|
|
Post by Spooky Ghost Ackbar on May 4, 2018 19:15:31 GMT
The double standard that amuses me is the whole villain defense thing: For years I've heard that argument that the MCU does villains better because they "don't make them the stars of the movie" and "let the heroes shine instead". But now we have a Marvel movie that makes the villain the star and overshadows all the heroes and its "the best movie/villain ever!" The double standard that amuses me is how DC-fans harp on MCU villains being weak when in fact MCU actually makes better villains than the usual DC villain. Oh I get that too. But I'm not a DCEU fan. When I complain about Marvel's villains it's by comparing them to the Raimi trilogy, TDK trilogy, the X Men series and any other movie series that has great antagonists... |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on May 4, 2018 19:22:05 GMT
That's not a double standard to me. I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison either.
If they had killed Black Panther in Black Panther 2 or Spider-man in Spider-man Homecoming 2 then it would have been comparable and then you would have had people saying it was too early.
Infinity War was an event that was ten years in the making and it was expected that characters would die. The plot really did call for characters to die.
There was no need to kill Superman and was a genuinely bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 4, 2018 19:27:06 GMT
It's a fair point, and let's be honest: in both cases it felt more like a stunt than a genuine moment. It remains to be seen how Marvel sticks the landing regarding T'Challa while Supes return was as underwhelming as his demise. Only in that you know they have movies coming soon. Marvel could have seriously said that IW is the final movie in the MCU and not announce the upcoming movies. Imagine if we didn't know there was an Ant-man and the Wasp and a Captain Marvel movie until just now. |
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on May 4, 2018 19:51:21 GMT
It's a fair point, and let's be honest: in both cases it felt more like a stunt than a genuine moment. It remains to be seen how Marvel sticks the landing regarding T'Challa while Supes return was as underwhelming as his demise. People warn others about this type of poor writing. stunts as in shock value writing. this is why a movie like back to the future or dofp works and others don't. marvel should not have done that for IW unless it is a game of thrones red wedding. also we saw superman died by a kyptonite sword. thanos is just snapping and erasing people from existence so they are not actually dieing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on May 4, 2018 19:52:32 GMT
The double standard that amuses me is how DC-fans harp on MCU villains being weak when in fact MCU actually makes better villains than the usual DC villain. Oh I get that too. But I'm not a DCEU fan. When I complain about Marvel's villains it's by comparing them to the Raimi trilogy, TDK trilogy, the X Men series and any other movie series that has great antagonists... Well the X-men series doesn't exactly have that good of a record for villains either. Magneto was great but other than that, the rest ranged from OK to crappy. |
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on May 4, 2018 20:02:58 GMT
BvS kills Superman: "It was too early to do that. He'd only been in two movies." IW kills Black Panther and Spider-Man (both of whom only had one solo movie and a few cameos): "Brilliant!" I think both of those things are dumb because we all know they were/are coming back. |
|
|
|
Post by Spooky Ghost Ackbar on May 4, 2018 20:07:15 GMT
Oh I get that too. But I'm not a DCEU fan. When I complain about Marvel's villains it's by comparing them to the Raimi trilogy, TDK trilogy, the X Men series and any other movie series that has great antagonists... Well the X-men series doesn't exactly have that good of a record for villains either. Magneto was great but other than that, the rest ranged from OK to crappy. That's true |
|
|
|
Post by DarkManX on May 4, 2018 21:14:02 GMT
There should have never been a Batman vs. Superman movie. It was stupid and then they doubled down on stupid and made a Justice League movie rather than a Superman or Batman. Yeah, I never perceived "BvS," conceptually, as some inevitability or ace up WB's sleeve. The (potential) money is (was) in a really good Justice League movie that people feel excited about based on a succession of interesting, competent films featuring the team's individual members (see: MCU Phase One) beforehand. They fucked up what was a fairly simple idea to execute. I don't know if they just overthought it or tried too hard to make DCEU a reaction or alternative to the MCU rather than its own product, but it hasn't worked particularly well or resonated enough with audiences to make the most money possible, as evinced by Infinity War punking out JL's box office numbers harder than Thanos punched Hulk in the throat. It's a shame, seriously. Everyone should be fired, and DC-Fan should be brought it to oversee the DCEU going forward. Innit? I think a Justice League movie could have, and maybe should have, been made with no prior films. Superman and Batman's origins have been done to death and we know who they are. They could have focused the film on the other members and the villain could have been Amazo or some other very simple villain so the characters could have time to breathe. I think the reaction/alternative thing fits the bill, but they took it to the umpteenth level and essentially cured the disease by killing the patient. Superman being dark and broody and Batman being a killer is uncalled for and a very extreme and knee jerk reaction to the light heartedness of the Marvel films. They can fight Marvel on their own ground by making good movies and getting the tone right for each individual film. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkManX on May 4, 2018 21:24:29 GMT
