# Why can't DC make good movies?



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

So with MoS, DC has now made 3 movies in a row that are at the very least dubious and questionable (Green Lantern, TDKR, MoS). Why can't they make an actual good movie with minimal, or at least not multiple blatantly glaring, flaws to save their lives?


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

Why can't Marvel make movies?


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Don't be a DCfag. I'm not talking about Marvel nor did I mention them.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

I'm not a DCfag. My point is that making three consecutive bad movies doesn't mean they can't make good movies. Do Green Lantern, Rises, and Man of Steel erase The Dark Knight from existence?


----------



## The World (Jun 23, 2013)

Marvel makes terrible movies too

good job hopping off the MoS bandwagon too

^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

No but it means they haven't made a good movie since the Dark Knight and especially haven't made a good movie out of any character other than Batman.



The World said:


> Marvel makes terrible movies too
> 
> good job hopping off the MoS bandwagon too
> 
> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


This isn't a Marvel movie thread, not to mention none of their films have been as bad as GL or MoS. And I have good taste, I'm not staying on the bandwagon of a shitty movie.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> No but it means they haven't made a good movie since the Dark Knight and especially haven't made a good movie out of any character other than Batman.


Fair point, but...



> This isn't a Marvel movie thread, not to mention none of their films have been as bad as GL or MoS. And I have good taste, I'm not staying on the bandwagon of a shitty movie.


...the X-Men series, the Blade series, Spider-Man and Spider-Man 3, Daredevil, Hulk, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America all say 'hi'.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

8 of those 12 listed were not made by Marvel. As for the other 4, your opinion is nice, but general consensus says that none of those movies were bad and were all well received to varying degrees, much less as bad as Green Lanter or MoS.

But again, this is not a Marvel thread. Don't dodge the question by using Marvel as a scapegoat. You look insecure.


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> But again, this is not a Marvel thread. Don't dodge the question by using Marvel as a scapegoat. You look insecure.


I don't have an allegiance--they're both crap as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Whether or not you have an allegiance, stop bringing up Marvel because it's not what the thread is about. If you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in doing so, but this isn't the thread for that. I'm trying to talk about DC.


----------



## Gabe (Jun 23, 2013)

I thought the last 3 batman movies were good. With the dark knight IMO being the best super heroe movie made.


----------



## Palpatine (Jun 23, 2013)

Dark Knight Rises was great


----------



## Tom Servo (Jun 23, 2013)

There are alot of good DC movies Op doesn't know what he's talking about


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

I think DC tries to make their heroes too dark or serious and in the end...we only need one Batman. Think about Man of Steel...not a lot of humor or happiness in that movie(I think I might have only smiled at the part when he was learning to fly). Maybe if the movies weren't so geared towards being serious and the heroes were a bit more relatable(instead of being distant and cold gods), they'd be more well received by people.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jun 23, 2013)

Maybe a better question would be "why DC can't make good movies featuring other superheroes that aren't Superman nor Batman?"

I don't think MoS is as bad as it is, its entertaining like Batman Begins was to me. The Dark Knight while thought-provoking and realistic, could be sometimes too complex and serious for a superheroe movie. Man of Steel felt more free from those things to me. But I do agree that GL and TDKR are so-so. But just because it didn't work with GL doesn't mean they should keep distance from their other heroes.

I'd like to see Flash have his movie. Plus I love his outfit.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Flash could be a great movie...although having a guy that can literally end fights in a blink of an eye might be problematic.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jun 23, 2013)

Maybe they'll make him handle his powers like Superman did in MoS, one step (no pun) at a time. Seeing how far he can go in one scene and then as the danger and threat his enemy(ies) poses he'll really start to accelerate till he's as fast as we know he is.

I'll like to see something like this there:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Must suck that MoS has 10 times the action than the 10 minutes of IM3 .


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

The reason DC is struggling is due to Warner Bros poor decisions. Marvel were smart in hiring Whedon for instance. Warner were dumb in hiring Smallville writers to write Green Lantern. That's where DC has been coming short, the writing for their recent films has been appalling. It's rushed and poor. Hire better writers and take your time. Throwing money at a project won't make it better. You need to hire a team of creative people and then ive them time to map out a good strategy to follow.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> I think DC tries to make their heroes too dark or serious and in the end...we only need one Batman. Think about Man of Steel...not a lot of humor or happiness in that movie(I think I might have only smiled at the part when he was learning to fly). Maybe if the movies weren't so geared towards being serious and the heroes were a bit more relatable(instead of being distant and cold gods), they'd be more well received by people.



Can normal everyday people really relate to any comic book characters, hell even the most relatable is a billionaire.


Oh and this thread is heartbreaking sun brothers who stood united have now turned on each other. Lol I guess the brotherhood of the sun is over?


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> The reason DC is struggling is due to Warner Bros poor decisions. Marvel were smart in hiring Whedon for instance. Warner were dumb in hiring Smallville writers to write Green Lantern. That's where DC has been coming short, the writing for their recent films has been appalling. It's rushed and poor. Hire better writers and take your time. Throwing money at a project won't make it better. You need to hire a team of creative people and then ive them time to map out a good strategy to follow.



Funny thing is DC had Whedon first but they rejected his pitch for a Wonder Woman film a fact that his still very bitter about.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

I don't know why Rises was such a piece of shit though, Nolan had all the resources and time in the World for that one. Yet the writing was absurd.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> I don't know why Rises was such a piece of shit though, Nolan had all the resources and time in the World for that one. Yet the writing was absurd.



Apparently him and Goyer struggled to pen the script for it, it was in the midst of this struggle that Goyer came up with the idea for MOS. Goyer is a terrible writer and WB shouldn't use him as a script writer but as an idea man. His got good ideas his just terrible at putting them on paper.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

The reason WB give him work is because they're afraid he'll go elsewhere. It's all politics.


----------



## Stan Lee (Jun 23, 2013)

Well most critics and general audience don't view TDKR & MoS as bad films. Neither do I. Though Green Lantern was mediocre at best.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Zero Requiem said:


> Well most critics and general audience don't view TDKR & MoS as bad films. Neither do I. Though Green Lantern was mediocre at best.



MOS got torn to shreds by critics, it's the general audience that was more forgiving of the glaring flaws the film has.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> So with MoS, DC has now made 3 movies in a row that are at the very least dubious and questionable (Green Lantern, TDKR, MoS). Why can't they make an actual good movie with minimal, or at least not multiple blatantly glaring, flaws to save their lives?



considering they made TDK, the best comic book movie ever, before that, and the avengers and iron man 2 were pretty bad, this isn't an actual question. you haven't detected some sort of pervasive pattern here

they're in a bit of a slump, that's all


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

> Well most critics and general audience don't view TDKR & MoS as bad films. Neither do I. Though Green Lantern was mediocre at best.



MoS has been heavily criticised. And other than Nolanbots noone really puts DKR on any pedestal. Let's not mention GL.

The bigger problem DC has is the expectations from their properties. Superman for instance is one of the biggest icons in Pop culture and when the film is less than stellar, the criticism will be that more intense. Marvel don't have to worry about that.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> But again, this is not a Marvel thread. Don't dodge the question by using Marvel as a scapegoat. You look insecure.


and this is a pathetic refrain, from you. you're arbitrarily asking why DC can't make good movies with little more grounds than there would be for asking why Marvel can't. 

the obvious implication behind asking such a question exclusively about DC, when there are two big producers of comic book movies, is that Marvel _doesn't_ make bad movies

and by pretending Marvel is somehow magically irrelevant to the discussion, when it is at the centre, it's you who's looking insecure 

cut that stupid shit out



Suzuku said:


> Whether or not you have an allegiance, stop bringing up Marvel because it's not what the thread is about. If you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in doing so, but this isn't the thread for that. I'm trying to talk about DC.



obtuse issue-dodging bullshittery


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

So immature. Not everything boils down to Marvel. Is any piece of criticism towards Warner some how mean you're propping up Marvel?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> So immature. Not everything boils down to Marvel. Is any piece of criticism towards Warner some how mean you're propping up Marvel?





Lucaniel said:


> the obvious implication behind asking such a question exclusively about DC, when there are two big producers of comic book movies, is that Marvel _doesn't_ make bad movies
> 
> and by pretending Marvel is somehow magically irrelevant to the discussion, when it is at the centre, it's you who's looking insecure



good job dodging the point


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

Lol you made no point. DC has had a shit run. Marvel has nothing to do with it unless the OP compares DC to Marvel, which he didn't.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> Lol you made no point. DC has had a shit run. Marvel has nothing to do with it unless the OP compares DC to Marvel, which he didn't.



unless only Marvel makes good movies (not true), the OP is operating on a false premise by exclusively limiting the question to DC

logic


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

DC vs Marvel is like PC vs Mac, when you're talking about quality then the discussion of which is better will always come up. In this case we have movies about superheroes, so it's perfectly acceptable to use examples from both especially when the plot's are similar like MoS/Avengers were about aliens coming to earth so it's logical to make comparisons.

I mean I could go and make a thread about "Why Can't Marvel make good animated films?" and then people would instantly start throwing in bad DC animated movies.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

You have no logic. DC is in a downward spiral, this debate here is trying to understand what happened since DC were doing pretty till TDK. Unless Marvel infiltrated Warner and re-wrote the scripts, they have no bearing on the quality of their films.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> You have no logic. DC is in a downward spiral, this debate here is trying to understand what happened since DC were doing pretty till TDK. Unless Marvel infiltrated Warner and re-wrote the scripts, they have no bearing on the quality of their films.



you're in denial about the frankly self-evident logic, which is your problem

and there is no substantial difference between the quality of MoS and the quality of Avengers, Iron Man 3, Captain America, or Thor

this thread has no point


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

> and there is no substantial difference between the quality of MoS and the quality of Avengers, Iron Man 3, Captain America, or Thor



Most people would disagree. For one Thor was garbage. Not that personally the rest were that great to begin with.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> This isn't a Marvel movie thread, *not to mention none of their films have been as bad as GL or MoS*. And I have good taste, I'm not staying on the bandwagon of a shitty movie.



OP brought Marvel into this discussion by saying this. He has just used a comparison but then constantly tries to reinforce that other people aren't allowed to do the same but in DC's favour.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> Most people would disagree. For one Thor was garbage. Not that personally the rest were that great to begin with.



they were all comic book movies which made little or no effort to be anything more or say anything substantial, and just had exposition and a few character-building scenes of varying quality interspersed with the action that people came for

you can personally find a few of them more or less effective in doing so, but they all worked in the same limited ways towards more or less the same goals. iron man 3 was the most comedic and MoS was the most serious, but they're all directly comparable and at a similar average value


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 23, 2013)

They still vary in quality. Unless you're saying that Green lantern was no different in quality to something like Avengers or Batman Begins.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ennoea said:


> They still vary in quality. Unless you're saying that Green lantern was no different in quality to something like Avengers.



i've never seen green lantern

fact is, OP needs three to pretend there's any kind of pattern which validates his arbitrary question, and - though from what i've heard, green lantern was a genuine stinker - MoS was just a comic book film like any other. less comedy and more action than most, but pretending it somehow represented (or could be pointed to as evidence for) a major slump for DC is nonsense


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

DC movies' biggest flaw is the lack of having a Stan Lee type showing up for ten seconds in every film.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

I think people are being very harsh in regards to MOS but that all stems from the fact people expected so mucho the from it. Disappointment can be a very very painful experience.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Why _can't_ DC? Eh, I'm not sure 3 films is the best way to look at things, especially considering the fact that the three had far, far different problems for far different reasons, and of very different quality. I don't hold DKR on a pedestal, but I wouldn't call it "dubious". _Greeen Lantern_ is... yeah, it's pretty bad, trying to do way too much for a starting movie (It's trying to be _Iron Man_ and _Iron Man 2_ all at once and failing to be either). _Man of Steel_... I'll have to see it again, but despite being a flawed film I'm not sure it's a complete miss or anything. Do agree with the idea of Goyer being more of a producer/original screenplay treatment guy with a writer filling in things.

