|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 8, 2017 15:30:58 GMT
Marvel films using real locations. I know it's a minor quibble, but I enjoy scenes in places recognisable and real. (Sure, when having a country that's the base of evil they make one up using the now common cinema trope of a made up -kovia or -stan). DCEU has been set in mainly Metropolis, Gotham, Midway City...fictional versions of real cities. What are they meant to be? Which is New York? Is another Chicago? Boston? Somewhere else? It seemed Metropolis and Gotham were only across a river from each other! As I said, a minor quibble. I prefer fictional places, like Themyscira. Beautiful place.
Since you only like real settings in movies, I take it you hate The Wizard of Oz, which is on most lists of the greatest movies ever made. While the beginning and end take place in Kansas, most of that movie tales place in the fictional land of Oz.
Marvel takes greater risks. Whilst DC seemed to rely on their two biggest most popular properties, and the characters around them, MCUs first film was Iron Man - far from a household name or the most popular Marvel character. Followed by another two Hulk and Thor. Sure they were an established brand when the later films like Guardians, Ant-Man and Doctor Strange followed, but again, all were lesser known characters and still risks, and yet managed to be successful, critically and commercially. Suicide Squad could be seen as a risk but it did star one of the world's biggest box office draws and promised the return of one of it's most iconic characters in The joker. I just wish DC had more faith in its brand to do the same. DCEU not only just made the first big-budget solo female superhero movie (which was also the first solo female superhero movie in over a decade), but also the movie was directed by a female Director whose only previous film credit was an $8 million indie film. So when it comes to taking risks, nothing tops that. DCEU beats MCU when it comes to taking risks.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 8, 2017 19:58:42 GMT
Marvel films using real locations. I know it's a minor quibble, but I enjoy scenes in places recognisable and real. (Sure, when having a country that's the base of evil they make one up using the now common cinema trope of a made up -kovia or -stan). DCEU has been set in mainly Metropolis, Gotham, Midway City...fictional versions of real cities. What are they meant to be? Which is New York? Is another Chicago? Boston? Somewhere else? It seemed Metropolis and Gotham were only across a river from each other! As I said, a minor quibble. I prefer fictional places, like Themyscira. Beautiful place.
Since you only like real settings in movies, I take it you hate The Wizard of Oz, which is on most lists of the greatest movies ever made. While the beginning and end take place in Kansas, most of that movie tales place in the fictional land of Oz.
Marvel takes greater risks. Whilst DC seemed to rely on their two biggest most popular properties, and the characters around them, MCUs first film was Iron Man - far from a household name or the most popular Marvel character. Followed by another two Hulk and Thor. Sure they were an established brand when the later films like Guardians, Ant-Man and Doctor Strange followed, but again, all were lesser known characters and still risks, and yet managed to be successful, critically and commercially. Suicide Squad could be seen as a risk but it did star one of the world's biggest box office draws and promised the return of one of it's most iconic characters in The joker. I just wish DC had more faith in its brand to do the same. DCEU not only just made the first big-budget solo female superhero movie (which was also the first solo female superhero movie in over a decade), but also the movie was directed by a female Director whose only previous film credit was an $8 million indie film. So when it comes to taking risks, nothing tops that. DCEU beats MCU when it comes to taking risks. I didn't say I only like real settings. I said I prefer them in DC/Marvel films. And you example of the Wizard Of Oz is a really bad choice...travelling to a fantasy world is what the film is all about! As for taking risks. You seriously think the fourth DC film, one starring it's third most famous hero, who had appeared in a film starring it's two biggest characters, and who was generally considered the stand-out moment/character in that film, was a bigger risk than Marvel's FIRST outing featuring a character that probably wouldn't be in it's Top 10 most famous, starring an actor who was considered more as tabloid fodder than a top actor?
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 8, 2017 20:30:22 GMT
So basically DC-Fan thinks it's okay for Superman to thumb his nose at authority and do whatever he wants, but no Marvel Hero can respectfully decline being a Government Puppet.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 8, 2017 22:56:01 GMT
I didn't say I only like real settings. I said I prefer them in DC/Marvel films. Then I take it you hate Civil War and you'll hate Black Panther since both refer to the fictional country of Wakanda.
