|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 10, 2017 22:24:49 GMT
The MCU doesn't take the lazy way out, it doesn't make the villains the stars of the show because they don't believe in that nonsense about "A Hero is only as good as the villain." Because it's not true. pretty solid denial there, champ: I don't want it to be true, so it's not; who needs conclusive arguments and facts?! But if if it's any consolation to you: If you firmly believe it, at least it's not a lie... How is it a denial? The movies make it clear that the stories are about the heroes first and foremost, whereas DC is pretty much about its villains. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 10, 2017 22:35:49 GMT
Who exactly is Cap's "rogue's gallery" besides Red Skull and a bunch of jabrones?  Red Skull Winter Soldier Batroc Zemo Von Strucker Crossbones AIM ... and that's just off the top of my head. Certainly better than Reverse Flash, Captain Cold, Trickster, Captain Boomerang and Weather Wizard. So, Red Skull and a bunch of jabrones? |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 11, 2017 9:43:42 GMT
pretty solid denial there, champ: I don't want it to be true, so it's not; who needs conclusive arguments and facts?! But if if it's any consolation to you: If you firmly believe it, at least it's not a lie... How is it a denial? it's the blatant denial ("lazy", "not true" etc) of an established pulp fiction writing rule without any proper arguments, but paired with the mother of all fallacies (including "no true Scotsman", "false cause" and "personal incredulity").
Obviously, not every story needs a strong antagonist, especially literary stories based on inner character development without major outer conflicts. However, in the pulp good-vs-evil genre, such as in superhero movies, it is quite lazy and incompetent to only give your protagonist underdeveloped, paper-tiger obstacles and enemies, so to glorify him. So, you calling having fully developed antagionists "lazy", is beyond absurd.
Accordingly, most of the first movies of MCU heroes are much better than their sequels, as these first parts are more about (simplistic) character development of the hero, so that the lack of solidly written anatagonists is less noticeable here. We saw that in the "Flawed jerk becomes hero" formula-arc used for Ironman, Thor, Antman or Dr Strange. Not so in parts 2, these become close to pointless because of the lack of good antagonists (Thor 2 and IM 2 already). Same with Avengers.
this is a beside the point deflection, champ. Apart from that, the DC films I saw were primarily about their protagonist too: Superman movies including MOS; Batman movies including Batman Begins, but maybe not so much in TDK and TDR - here we arguably have an ensemble concept, but it's definitely not about the villains. BvS was not about it's Luther interpretation (thanks God!). Suicide Squad was about villains turning heroes. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 11, 2017 13:33:51 GMT
it's the blatant denial ("lazy", "not true" etc) of an established pulp fiction writing rule without any proper arguments, but paired with the mother of all fallacies (including "no true Scotsman", "false cause" and "personal incredulity").
Obviously, not every story needs a strong antagonist, especially literary stories based on inner character development without major outer conflicts. However, in the pulp good-vs-evil genre, such as in superhero movies, it is quite lazy and incompetent to only give your protagonist underdeveloped, paper-tiger obstacles and enemies, so to glorify him. So, you calling having fully developed antagionists "lazy", is beyond absurd.
Accordingly, most of the first movies of MCU heroes are much better than their sequels, as these first parts are more about (simplistic) character development of the hero, so that the lack of solidly written anatagonists is less noticeable here. We saw that in the "Flawed jerk becomes hero" formula-arc used for Ironman, Thor, Antman or Dr Strange. Not so in parts 2, these become close to pointless because of the lack of good antagonists (Thor 2 and IM 2 already). Same with Avengers.
this is a beside the point deflection, champ. Apart from that, the DC films I saw were primarily about their protagonist too: Superman movies including MOS; Batman movies including Batman Begins, but maybe not so much in TDK and TDR - here we arguably have an ensemble concept, but it's definitely not about the villains. BvS was not about it's Luther interpretation (thanks God!). Suicide Squad was about villains turning heroes. It's lazy if the movie is all about the villain (Dark Knight) and the hero merely the cipher who reacts to the villain, yes. Very much so. It's gotten so bad that people expect the hero to be a cipher who exists solely to react to the villain. Iron Man's biggest enemy has always been himself, and IM2 maintained that. Thor 2, the real conflict was between Thor and Odin more than Thor vs Malekith. Here, another poster said it better: And a villain isn't great without a great hero, but WB usually tends to forget with when they make DC superhero movies, directly or indirectly, but to be fair the villains usually are the most memorable for better or for worse. There are exceptions though, like Batman Begins and the first Superman movie( And maybe the second), but then there's these to take into consideration...
Batman(1989) - Jack Nicholson's Joker is much more fleshed out than the titular character, and Jack Nicholson just eats away the scenery like a shark he's even got Prince for additional support.
Batman Returns - Batman doesn't do much here, he has even less of an arc(if one at all) than he did in the first outing, its mostly Catwoman and The Penguin's show, and a lot of people look at it that way and both renditions of the characters sparks some debate on the creative liberties taken or how well or bad they executed though most agree both were "interesting" to say the least. Oh, and there's Christopher Walken of course.
Batman Forever - More development the caped crusader, but most people remember Jim Carrey's Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones' over the top portrayal of Two-Face.
Batman & Robin - Arnold's Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, for all their ridiculousness and their cringe inducing dialogue, leave a stronger impression than the two titular characters and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl.
Steel - Well Shaq can't act, so Judd Nelson easily takes the show over, probably not as much as the guy who shouts "No!" before being blown up by a grenade towards the end, also a bad guy.
