Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And then Zack goes and strategically inserts a morsel of primo drama at the end of Man of Steel, and he continues to be crucified for it.
No. He is criticized for turning Superman into an a-hole. You can make a character interesting, even make a character dark, without making him an a-hole.
Please. He was nowhere near the a-hole Superman was 33 years earlier when he went and beat up a human in a diner. (Yeah, that was guy was a punkass and had it coming, but Kal-el should've been over it.)
Please. He was nowhere near the a-hole Superman was 33 years earlier when he went and beat up a human in a diner. (Yeah, that was guy was a punkass and had it coming, but Kal-el should've been over it.)
Here we go again.
Let me repeat myself for the 972nd time: Donner and Lester and Singer and Lucas and Whedon and Etc.'s mistakes don't justify Snyder's mistakes. "This bowl of mucus doesn't taste nearly as bad as that bowl of phlegm!" is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Let me repeat myself for the 972nd time: Donner and Lester and Singer and Lucas and Whedon and Etc.'s mistakes don't justify Snyder's mistakes. "This bowl of mucus doesn't taste nearly as bad as that bowl of phlegm!" is hardly a ringing endorsement.
That's called selective criticism.
You're literally selecting what you want to criticize and letting your feelings of nostalgia do the rest.
All criticism is selective. But it irritates me when you constantly try to justify bad elements of a movie by claiming, "Oh, yeah? Well what about when X did Y?" It's not the point. A movie works or it doesn't. It has to stand on its own merits. Or not.
Compared to MEGA FORCE or BEACHES, MAN OF STEEL could be one of the greatest movies of all time. But if you compare MAN OF STEEL to other things --- like good movies --- it doesn't fare so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt
You're literally selecting what you want to criticize and letting your feelings of nostalgia do the rest.
Actually, it does. That's why Batman and Robin, a movie that can only be described as abysmal, has its defenders, many of who proclaim Batfleck a "murderous thug."
Sorry, buddy, but when one director's character acts a way that doesn't jibe 110% with one armchair critic's perception of what the character should be — even if s/he hasn't read any of the comics where wildly different iterations have been rolled out over the decades — then I'm compelled to say something. It's not aimless justification when I point out hypocrisies.
Which reminds me, I see you couch dive at every opportunity to talk up the "bad characterization" of DC's characters — which you just did again.
Good commentary, though I think it is wrong on a few points, first and foremost being:
When he said it is "more about brand than character."
Well, I don't mean to dispute you on that point, but when you go back to the 2:11 mark in the video and listen to the surrounding context, it's talking about how fans can rely on the Marvel brand for a good quality movie, similar in the way that a person can rely on a restaurant brand or a particular food brand and therefore, trust going to that restaurant or trust buying that particular brand name of food at the grocery store. Because if you go back to the 1:23 mark, the narrator mentions how Kevin Feige "handles the big picture plans" . . . "as well as the minutia in each film, and character." Also, the narrator continues to say that "[indiscernible] control has led to a carefully constructed plan, developing characterand story." Therefore, what the narrator said at the 2:11 mark is not dismissing the importance of developing the characters in Marvel movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Nope. 100% wrong. Character is exactly why Marvel continues to succeed where DC fails, both in comics and in movies.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
And one of the biggest keys is the hero's origin.
Many super hero origins are based in trauma. They suffered some horrible event that led them into becoming a super hero. But there is a key difference between many of the DC and Marvel heroes and their trauma: Guilt.
Take a look at DC's greatest exception to their failure to do this: Batman. Why is Batman the most popular, beloved super hero on the planet? Why has he even surpassed the more heroic-on-the-surface Superman? Both of their origins are the result of trauma. Kal-El lost his entire race. Bruce Wayne lost his parents. The key difference: Bruce lost his parents and blames himself. He isn't just "out to get criminals." He is out to save his own soul.
Which is why I often say that Batman is the best "Marvel hero" DC ever produced, because this is the key that makes so many of the Marvel heroes compelling ---
Peter Parker's inaction led to the death of his Uncle Ben, and he can never forgive himself for it.
Tony Stark realized that his own narcissism and lust for wealth and power were leading to thousands of innocent people being killed, and he can never forgive himself for it.
Reed Richards talked his friends and family into a scientific experiment that failed, and now they can never be normal again. And again, he can never forgive himself for it.
Steve Rogers had a childhood filled with trauma, being a weakling who was constantly beaten and picked on. So every time he sees a bully picking on someone, it pokes the scared little boy that still lives inside him.
Good assessments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Bruce Banner's actions led to him turning into a rage-filled monster, so he can never trust himself to live a normal life or let his emotions go.
Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Norrin Radd agreed to help kill literally trillions of people in order to save his own. When he finally admitted his sin, he was punished for it by being forever separated from the woman he loves.
Who?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Too many of DC's heroes lack that inherent drama.
Yeah, Superman is the last of his kind, but he still has people who love and respect him, and he sure doesn't blame himself for Krypton's destruction. Wonder Woman was born to lead and fight. Green Lantern was simply chosen.
But I like Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and also Superman... even with their origins. But it's just that the current heads of Warner Bros. screwed up the Green Lantern movie... didn't really give us a great Superman movie... however, they knocked the ball out of the park with their Wonder Woman movie... origin and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
I honestly couldn't tell you Aquaman's origin if you held a gun to my head...
lol Although, I don't think that most people care about his origin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
though it's nice to see Khal Drogo back on the screen.
I'm starting to feel like the guy in the GotG movie who said, "Who?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Again, DC's one big exception? Batman. And it is therefore no surprise that Batman has continued to be not only the world's most popular super hero, but DC's most successful film franchise. Batman isn't just the most cunning bad ass in any room at any given time, but he is haunted by his own sins, andthat is compelling drama.
Well, even though I agree with you about how the Christopher Nolan WB Batman movies had great character development, I just think that Nolan knew how to make great movies, unlike the directors and the heads at WB who currently don't know how to make great movies, with the exception of Patty Jenkins with the Wonder Woman movie.
Which reminds me, I see you couch dive at every opportunity to talk up the "bad characterization" of DC's characters — which you just did again.
I never said they were bad. Batman is my all-time favorite super hero, and in the hands of a good writer, I even love Superman and Wonder Woman. I never saw the appeal of Green Lantern, I'll grant you, but I wouldn't call him bad.
But I do think Marvel's heroes (for the most part) are inherently more compelling in their design.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it irritates me when you constantly try to justify bad elements of a movie by claiming, "Oh, yeah? Well what about when X did Y?" It's not the point. A movie works or it doesn't. It has to stand on its own merits. Or not. 