As for taking risks. You seriously think the fourth DC film, one starring it's third most famous hero, who had appeared in a film starring it's two biggest characters, and who was generally considered the stand-out moment/character in that film, was a bigger risk than Marvel's FIRST outing featuring a character that probably wouldn't be in it's Top 10 most famous, starring an actor who was considered more as tabloid fodder than a top actor? Wonder Woman is the first big-budget solo female superhero movie (which was also the first solo female superhero movie in over a decade). Before the movie was released, there were plenty of articles saying that Wonder Woman would either open or shut the door for future female-led superhero movies. So it was very risky since nothing like it had been before. And adding to that risk was the fact that the movie was directed by a female Director whose only previous film credit was an $8 million indie film. So when it comes to taking risks, nothing tops that. DCEU beats MCU when it comes to taking risks.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 9, 2017 1:10:05 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk.
MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 3:58:09 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk. MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s. The Dallas Cowboys have no balls. They use egg shaped objects to play their game. Not balls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2017 8:20:59 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk. MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s. The Dallas Cowboys have no balls. They use egg shaped objects to play their game. Not balls. Priceless.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 9, 2017 11:25:30 GMT
I didn't say I only like real settings. I said I prefer them in DC/Marvel films. Then I take it you hate Civil War and you'll hate Black Panther since both refer to the fictional country of Wakanda.
Again, I said nothing about hating I said I prefer. And there are always going to be exceptions. If you are going to have a character who comes from an isolationist African nation with advanced technology what do you call it? Kenya? Ghana?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 9, 2017 13:47:41 GMT
Then I take it you hate Civil War and you'll hate Black Panther since both refer to the fictional country of Wakanda.
Again, I said nothing about hating I said I prefer. And there are always going to be exceptions. You mean excuses, not exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 9, 2017 13:50:32 GMT
Again, I said nothing about hating I said I prefer. And there are always going to be exceptions. You mean excuses, not exceptions. Oh sweet Jesus. Tell me you are not like this in the real world
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 10, 2017 0:59:34 GMT
You mean excuses, not exceptions. Oh sweet Jesus. Tell me you are not like this in the real world Expose hypocrisy and bullshit from MCU fans. I do that all the time. For example, an MCU fan recently posted an article claiming that Wonder Woman copied this plot point from GotG2:
Naturally I called BULLSHIT on that revisionist history. Wonder Woman didn't copy that plot point from GotG2. It was GotG2 that copied that plot point from MoS, where Zod's plan was to rid Earth of humanity and terraform Earth into new Krypton. Zod even asked Superman to join him in his quest to rid Earth of humanity, but Superman turned it down obviously.
If you MCU fans are going to defend MCU's crappy movies, at least do it without hypocrisy (i.e. "I hate DCEU because they have fictional cities but I don't hate MCU even though it has a fictional country) and without making up bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jun 10, 2017 3:20:54 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk. MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s.
... and ending when Marvel was purchased by Disney.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jun 10, 2017 3:24:57 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk. MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s.
... and ending when Marvel was purchased by Disney. Nah, even then they've been innovating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2017 3:33:58 GMT
There was little risky about Wonder Woman, if they'd made a movie about a lesser known character like Black Canary it would be a risk. MCU has more balls. But then again Marvel has always had more balls than DC, going all the way back to the 1960s.
... and ending when Marvel was purchased by Disney. Oh, pleeeeeeeeeease. If they stopped having balls after being purchased by Disney, they wouldn't have continued the MCU, and certainly wouldn't be making stars out of characters like the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, and Captain Marvel. They'd just be focusing on Ironman the way Fox focused on Wolverine.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jun 10, 2017 11:18:51 GMT
Oh sweet Jesus. Tell me you are not like this in the real world Expose hypocrisy and bullshit from MCU fans. I do that all the time. For example, an MCU fan recently posted an article claiming that Wonder Woman copied this plot point from GotG2:
Naturally I called BULLSHIT on that revisionist history. Wonder Woman didn't copy that plot point from GotG2. It was GotG2 that copied that plot point from MoS, where Zod's plan was to rid Earth of humanity and terraform Earth into new Krypton. Zod even asked Superman to join him in his quest to rid Earth of humanity, but Superman turned it down obviously.
If you MCU fans are going to defend MCU's crappy movies, at least do it without hypocrisy (i.e. "I hate DCEU because they have fictional cities but I don't hate MCU even though it has a fictional country) and without making up bullshit.