Catwoman - ...Actually, I don't think anybody finds this movie to be memorable for ANY factor going into it except that stupid costume Halle Berry wore which they're all trying to forget.
Superman Returns - Most people only really remember Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and his shouting of the word "WRONG!"
The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger's Joker makes the movie, and takes every scene he's in by force with ease. By far the most memorable character out of the whole film, and just about everybody's favorite scenes involve him. Even the minority of people who didn't love the movie thought The Joker was great and mesmerizing to watch, and usually skip to his scenes over everything else(especially Batman's scenes because his voice became ridiculed in an instant).
The Dark Knight Rises - Most people talk about Tom Hardy's Bane and to an extent Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, Batman less so and usually debate sparks mostly on the creative liberties that were taken to get him to end his journey and hang up the cape and cowl.
Man of Steel - Even with less screen time than Supes, Michael Shannon's General Zod is more rounded as a character than the man of steel, and his right hand lady Faora instantly steals the show right from under Superman's cape and makes an even more interesting female character than either Lois Lane, Martha Kent, or Lara Lor-Van.
Batman v Superman - Sadly, Jesse Eisenberg's cooky version of Lex Luthor leaves more impact than Superman does, fortunately Ben Affleck's Batman outshines him, though for most of the movie its set up that he's about to do something completely out of character( killing the man of steel) and its only till the infamous "Martha!" scene that he realizes he's acting like the bad guy there.
Suicide Squad - A movie largely based around bad guys from the DC universe.
Wonder Woman - Not out yet, but given that Ares is played by David Thewlis he'll likely steal the show in whatever amount of screen time he has. Just saying.
Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/25767/hero-great-villain#ixzz4gmFMwcKX |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on May 11, 2017 14:07:51 GMT
it's the blatant denial ("lazy", "not true" etc) of an established pulp fiction writing rule without any proper arguments, but paired with the mother of all fallacies (including "no true Scotsman", "false cause" and "personal incredulity").
Obviously, not every story needs a strong antagonist, especially literary stories based on inner character development without major outer conflicts. However, in the pulp good-vs-evil genre, such as in superhero movies, it is quite lazy and incompetent to only give your protagonist underdeveloped, paper-tiger obstacles and enemies, so to glorify him. So, you calling having fully developed antagionists "lazy", is beyond absurd.
Accordingly, most of the first movies of MCU heroes are much better than their sequels, as these first parts are more about (simplistic) character development of the hero, so that the lack of solidly written anatagonists is less noticeable here. We saw that in the "Flawed jerk becomes hero" formula-arc used for Ironman, Thor, Antman or Dr Strange. Not so in parts 2, these become close to pointless because of the lack of good antagonists (Thor 2 and IM 2 already). Same with Avengers.
this is a beside the point deflection, champ. Apart from that, the DC films I saw were primarily about their protagonist too: Superman movies including MOS; Batman movies including Batman Begins, but maybe not so much in TDK and TDR - here we arguably have an ensemble concept, but it's definitely not about the villains. BvS was not about it's Luther interpretation (thanks God!). Suicide Squad was about villains turning heroes. It's lazy if the movie is all about the villain (Dark Knight) and the hero merely the cipher who reacts to the villain, yes. Very much so. It's gotten so bad that people expect the hero to be a cipher who exists solely to react to the villain. Iron Man's biggest enemy has always been himself, and IM2 maintained that. Thor 2, the real conflict was between Thor and Odin more than Thor vs Malekith. Here, another poster said it better: And a villain isn't great without a great hero, but WB usually tends to forget with when they make DC superhero movies, directly or indirectly, but to be fair the villains usually are the most memorable for better or for worse. There are exceptions though, like Batman Begins and the first Superman movie( And maybe the second), but then there's these to take into consideration...
Batman(1989) - Jack Nicholson's Joker is much more fleshed out than the titular character, and Jack Nicholson just eats away the scenery like a shark he's even got Prince for additional support.
Batman Returns - Batman doesn't do much here, he has even less of an arc(if one at all) than he did in the first outing, its mostly Catwoman and The Penguin's show, and a lot of people look at it that way and both renditions of the characters sparks some debate on the creative liberties taken or how well or bad they executed though most agree both were "interesting" to say the least. Oh, and there's Christopher Walken of course.
Batman Forever - More development the caped crusader, but most people remember Jim Carrey's Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones' over the top portrayal of Two-Face.
Batman & Robin - Arnold's Mr. Freeze and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, for all their ridiculousness and their cringe inducing dialogue, leave a stronger impression than the two titular characters and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl.
Steel - Well Shaq can't act, so Judd Nelson easily takes the show over, probably not as much as the guy who shouts "No!" before being blown up by a grenade towards the end, also a bad guy.
Catwoman - ...Actually, I don't think anybody finds this movie to be memorable for ANY factor going into it except that stupid costume Halle Berry wore which they're all trying to forget.
Superman Returns - Most people only really remember Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and his shouting of the word "WRONG!"
The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger's Joker makes the movie, and takes every scene he's in by force with ease. By far the most memorable character out of the whole film, and just about everybody's favorite scenes involve him. Even the minority of people who didn't love the movie thought The Joker was great and mesmerizing to watch, and usually skip to his scenes over everything else(especially Batman's scenes because his voice became ridiculed in an instant).
The Dark Knight Rises - Most people talk about Tom Hardy's Bane and to an extent Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, Batman less so and usually debate sparks mostly on the creative liberties that were taken to get him to end his journey and hang up the cape and cowl.
