with the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over where they reside. Doesn't mean the one located closest to them. Unincorporated areas register with the Sheriffs who are located in Kearny Mesa in San Diego. They must tell the agency they registered with within 10 days when they move out of the jurisdiction, but have 30 days to tell the new agency they have moved into the new jurisdiction. They can't just expect all the agencies to share the info even though it would be easier. So literally a sheriff can leave their headquarters, see a crime, but all they can do is a citizen's arrest. It's not where they have authority. |
|