Oh I get that too. But I'm not a DCEU fan. When I complain about Marvel's villains it's by comparing them to the Raimi trilogy, TDK trilogy, the X Men series and any other movie series that has great antagonists... Well the X-men series doesn't exactly have that good of a record for villains either. Magneto was great but other than that, the rest ranged from OK to crappy. What's sad is that the X-Men could have great villains. Bryan Singer would rather make Wolverine-Magneto: Stryker movies and shove everyone else (villains included) into a glorified cameo role. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 4, 2018 22:27:21 GMT
It wasn't because the character wasn't in enough films but that the characters presence/role wasn't properly established before he was "killed", how does he go from a vastly divisive character in BVS to which half the world seems to hate him and the other half worship him to becoming a globally mourned character whose death eliciting world wide crime increased? You know given he did nothing to stifle crime in Gotham which is literally a 2 second leisurely flight across the river for Superman. Where as T'Challa's role and importance to his people is firmly established in his own stand alone film, and Peter's importance and connection to Stark is firmly established in his appearances also. Plus T'Challa and Peter are in 3 movies each before they die, none being cameos as all their appearances matter and build their characters, so even then it's a 2 film lead up to 3 film lead ups, meaning they had more time and focus on them and establishing their importance so that their "deaths" matter. Typical MCU double-standards and hypocrisy! |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on May 4, 2018 23:42:45 GMT
It wasn't because the character wasn't in enough films but that the characters presence/role wasn't properly established before he was "killed", how does he go from a vastly divisive character in BVS to which half the world seems to hate him and the other half worship him to becoming a globally mourned character whose death eliciting world wide crime increased? You know given he did nothing to stifle crime in Gotham which is literally a 2 second leisurely flight across the river for Superman. Where as T'Challa's role and importance to his people is firmly established in his own stand alone film, and Peter's importance and connection to Stark is firmly established in his appearances also. Plus T'Challa and Peter are in 3 movies each before they die, none being cameos as all their appearances matter and build their characters, so even then it's a 2 film lead up to 3 film lead ups, meaning they had more time and focus on them and establishing their importance so that their "deaths" matter. Typical MCU double-standards and hypocrisy! How when my entire issue is that in the MCU they established well enough what the weight of their characters dying means to others, Wakanda lost their 2nd king in just 2 years, Tony has yet another dead teenager on his conscience, in BVS however Superman was shown to be a divisive figure that atleast half the population of NA hated, & despite living a stones throw from Gotham he never took any notice to their criminal element until Batman started popping back up, yet after his death the world is in mourning and global crime is on the rise?
DC made a cock up which many people pointed out required heavy retconning in JL to smooth over from BVS, it was rushed and as such it's follow through felt hollow by many, now I'm not saying Marvel wont have the same issue after Avengers 4 but they established enough and played the right emotional beats after both characters died to make it feel legit, now in Avengers 4 or BP 2 suddenly the world is mourning the loss of King T'Challa the unparalleled leader in diplomacy and peace then yeah they will have the same issues because none of that is established, but we don't know that's what they are going to do, it seems unlikely though.
So please do try and shut the fuck up.
|
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on May 6, 2018 0:08:17 GMT
It wasn't because the character wasn't in enough films but that the characters presence/role wasn't properly established before he was "killed", how does he go from a vastly divisive character in BVS to which half the world seems to hate him and the other half worship him to becoming a globally mourned character whose death eliciting world wide crime increased? You know given he did nothing to stifle crime in Gotham which is literally a 2 second leisurely flight across the river for Superman. Where as T'Challa's role and importance to his people is firmly established in his own stand alone film, and Peter's importance and connection to Stark is firmly established in his appearances also. Plus T'Challa and Peter are in 3 movies each before they die, none being cameos as all their appearances matter and build their characters, so even then it's a 2 film lead up to 3 film lead ups, meaning they had more time and focus on them and establishing their importance so that their "deaths" matter. Typical MCU double-standards and hypocrisy! So you can't counter any of his points. Great, you just lost that argument |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 6, 2018 0:22:14 GMT
The double standard that amuses me is the whole villain defense thing: For years I've heard that argument that the MCU does villains better because they "don't make them the stars of the movie" and "let the heroes shine instead". But now we have a Marvel movie that makes the villain the star and overshadows all the heroes and its "the best movie/villain ever!" The double standard that amuses me is how DC-fans harp on MCU villains being weak when in fact MCU actually makes better villains than the usual DC villain. ^ the amusement of the easily-amused locked up in a mental echo chamber. Nobody but deluded MCU fanboys would see MCU villains even approaching DC villains, one of which ranks as best movie villain of all times. www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-best-movie-villains-of-all-timeThose are the facts, deal with them. But where is your amusement now? |
|