Man of Steel - Even with less screen time than Supes, Michael Shannon's General Zod is more rounded as a character than the man of steel, and his right hand lady Faora instantly steals the show right from under Superman's cape and makes an even more interesting female character than either Lois Lane, Martha Kent, or Lara Lor-Van.
Batman v Superman - Sadly, Jesse Eisenberg's cooky version of Lex Luthor leaves more impact than Superman does, fortunately Ben Affleck's Batman outshines him, though for most of the movie its set up that he's about to do something completely out of character( killing the man of steel) and its only till the infamous "Martha!" scene that he realizes he's acting like the bad guy there.
Suicide Squad - A movie largely based around bad guys from the DC universe.
Wonder Woman - Not out yet, but given that Ares is played by David Thewlis he'll likely steal the show in whatever amount of screen time he has. Just saying.
Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/25767/hero-great-villain#ixzz4gmFMwcKXI don't what this "Catwoman" movie is your quote refers to here. Surely I would've seen it, and I'm sure I never did. Nope. Didn't happen. Ever. Not even once, and I didn't see it and repress it out of Vietnam-level PTSD. No, sir. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 11, 2017 16:59:50 GMT
Here, another poster said it better: And a villain isn't great without a great hero, but WB usually tends to forget with when they make DC superhero movies, directly or indirectly, but to be fair the villains usually are the most memorable for better or for worse. There are exceptions though, like Batman Begins and the first Superman movie( And maybe the second), but then there's these to take into consideration...
Batman(1989) - Jack Nicholson's Joker is much more fleshed out than the titular character, and Jack Nicholson just eats away the scenery like a shark he's even got Prince for additional support.
Batman Returns - Batman doesn't do much here, he has even less of an arc(if one at all) than he did in the first outing, its mostly Catwoman and The Penguin's show, and a lot of people look at it that way and both renditions of the characters sparks some debate on the creative liberties taken or how well or bad they executed though most agree both were "interesting" to say the least. Oh, and there's Christopher Walken of course.
Batman Forever - More development the caped crusader, but most people remember Jim Carrey's Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones' over the top portrayal of Two-Face.
Batman & Robin - Arnold's Mr. Frecharacters and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl.eze and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, for all their ridiculousness and their cringe inducing dialogue, leave a stronger impression than the two titular
Steel - Well Shaq can't act, so Judd Nelson easily takes the show over, probably not as much as the guy who shouts "No!" before being blown up by a grenade towards the end, also a bad guy.
Catwoman - ...Actually, I don't think anybody finds this movie to be memorable for ANY factor going into it except that stupid costume Halle Berry wore which they're all trying to forget.
Superman Returns - Most people only really remember Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and his shouting of the word "WRONG!"
The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger's Joker makes the movie, and takes every scene he's in by force with ease. By far the most memorable character out of the whole film, and just about everybody's favorite scenes involve him. Even the minority of people who didn't love the movie thought The Joker was great and mesmerizing to watch, and usually skip to his scenes over everything else(especially Batman's scenes because his voice became ridiculed in an instant).
The Dark Knight Rises - Most people talk about Tom Hardy's Bane and to an extent Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, Batman less so and usually debate sparks mostly on the creative liberties that were taken to get him to end his journey and hang up the cape and cowl.
Man of Steel - Even with less screen time than Supes, Michael Shannon's General Zod is more rounded as a character than the man of steel, and his right hand lady Faora instantly steals the show right from under Superman's cape and makes an even more interesting female character than either Lois Lane, Martha Kent, or Lara Lor-Van.
Batman v Superman - Sadly, Jesse Eisenberg's cooky version of Lex Luthor leaves more impact than Superman does, fortunately Ben Affleck's Batman outshines him, though for most of the movie its set up that he's about to do something completely out of character( killing the man of steel) and its only till the infamous "Martha!" scene that he realizes he's acting like the bad guy there.
Suicide Squad - A movie largely based around bad guys from the DC universe.
Wonder Woman - Not out yet, but given that Ares is played by David Thewlis he'll likely steal the show in whatever amount of screen time he has. Just saying.
Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/25767/hero-great-villain#ixzz4gmFMwcKXThis is called confirmation bias, you use a badly thought through and poorly argued spin opinion of some other poster, to validate your fallacious point - which was a deflection in the first place btw.
Look, I can do easily do the same with any idiotic claim! Thesis: All Marvel superheroes are homosexuals in the closet. "Irrefuatable" BS proof:
Iron man: He flies and movies like a phaggot, using his hands and feet like a ballet dancer, no real hetero man would never fly in that way, lollol. Like any homo Tony has mummy issues: "I don't care he killed my mom," is the most cringeworthy line ever to start a homo fight between two warm brothers that actually love each other, but need an excuse to rub their butts. His ginger girlfriend is butt ugly, only a gay guy would accept that.
Capatain America: the story of a gay girly man, who wants to become the male dominat homo in his relationship with his butt buddy: So he undertakes a transgender swap into a super-male beefcake with a gay US-costume only a real homo would wear. His boyfriend then feels intimitaded in his manlihood and dies. Cap never makes a move on his much beloved female flame: homo incarnate!
Thor: everybody just leaves the theater with a strong homo impression: seriously a muscle man with a gay 70ies disco outfit and a tight crotch, who is all times concerned with his warm brother who looks like a fag...? All that together with a robin hood character and other costumed freaks. The Village People reloaded!
Etc etc: you get the drift. All your deflection and flat-earthing will not spare you guys the awful truth that many DC movies have well balanced anagonists and protagonists, and this is the reason why they always were super popular long before the MCU, and will likely be after the MCU has ended.