But I'm not convinced this is a systemic thing, especially given the very different problems of each film.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> i've never seen green lantern
> 
> fact is, OP needs three to pretend there's any kind of pattern which validates his arbitrary question, and - though from what i've heard, green lantern was a genuine stinker - MoS was just a comic book film like any other. less comedy and more action than most, but pretending it somehow represented (or could be pointed to as evidence for) a major slump for DC is nonsense



Aside from Batman films, you'd have to be in major denial not to see that DC is struggling in putting their heroes on the silver screen in recent times. 

Disregard your opinion. Look at it as production studio would: Avengers was a runaway success, Spider-Man movies do great, even if SM3 was not well-received. Iron Man did well enough for a trilogy at least, Thor enjoyed moderate success, and while people didn't like X3, the X-Men movies too enjoyed success. People like these movies clearly, they spend money to see them and give strong encouragement for sequels. Yes there are those like the F4 that received negative reception, but the number of adaptations Marvel has put out, misses are bound to happen. Yet enough box office successes have been strung together for them to create their own cinematic universe.

So what is going on with DC? Why are they struggling with this?


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

You talk about box office success as grounds for good movies yet ignore how well the Batman trilogy did at the box office and how well MoS has done so far. Heck the old Batman films even did well including original Superman movies so as far as making money goes then so far I'd say DC aren't doing too badly.

Best example would be The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing superhero movie second to Avengers then third is The Dark Knight Rises. I mean people keep bringing up the fact that yes DC has had some bad films but people to seem to be forgetting some classic Marvel stinkers like Ghost Rider, Elektra, Blade Trinity and Daredevil.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Aside from Batman films, you'd have to be in major denial not to see that DC is struggling in putting their heroes on the silver screen in recent times.
> 
> Disregard your opinion. Look at it as production studio would: Avengers was a runaway success, Spider-Man movies do great, even if SM3 was not well-received. Iron Man did well enough for a trilogy at least, Thor enjoyed moderate success, and while people didn't like X3, the X-Men movies too enjoyed success. People like these movies clearly, they spend money to see them and give strong encouragement for sequels. Yes there are those like the F4 that received negative reception, but the number of adaptations Marvel has put out, misses are bound to happen. Yet enough box office successes have been strung together for them to create their own cinematic universe.
> 
> So what is going on with DC? Why are they struggling with this?



you're talking about a completely different question to the one OP's talking about

it's completely true that DC puts out less films based off its characters than Marvel and generally seems to have more trouble putting them on the screen, yeah

but that has nothing to do with the imagined question of 'why can't dc make good movies?'

that's 'why can't dc make as many movies as marvel?' or 'why isn't dc as successful with movies as marvel?'

which is totally divorced from the question of their quality

so...you're haranguing me for not seeing something which is essentially irrelevant to the point


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Aside from Batman films, you'd have to be in major denial not to see that DC is struggling in putting their heroes on the silver screen in recent times.
> 
> Disregard your opinion. Look at it as production studio would: Avengers was a runaway success, Spider-Man movies do great, even if SM3 was not well-received. Iron Man did well enough for a trilogy at least, Thor enjoyed moderate success, and while people didn't like X3, the X-Men movies too enjoyed success. People like these movies clearly, they spend money to see them and give strong encouragement for sequels. Yes there are those like the F4 that received negative reception, but the number of adaptations Marvel has put out, misses are bound to happen. Yet enough box office successes have been strung together for them to create their own cinematic universe.
> 
> So what is going on with DC? Why are they struggling with this?



Lol if you are talking box office MOS is killing it at the moment, a sequel is within reach. Critical acclaim is what the film is lacking.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> unless only Marvel makes good movies (not true), the OP is operating on a false premise by exclusively limiting the question to DC
> 
> logic


"It's not fair to talk about how DC is horrible but exclude Marvel because baawww my insecurities I don't wanna think about it"



James Bond said:


> OP brought Marvel into this discussion by saying this. He has just used a comparison but then constantly tries to reinforce that other people aren't allowed to do the same but in DC's favour.


I did that in response to someone else bringing up Marvel, I did not bring it into the discussion. I was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic by stating Marvel Studios movies have been as terrible as GL or MoS because they factually have not going by general consensus. Overall it's pointless to bring it up in this thread because it's not what it is about. Don't gerrymander my quote, it's not a good look especially when people can just go back a page and look at the context that you're blatantly ignoring.



Lucaniel said:


> i've never seen green lantern
> 
> fact is, OP needs three to pretend there's any kind of pattern which validates his arbitrary question, and - though from what i've heard, green lantern was a genuine stinker - MoS was just a comic book film like any other. less comedy and more action than most, but pretending it somehow represented (or could be pointed to as evidence for) a major slump for DC is nonsense


You really have no place to be talking about this if you've never even seen GL to understand how horribad it is and how bad it is that DC followed that up with the mess that is TDKR and MoS. And yes, MoS is a bad movie. It isn't just a normal comic book film with a lot of action, it has glaring flaws in storytelling, pacing, character development, and various other script issues that make it a bad film. Don't lump other comic book films into being more action over substance because it is factually incorrect and there is a reason critics like movies like TDK, Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, etc more than MoS.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> This isn't a Marvel movie thread, not to mention *none *of their films have been as bad as GL or MoS. And I have good taste, I'm not staying on the bandwagon of a shitty movie.





Suzuku said:


> I did not bring it into the discussion. I was simply pointing out the flaw in his logic by stating Marvel Studios movies *have been as terrible as* GL or MoS because they factually have not going by general consensus.



You should contain your butthurt, it's making you inconsistent.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> "It's not fair to talk about how DC is horrible but exclude Marvel because baawww my insecurities I don't wanna think about it"


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Tempproxy said:


> Lol if you are talking box office MOS is killing it at the moment, a sequel is within reach. Critical acclaim is what the film is lacking.


MoS just dropped 60% on Friday to 12m. That is a bad second weekend.



James Bond said:


> You should contain your butthurt, it's making you inconsistent.


I'm sorry where is the flaw in my logic there? And my butthurt as well? You're not making sense.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

In one post you say that none of Marvel films have been as bad as GL or MoS then in second post you say that Marvel movies have been as bad as GL or MoS and you don't see a flaw in your posts?

As for the butthurt, you could've made this friend any time but it came shortly after you most likely went and saw MoS so you felt so outraged and butthurt that you made this thread therefore ultimately dooming you like an angry boyfriend who's trying to argue with his girlfriend but can't think of anything clever to say so you just spew gibberish loud enough that you hope you win.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> In one post you say that none of Marvel films have been as bad as GL or MoS then in second post you say that Marvel movies have been as bad as GL or MoS and you don't see a flaw in your posts?




Do you even English?



> As for the butthurt, you could've made this friend any time but it came shortly after you most likely went and saw MoS so you felt so outraged and butthurt that you made this thread therefore ultimately dooming you like an angry boyfriend who's trying to argue with his girlfriend but can't think of anything clever to say so you just spew gibberish loud enough that you hope you win.


I saw MoS last week at the midnight showing. And posted about it in the Superman thread. And said I thought it wasn't as bad as critics were saying but it was extremely flawed and Goyer and Snyder needed to go. No butthurt involved. 

:/

Just stop bro. Now not only do I question your comprehension skills but you're making incorrect assumptions and calling me butthurt over fantasies in your head.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> MoS just dropped 60% on Friday to 12m. That is a bad second weekend.



Dam I wasn't aware, Last week news was raving about how much money it pulled in.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> You talk about box office success as grounds for good movies yet ignore how well the Batman trilogy did at the box office and how well MoS has done so far. Heck the old Batman films even did well including original Superman movies so as far as making money goes then so far I'd say DC aren't doing too badly.



I'm pretty sure I mentioned "aside from Batman", Superman in the past enjoyed success, III, IV, and Returns however struggled. Batman enjoyed success under Burton, and while indeed the franchise suffered under Schumacher, its popularity was enough to greenlight yet another adaptation being the Dark Knight trilogy. 



> Best example would be The Dark Knight is the second highest grossing superhero movie second to Avengers then third is The Dark Knight Rises. I mean people keep bringing up the fact that yes DC has had some bad films but people to seem to be forgetting some classic Marvel stinkers like Ghost Rider, Elektra, Blade Trinity and Daredevil.



You didn't read my post at all...



Lucaniel said:


> you're talking about a completely different question to the one OP's talking about
> 
> it's completely true that DC puts out less films based off its characters than Marvel and generally seems to have more trouble putting them on the screen, yeah
> 
> ...



As far as the general moviegoer is concerned, a person will go see a movie they believe is worth seeing individually, or at the behest of one that believes it to be worth seeing. So, aside from Batman, what's the problem?

This isn't like some indie film or a film festival, you have to find something that appeals to wide audiences and draw them in. Compared to its counterpart, Marvel has clearly had more success in this. You have to get the general viewer to see these movies as worth going to. Box office success isn't the only measure of course, as The Last Airbender and Twilight proves, you do need critical acclaim, but it is probably the biggest factor in what resources a studio is willing to invest in a movie. The more willing investment the better chance it has for a success.



> which is totally divorced from the question of their quality



A franchise's financial success does have an effect on their quality. If you have a movie franchise that doesn't do well then studios are going to be less willing to invest resources into them, at least for a while. As I mentioned previously, even Batman suffered because of that. Superman III and IV hurt the franchise considerably during their time and Returns received such a lukewarm reception that it is only until now that another reboot was attempted. Then there is SM3, X3, F4, etc. Which performed poorly enough to either consider a reboot or dropping the franchise completely.

It really matters little what you as an individual think. Like earlier I saw you state you thought Avengers wasn't a great movie, but it was critically acclaimed and a runaway success; its future for a sequel is assured. That's what Batman movies were, and Batman movies are the most consistent example DC has had in recent times. DC needs movies like that for its heroes.



> so...you're haranguing me for not seeing something which is essentially irrelevant to the point



It is going to be inevitably tied to the matter.


----------



## Rukia (Jun 23, 2013)

What about League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> MoS just dropped 60% on Friday to 12m. That is a bad second weekend.



Yes, but it also has actual competition. It's fighting against a Pixar movie and _World War Z_'s premier. All things considering, it very well might still have a $50 mil weekend. There's something call "context" that you have to remember when interpreting statistics.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

The World said:


> Marvel makes terrible movies too
> 
> good job hopping off the MoS bandwagon too
> 
> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)



BOY WHAT YOU SAY? 

Quit turning any "DC movies sucks" into "marvel films vs DC films".


