|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 0:29:32 GMT
MCU is what reminded people that the hero can carry a story after FOX and Nolan tried to make people forget that. Which is what FoX-Men and Nolanites just can't stand.
That attitude still permeates even this place, sad.
I'm fairly certain the X-Men films and TDK Trilogy DID have the hero carrying the story. Nope, they obeyed the old rule of "The villain is the only one with any agency, heroes are wholly reactive and do nothing but react." Otherwise we'd have seen stuff like Xavier writing up pro-mutant proposals to the Government or stuff like that instead of hiding at his mansion. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Mar 12, 2017 1:38:19 GMT
I'm fairly certain the X-Men films and TDK Trilogy DID have the hero carrying the story. Nope, they obeyed the old rule of "The villain is the only one with any agency, heroes are wholly reactive and do nothing but react." Otherwise we'd have seen stuff like Xavier writing up pro-mutant proposals to the Government or stuff like that instead of hiding at his mansion. thisguy4000, there's no point. Just block him. He's just trolling. He doesn't deserve to be taken with any semblance of seriousness. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 3:05:32 GMT
I'm fairly certain the X-Men films and TDK Trilogy DID have the hero carrying the story. Nope, they obeyed the old rule of "The villain is the only one with any agency, heroes are wholly reactive and do nothing but react." Otherwise we'd have seen stuff like Xavier writing up pro-mutant proposals to the Government or stuff like that instead of hiding at his mansion. What about that scene at the end of X2? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 11:45:23 GMT
Nope, they obeyed the old rule of "The villain is the only one with any agency, heroes are wholly reactive and do nothing but react." Otherwise we'd have seen stuff like Xavier writing up pro-mutant proposals to the Government or stuff like that instead of hiding at his mansion. What about that scene at the end of X2? Where they break into the White House and basically order the President to not do anything? Those are actions of a Terrorist. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 15:31:50 GMT
What about that scene at the end of X2? Where they break into the White House and basically order the President to not do anything? Those are actions of a Terrorist. Kind of like when Fury tried to stop the government from carrying out their plan to nuke New York, or when Cap defied the registration act in order to save Bucky, who was a wanted fugitive by that point? Let's be honest, superheroes in general haven't exactly been known for playing by the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 15:34:47 GMT
Where they break into the White House and basically order the President to not do anything? Those are actions of a Terrorist. Kind of like when Fury tried to stop the government from carrying out their plan to nuke New York, or when Cap defied the registration act in order to save Bucky, who was a wanted fugitive by that point? Let's be honest, superheroes in general haven't exactly been known for playing by the rules. Fury was a Military General, not a private citizen. And he didn't run away to hide after he did what he did.
Cap? He IS a fugitive for what he's done, you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Mar 12, 2017 15:40:48 GMT
MCU is what reminded people that the hero can carry a story after FOX and Nolan tried to make people forget that. Which is what FoX-Men and Nolanites just can't stand.
That attitude still permeates even this place, sad.
I'm fairly certain the X-Men films and TDK Trilogy DID have the hero carrying the story. There are some DC movies that are hero driven, but mostly they focus on the villain. For example, BB was hero driven but TDK and TDKR were heavily dependent on the villain driving the story. X-men films are about half and half for me. MCU films are entirely hero driven. Of course, just because a movie is focused on the hero doesn't mean it's good. Just look at the Wolverine origins. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 15:41:15 GMT
Being a military general doesn't make a person exempt from committing what could be considered an act of treason.