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 11, 2017 18:40:32 GMT
Here, another poster said it better: And a villain isn't great without a great hero, but WB usually tends to forget with when they make DC superhero movies, directly or indirectly, but to be fair the villains usually are the most memorable for better or for worse. There are exceptions though, like Batman Begins and the first Superman movie( And maybe the second), but then there's these to take into consideration...
Batman(1989) - Jack Nicholson's Joker is much more fleshed out than the titular character, and Jack Nicholson just eats away the scenery like a shark he's even got Prince for additional support.
Batman Returns - Batman doesn't do much here, he has even less of an arc(if one at all) than he did in the first outing, its mostly Catwoman and The Penguin's show, and a lot of people look at it that way and both renditions of the characters sparks some debate on the creative liberties taken or how well or bad they executed though most agree both were "interesting" to say the least. Oh, and there's Christopher Walken of course.
Batman Forever - More development the caped crusader, but most people remember Jim Carrey's Riddler and Tommy Lee Jones' over the top portrayal of Two-Face.
Batman & Robin - Arnold's Mr. Frecharacters and Alicia Silverstone's Batgirl.eze and Uma Thurman's Poison Ivy, for all their ridiculousness and their cringe inducing dialogue, leave a stronger impression than the two titular
Steel - Well Shaq can't act, so Judd Nelson easily takes the show over, probably not as much as the guy who shouts "No!" before being blown up by a grenade towards the end, also a bad guy.
Catwoman - ...Actually, I don't think anybody finds this movie to be memorable for ANY factor going into it except that stupid costume Halle Berry wore which they're all trying to forget.
Superman Returns - Most people only really remember Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor and his shouting of the word "WRONG!"
The Dark Knight - Heath Ledger's Joker makes the movie, and takes every scene he's in by force with ease. By far the most memorable character out of the whole film, and just about everybody's favorite scenes involve him. Even the minority of people who didn't love the movie thought The Joker was great and mesmerizing to watch, and usually skip to his scenes over everything else(especially Batman's scenes because his voice became ridiculed in an instant).
The Dark Knight Rises - Most people talk about Tom Hardy's Bane and to an extent Anne Hathaway's Catwoman, Batman less so and usually debate sparks mostly on the creative liberties that were taken to get him to end his journey and hang up the cape and cowl.
Man of Steel - Even with less screen time than Supes, Michael Shannon's General Zod is more rounded as a character than the man of steel, and his right hand lady Faora instantly steals the show right from under Superman's cape and makes an even more interesting female character than either Lois Lane, Martha Kent, or Lara Lor-Van.
Batman v Superman - Sadly, Jesse Eisenberg's cooky version of Lex Luthor leaves more impact than Superman does, fortunately Ben Affleck's Batman outshines him, though for most of the movie its set up that he's about to do something completely out of character( killing the man of steel) and its only till the infamous "Martha!" scene that he realizes he's acting like the bad guy there.
Suicide Squad - A movie largely based around bad guys from the DC universe.
Wonder Woman - Not out yet, but given that Ares is played by David Thewlis he'll likely steal the show in whatever amount of screen time he has. Just saying.
Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/thread/25767/hero-great-villain#ixzz4gmFMwcKXThis is called confirmation bias, you use a badly thought through and poorly argued spin opinion of some other poster, to validate your fallacious point - which was a deflection in the first place btw.
I notice you didn't counter any of the examples given. You're admitting that DC for the most part have cipher heroes. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 12, 2017 12:29:02 GMT
This is called confirmation bias, you use a badly thought through and poorly argued spin opinion of some other poster, to validate your fallacious point - which was a deflection in the first place btw.
I notice you didn't counter any of the examples given. You're admitting that DC for the most part have cipher heroes. hey dude, can you do one sentence without fallacies for once? This one is "begging the question" and "straw man", big no-nos in more educated circles.
Also, don't you get that you only support my OP argument with this, namely that DC has some iconic villains and will thus remain on top even if they tank the DCEU? Your "ciper heroes" deflection is an ad absurdum argument (considering they have the biggest most popular superheroes such as Batman and Supes).
As for the "examples", well, there I hoped my little satire would suffice. No, not for you of course. But OK, let's beginn with "Batman Begins", shall we ...oh.... it seems that that this movie was conveniently left out, becaus it seems not to suit the author's argument...how utterly embarrassing!... OK let's jump to Supes instead:
Riiight, so, in a Supes origin movie in which we endlessly see Clark as a baby, child, young adult and finally as a man, with all his traumas, anger and emotional issues, this guy really thinks that the cardboard villain Zod or his blink-and-you-will-miss-me sidekick (had to look her up!) is the more rounded character....? This must be why the critics and fans critizised that this Zod is lame... You cannot argue more biased and absurdly than that! nuff said!
What about the classic Superman movies btw, ...oh he left them out again...
and as for Supes Returns his arg is that HE can only remember Luthor screaming? Really...? I saw it once and I only remember Supes rescuing a plane, Supes having a son, Supes diving and lifting a continent, Supes getting stabbed and wounded badly, Supes having an underage girlfriend, Supes...you get the point (no you don't).
What did Luther do again, he screamed "WRONG!"? Very impressive...let's scream that back at the author of these examples, shall we?
Oh what a pitty the guy did not grasp that the bad guys are the hero guys here having to team up and fight evil: its essentially the old "jerk becomes hero" arc in Ironman, Strange, Antman, Thor, Avengers etc. Talk about a collapsing fallacious (circular) argument.  can you dumb down your arguments even more - unable to distingish between writing and actor performance and basing an argument on pure speculation. I rest my case!