----------



## Rukia (Jun 23, 2013)

I think the World makes a fair point.  It might just be that comic books are hard to adapt.  Marvel hasn't had any success either.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Tempproxy said:


> Dam I wasn't aware, Last week news was raving about how much money it pulled in.


Yeah it did very well in its OW, showing there was hype and WB did a good job marketing it. Second weekends always rely on WOM.



Guy Gardner said:


> Yes, but it also has actual competition. It's fighting against a Pixar movie and _World War Z_'s premier. All things considering, it very well might still have a $50 mil weekend. There's something call "context" that you have to remember when interpreting statistics.


The competition is no excuse for that kind of drop. Experts were predicting it would gross more than WWZ ad come in at #2 and it didn't. A 60% drop, no matter the competition the next week, is a bad drop, especially when MU is a family movie and the only real competition it should have had was WWZ.


----------



## Tempproxy (Jun 23, 2013)

What DC needs is a plan start structuring what they what to do and accomplish. Start introducing the public to other heroes and integrate the concept of a shared universe and bam Justice League.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Man Of Steel Green Lantern and other films besides the Nolan Batman ones suck ass. Period.

Marvel makes smart decisions with their films and DC doesn't. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Saturday and weekend numbers just came in for MoS.



> MAN OF STEEL: $41.22M Weekend (est) / $210.01M Domestic Total / 4,207 Locations / $9,797 Location Avg. #ManOfSteel





That is a terrible drop, regardless of competition. It should have held its own. People were predicting $50-60m for the second week. I predicted the movie would make $320m, it's now in question whether it can even pass $280m.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> The competition is no excuse for that kind of drop. Experts were predicting it would gross more than WWZ ad come in at #2 and it didn't. A 60% drop, no matter the competition the next week, is a bad drop, especially when MU is a family movie and the only real competition it should have had was WWZ.



So _Iron Man 3_'s 70% drop the next week means it was obviously a disaster, right? Or _Avengers_ 63% drop?


----------



## Stan Lee (Jun 23, 2013)

Tempproxy said:


> MOS got torn to shreds by critics, it's the general audience that was more forgiving of the glaring flaws the film has.



You're confusing mixed with negative. Its gotten mostly mix to positive reviews.  6.2/10 on RT is above average. It gotten 132 positive reviews with 106 mix-negative reviews out of 242 review . So yeah, most of critic do not see it as a bad film.



Ennoea said:


> MoS has been heavily criticised. And other than Nolanbots noone really puts DKR on any pedestal. Let's not mention GL.



Criticized=/=panned.



> The bigger problem DC has is the expectations from their properties. Superman for instance is one of the biggest icons in Pop culture and when the film is less than stellar, the criticism will be that more intense. Marvel don't have to worry about that.



Add in the fact that Nolan is involved in the project.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Also, and actual  about MoS's weekend performance with analysis rather than just a twitter link.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Guy Gardner

Like in the Iron Man 3 film thread you don't get it. Iron Man 3's dropped because of the number of other good films. Not that people have shown dislike for it.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Guy Gardner said:


> So _Iron Man 3_'s 70% drop the next week means it was obviously a disaster, right? Or _Avengers_ 63% drop?


U WOT MATE

Iron Man 3 dropped 58%. And Avengers only dropped 50%. 



Guy Gardner said:


> Also, and actual  about MoS's weekend performance with analysis rather than just a twitter link.


>Comicbook.com

You mean the same website that posts about how they have secret sources telling them Marvel, Fox, and Sony are working on gigantic Marvel movie universe? 

And they have also been making articles defending MoS since the bad RT reviews came out two weeks ago saying they were pretentious and weren't comic book fans so they didn't understand. The site is clearly biased for the movie to say the least.


----------



## Rukia (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku is well known to be a massive troll.  Why do you guys keep taking the bait?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> As far as the general moviegoer is concerned, a person will go see a movie they believe is worth seeing individually, or at the behest of one that believes it to be worth seeing. So, aside from Batman, what's the problem?
> 
> This isn't like some indie film or a film festival, you have to find something that appeals to wide audiences and draw them in. Compared to its counterpart, Marvel has clearly had more success in this. You have to get the general viewer to see these movies as worth going to. Box office success isn't the only measure of course, as The Last Airbender and Twilight proves, you do need critical acclaim, but it is probably the biggest factor in what resources a studio is willing to invest in a movie. The more willing investment the better chance it has for a success.
> 
> ...



DC's inability to capitalise on its properties to the extent that Marvel has is a separate issue from the OP's question of 'why can't DC make good movies?'

it may have a connection, but it's by no means the main problem

getting into the specifics of why would be off-topic and a colossal waste of my time

suffice to say that marvel has, numerically speaking, produced as many stinkers as DC, and the dark knight was more acclaimed than any marvel movie, and so it's clearly more complicated than a simple case of marvel just constantly producing way better movies and DC producing stinkers


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Preach Marvel comics preach


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Rukia said:


> Suzuku is well known to be a massive troll.  Why do you guys keep taking the bait?



*shrug*

i see bad logic, i criticise bad logic


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

Rukia said:


> Suzuku is well known to be a massive troll.  Why do you guys keep taking the bait?


lol         Rukia


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Rukia said:


> Suzuku is well known to be a massive troll.  Why do you guys keep taking the bait?



Da fuck are you talking about? Suzuku can be intellectual mofo, if anything one of the most intelligent person on these forums. Moreover, he doesn't beat around a bush or lie about shit.

The way you guys BS about Man Of Steel and DC showing potential even though all they've done well is Batman is sickening.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

It's just as the godfather who gave us the beautiful Avengers film says:



> EDITORIALS
> *Joss Whedon Explains Why DC Comics Movies Don't Work*
> 
> by Alex Billington
> ...


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> Da fuck are you talking about? Suzuku can be intellectual mofo, if anything one of the most intelligent person on these forums. Moreover, he doesn't beat around a bush or lie about shit.



this is the most glowing recommendation you could possibly have on this forum

the ghosts of george washington, abraham lincoln, and frankin d. roosevelt might as well have just risen to tell the world that suzuku should be elected president


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

nope

it's just bad writing


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> It's just as the godfather who gave us the beautiful Avengers film says:



this is such an utter pile of wank


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> DC's inability to capitalise on its properties to the extent that Marvel has is a separate issue from the OP's question of 'why can't DC make good movies?'
> 
> it may have a connection, but it's by no means the main problem
> 
> ...



Marvel has had more success in getting studios behind its projects, and I stated some have flopped, but they've enjoyed enough success to create what seems to be gearing up to be two Spider-Man trilogies, an X-Men trilogy and a possible reboot, and their own cinematic universe with their own set of trilogies. Batman is an exceptional case as far as DC is concerned like I stated.

I see no point in trying to deflect by dragging in Marvel, or sticking our heads in the sand over a visible issue here.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

>Listening to Rukia

Lucaniel confirmed gullible as fuck.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Marvel has had more success in getting studios behind its projects, and I stated some have flopped, but they've enjoyed enough success to create what seems to be gearing up to be two Spider-Man trilogies, an X-Men trilogy and a possible reboot, and their own cinematic universe with their own set of trilogies. Batman is an exceptional case as far as DC is concerned like I stated.
> 
> I see no point in trying to deflect by dragging in Marvel, or sticking our heads in the sand over a visible issue here.



it's not a visible issue, man 

how are you still trying to pretend that there is any tangible difference in quality between the majority of marvel's releases, and TDKR and MoS, which the OP's using to pretend DC are in a phase of producing nothing but bad films?

man

bizarroworld



Suzuku said:


> >Listening to Rukia
> 
> Lucaniel confirmed gullible as fuck.



well, your total inability to face up to logic and instead reply to everyone mentioning marvel with 'bawww i can't stand dc being dissed because i'm insecure' does suggest trollishness

or idiocy, whichever


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> Avengers only dropped 50%. And Iron Man 3 dropped 58%.



Not the Friday percentage, and we only have estimates on yesterday and today. Even if it dropped 60%, that's not far off of _Iron Man 3_'s drop and more in-tune with just about every other movie out there. Drops are largely individual, and have to be interpreted as such. Again, _Man of Steel_ was fighting against a Pixar sequel to one of their more popular movies and a Zombie flick. Context always matters.



> sources telling them Marvel, Fox, and Sony are working on gigantic Marvel movie universe?



So? Just about every comic book site is full of those. If I disregarded a comic book site on the basis of wild speculation, I'd be reading CNN for my comic book news.



> And they have also been making articles defending MoS since the bad RT reviews came out two weeks ago saying they were pretentious and weren't comic book fans so they didn't understand. *The site is clearly biased for the movie to say the least*.



Uh, so you mean the place has _*opinion pieces?!*_ Just because tehy liked the movie doesn't mean they are somehow impossibly biased. Can you show me where they've ignored evidence or actually do shoddy reporting, because this story is basically repeated all over the web.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Guy Gardner

The overall rating on Man Of Steel is 56%. The tomatometer is based on reviews from both critics and users. The users have given it either 3.5 or higher. 3.5 out of 5 is pretty much an average.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Guy Gardner
> 
> The overall rating on Man Of Steel is 56%. The tomatometer is based on reviews from both critics and users. The users have given it either 3.5 or higher. 3.5 out of 5 is pretty much an average.



[YOUTUBE]3foXJfWlgoM[/YOUTUBE]

But seriously, what the fuck are you even talking about?


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Guy Gardner

I'm talking about how the reviews of Man Of Steel are average and that the majority barely coming out and getting the film its 82%.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Guy Gardner
> 
> I'm talking about how the reviews of Man Of Steel are average and that the majority barely coming out and getting the film its 82%.



I know. I mean, what the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do at all with anything Suzuku and I are discussing? Do you also like pasta because your house is made of bricks?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> it's not a visible issue, man
> 
> how are you still trying to pretend that there is any tangible difference in quality between the majority of marvel's releases, and TDKR and MoS, which the OP's using to pretend DC are in a phase of producing nothing but bad films?
> 
> ...



DCs success in movies are: Batman and Superman

Marvels are: X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and the Avengers most notably. Moderate successes that makes up their cinematic universe.

Obviously there is something that gets Marvel's cinematic projects off the ground and people watching more consistently than DC. I told you it's about what draws in the general audience.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> DCs success in movies are: Batman and Superman
> 
> Marvels are: X-Men, Spider-Man, Iron Man, and the Avengers most notably.
> 
> Obviously there is something that gets Marvel's cinematic projects off the ground and people watching more consistently than DC.



I'd probably put Blade up there, too. But the plethora of Marvel movies are largely because Marvel aggressively pitched their rights to anyone back when they weren't Disney properties when they were essentially getting run into the ground by poor management. AOL-Time Warner, however, owns DC and thus is why you haven't seen a lot of movement out of them; they own all the rights.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> well, your total inability to face up to logic and instead reply to everyone mentioning marvel with 'bawww i can't stand dc being dissed because i'm insecure' does suggest trollishness
> 
> or idiocy, whichever


No, I'm not replying to everyone that way, I replied to you that way because that's what your post amounted to. 

Your total inability to keep Marvel out of this conversation is more an indication that you don't have a lot of leg to stand on in defending DC than anything.



Guy Gardner said:


> Not the Friday percentage, and we only have estimates on yesterday and today. Even if it dropped 60%, that's not far off of _Iron Man 3_'s drop and more in-tune with just about every other movie out there. Drops are largely individual, and have to be interpreted as such. Again, _Man of Steel_ was fighting against a Pixar sequel to one of their more popular movies and a Zombie flick. Context always matters.