I'm aware that Cap was a fugitive for that, hence why I brought it up.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 15:42:37 GMT
I'm fairly certain the X-Men films and TDK Trilogy DID have the hero carrying the story. There are some DC movies that are hero driven, but mostly they focus on the villain. For example, BB was hero driven but TDK and TDKR were heavily dependent on the villain driving the story. X-men films are about half and half for me. MCU films are entirely hero driven. Of course, just because a movie is focused on the hero doesn't mean it's good. Just look at the Wolverine origins. The villains drive the story in every CBM. They're the ones who set off the conflict. Batman was still the main focus of the entire trilogy. He received far more screen time than the Joker and Bame. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 17:09:42 GMT
There are some DC movies that are hero driven, but mostly they focus on the villain. For example, BB was hero driven but TDK and TDKR were heavily dependent on the villain driving the story. X-men films are about half and half for me. MCU films are entirely hero driven. Of course, just because a movie is focused on the hero doesn't mean it's good. Just look at the Wolverine origins. The villains drive the story in every CBM. They're the ones who set off the conflict. Batman was still the main focus of the entire trilogy. He received far more screen time than the Joker and Bame. Fury wasn't tried afterwards because it turns out his act saved the city from being destroyed and helped stop the invasion. And he didn't run or hide afterwards.
The X-Men just broke in, made veiled threats and ran off instead of offering a proper olive branch. Bringing Nightcrawler with them just made it look like he was one of them.
And no, a proactive hero can drive the story just as much or set off the conflict just as much.
Batman was more or less a supporting character in TDK and TDKR. He was totally upstaged by Joker and Bane.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 17:23:16 GMT
The villains drive the story in every CBM. They're the ones who set off the conflict. Batman was still the main focus of the entire trilogy. He received far more screen time than the Joker and Bame. Fury wasn't tried afterwards because it turns out his act saved the city from being destroyed and helped stop the invasion. And he didn't run or hide afterwards.
The X-Men just broke in, made veiled threats and ran off instead of offering a proper olive branch. Bringing Nightcrawler with them just made it look like he was one of them.
And no, a proactive hero can drive the story just as much or set off the conflict just as much.
Batman was more or less a supporting character in TDK and TDKR. He was totally upstaged by Joker and Bane.
You could make the argument that the X-Men's actions in X2 was also for the greater good. Besides, they didn't actually hurt anyone. How exactly was Batman a supporting character? He not only had more screen time than the Joker and Bane, but those films were all about his struggles. He was the one who was fighting to not only save Gotham, but to try and balance out his personal identity, and overcome his own demons. The Joker and Bane were merely obstacles for him to overcome. Hell, the Joker wasn't even involved in the climax of TDK. He completely disappeared from the movie after he was apprehended. The film ended with Batman making a difficult choice, and riding off on his Batpod. If any Batman films are guilty of focusing on the villains at the expense of Batman himself, it's the Tim Burton movies. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 17:38:38 GMT
Fury wasn't tried afterwards because it turns out his act saved the city from being destroyed and helped stop the invasion. And he didn't run or hide afterwards.
The X-Men just broke in, made veiled threats and ran off instead of offering a proper olive branch. Bringing Nightcrawler with them just made it look like he was one of them.
And no, a proactive hero can drive the story just as much or set off the conflict just as much.
Batman was more or less a supporting character in TDK and TDKR. He was totally upstaged by Joker and Bane.
You could make the argument that the X-Men's actions in X2 was also for the greater good. Besides, they didn't actually hurt anyone. How exactly was Batman a supporting character? He not only had more screen time than the Joker and Bane, but those films were all about his struggles. He was the one who was fighting to not only save Gotham, but to try and balance out his personal identity, and overcome his own demons. The Joker and Bane were merely obstacles for him to overcome. Hell, the Joker wasn't even involved in the climax of TDK. He completely disappeared from the movie after he was apprehended. The film ended with Batman making a difficult choice, and riding off on his Batpod. If any Batman films are guilty of focusing on the villains at the expense of Batman himself, it's the Tim Burton movies. Maybe not, but they still acted like terrorists. They broke into the White House and said "Don't you DARE do anything that could upset the Status Quo! We're watching you and we won't be happy if you do ANYTHING!"
TDK was all about Joker and Dent, Batman was just the guy reacting to them with his own character and problems being minor. Everything revolved around Joker's omnipotence and then Dent's rampage with Batman merely reacting.