Aaaand I stopped reading for laughter...wait, a line later he essentially refutes himself by admitting that Batman leaves more impact, but only becaus he is Bad-man..wut?...whatever, talk about "cooky"...
No he is not, this is good, balanced character writing. This film started Batmania with everybody wearing Batman shirs and costumes (not Joker, that came with TDK and the actor deaths).
This is not a Bats origin story, thus you must have a nuanced, developed villain challenging the already arrived/established hero (what MCU mostly neglects). Thus, we see Bruce/Bats fall in love, committing and opening himself, his old trauma conflict resurfacing - all that genuinly interwoven with the Joker story. Apart from teh cluncy plot structuring, this is good character writing and one of teh reasons why this movie is an undisputed classic, only rivaled by some of the Nolan movies.
It's futile to discuss the other examples as they follow the same principles. Glad to be of assistance.. 
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 12, 2017 13:14:57 GMT
I notice you didn't counter any of the examples given. You're admitting that DC for the most part have cipher heroes. hey dude, can you do one sentence without fallacies for once? This one is "begging the question" and "straw man", big no-nos in more educated circles.
Also, don't you get that you only support my OP argument with this, namely that DC has some iconic villains and will thus remain on top even if they tank the DCEU? Your "ciper heroes" deflection is an ad absurdum argument (considering they have the biggest most popular superheroes such as Batman and Supes).
As for the "examples", well, there I hoped my little satire would suffice. No, not for you of course. But OK, let's beginn with "Batman Begins", shall we ...oh.... it seems that that this movie was conveniently left out, becaus it seems not to suit the author's argument...how utterly embarrassing!... OK let's jump to Supes instead:
Riiight, so, in a Supes origin movie in which we endlessly see Clark as a baby, child, young adult and finally as a man, with all his traumas, anger and emotional issues, this guy really thinks that the cardboard villain Zod or his blink-and-you-will-miss-me sidekick (had to look her up!) is the more rounded character....? This must be why the critics and fans critizised that this Zod is lame... You cannot argue more biased and absurdly than that! nuff said!
What about the classic Superman movies btw, ...oh he left them out again...
and as for Supes Returns his arg is that HE can only remember Luthor screaming? Really...? I saw it once and I only remember Supes rescuing a plane, Supes having a son, Supes diving and lifting a continent, Supes getting stabbed and wounded badly, Supes having an underage girlfriend, Supes...you get the point (no you don't).
What did Luther do again, he screamed "WRONG!"? Very impressive...let's scream that back at the author of these examples, shall we?
Oh what a pitty the guy did not grasp that the bad guys are the hero guys here having to team up and fight evil: its essentially the old "jerk becomes hero" arc in Ironman, Strange, Antman, Thor, Avengers etc. Talk about a collapsing fallacious (circular) argument. can you dumb down your arguments even more - unable to distingish between writing and actor performance and basing an argument on pure speculation. I rest my case!
Aaaand I stopped reading for laughter...wait, a line later he essentially refutes himself by admitting that Batman leaves more impact, but only becaus he is Bad-man..wut?...whatever, talk about "cooky"...
No he is not, this is good, balanced character writing. This film started Batmania with everybody wearing Batman shirs and costumes (not Joker, that came with TDK and the actor deaths).
This is not a Bats origin story, thus you must have a nuanced, developed villain challenging the already arrived/established hero (what MCU mostly neglects). Thus, we see Bruce/Bats fall in love, committing and opening himself, his old trauma conflict resurfacing - all that genuinly interwoven with the Joker story. Apart from teh cluncy plot structuring, this is good character writing and one of teh reasons why this movie is an undisputed classic, only rivaled by some of the Nolan movies.
It's futile to discuss the other examples as they follow the same principles. Glad to be of assistance..
Superman and Batman are archetypes, not fleshed out characters. They didn't start to get fleshed out until around 30 years ago when DC noticed what Marvel was doing. So all they have is their longer histories. For the longest time, they WERE just ciphers while their villains drove the plot. It's why some people still have trouble accepting Marvels' way, because they're so used to the villain being the only real character instead of the hero. And yes, Ra's overshadowed Bruce in Batman Begins. Even with his lesser screentime! To answer your question, yes Zod was still more fleshed out than Superman in MOS despite all their attempts. They tried with Suicide Squad, and failed. Mainly due to the Squad not having much character to start with. He's making the point of how DC has handled things thus far and making a reasonable observation about how Wonder Woman will turn out. Nope, 1989 Batman is still less fleshed out than Joker. There is nothing balanced there, everything is driven by the actions of the villains. Even Grissom is more proactive than Batman who does little but react. This idea that the villain must be the star of the show is the excuse of lazy writers. Heroes shouldn't merely react to the villain. The heroes should be the proactive ones while the villains are reacting to THEM. Hell, in 1989 Batman Joker does what he does because of Carl Grissom, not Batman! Batman can't even play a proactive role there! And just because he didn't label every single DC movie doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. For most of their history, DC cares more about the villain than the hero. They just got lucky that most of their own competition at the time didn't last so no one had fleshed out heroes to attract them, so their archetypal heroes got a foothold. Then Marvel came along in the 1960s and people finally started to realize "Whoa, heroes can be actual characters now!" |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 12, 2017 14:09:14 GMT
it's the blatant denial ("lazy", "not true" etc) of an established pulp fiction writing rule without any proper arguments, but paired with the mother of all fallacies (including "no true Scotsman", "false cause" and "personal incredulity").