No, we have full weekend estimates, which I posted. MoS dropped 65% from last weekend to this one. IM3 dropped 58%, Avengers dropped 50%.

Like I said, regardless of competition, that is an extremely bad drop especially when experts were predicting it would outgross WWZ and take in $50-60m. Yes, WWZ took in more money than expected, but there's a reason for that. People aren't coming back for second viewings of MoS and are choosing other movies. 



> So? Just about every comic book site is full of those. If I disregarded a comic book site on the basis of wild speculation, I'd be reading CNN for my comic book news.


My point is their integrity is in question when they post shit like they 100% positive of this and that. I don't hold editorials on CBM, for example, to a high standard because the writers are usually full of shit and don't have a complete understanding of what they're talking about or are bias. Same for that website. Give me an article from Forbes, THR, or Deadline and I'll hold it to a standard where I'll take it seriously and consider it as a legitimate and unbiased analyzation of said situation.



> Uh, so you mean the place has _*opinion pieces?!*_ Just because tehy liked the movie doesn't mean they are somehow impossibly biased. Can you show me where they've ignored evidence or actually do shoddy reporting, because this story is basically repeated all over the web.


No, that doesn't, but when all they do is put up articles defending the movie and making slight jabs at people like Mark Waid for criticizing the movie it DOES bring into question how valid their opinion is objectively. They clearly have an agenda and its to defend comic book movies. Regardless, their claims of MoS settling back down to expectations is just an excuse to say it didn't hold up to last week's numbers. 64% drop is terrible no matter how you look at it. That article was also written before full numbers came out showing far lower estimates than people were even predicting yesterday when the low Friday number came out.

Also, I just realized this conversation is off topic and derailing the thread.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> No, I'm not replying to everyone that way, I replied to you that way because that's what your post amounted to.
> 
> Your total inability to keep Marvel out of this conversation is more an indication that you don't have a lot of leg to stand on in defending DC than anything.



you want marvel kept out of the conversation so your premise for asking this pointless question doesn't fall apart

logically, marvel is highly relevant

i've already explained how two or three times

you can delude yourself by claiming anyone mentioning marvel is invalidated, like some personal godwin's law () but you have no arguments to that end, just endless repetition that you're right


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Anybody using critics especially RT reviews and box office revenue as an argument to judge whether a movie is good or bad shouldn't be discussing about movies in general.


----------



## Tony Stark (Jun 23, 2013)

Haven't read trough, but DC's main cast consists of mostly superhuman/intergalactic warriors which makes it hard to showcase their abilities as good as say Batman, Captain America, Hawkeye or even Iron Man.

Most difficult I find it to be Green Lantern, and it was stupid to bring him in this early into the story. 
GL should have been introduced after all others, including the Flash.
I should also mention that I didn't like Ryan Reynolds in the movie but that is mostly irrelevant. 
Final note, 2015 is still too early for a Justice League movie.

just my 2 cents


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Rukia said:


> I think the World makes a fair point.  It might just be that comic books are hard to adapt.  Marvel hasn't had any success either.


>clear attempt at baiting, nobody cares to fall of it.


Rukia said:


> Suzuku is well known to be a massive troll.  Why do you guys keep taking the bait?


>backpedals onto suzuku 
>Lucaniel falls of it


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> >clear attempt at baiting, nobody cares to fall of it.
> 
> >backpedals onto suzuku
> >Lucaniel falls of it



*shrug*

like i already said, based on my experience in this particular thread, that seems like a perspective worth considering


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Ra's al Ghul said:


> Haven't read trough, but DC's main cast consists of mostly superhuman/intergalactic warriors which makes it hard to showcase their abilities as good as say Batman, Captain America, Hawkeye or even Iron Man.
> 
> Most difficult I find it to be Green Lantern, and it was stupid to bring him in this early into the story.
> GL should have been introduced after all others, including the Flash.
> ...



Maybe they should start with video games on the characters to test waters on how to display such feats, and if people receive it well then look into movie adaptations. It would be a good way to get people to warm up to particular characters and spark up some popularity.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

come on man, how can you take the word of a guy that was clearly trying to trollbait and derail the thread just a post before he accuses suzuku of being a troll.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

if marvel could make thor successful, dc should be able to make wonder woman successful, since they're quite similar in powers and scope 

- representative of mythological-ish organisations on earth
- divine or semi-divine
- similar power tiers



Narutossss said:


> come on man, how can you take the word of a guy that was clearly trying to trollbait and derail the thread just a post before he accuses suzuku of being a troll.



kinda overreacting, aren't you?

what makes you say he wasn't just being facetious?


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

bump        /


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> *shrug*
> 
> like i already said, based on my experience in this particular thread, that seems like a perspective worth considering


>constantly brings up Marvel in a DC thread for no reason other than lack of legitimate arguments regarding subject at hand
>says I should be considered a troll for calling him out on it


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Guy Gardner said:


> I know. I mean, what the fuck are you talking about? What does that have to do at all with anything Suzuku and I are discussing? Do you also like pasta because your house is made of bricks?



What I'm talking about involves Man Of Steel dammit. 

@Danger Doom

I'm not just using the RT critics, but the views of other people i n general. Nearly every forum it range from positive to negative or mixed.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> No, we have full weekend estimates, which I posted. MoS dropped 65% from last weekend to this one. IM3 dropped 58%, Avengers dropped 50%.
> 
> Like I said, regardless of competition, that is an extremely bad drop especially when experts were predicting it would outgross WWZ and take in $50-60m. Yes, WWZ took in more money than expected, but there's a reason for that. People aren't coming back for second viewings of MoS and are choosing other movies.



... Or that _Man of Steel_ is losing 3D spots because both WWZ and _Monsters University_ are also 3D, and _Monsters University_ is on pace to come close to equalling the original in box office (Adjusted, that is). As it stands, there's never been a weekend with 3 50 mil+ movies. There is a reason for that, and expecting it was a long shot in general based on natural barriers like theatre space. You _have_ to take those things into account. And again, these are largely estimates based on extrapolations. 



> My point is their integrity is in question when they post shit like they 100% positive of this and that. I don't hold editorials on CBM, for example, to a high standard because the writers are usually full of shit and don't have a complete understanding of what they're talking about or are bias. Same for that website. Give me an article from Forbes, THR, or Deadline and I'll hold it to a standard where I'll take it seriously and consider it as a legitimate and unbiased analyzation of said situation.



Okay. They certainly think it's doing well in  article.



> No, that doesn't, but when all they do is put up articles defending the movie and making slight jabs at people like Mark Waid for criticizing the movie it DOES bring into question how valid their opinion is objectively.



If a site likes a movie, they like it. Do you criticize sites that didn't like the movie for not putting up opinion pieces that defend it? And with the Mark Waid thing, everyone has put their own commentary on his opinion, mostly because some people don't agree and some people do.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel you haven't even seen Green Lantern. Why are you posting in this thread again? You clearly have very little understanding of the context behind all this and even less understanding of the Theatre in general.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Lol, shitstorm ahead


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Lol, shitstorm ahead



Remember when this place had mods? Oh, wait...


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> >constantly brings up Marvel in a DC thread for no reason other than lack of legitimate arguments regarding subject at hand
> >says I should be considered a troll for calling him out on it





Suzuku said:


> for no reason



nope 



Lucaniel said:


> the obvious implication behind asking such a question exclusively about DC, when there are two big producers of comic book movies, is that Marvel _doesn't_ make bad movies



your inability to grasp the most rudimentary logic is stunning



Suzuku said:


> lack of legitimate arguments regarding subject at hand



nope

first post



Lucaniel said:


> considering they made TDK, the best comic book movie ever, before that, and the avengers and iron man 2 were pretty bad, this isn't an actual question. you haven't detected some sort of pervasive pattern here
> 
> they're in a bit of a slump, that's all



so yeah, addressed that



Suzuku said:


> Lucaniel you haven't even seen Green Lantern. Why are you posting in this thread again?



because



Lucaniel said:


> fact is, *OP needs three to pretend there's any kind of pattern which validates his arbitrary question*, and - though from what i've heard, green lantern was a genuine stinker - *MoS was just a comic book film like any other.* less comedy and more action than most, but pretending it somehow represented (or could be pointed to as evidence for) a major slump for DC is nonsense





Lucaniel said:


> how are you still trying to pretend that there is any tangible difference in quality between the majority of marvel's releases, and TDKR and MoS, which the OP's using to pretend DC are in a phase of producing nothing but bad films?



reading is good for you

or, at least, good for not looking like an idiot


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

HUR DURR, DC CAN'T MAKE GOOD MOVIES

>Completely ignoring DC movies belong to warner brothers and not the comic book industry while marvel has their own studios for the avengers franchise while Fox and Sony hold about half their properties


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Guy Gardner said:


> ... Or that _Man of Steel_ is losing 3D spots because both WWZ and _Monsters University_ are also 3D, and _Monsters University_ is on pace to come close to equalling the original in box office (Adjusted, that is). As it stands, there's never been a weekend with 3 50 mil+ movies. There is a reason for that, and expecting it was a long shot in general based on natural barriers like theatre space. You _have_ to take those things into account. And again, these are largely estimates based on extrapolations.


Yes losing 3D screenings would hit the gross a bit but not to the extent it dropped. Like I said, people aren't going to second viewings of MoS. I don't think either of us are wrong though, it's a bit of all the above.



> Okay. They certainly think it's doing well in  article.


That's including international numbers. We're talking domestic. They're mostly glowing about how well it's opening in foreign territories (I read that article yesterday btw).



> If a site likes a movie, they like it. Do you criticize sites that didn't like the movie for not putting up opinion pieces that defend it? And with the Mark Waid thing, everyone has put their own commentary on his opinion, mostly because some people don't agree and some people do.


A site as an entity doesn't usually like a movie, since ideally you have multiple writers with varying opinions. Considering that site seems to universally want to defend the movie it, again, brings into question their integrity on the subject objectively.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

I mean, I'm the king of marvel, and even I don't have the gumption to pretend Ghost Rider and Wolverine didn't just happen


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> You clearly have very little understanding of the context behind all this





Banhammer said:


> >Completely ignoring DC movies belong to warner brothers and not the comic book industry while marvel has their own studios for the avengers franchise while Fox and Sony hold about half their properties



ironic



> and even less understanding of the Theatre in general.





i don't need to study all the undoubtedly fascinating social dynamics in this place to know you're wrong


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Seriously, this thread is like asking why can't Marvel make good Harry Potter movies


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Rukia said:


> I think *the World makes a fair point*.  It might just be that comic books are hard to adapt.  *Marvel hasn't had any success either.*





The World said:


> Marvel makes terrible movies too
> 
> good job hopping off the MoS bandwagon too
> 
> ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)


look how fair this point is. 




Lucaniel said:


> kinda overreacting, aren't you?
> 
> what makes you say he wasn't just being facetious?


also rukia isn't some misinformed tard, he's a regular poster in this section, he knows how successful marvel movies have been. He was clearly trying to get a reaction and nobody fell for it and the very next post he calls suzuku out as a troll because plan A didn't work. You chose to believe this because you're having argument *with* suzuku.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> look how fair this point is.
> 
> 
> 
> also rukia isn't some misinformed tard, he's a regular poster in this section, he knows how successful marvel movies have been. He was clearly trying to get a reaction and nobody fell for it



>what makes you say he wasn't just being facetious?