No I mean in the real world do you ignore and twist what people say then fly off the handle. And when you are not doing that and you are owned you cower into a corner and keep quiet. Do you also go around abusing people out of the blue for something someone else said elsewhere. Because fuck knows what that little outburst about GOTG2 had to do with what we were talking about. The real world, where you interact with real people face to face, must be a daily rollercoaster ride of confrontation and beatings for you
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 10, 2017 22:19:05 GMT
Oh sweet Jesus. Tell me you are not like this in the real world Expose hypocrisy and bullshit from MCU fans. I do that all the time. For example, an MCU fan recently posted an article claiming that Wonder Woman copied this plot point from GotG2:
Naturally I called BULLSHIT on that revisionist history. Wonder Woman didn't copy that plot point from GotG2. It was GotG2 that copied that plot point from MoS, where Zod's plan was to rid Earth of humanity and terraform Earth into new Krypton. Zod even asked Superman to join him in his quest to rid Earth of humanity, but Superman turned it down obviously.
If you MCU fans are going to defend MCU's crappy movies, at least do it without hypocrisy (i.e. "I hate DCEU because they have fictional cities but I don't hate MCU even though it has a fictional country) and without making up bullshit.
GotG2 was them doing MoS better than MoS. The Sovereign was pretty much the Kryptonians. And Zod's plan wasn't to get rid of humans. His plan was to remake Krypton out of Earth. Killing humans was a byproduct of the terraforming. But that is telling that another DC villain's plan is to remake Earth into a "paradise" for them (Zod wanted it so that Kryptonians didn't have to suffer acclimating to Earth's atmosphere). Guessing the villain's plan in Aquaman will be to flood the world and kill all the surface dwellers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2017 22:27:11 GMT
Expose hypocrisy and bullshit from MCU fans. I do that all the time. For example, an MCU fan recently posted an article claiming that Wonder Woman copied this plot point from GotG2:
Naturally I called BULLSHIT on that revisionist history. Wonder Woman didn't copy that plot point from GotG2. It was GotG2 that copied that plot point from MoS, where Zod's plan was to rid Earth of humanity and terraform Earth into new Krypton. Zod even asked Superman to join him in his quest to rid Earth of humanity, but Superman turned it down obviously.
If you MCU fans are going to defend MCU's crappy movies, at least do it without hypocrisy (i.e. "I hate DCEU because they have fictional cities but I don't hate MCU even though it has a fictional country) and without making up bullshit.
GotG2 was them doing MoS better than MoS. The Sovereign was pretty much the Kryptonians. And Zod's plan wasn't to get rid of humans. His plan was to remake Krypton out of Earth. Killing humans was a byproduct of the terraforming. But that is telling that another DC villain's plan is to remake Earth into a "paradise" for them (Zod wanted it so that Kryptonians didn't have to suffer acclimating to Earth's atmosphere). Guessing the villain's plan in Aquaman will be to flood the world and kill all the surface dwellers.You think James Wan will go for such an obvious thing? Of course, he might have to if he's not really the man in charge as I suspect he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jun 11, 2017 4:03:36 GMT
Zod's plan wasn't to get rid of humans. His plan was to remake Krypton out of Earth. Killing humans was a byproduct of the terraforming. So Zod's plan was to kill all humans and create a new, better world without humans. That's what I already told you in my previous post. So we're both in agreement that GotG2 copied that plot point from MoS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 4:43:41 GMT
Zod's plan wasn't to get rid of humans. His plan was to remake Krypton out of Earth. Killing humans was a byproduct of the terraforming. So Zod's plan was to kill all humans and create a new, better world without humans. That's what I already told you in my previous post. So we're both in agreement that GotG2 copied that plot point from MoS. Last time I checked, MoS didn't invent that plot point. So obviously Mos stole it from somewhere else. You really only 12 years old, and autistic.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on Jun 11, 2017 18:29:31 GMT
Zod's plan wasn't to get rid of humans. His plan was to remake Krypton out of Earth. Killing humans was a byproduct of the terraforming. So Zod's plan was to kill all humans and create a new, better world without humans. That's what I already told you in my previous post. So we're both in agreement that GotG2 copied that plot point from MoS. Zod's plan didn't account for humans because he doesn't care what happens to them. Like I said, humans dying is a byproduct of the terraforming. When Kal asked him about the humans, he pretty much shrugged it off and showed him the skeletons. No. Like I said, that plot point is totally different because Ego's plan was to get rid of the people on the planets because people are screw ups. Zod's plan was to make a new world for his people despite the people being on the planets. So, no, they were opposite plans. Now, if you would have said similar plot points was Ego planting a seed in his son so that one day he'd grow up to help him then I'd agree with you. There's other things that are similar, but I'm not giving you more ammo.
|
|