Obviously, not every story needs a strong antagonist, especially literary stories based on inner character development without major outer conflicts. However, in the pulp good-vs-evil genre, such as in superhero movies, it is quite lazy and incompetent to only give your protagonist underdeveloped, paper-tiger obstacles and enemies, so to glorify him. So, you calling having fully developed antagionists "lazy", is beyond absurd.
Accordingly, most of the first movies of MCU heroes are much better than their sequels, as these first parts are more about (simplistic) character development of the hero, so that the lack of solidly written anatagonists is less noticeable here. We saw that in the "Flawed jerk becomes hero" formula-arc used for Ironman, Thor, Antman or Dr Strange. Not so in parts 2, these become close to pointless because of the lack of good antagonists (Thor 2 and IM 2 already). Same with Avengers.
this is a beside the point deflection, champ. Apart from that, the DC films I saw were primarily about their protagonist too: Superman movies including MOS; Batman movies including Batman Begins, but maybe not so much in TDK and TDR - here we arguably have an ensemble concept, but it's definitely not about the villains. BvS was not about it's Luther interpretation (thanks God!). Suicide Squad was about villains turning heroes. But none of those DC movies about the heroes had strong villains. If you think about it, the ones that where about the protagonists more than the antagonists were just darker Marvel movies. I'll even say this, Batman Begins was a prototype MCU movie. I think they learned a lot from that movie. In Man of Steel, all the Kryptonians besides Kal was intentionally made one dimensional by their design to get around this (cloned race of people with 1 purpose). Suicide Squad was Guardians of the Galaxy (group of lowlifes out to save humanity with pop music). I don't know how Marvel did it, but they made the same exact movie as BvS with Civil War, but did it better. The only ones still holding on to that villain card are the core X-men movies. Their solo movies have "weak" villains, also. I mean all the best ones from recent years are hero 1st and just a thing that has to die near the end. Mad Max? Look at Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2. People saying that the 1st was better. But what really changed from this and the 1st? The thing that people were crying about the 1st one. The villain. They gave way more to the villains in this one and a little less to the Guardians. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 12, 2017 14:44:14 GMT
Superman and Batman are archetypes, not fleshed out characters. They didn't start to get fleshed out until around 30 years ago when DC noticed what Marvel was doing. So all they have is their longer histories. For the longest time, they WERE just ciphers while their villains drove the plot. It's why some people still have trouble accepting Marvels' way, because they're so used to the villain being the only real character instead of the hero. And yes, Ra's overshadowed Bruce in Batman Begins. Even with his lesser screentime! To answer your question, yes Zod was still more fleshed out than Superman in MOS despite all their attempts. They tried with Suicide Squad, and failed. Mainly due to the Squad not having much character to start with. He's making the point of how DC has handled things thus far and making a reasonable observation about how Wonder Woman will turn out. Nope, 1989 Batman is still less fleshed out than Joker. There is nothing balanced there, everything is driven by the actions of the villains. Even Grissom is more proactive than Batman who does little but react. This idea that the villain must be the star of the show is the excuse of lazy writers. Heroes shouldn't merely react to the villain. The heroes should be the proactive ones while the villains are reacting to THEM. Hell, in 1989 Batman Joker does what he does because of Carl Grissom, not Batman! Batman can't even play a proactive role there! And just because he didn't label every single DC movie doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. For most of their history, DC cares more about the villain than the hero. They just got lucky that most of their own competition at the time didn't last so no one had fleshed out heroes to attract them, so their archetypal heroes got a foothold. Then Marvel came along in the 1960s and people finally started to realize "Whoa, heroes can be actual characters now!" I wouldn't say that Ra's overshadowed Bruce as a whole. It was more in the scenes they were in together. If you notice they had Ra's doing most of the talking. The movie itself was still more about Bruce. I think it was more Liam stealing scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 12, 2017 14:55:49 GMT
Superman and Batman are archetypes, not fleshed out characters. They didn't start to get fleshed out until around 30 years ago when DC noticed what Marvel was doing. So all they have is their longer histories. For the longest time, they WERE just ciphers while their villains drove the plot. It's why some people still have trouble accepting Marvels' way, because they're so used to the villain being the only real character instead of the hero. And yes, Ra's overshadowed Bruce in Batman Begins. Even with his lesser screentime! To answer your question, yes Zod was still more fleshed out than Superman in MOS despite all their attempts. They tried with Suicide Squad, and failed. Mainly due to the Squad not having much character to start with. He's making the point of how DC has handled things thus far and making a reasonable observation about how Wonder Woman will turn out. Nope, 1989 Batman is still less fleshed out than Joker. There is nothing balanced there, everything is driven by the actions of the villains. Even Grissom is more proactive than Batman who does little but react. This idea that the villain must be the star of the show is the excuse of lazy writers. Heroes shouldn't merely react to the villain. The heroes should be the proactive ones while the villains are reacting to THEM. Hell, in 1989 Batman Joker does what he does because of Carl Grissom, not Batman! Batman can't even play a proactive role there! And just because he didn't label every single DC movie doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. For most of their history, DC cares more about the villain than the hero. They just got lucky that most of their own competition at the time didn't last so no one had fleshed out heroes to attract them, so their archetypal heroes got a foothold. Then Marvel came along in the 1960s and people finally started to realize "Whoa, heroes can be actual characters now!" I wouldn't say that Ra's overshadowed Bruce as a whole. It was more in the scenes they were in together. If you notice they had Ra's doing most of the talking. The movie itself was still more about Bruce. I think it was more Liam stealing scenes. Yeah, but Ra's had a huge impact on the story to the point nothing would've happened without him. Bruce never would've become Batman without Ra's. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 12, 2017 15:00:37 GMT
it's the blatant denial ("lazy", "not true" etc) of an established pulp fiction writing rule without any proper arguments, but paired with the mother of all fallacies (including "no true Scotsman", "false cause" and "personal incredulity").