Narutossss said:


> the very next post he calls suzuku out as a troll because plan A didn't work. You chose to believe this because you're having argument *with* suzuku.



nope, i chose to believe it because this thread is deliberately inflammatory, built on a false premise, and whenever the second point is raised, all suzuku has done is respond with 'can't bear to see your precious dc getting dissed? you mentioned marvel, you lose'

having clarified that, you believe whatever you'd like to


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

At least Thor and Captain America bashing seems to not be cool any more, so we're back to the opinions everyone had back when they first watched the movie, and then ditched so they could feel like superhero snobs and suck on the  dark knight's cock


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

The ironic thing is Marvel repackage the same formulae from IM into the rest of and including Avengers movies and suddenly its the best movie ever. Like CoD is to its following


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

I actually disagree there quite a bit, but these fanboys-come-lately really are quite grating


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> your inability to grasp the most rudimentary logic is stunning


And I've already said if you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in the process. This isn't the thread for it. This is a thread for DC. There's no reason for me to bring up Marvel in a thread about DC. I'm sorry I'm not being politically correct enough for your sensitive feels on the matter.




> nope
> 
> first post


And the thread is about the long slump so that is completely irrelevant. The OP makes it clear that this thread is about their inability to make a good movie ever since GL.



> reading is good for you
> 
> or, at least, good for not looking like an idiot


Okay. So why are you posting in this thread again? I've already replied to that.



Suzuku said:


> You really have no place to be talking about this if you've never even seen GL to understand how horribad it is and how bad it is that DC followed that up with the mess that is TDKR and MoS. And yes, MoS is a bad movie. It isn't just a normal comic book film with a lot of action, it has glaring flaws in storytelling, pacing, character development, and various other script issues that make it a bad film. Don't lump other comic book films into being more action over substance because it is factually incorrect and there is a reason critics like movies like TDK, Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, etc more than MoS.


You have no place to be talking about how I'm trying to twist DC into being in a bad slump (which you've admitted yourself) when you have no sense of context behind how they've released three back to back flawed if not downright bad movies.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Guy Gardner said:


> Remember when this place had mods? Oh, wait...



Guy Gardner for Theater Mod


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

This is just ridiculous now.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> HUR DURR, DC CAN'T MAKE GOOD MOVIES
> 
> >Completely ignoring DC movies belong to warner brothers and not the comic book industry while marvel has their own studios for the avengers franchise while Fox and Sony hold about half their properties


This is completely irrelevant. Do we usually say WB can't make movies in this context? No, because people from DC ARE working on these movies and it's their characters, and they're owned by WB.



Banhammer said:


> I mean, I'm the king of marvel, and even I don't have the gumption to pretend Ghost Rider and Wolverine didn't just happen


Once again, thread is not about Marvel. If you guys want a thread to talk about Marvel to be politically correct or fair or some shit then make one, this isn't the place for it. This is about DC. Instead of being butthurt over someone calling out DC and leaving out Marvel how about focusing on DC and stick to the subject at hand? Because right now you guys are being childish and pointing fingers.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Wanting to complain about a comic book's publisher ability to produce successful  movies by barring any comparison to a company that both parties can agree that has such ability is like wanting to argue syria invasions without wanting to accept the opinion of combat veterans


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> And I've already said if you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in the process. This isn't the thread for it. This is a thread for DC. There's no reason for me to bring up Marvel in a thread about DC. I'm sorry I'm not being politically correct enough for your sensitive feels on the matter.



yet another evasion of the central point, falling back on 'i said this thread is for DC, and that's what it is!' 

you're zero for...what, five, now?



> And the thread is about the long slump so that is completely irrelevant. The OP makes it clear that this thread is about their inability to make a good movie ever since GL.



except that MoS has been released since then and is no worse than most Marvel films (inb4 how dare you mention marvel) so that's no point at all, since superhero movies are considered good or bad in the frame of reference of other superhero movies...otherwise, marvel has _never_ made a truly good film, and DC has made just one: the dark knight




> Okay. So why are you posting in this thread again? I've already replied to that.



pointing out the flaws in your thread, your reasoning, and your replies is diverting for me and i've got nothing else to do right now


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Man I wish Image would shell out some cash to redo Spawn.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> This is completely irrelevant.



This thread blames the comic book publisher as if it was the nature or the elements of the story lines solely responsible for the movies sucess, when truth is, dc movies are a product of WB, not just DC


> Once again, thread is not about Marvel. If you guys want a thread to talk about Marvel to be politically correct or fair or some shit then make one, this isn't the place for it. This is about DC. Instead of being butthurt over someone calling out DC and leaving out Marvel how about focusing on DC and stick to the subject at hand? Because right now you guys are being childish and pointing fingers.


The only person coming off buthurt is you, with your willful intention to blame a publisher for your feelings towards the actions of a studio.
We're perfectly legitimized to cite examples of the same comic book movies under difrent directions and the difrence it can make

Like say, the diference between the god awful wolverine movie, and the superb First Class movie


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> This is completely irrelevant.








> Once again, thread is not about Marvel. If you guys want a thread to talk about Marvel to be politically correct or fair or some shit then make one, this isn't the place for it.



you're continuing with this vague 'political correctness' theme for your objections, then?

good luck with that

since no-one in this thread feels DC is doing spectacularly, or that Marvel is doing horribly, people are just pointing out that they can both make good movies and this thread is asking a question that doesn't have much basis



> This is about DC. Instead of being butthurt over someone calling out DC and leaving out Marvel how about focusing on DC and stick to the subject at hand? Because right now you guys are being childish and pointing fingers.



>don't mention marvel in my thread! this is about DC! DC, you hear me?
>oh, you mentioned marvel? you must be butthurt 
>why are you posting in my dc thread if you're talking about marvel???
>anyone else being childish


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

You say this thread is about us pissing on the DC sandbox, I say it's for us comparing how piss filled is this child's pen when looking at the other one across the playground


I'm not stopping you from complaining about DC. I'm just being realistic about it


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Wanting to complain about a comic book's publisher ability to produce successful  movies by barring any comparison to a company that both parties can agree that has such ability is like wanting to argue syria invasions without wanting to accept the opinion of combat veterans


I'm not barring any comparison. The  problem is that your and other's posts do nothing but harp on Marvel while completely ignoring the actual subject of the thread. This is a thread to discuss DC, there's no reason for me to put Marvel into the title when I want to focus on DC's problems. As I said, it's nothing but childish to point fingers and whine about Marvel somehow being no better than DC or mentioning they've made bad movies.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> >what makes you say he wasn't just being facetious?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but why does Marvel need to be mentioned in a dc thread? If not to deflect off topic?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> I'm not barring any comparison. The  problem is that your and other's posts do nothing but harp on Marvel while completely ignoring the actual subject of the thread. This is a thread to discuss DC, there's no reason for me to put Marvel into the title when I want to focus on DC's problems. As I said, it's nothing but childish to point fingers and whine about Marvel somehow being no better than DC or mentioning they've made bad movies.



this is a thread asking 'why can't DC make good movies?'

if we stuck to the question asked by this thread, it would be as simple as 'they can. see: the dark knight. lock this thread'

if we expand this, the question is more like 

'why can't DC make good movies in the past two years? Man of Steel is part of my evidence for asking this, even though it's not a particularly bad movie in the context of superhero movies...but never mind that, because for the purposes of this thread, _no non-DC movies exist and if you mention any of them, you lose_'



Suzuku said:


> As I said, it's nothing but childish to point fingers and whine about Marvel somehow being no better than DC or mentioning they've made bad movies.


ahaha 

is this suddenly true because you said so?

because i see neither inherent truth or logic in it

you're just taking entirely relevant points and _yourself_ whining about how they're arbitrarily 'childish'


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> but why does Marvel need to be mentioned in a dc thread? If not to deflect off topic?



oh, man

go read where i explained that in this thread three different times


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> I'm not barring any comparison. The  problem is that your and other's posts do nothing but harp on Marvel while completely ignoring the actual subject of the thread. This is a thread to discuss DC, there's no reason for me to put Marvel into the title when I want to focus on DC's problems. As I said, it's nothing but childish to point fingers and whine about Marvel somehow being no better than DC or mentioning they've made bad movies.


Ignoring for a moment that the very thread is about pointing fingers and about Harping on DC for a minute, and the henceforth oxymoron of resenting doing the same with the main competitor


Banhammer said:


> Like say, the diference between the god awful wolverine movie, and *the superb First Class movie*





Banhammer said:


> Wanting to complain about a comic book's publisher *ability to produce successful  movies* by barring any comparison to a company that* both parties can agree that has such ability *is like wanting to argue syria invasions without wanting to accept the opinion of combat veterans





> *I'm marvel's king fanboy*


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

How much do you wager if I made a thread why can't Marvel make a decent sequel? And the first page would be filled with "DC fanboy doesn't know DC sucks...etc".


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

For example, we can also refer how Marvel puts out at least two super hero movies every summer, while  Warner Brothers usually only goes as far as one


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Guy Gardner for Theater Mod



jokes aside I think guy would make a fair mod.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> How much do you wager if I made a thread why can't Marvel make a decent sequel? And the first page would be filled with "DC fanboy doesn't know DC sucks...etc".



Marvel itself has only made one sequel, which is Iron Man, two if you count The Incredible Hulk, which I almost do, both of which were movies I liked quite a lot


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> but why does Marvel need to be mentioned in a dc thread? If not to deflect off topic?


Don't bother. He's already ended the conversation with this.



Lucaniel said:


> you can delude yourself by claiming anyone mentioning marvel is invalidated, like some personal godwin's law () but you have no arguments to that end, just endless repetition that you're right


So basically no matter what we say it's jut endless repetition that we're right to him because he's already refuted it with flawless logic. Therefore we're wrong and he's right no matter how much we say this is a DC thread and he's going off topic.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Marvel itself has only made one sequel, which is Iron Man, two if you count The Incredible Hulk, which I almost do, both of which were movies I liked quite a lot



Hulk was a reboot I believe or a bit of both. You liked IM2?


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Ignoring for a moment that the very thread is about pointing fingers and about Harping on DC for a minute, and the henceforth oxymoron of resenting doing the same with the main competitor


I never said you were DC bias. :/ 

And no it's not, but you want to take it that way. I'm sorry I didn't make a sensitive enough title for you and didn't leave DC's name out of it.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> So basically no matter what we say it's jut endless repetition that we're right to him because he's already refuted it with flawless logic. Therefore we're wrong and he's right no matter how much we say this is a DC thread and he's going off topic.





> no matter what we say



nice strawman

if you actually had any reasoned objection to my logic of why marvel was relevant, it wouldn't be endless repetition, and i'd certainly consider it

throughout this entire thread, you've provided...nothing

just "it's a DC thread, stop talking about Marvel"

you've started passive-aggressively twisting my words so you can pretend there's no reasoning with me, but...you haven't put forward any reasoning

if you _do_ have arguments to that end, rather than 'don't talk about marvel because i said so', then use your words


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

DC have made good films like Ghost Rider.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Hulk was a reboot I believe or a bit of both. You liked IM2?