Burton started this, but Nolan did little to break away from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 17:44:23 GMT
You could make the argument that the X-Men's actions in X2 was also for the greater good. Besides, they didn't actually hurt anyone. How exactly was Batman a supporting character? He not only had more screen time than the Joker and Bane, but those films were all about his struggles. He was the one who was fighting to not only save Gotham, but to try and balance out his personal identity, and overcome his own demons. The Joker and Bane were merely obstacles for him to overcome. Hell, the Joker wasn't even involved in the climax of TDK. He completely disappeared from the movie after he was apprehended. The film ended with Batman making a difficult choice, and riding off on his Batpod. If any Batman films are guilty of focusing on the villains at the expense of Batman himself, it's the Tim Burton movies. Maybe not, but they still acted like terrorists. They broke into the White House and said "Don't you DARE do anything that could upset the Status Quo! We're watching you and we won't be happy if you do ANYTHING!"
TDK was all about Joker and Dent, Batman was just the guy reacting to them with his own character and problems being minor. Everything revolved around Joker's omnipotence and then Dent's rampage with Batman merely reacting.
Burton started this, but Nolan did little to break away from it.
Actually, TDK was about Batman and his efforts stop save the city, while trying to balance out his identity as Batman. The Joker was the conflict that needed to be overcome, not the main focus. We barely knew anything about him. He only showed up to cause a problem, and then abruptly dissapared until it was time for him to cause another problem. Just because he was the most memorable character in the film, doesn't mean it was was all about him. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 17:49:22 GMT
Maybe not, but they still acted like terrorists. They broke into the White House and said "Don't you DARE do anything that could upset the Status Quo! We're watching you and we won't be happy if you do ANYTHING!"
TDK was all about Joker and Dent, Batman was just the guy reacting to them with his own character and problems being minor. Everything revolved around Joker's omnipotence and then Dent's rampage with Batman merely reacting.
Burton started this, but Nolan did little to break away from it.
Actually, TDK was about Batman and his efforts stop save the city, while trying to balance out his identity as Batman. The Joker was the conflict that needed to be overcome, not the main focus. We barely knew anything about him. He only showed up to cause a problem, and then abruptly dissapared until it was time for him to cause another problem. Just because he was the most memorable character in the film, doesn't mean it was was all about him. Batman was wholly reactive the whole time. Joker was the proactive one, his philosophies and actions were what the spotlight focused on. Everything revolved around HIS actions because they didn't know how to write a proactive Batman. |
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 17:56:01 GMT
Actually, TDK was about Batman and his efforts stop save the city, while trying to balance out his identity as Batman. The Joker was the conflict that needed to be overcome, not the main focus. We barely knew anything about him. He only showed up to cause a problem, and then abruptly dissapared until it was time for him to cause another problem. Just because he was the most memorable character in the film, doesn't mean it was was all about him. Batman was wholly reactive the whole time. Joker was the proactive one, his philosophies and actions were what the spotlight focused on. Everything revolved around HIS actions because they didn't know how to write a proactive Batman. So what about the film establishing that Batman spawned a bunch of copycats? What about the whole bit of Batman traveling to China in order to capture Lau? What about the whole thing with him and Rachel? The Joker was definitely an important prescence in the film (just like every other comic book villain), but the film didn't focus on him. The movie never gave us any true insight to his personal backstory, or his inner thoughts. He was a supporting character, and the Oscar he received for the role reflected that. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 18:00:14 GMT
Batman was wholly reactive the whole time. Joker was the proactive one, his philosophies and actions were what the spotlight focused on. Everything revolved around HIS actions because they didn't know how to write a proactive Batman. So what about the film establishing that Batman spawned a bunch of copycats? What about the whole bit of Batman traveling to China in order to capture Lau? What about the whole thing with him and Rachel? The Joker was definitely an important prescence in the film (just like every other comic book villain), but the film didn't focus on him. The movie never gave us any true insight to his personal backstory, or his inner thoughts. He was a supporting character, and the Oscar he received for the role reflected that. The copycat thing is a throwaway moment never really referenced again except when Joker kills that one guy.