Obviously, not every story needs a strong antagonist, especially literary stories based on inner character development without major outer conflicts. However, in the pulp good-vs-evil genre, such as in superhero movies, it is quite lazy and incompetent to only give your protagonist underdeveloped, paper-tiger obstacles and enemies, so to glorify him. So, you calling having fully developed antagionists "lazy", is beyond absurd.
Accordingly, most of the first movies of MCU heroes are much better than their sequels, as these first parts are more about (simplistic) character development of the hero, so that the lack of solidly written anatagonists is less noticeable here. We saw that in the "Flawed jerk becomes hero" formula-arc used for Ironman, Thor, Antman or Dr Strange. Not so in parts 2, these become close to pointless because of the lack of good antagonists (Thor 2 and IM 2 already). Same with Avengers.
this is a beside the point deflection, champ. Apart from that, the DC films I saw were primarily about their protagonist too: Superman movies including MOS; Batman movies including Batman Begins, but maybe not so much in TDK and TDR - here we arguably have an ensemble concept, but it's definitely not about the villains. BvS was not about it's Luther interpretation (thanks God!). Suicide Squad was about villains turning heroes. . If you think about it, the ones that where about the protagonists more than the antagonists were just darker Marvel movies. I'll even say this, Batman Begins was a prototype MCU movie. I think they learned a lot from that movie. In Man of Steel, all the Kryptonians besides Kal was intentionally made one dimensional by their design to get around this (cloned race of people with 1 purpose). Suicide Squad was Guardians of the Galaxy (group of lowlifes out to save humanity with pop music). I don't know how Marvel did it, but they made the same exact movie as BvS with Civil War, but did it better. The only ones still holding on to that villain card are the core X-men movies. Their solo movies have "weak" villains, also. Well yes and no. Some undisputably have strong villains. And those that have iconic villains happen to be considered classics, even beyond superhero fandom. That says a lot! Superman I: debatable, but a defining super villain, I say Luther is a great villain/threat in this (classic) Superman II: villains Luther and the Zod-party are great, and a real challenge (classic) (II and IV I do not remember well, but pretty weak I guess or I'd remember anything)
MoS: very weak villain IMO, all about supes, and Zod & Co are reduced to background carricatures Batman I: Joker-Jack is one of THE big villain portrayals (classic!) Batman II: Batwoman and Penguin are both good antagonists (IMO classic) Bat III and IV: the villains become blatant carricatures (utter trash) BvS: Luther and the endlevel monster are very weak antagonists IMO (mediocre) Batman Begins: Raz al Gul (sic) is a solid villain, not weak (ok scarecrow was weak) - and this was originally intended as a Dr Strange movie TDK: both 2-face and Joker were great villains (classic) TDKR: debatable, I thought Bane was good
X-Men movies have one great villain: Magneto. (I consider the very first one a nerd classic)
|
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 12, 2017 15:36:09 GMT
Superman in Superman II was a pretty crappy hero all around, really. Not much of a hero at all. So up against that, it's no wonder people remember Zod fondly (even though there wasn't much to his character).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 12, 2017 16:54:34 GMT
Superman in Superman II was a pretty crappy hero all around, really. Not much of a hero at all. So up against that, it's no wonder people remember Zod fondly (even though there wasn't much to his character). lol, you are just not a literary person, champ - not everything must be about one-dimensional beefcakes in tights with iron jaws. Clark/Supes in II was a complex character: he had an identity crisis and wished to sacrifice his duties for love. So, he wished to be an ordinary human and became just that and very vulnerable - and he failed miserably with it. Even when he became a superhero again, he ran away, tricked and killed and even exerted vengeance on a mortal (the a-hole who beat him up as a normal man). This arc was copied many times (eg Spiderman). It's not Shakespeare , but very solid writing. This is way beyond all the lazy and generic "jerk becomes hero" or "weakling becomes super awesome" arcs known in lesser superhero films. Tip: there is a reason this ancient film is a revered classic, don't play the iconoclast.  |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 12, 2017 17:47:56 GMT
I wouldn't say that Ra's overshadowed Bruce as a whole. It was more in the scenes they were in together. If you notice they had Ra's doing most of the talking. The movie itself was still more about Bruce. I think it was more Liam stealing scenes. Yeah, but Ra's had a huge impact on the story to the point nothing would've happened without him. Bruce never would've become Batman without Ra's. Well, they did follow the history of the comics a bit. He did study under Frank Ducard and left him because his methods were too extreme (even though they mixed him with Ra's). He would have never became Batman without what he learned from his time overseas. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 12, 2017 17:49:33 GMT
Yeah, but Ra's had a huge impact on the story to the point nothing would've happened without him. Bruce never would've become Batman without Ra's. Well, they did follow the history of the comics a bit. He did study under Frank Ducard and left him because his methods were too extreme (even though they mixed him with Ra's). He would have never became Batman without what he learned from his time overseas. I think he would. Let's not forget the original stories had him decide to dress up as a Bat due to one flying through his window. So without Ducard he'd still have found a way. As opposed to Begins, where he gets EVERY idea from Ra's. |
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 12, 2017 17:51:07 GMT