I did. But it's mostly because I was already as hyped as anyone could get for Avengers by the time IM2 came out, and I actually wanted to get more Natasha

Also, went with friends and we had a  blast so I have lots of good memories from it



Suzuku said:


> *I never said you were DC bias. :/ *
> 
> And no it's not, but you want to take it that way. *I'm sorry I didn't make a sensitive enough title for you and didn't leave DC's name out of it. *


And I'm sorry I called this thread a shit storm bait. I didn't know it was a secret 


> The problem is that* your *and other's posts* do nothing but harp on Marvel*


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> And I'm sorry I called this thread a shit storm bait. I didn't know it was a secret


By harp I didn't mean criticize. I meant focus on them in your posts...which is plain obvious from context clues at the very least. :/


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> Don't be a DCfag. I'm not talking about Marvel nor did I mention them.





Suzuku said:


> This isn't a Marvel movie thread





Suzuku said:


> Whether or not you have an allegiance, stop bringing up Marvel because it's not what the thread is about. If you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in doing so, but this isn't the thread for that. I'm trying to talk about DC.





Suzuku said:


> Your total inability to keep Marvel out of this conversation is more an indication that you don't have a lot of leg to stand on in defending DC than anything.





Suzuku said:


> And I've already said if you want a thread to talk about how Marvel can't make movies then make one and look silly in the process. This isn't the thread for it. This is a thread for DC. There's no reason for me to bring up Marvel in a thread about DC. I'm sorry I'm not being politically correct enough for your sensitive feels on the matter.



>pretending to be unable to reason with me due to my obstinacy
>while having done nothing but repeat 'not a marvel thread' ad nauseam

you might not be particularly clever, but you do have some nerve, i'll give you that


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Repeating this is not a Marvel thread in a thread that's not a Marvel thread. What nerve.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> You really have no place to be talking about this if you've never even seen GL to understand how horribad it is and how bad it is that DC followed that up with the mess that is TDKR and MoS. And yes, MoS is a bad movie. It isn't just a normal comic book film with a lot of action, it has glaring flaws in storytelling, pacing, character development, and various other script issues that make it a bad film. Don't lump other comic book films into being more action over substance because it is factually incorrect and there is a reason critics like movies like TDK, Avengers, Thor, Iron Man, etc more than MoS.



MoS's storytelling is unusual and your mileage may vary on its effectiveness, but it's not a 'glaring flaw'

its character development is no worse than marvel's other origin movies, with the exception of iron man

i see no problem with the pacing whatsoever

and it's funny that you're bringing critics into this, when TDKR currently has an 87% positive on rottentomatoes. you should probably avoid that


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> Repeating this is not a Marvel thread in a thread that's not a Marvel thread. What nerve.



it certainly is a lot of nerve when you're implying you have any actual argument to make


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Suzuku said:


> By harp I didn't mean criticize. I meant focus on them in your posts...which is plain obvious from context clues at the very least. :/



Which is ironic considering that it was obvious by context clues at the very least that by harp you meant criticize

Case in point


> being buthurt





> Because right now you guys are being childish and pointing fingers.




But still, it's valuable information because it lets analyze what a competitor did and see if it's transitive to the object

I can criticize the bankruptcy of blockbuster by citing the sucess of netflix can't I?


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

To be honest the only thing keeping this thread alive is the comparison to Marvel's success/failures.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> To be honest the only thing keeping this thread alive is the comparison to Marvel's success/failures.



how is this already at 8 pages

man

screw it


----------



## Stunna (Jun 23, 2013)

this thread wouldn't have lasted two pages if not for me


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

It's at 8 pages because it's bassically a game of pong, you put your thoughts through then Suzuku puts his thoughts through with neither of willing to let the ball hit home.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> oh, man
> 
> go read where i explained that in this thread three different times



I don't think I want to read through this thread again. If marvel is brought up in context to the topic of this thread then that's fine. for instants stunna's replies made sense but at the expense of completely derailing the thread before it even began.

Also 



Lucaniel said:


> and this is a pathetic refrain, from you. you're arbitrarily asking why DC can't make good movies with little more grounds than there would be for asking why Marvel can't.
> 
> the obvious implication behind asking such a question exclusively about DC, when there are two big producers of comic book movies, is that Marvel _doesn't_ make bad movies
> 
> ...


I get where you're from coming with this post but what's stopping a dc fan who couldn't care less about marvel from making this thread on the pretense that he wasn't satisfied with the dc movies.


----------



## Superrazien (Jun 23, 2013)

The Dark Knight Rises was really good. I guess it went over a lot of peoples heads with the cultural relevance today. And Man of Steel was amazing, the action was some of the best I ever seen. I was like DBZ come to life. Parts of the movie were a little corny but what ever. Superman is such a boring hero anyways this movie did a decent job of making him a bit more interesting. The beginning of the movie was awesome as well, Russell Crowe ftw.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

then the thread would be "why can't warner brothers make good DC movies"


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> I get where you're from coming with this post but what's stopping a dc fan who couldn't care less about marvel from making this thread on the pretense that he wasn't satisfied with the dc movies.



nothing

he'd still be an idiot, of course, because comic book movies are graded in the frame of reference of other comic book movies, and MoS is pretty average in terms of origin story movies

not to mention that TDKR being bad is not on DC, it's on nolan and goyer. they struck gold with TDK. all DC did was give them the chance to do it again

if avengers 2 is utter trash, will you blame marvel or whedon?


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> MoS's storytelling is unusual and your mileage may vary on its effectiveness, but it's not a 'glaring flaw'


Yes, it is. Generalizing it as just "storytelling" is oversimplifying what actually goes into what we call storytelling.  The pacing, character development, exposition, and leaps in logic are all major inconsistencies and flaws in the film and even the way they portrayed Superman can be considered a glaring flaw. Zach Snyder is also complete ass at bringing out the emotions in his characters in certain scenes and Goyer does a poor job at justifying certain actions, building up to them, and presenting them in a believable way that has gravity to them, the biggest example being Superman killing Zod. You don't get a sense that Superman hates killing throughout the movie and it's just put there at the end, assuming the audience just knows it's a big deal. it's bad writing. 

Not to mention there are many story elements that just aren't understandable (like Zod's supposed agony at killing Jor-El) unless you read outside things and learn they're childhood friends. Things like that are extremely important to the story logistically and it's dubious of them to leave it out.



> its character development is no worse than marvel's other origin movies, with the exception of iron man


I completely disagree with this, and character development goes into storytelling btw.



> i see no problem with the pacing whatsoever


Once again, pacing is a part of story telling. And, for me, and a bunch of others, jumping from Krypton to Clark being an adult is jarring to say the least, and then having flashbacks intertwined throughout the entire story to tell his childhood is very distracting and takes you out of the moment at hand. I had a problem with this storytelling method in Batman Begins as well. Furthermore, Zod showing up out of no where was very poorly done and there was no build up to it at all. We have Clark becoming Superman and then BAM Zod. 

It's explained later but in the moment it's jarring and imo bad. They should have told Zod's journey somewhat synonymously with Clark's rather than showing a bunch of flashbacks to his childhood leading up to him going to the Fortress of Solitude. The entire final act also ran very long in the tooth and didn't leave enough time for an epilogue or to show Superman really being conflicted by killing Zod. He screams and Lois holds him then the next scene is him smiling and a girl calling him hot. Not only is it jarring emotionally but it's one of the only laugh out loud moments in the film and it almost felt like they thought they had to put it there to lighten up the mood and have at least one funny moment in the film. Once again, bad writing.

All of this to say that Goyer and Snyder should go. They are the problem with MoS. And this speaks to a bigger point of DC/WB needing a new infusion of blood. Going to the same well over and over is not going to work anymore with these movies. And this is what I wanted the thread to be about.



> and it's funny that you're bringing critics into this, when TDKR currently has an 87% positive on rottentomatoes. you should probably avoid that


If you actually read the critic reviews on TDKR it is completely sustained by the fact it adequately wrapped up the TDK trilogy and wasn't a disaster like most third movies, it didn't earn the 87% off of being a GOAT movie in and of itself. Same with how Avengers rode on the fact it adequately brought all 5 films together. I think on its own TDKR would have struggled to get into the 70s because of how poorly the arc is structured, how long in the tooth it runs, and huge retarded leaps of logic like Bruce making it back to Gotham in the span of a day from the middle of a fucking desert in a different country.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> nothing
> 
> he'd still be an idiot, of course, because comic book movies are graded in the frame of reference of other comic book movies, and MoS is pretty average in terms of origin story movies
> 
> ...



All I'm going to say is this was a very badly worded thread.
I'm done.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

> Yes, it is. Generalizing it as just "storytelling" is oversimplifying what actually goes into what we call storytelling. The pacing, character development, exposition, and leaps in logic are all major inconsistencies and flaws in the film and even the way they portrayed Superman can be considered a glaring flaw. Zach Snyder is also complete ass at bringing out the emotions in his characters in certain scenes and Goyer does a poor job at justifying certain actions, building up to them, and presenting them in a believable way that has gravity to them, the biggest example being Superman killing Zod. You don't get a sense that Superman hates killing throughout the movie and it's just put there at the end, assuming the audience just knows it's a big deal. it's bad writing.



welp, generalisations aside...

"you don't get a sense that Superman hates killing"?

you didn't infer that from the fact that he wouldn't retaliate when he was bullied, or the fact that even as a child, he went out of his way to save lives? or, oh, from the fact that he _wasn't a psychopath_?



> Not to mention there are many story elements that just aren't understandable (like Zod's supposed agony at killing Jor-El) unless you read outside things and learn they're childhood friends. Things like that are extremely important to the story logistically and it's dubious of them to leave it out.



i got a pretty good sense of their friendship from their interactions prior to their fight, and he wasn't in that much agony, just guilty, which is completely understandable



> Once again, pacing is a part of story telling. And, for me, and a bunch of others, jumping from Krypton to Clark being an adult is jarring to say the least, and then having flashbacks intertwined throughout the entire story to tell his childhood is very distracting and takes you out of the moment at hand. I had a problem with this storytelling method in Batman Begins as well. Furthermore, Zod showing up out of no where was very poorly done and there was no build up to it at all. We have Clark becoming Superman and then BAM Zod.



completely subjective

i found the spectacle of zod arriving with little to no warning totally effective because it made the shock everyone was feeling at having him on their TV screens and finding out that there was life out there, and it was hostile and coming for them, much more palpable



> It's explained later but in the moment it's jarring and imo bad. They should have told Zod's journey somewhat synonymously with Clark's rather than showing a bunch of flashbacks to his childhood leading up to him going to the Fortress of Solitude. The entire final act also ran very long in the tooth and didn't leave enough time for an epilogue or to show Superman really being conflicted by killing Zod. He screams and Lois holds him then the next scene is him smiling and a girl calling him hot. Not only is it jarring emotionally but it's one of the only laugh out loud moments in the film and it almost felt like they thought they had to put it there to lighten up the mood and have at least one funny moment in the film. Once again, bad writing.



they should've told the story of the villain alongside the story of the hero? no, i don't see that at all. the movie's about superman

you have a point about the tonal dissonance between him screaming in guilt and the comic relief scene right after, but it's close to the only point you have



> If you actually read the critic reviews on TDKR it is completely sustained by the fact it adequately wrapped up the TDK trilogy and wasn't a disaster like most third movies, it didn't earn the 87% off of being a GOAT movie in and of itself. Same with how Avengers rode on the fact it adequately brought all 5 films together. I think on its own TDKR would have struggled to get into the 70s because of how poorly the arc is structured, how long in the tooth it runs, and huge retarded leaps of logic like Bruce making it back to Gotham in the span of a day from the middle of a fucking desert in a different country.



point stands: stop cherry-picking when to apply critics

i can just as well point out how many negative critics' reviews harp on MoS's lack of comic relief and seriousness and seem unable to reconcile their expectations a not-totally-idealised presentation of the superman origin story


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

bump        /


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Which is ironic considering that it was obvious by context clues at the very least that by harp you meant criticize


No they don't and no I didn't. V



> while completely ignoring the actual subject of the thread. This is a thread to discuss DC, there's no reason for me to put Marvel into the title when I want to focus on DC's problems.