Capturing Lau? That's him reacting to the opening Lau gave him by running off.
Him and Rachel? Subsumed by Rachel and Dent.
Joker on the other hand affects all the major stuff like killing the Commissioner or making Two-Face or all that other stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 18:25:13 GMT
So what about the film establishing that Batman spawned a bunch of copycats? What about the whole bit of Batman traveling to China in order to capture Lau? What about the whole thing with him and Rachel? The Joker was definitely an important prescence in the film (just like every other comic book villain), but the film didn't focus on him. The movie never gave us any true insight to his personal backstory, or his inner thoughts. He was a supporting character, and the Oscar he received for the role reflected that. The copycat thing is a throwaway moment never really referenced again except when Joker kills that one guy.
Capturing Lau? That's him reacting to the opening Lau gave him by running off.
Him and Rachel? Subsumed by Rachel and Dent.
Joker on the other hand affects all the major stuff like killing the Commissioner or making Two-Face or all that other stuff.
The copycat thing was there to show that the influence Batman was having on the city wasn't entirely positive. It was what helped lead to Batman attempting to turn himself in. You could argue the Joker killing the Commissioner was a throwaway moment itself. Loeb was never really a vital part of these films. They could've had Gordon take over as Commissioner without killing off Loeb. Him making Two-Face was definitely vital to the film, but so is Loki unleashing the Chitari on New York, and Zemo framing Bucky for the conference bombing. Does that make them the stars of those films? |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 19:09:49 GMT
The copycat thing is a throwaway moment never really referenced again except when Joker kills that one guy.
Capturing Lau? That's him reacting to the opening Lau gave him by running off.
Him and Rachel? Subsumed by Rachel and Dent.
Joker on the other hand affects all the major stuff like killing the Commissioner or making Two-Face or all that other stuff.
The copycat thing was there to show that the influence Batman was having on the city wasn't entirely positive. It was what helped lead to Batman attempting to turn himself in. You could argue the Joker killing the Commissioner was a throwaway moment itself. Loeb was never really a vital part of these films. They could've had Gordon take over as Commissioner without killing off Loeb. Him making Two-Face was definitely vital to the film, but so is Loki unleashing the Chitari on New York, and Zemo framing Bucky for the conference bombing. Does that make them the stars of those films? Sorry, one guy doesn't cut it. If they wanted to show Batman having that kind of detrimental effect we should've seen something like the Sons of Batman.
But they DID have it be directly because of Joker. HE was the one making proactive change. They could easily have had it be because Batman dug up dirt on him and blackmailed Loeb into leaving, but that makes him proactive.
Because the story of Joker and Dent was the real core of the story, while Avengers and Civil War never forgot the heroes were the focus of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Mar 12, 2017 20:29:57 GMT
There was more than one copycat in the film, and Bruce implied that he ran into quite a few of them in the past.
What story did the Joker have in the movie? Batman was the one who's perspective we were seeing the movie from, and he had far more screen time than the Joker. It wasn't the Joker or even Dent's story, it was Batman's story. He was the guy we knew the most about. He was the guy who made the important decision at the end of the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Mar 12, 2017 21:38:06 GMT
There was more than one copycat in the film, and Bruce implied that he ran into quite a few of them in the past. What story did the Joker have in the movie? Batman was the one who's perspective we were seeing the movie from, and he had far more screen time than the Joker. It wasn't the Joker or even Dent's story, it was Batman's story. He was the guy we knew the most about. He was the guy who made the important decision at the end of the film. We only saw one though.
It's nominally Batman's story, but Joker and Dent are the focus of the plot. All Batman did was react to them instead of being proactive.
Of course, this is how it goes in the comics too. DC's heroes have always been more reactive than proactive.
|
|