Superman in Superman II was a pretty crappy hero all around, really. Not much of a hero at all. So up against that, it's no wonder people remember Zod fondly (even though there wasn't much to his character). lol, you are just not a literary person, champ - not everything must be about one-dimensional beefcakes in tights with iron jaws. Clark/Supes in II was a complex character: he had an identity crisis and wished to sacrifice his duties for love. So, he wished to be an ordinary human and became just that and very vulnerable - and he failed miserably with it. Even when he became a superhero again, he ran away, tricked and killed and even exerted vengeance on a mortal (the a-hole who beat him up as a normal man). This arc was copied many times (eg Spiderman). It's not Shakespeare , but very solid writing. This is way beyond all the lazy and generic "jerk becomes hero" or "weakling becomes super awesome" arcs known in lesser superhero films. Tip: there is a reason this ancient film is a revered classic, don't play the iconoclast. No, that's just how DC does things. Clark was a moron in Superman II. He gave up his powers to be with his deranged stalker, he sadistically tortured Zod when he got his powers back and then beat up a helpless mortal man who humiliated him before. That's no hero. The Donner movies had little competition, that helped a LOT. |
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 12, 2017 19:20:21 GMT
But none of those DC movies about the heroes had strong villains. If you think about it, the ones that where about the protagonists more than the antagonists were just darker Marvel movies. I'll even say this, Batman Begins was a prototype MCU movie. I think they learned a lot from that movie. In Man of Steel, all the Kryptonians besides Kal was intentionally made one dimensional by their design to get around this (cloned race of people with 1 purpose). Suicide Squad was Guardians of the Galaxy (group of lowlifes out to save humanity with pop music). I don't know how Marvel did it, but they made the same exact movie as BvS with Civil War, but did it better. The only ones still holding on to that villain card are the core X-men movies. Their solo movies have "weak" villains, also. Well yes and no. Some undisputably have strong villains. And those that have iconic villains happen to be considered classics, even beyond superhero fandom. That says a lot! Superman I: debatable, but a defining super villain, I say Luther is a great villain/threat in this (classic) Superman II: villains Luther and the Zod-party are great, and a real challenge (classic) (II and IV I do not remember well, but pretty weak I guess or I'd remember anything)
MoS: very weak villain IMO, all about supes, and Zod & Co are reduced to background carricatures Batman I: Joker-Jack is one of THE big villain portrayals (classic!) Batman II: Batwoman and Penguin are both good antagonists (IMO classic) Bat III and IV: the villains become blatant carricatures (utter trash) BvS: Luther and the endlevel monster are very weak antagonists IMO (mediocre) Batman Begins: Raz al Gul (sic) is a solid villain, not weak (ok scarecrow was weak) - and this was originally intended as a Dr Strange movie TDK: both 2-face and Joker were great villains (classic) TDKR: debatable, I thought Bane was good
X-Men movies have one great villain: Magneto. (I consider the very first one a nerd classic)
I'm talking more DCEU and MCU. In the old Superman movies they went with the bigger names over Superman (Hackman and Stamp and Brando). They did the same thing with Superman Returns. The Burton Batman movies they went with the villains more because of what Jack did with the Joker. Bruce sat around in the Batcave most of the movies. When it came to the DCEU they tried to do the MCU approach with having the movies be about the heroes and their inner struggles with the villain being an obstacles that brings out those inner demons. The problem with this is that they crapped on the heroes, also. They made the heroes act more depressed and not a person you want to root for. BvS was an apology for MoS. They spent most of the movie backtracking on what happened in MoS instead of moving forward and making better characters. Superman should have been more like David Dunn in that saving the city/world made him a happier person. Working in the shadows like he was doing was what was making him depressed. But it seemed more like they were trying to make them and us even more depressed. X-men is a whole other ballgame. I think Singer just had a hard on for Magneto. And maybe Stryker. Stryker shouldn't have been in as movies as he was. Magneto shouldn't have been in X2. At least not as the main villain. Stryker was an antagonist just like Senator Kelly and Warren Worthington, II. I think Singer was trying to do the same thing as Star Wars and Superman in making Magneto the series villain while there are minor villains in each movie. Doing that left no room for other villains. X2 should have been a Mr. Sinister movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on May 12, 2017 19:28:59 GMT
Well, they did follow the history of the comics a bit. He did study under Frank Ducard and left him because his methods were too extreme (even though they mixed him with Ra's). He would have never became Batman without what he learned from his time overseas. I think he would. Let's not forget the original stories had him decide to dress up as a Bat due to one flying through his window. So without Ducard he'd still have found a way. As opposed to Begins, where he gets EVERY idea from Ra's.jeez, a lot of alternative facts and misinformation again. You know I'm not a big fan of superhero movies, but you would be surprised how much it helps to actually watch them, before randomly claiming stuff. Let me help you: In Begins we see: As a child, Bruce Wayne falls down into a dry well and is attacked by a swarm of bats, subsequently developing a phobia (that means anxiety) of the bat creatures; his dad helps him understand the experience (why do we fall?). Later, while watching an opera with his parents, Thomas and Martha, Bruce becomes frightened by performers masquerading as bats and asks to leave - leading to his parents' brutal murder. Great guilt, angst and fear ensue. Later in life Bruce confronts Falcone the man behind the murder, who tells him that real power comes from being feared.Bruce decides to travel the world and learn how to confront injustice and fear. After completing his training and purging his fears he rejects his mentors, and Bruce returns to Gotham intent on fighting crime HIS way (against his mentors in the league of shadows). Inspired by his childhood fear, he takes up the vigilante identity of "the Batman" to scare his enemies. Welcome! |
|