I meant that you were focusing on Marvel in your posts and not addressing the actual subject.



> But still, it's valuable information because it lets analyze what a competitor did and see if it's transitive to the object
> 
> I can criticize the bankruptcy of blockbuster by citing the sucess of netflix can't I?


I don't have a problem with bringing up Marvel. My problem is, again, people doing nothing with their posts in this thread but pointing out that Marvel has made bad movies too and therefore the thread is unfair and flamebait. If you didn't focus on Marvel so much then the thread would not be that. YOU'RE making it that. If I were a troll and meant for the thread to be a shitstorm and flamebait then you would have played right into my hands like a puppet a long time ago.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

Starts losing argument, pretends was trolling the entire time.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Why hasn't this thread died yet


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

How could I have misinterperted these magnificent clues of masterful sophistication



> being buthurt





> Because right now you guys are being childish and pointing fingers.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> welp, generalisations aside...
> 
> "you don't get a sense that Superman hates killing"?
> 
> you didn't infer that from the fact that he wouldn't retaliate when he was bullied, or the fact that even as a child, he went out of his way to save lives? or, oh, from the fact that he _wasn't a psychopath_?


Uh, no. It's made clear that he didn't retaliate because his dad didn't want him to and was scared of what people would do to him if they found out what he was. It had nothing to do, with the way it was presented, with him having reservations about killing people much less hurting them.

And obviously saving people =/= having reservations about killing. :/




> i got a pretty good sense of their friendship from their interactions prior to their fight, and he wasn't in that much agony, just guilty, which is completely understandable


I don't see how you could when they appeared antagonistic from the off-set. All I got was that they had history with each other and were at least colleagues. There were no allusions to them being friends at all. And Zod literally says there's not a day that goes by where he doesn't regret it. I'd call that agony than jus mere guilt.



> completely subjective
> 
> i found the spectacle of zod arriving with little to no warning totally effective because it made the shock everyone was feeling at having him on their TV screens and finding out that there was life out there, and it was hostile and coming for them, much more palpable


Yes it's subjective but it's a legit criticism and problem that many have. If the script were tighter I feel like I wouldn't have a problem with it but as is in the film it's a problem to me and a factor that plays into the film's flaws.

I just wasn't completely into it when he arrived as there was virtually no build up to it at all. It just happened. That is not good writing to me. I understand the argument of it being shocking but it was more like wtf to me. We all knew Zod was the villain and was going to show up, the lack of build up to it doesn't aid in the scene being shocking. It just came off as lazy storytelling to me.

It would have been different I think if were more like a Greek play and they just told what happened...but they actually showed complete fucking flashbacks and scenes of what was going on that could have just been used earlier in the film as build up. It's fucking retarded writing on Goyer's part. It's almost like he was trying to follow the "tell don't show" format and then got nervous and decided to show it or something.



> they should've told the story of the villain alongside the story of the hero? no, i don't see that at all. the movie's about superman


I said somewhat. By that I meant showing quick scenes of Zod traversing the universe and eventually picking up the signal when Clark activates the Fortress of Solitude. These scenes wouldn't have been more than 30 seconds to a minute long and would have made for a less jarring entrance than what we got...and we actually did get them when Zod was talking to Superman  so...



> point stands: stop cherry-picking when to apply critics
> 
> i can just as well point out how many negative critics' reviews harp on MoS's lack of comic relief and seriousness and seem unable to reconcile their expectations a not-totally-idealised presentation of the superman origin story


Yes this is a problem. There are too many who judged the movie based off of the Donner film. But overall I believe just bad storytelling did the movie in. If they had done a better job of making the movie they wanted I don't think as many critics would have been nostalgiafagging about the Reeves films.



James Bond said:


> Starts losing argument, pretends was trolling the entire time.


How am I pretending I was trolling? I'm pointing out the irony in his logic. If he would shut up about Marvel the thread would not be flamebait, but he won't.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Guy Gardner for Theater Mod



lol just because so you can always have your way right?

That's about as good of an idea as making you a mod 

DC movies ('sides Batman) have been looking bad as fuck.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)




----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

^
*Further proof why you're called a troll*


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> How much do you wager if I made a thread why can't Marvel make a decent sequel? And the first page would be filled with "DC fanboy doesn't know DC sucks...etc".





Banhammer said:


> then the thread would be "why can't warner brothers make good DC movies"



This seems like ridiculous stick your head in the sand. Sony has the rights to Spider-Man movies, and while the 3rd one wasn't that great the first two did pretty well and had high acclaim and the Amazing Spider-Man franchise is off on a good start it appears. Marvel likewise as I stated have found success in their cinematic universe.

Would you guys stop whining if the question became a broader question of why DC appears to have more trouble getting their heroes on as big-screen successes compared to Marvel?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

> Uh, no. It's made clear that he didn't retaliate because his dad didn't want him to and was scared of what people would do to him if they found out what he was. It had nothing to do, with the way it was presented, with him having reservations about killing people much less hurting them.
> 
> And obviously saving people =/= having reservations about killing. :/



dude, if you needed it firmly established that a normal dude, any normal dude, let alone a really decent, moral individual like clark, would hate killing people, then...

well

i don't know what to tell you 



> I don't see how you could when they appeared antagonistic from the off-set. All I got was that they had history with each other and were at least colleagues. There were no allusions to them being friends at all. And Zod literally says there's not a day that goes by where he doesn't regret it. I'd call that agony than jus mere guilt.



zod was choosing him as the man to have by his side while making a new krypton

so...



> I said somewhat. By that I meant showing quick scenes of Zod traversing the universe and eventually picking up the signal when Clark activates the Fortress of Solitude. These scenes wouldn't have been more than 30 to a minute long and would have made for a less jarring entrance than what we got.



dude, having 30-60 second long segments like 'checking in with zod and the crew! ...as they travel through space, tediously' would've gotten old after like the second time and probably been roundly mocked



> Yes this is a problem. There are too many who judged the movie based off of the Donner film. But overall I believe just bad storytelling did the movie in. If they had done a better job of making the movie they wanted I don't think as many critics would have been nostalgiafagging about the Reeve films.



that's your right

but bringing in critics for one movie but not the other when there's no particularly strong case for ignoring critical input for one but highlighting it for the other is a no-no if you want to be honest and consistent


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

If you fire more bullets at a target you are more likely to hit the target at least a few times.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> How could I have misinterperted these magnificent clues of masterful sophistication


Lack of comprehension skills and not being taught context clues in Kindergarden. 

Neither of those suggest you are DC bias. It suggests you're being butthurt at me not including Marvel in the thread...which you are.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> lol just because so you can always have your way right?
> 
> That's about as good of an idea as making you a mod
> 
> DC movies ('sides Batman) have been looking bad as fuck.






Bender said:


> ^
> *Further proof why you're called a troll*



...

yes, bender, your choosing to pick up on a facetious comment of ban's to go 'OH HO HO SO YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE YOUR WAY RIGHT? I SEE YOUR EVIL PLANS!', and him reacting with the appropriate level of amusement regarding your mentally deficient inability to detect the humour, is certainly proof of his trolling


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> If you fire more bullets at a target you are more likely to hit the target at least a few times.



Why are studios more willing to invest into a Marvel movie? That also doesn't answer the matter that Marvel has enjoyed multiple successes in not only single movies but entire franchises. That's more than simply firing blindly.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

DC needs to put out a fun superhero movie. 

Stop making everyone an emo or a dark and brooding weapon of vengeance.

Iron Man wasn't that popular before the movies, but Robert Downey Jr turned Tony Stark into a ball of charisma. 

Ryan Reynolds isn't the man you can trust to do that.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Again more box office revenue =/= a good movie.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Seto Kaiba

Beautiful post.

Marvel has more heroes that would have better hooks as film adaptations than DCcomics does.

Plus, because of the absurdly high number of good writers in their film projects they are more likely to see success than DCcomics film adaptations are.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Rynolds just made it worse, they shouldn't have used hal jordon to begin with just a fucking generic character.


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

Is that why there are planned films for Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern reboot, Justice League and Man of Steel sequel?


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> ^
> *Further proof why you're called a troll*







Seto Kaiba said:


> This seems like ridiculous stick your head in the sand. Sony has the rights to Spider-Man movies, and while the 3rd one wasn't that great the first two did pretty well and had high acclaim and the Amazing Spider-Man franchise is off on a good start it appears. Marvel likewise as I stated have found success in their cinematic universe.
> 
> Would you guys stop whining if the question became a broader question of why DC appears to have more trouble getting their heroes on as big-screen successes compared to Marvel?



How is my implying the sucess and failure of a franchise is directed to studios rather than the publisher "having my head stuck in the sand", specially when I point out one side has three difrent studios pushing three different HUGE franchises?


----------



## Wuzzman (Jun 23, 2013)

Man of Steel was a good movie....

Examples of good marvel movies pre-IronMan?

Spiderman 1-2
Xmen 2 (and that's rather debatable really)
Spawn
Blade

Of these movies only spiderman 1-2 hold up to the standard set by batman begins and iron man 1.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Again more box office revenue =/= a good movie.



Didn't say that. Are you just choosing not to pay attention? Success does mean a lot to the future of a movie franchise however, and a movie with good resources has a better chance of doing well. What good is it if it flops? This isn't a Sundance Film Festival, like I said you have to get people convinced it's something worth watching. Even before that you have to get execs on board with the proposed idea. Trying to play this exclusionary, "the masses just can't appreciate X" doesn't fly realistically. Superman and Batman do well, and people repeat that ad nauseam, but what of the Martian Manhunter, and Wonder Woman, The Flash, etc.? Marvel has made flops but they have found numerous successes in portraying a greater variety of its heroes, in multiple movies no less, and DC should find that success as well.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> dude, if you needed it firmly established that a normal dude, any normal dude, let alone a really decent, moral individual like clark, would hate killing people, then...
> 
> well
> 
> i don't know what to tell you


That is not the point. Are you honestly going to tell me that it's not bad writing when Goyer goes through the whole movie not bringing up once Superman's hesitance of killing, and indeed almost implying an apathy to it with how he fought Zod with reckless abandon most of the time and pretty much showed no remorse for the millions of people that died during the World Engine bit, and then decides to end the movie with Superman killing Zod and crying as if the main theme in the movie was Superman being hesitant to kill people? Come on, it's bad writing. It came off to me as just something they put in to get controversy going and have a big moment in the movie people will talk about. Same as how they put that jarring funny moment at the end just to have one big laugh or something.

The big story arc in the film and theme of the movie was would people accept Superman...not Superman being unable to kill.




> zod was choosing him as the man to have by his side while making a new krypton
> 
> so...


Again, I didn't get the sense that they were friends, just colleagues at best. The most I could say is that Zod had respect for Jor-El with how he said he was right to the council and all. At no point did they allude to them being childhood friends or making it feel like it. It's even worse than Kishi's shoehorning of Madara and Hashirama being childhood friends, because that's basically what it is.



> dude, having 30-60 second long segments like 'checking in with zod and the crew! ...as they travel through space, tediously' would've gotten old after like the second time and probably been roundly mocked


I don't think so. It would have only been like 3 scenes. Don't act like there haven't been movies where there have been scenes that only focus on villains, because some of the best movies have this. Zod is supposed to be the foil to Superman, a dichotomy. It would have been appropriate to have his journey told congruently to Superman and would have put a new twist on the origin film from the Donner ones. And imo it would have been a better use of time than them showing a bunch of flashbacks to distinguish themselves from those films and other Superman media.




> that's your right
> 
> but bringing in critics for one movie but not the other when there's no particularly strong case for ignoring critical input for one but highlighting it for the other is a no-no if you want to be honest and consistent


I'm not barring critics from TDKR. I specifically said that the movie rode on the fact it closed out the TDK trilogy adequately, not of its own merit. Same with Avengers. If you read the reviews all they talk about is how the films are successes because of they didn't fuck up (Avengers generally gets more praise for being funny and a good time and shit though). As a film TDKR is extremely flawed as I mentioned before, a fact which most people seem to agree with, and I believe if it had to stand on its own it would struggle to maintain a spot in the 70s critically because of reason I mentioned before. I remember when I was at the theatre for TDKR I saw more than a few people asleep.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Evil Peter Parker jazz dancing to make Mary Jane jealous is more engaging than anything I've seen from any DC movie outside of Bruce Wayne boning Talia.

DC can't make their heroes in their civilian identities do anything interesting. 

We can't watch 120 minutes of these dudes just blowing shit up.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Why are studios more willing to invest into a Marvel movie? That also doesn't answer the matter that Marvel has enjoyed multiple successes in not only single movies but entire franchises. That's more than simply firing blindly.



Marvel has it's own studio, while the X-Men (and the Fantastic Four) have the Fox studios cashing in on that superhero movie money, while Sony has Spider-Man to cash in on that superhero movie money

DC only has one, and it's not even their own studio


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> Evil Peter Parker jazz dancing to make Mary Jane jealous is more engaging than anything I've seen from any DC movie outside of Bruce Wayne boning Talia.





I totally saw bruce banging Talia seeing as how it's happened numerous times in different portions of DC media stories.


@Wuzzman

Dude it was a terrible movie.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

I fear for the Wonder Woman movie because they'll probably horribly miscast her or get rid of the invisible plane.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

So it's a 3 on 1 fight, each having as many hit and misses as the other, with the main competitor having proprietary rights over the direction while the other side doesn't.

So what I'm trying to say is that it's actually not a fight and DC makes about as many good movies as it is possible for them to make


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

> That is not the point. Are you honestly going to tell me that it's not bad writing when Goyer goes through the whole movie not bringing up once Superman's hesitance of killing, and indeed almost implying an apathy to it with how he fought Zod with reckless abandon most of the time and pretty much showed no remorse for the millions of people that died during the World Engine bit, and then decides to end the movie with Superman killing Zod and crying as if the main theme in the movie was Superman being hesitant to kill people? Come on, it's bad writing. It came off to me as just something they put in to get controversy going and have a big moment in the movie people will talk about. Same as how they put that jarring funny moment at the end just to have one big laugh or something.



if you had phrased your complaint as 'the movie didn't make it clear that clark's only option was to kill, and the act itself didn't have sufficient build-up by expressing his concern and guilt for the millions zod had already killed, and so it didn't work for me'

i would totally see where you were coming from

i might even agree, a little

but...you doubted that superman was averse to killing? _really_? no, i can't sympathise with that at all

and zod was the one fighting with reckless abandon and doing the vast majority of property damage. furthermore, he was too busy trying to STOP the world engine - and save as many lives as possible - to stand around looking at the devastation and letting loose a single, shining tear

the act of killing zod was bad writing. superman's reaction to killing zod was not bad writing...



> Again, I didn't get the sense that they were friends, just colleagues at best. The most I could say is that Zod had respect for Jor-El with how he said he was right to the council and all. At no point did they allude to them being childhood friends or making it feel like it. It's even worse than Kishi's shoehorning of Madara and Hashirama being childhood friends, because that's basically what it is.



i, uhm

i don't actually get where you're getting this childhood friends thing from

this doesn't factor into my estimation of how much zod cared

furthermore i take anything he said to clark while trying to convert him to his side with a pinch of salt



> I'm not barring critics from TDKR. I specifically said that the movie rode on the fact it closed out the TDK trilogy adequately, not of its own merit. Same with Avengers. If you read the reviews all they talk about is how the films are successes because of they didn't fuck up. As a film TDKR is extremely flawed as I mentioned before, a fact which most people seem to agree with, and I believe if it had to stand on its own it would struggle to maintain a spot in the 70s critically because of reason I mentioned before.



plenty of reviews actually seem to feel TDKR has a lot of intrinsic merit

i can find 'em

you don't get 87% positive solely on the strength of preceding films

critics are unreliable


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> DC needs to put out a fun superhero movie.
> 
> Stop making everyone an emo or a dark and brooding weapon of vengeance.
> 
> ...


This. Iron Man was a boring superhero before RDJ got a hold of him. DC's insistance on making super serious movies in every aspect is hurting them. It's bad when Clark Kent comes off as more dull than Bruce Wayne in your universe.

Granted, Green Lantern wasn't an uber dreary movie but it just didn't have charisma and swag it needed to be a success.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

You have Fox starting to use Marvel as a cash cow. Sony just spitting out Spidey movies cause if they don't Marvel could just take back their #1 Hero. Still to this day I can't believe these guys actually sold the movie rights to their biggest hero.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Marvel has it's own studio, while the X-Men (and the Fantastic Four) have the Fox studios cashing in on that superhero movie money, while Sony has Spider-Man to cash in on that superhero movie money
> 
> DC only has one, and it's not even their own studio



How is it Batman being an example of a successful DC franchise, and arguing DC being under a single studio as an excuse when considering its other superheroes even fit? That simply shows the studio is capable of making a hit movie and if MoS goes well enough for its own trilogy then that further establishes this. The views of the studio matter, don't get me wrong. I know like you can have nutcases like Jon Peters take all creative control and run it to the ground, but in contrast there are the Whedon's, Nolan's, and Snyder's that can be brought in to make a good and successful movie out of DCs franchises.

I would think that would be more advantageous in the long-run as they can make any kind of crossover they want without the legal red tape Marvel has to go through for its own heroes.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> You have Fox starting to use Marvel as a cash cow. Sony just spitting out Spidey movies cause if they don't Marvel could just take make their #1 Hero. Still to this day I can't believe these guys actually sold the movie rights to their biggest hero.



they had to. They would bankrupt if they didn't.
They sold their rights to a whole bunch of franchises, to a couple of difrent studios, took the capital, saved their company and had enough left over from royalties merch and the like to create their own studio and dominate the market the way they do now.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> You have Fox starting to use Marvel as a cash cow. Sony just spitting out Spidey movies cause if they don't Marvel could just take make their #1 Hero. Still to this day I can't believe these guys actually sold the movie rights to their biggest hero.


Did you forget there was a time marvel almost went into chapter 11
got ninjd by ban.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> Is that why there are planned films for Wonder Woman, The Flash, Green Lantern reboot, Justice League and Man of Steel sequel?


Um...there aren't? The report is that they're "kicking the cans" for Wonder Woman and Aquaman films, not that they are planned, while nothing has been mentioned since MoS' release about Green Lantern or Flash (or before then for that matter). The only things that are set in stone are MoS sequel and Justice League. Nothing else is concrete.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Whether it be the movie studios or DC themselves...they don't seem to be capable of making these movies fun.

Yes, the Batman movies were good, but serious as hell. Same with MoS. Not enough Clark...almost too much Kal-El. And GL was just bad all around.

Get better writers. People that can write personalities rather than just archetypes.

What I'm saying is...

...make a Lobo movie.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> How is it Batman being an example of a successful DC franchise, and arguing DC being under a single studio as an excuse when considering its other superheroes even fit?


Because when you fire more bullets, more will hit the target.

Ghost Rider, Wolverine, Punisher, the Fantastic Fours, Daredevil, Elektra, X3, Spider-Man 3 are all things that happened.

Hell, so is IM2 if we're using general public opinion and it's not like the underrated Incredible Hulk is quite the star in the firmament


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

The fact Marvel can put out movies for twelvth-string characters is amazing in itself. They're making a freakin Guardians of the Galaxy movie while DC can't even figure out how to get the Justice League done.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Hulk is the only out of the big 4 not getting his Sequel before Avengers 2. Marvel knows what they are doing. The purposely threw money at RDJ feet so he can stay on as Tony. I would bet their numbers would go down with someone else especially this soon after IM3.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Oh, and Ghost Rider, I forgot to mention that.

Edit: Wait, no I didn't, carry on


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> So it's a 3 on 1 fight, each having as many hit and misses as the other, with the main competitor having proprietary rights over the direction while the other side doesn't.
> 
> So what I'm trying to say is that it's actually not a fight and DC makes about as many good movies as it is possible for them to make


Ignoring Sony and Fox, which have no place in this conversation imo, Marvel Studios makes 2 movies a year. If DC/WB were successful at making movies you can't fucking tell me that wouldn't want to adapt that model. Marvel is getting ready to make franchises out of shit like Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, and Inhumans. DC has just dropped the ball. There have been numerous reports about how WB wants DC movies to be their next big franchise with Harry Potter over. They can and would be making more movies right now if GL didn't bomb.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Except Marvel puts out about two movies a year while Warner Brothers puts out a lot fucking more.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

DC still has the only female hero that can contend with the boys. I am still waiting for my Birds of Prey .


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

In 2010 Marvel put out like, two movies

Warner Brothers did twenty two!


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

DC needs to get whoever writes their animated movies to do their live action movies.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> Oh, and Ghost Rider, I forgot to mention that.
> 
> Edit: Wait, no I didn't, carry on



expectations for Ghost Rider and its sequel were never that high to begin with. Try again.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> DC still has the only female hero that can contend with the boys. I am still waiting for my Birds of Prey .



Inb4 She-Hulk movie


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Whats that movie going to be She-Hulk sleeping with the cast of the Avengers? Oh wait Chyna already did that .


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Blade...BLADE got a trilogy.

This is like if DC was able to get a trilogy for a random New God.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

That's a nice completely arbitrary and subjective statement you've pulled out your shiny metal ass there

As it happens, Ghost Rider was for the longest time one of the most awesome, Rule Of Cool, balls to the wall amazing book series marvel on the stands


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger watching Chyna porn.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

I'm sure no one would ever want to watch a Heaven's On Fire story arc :rolleyes


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

You know Constantine was better than Ghost Rider and made DC come out on top with the Heaven/Hell origins?


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Might wanna put that pic in a spoiler.


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Banhammer

And that....has absolutely nothing to do with making an incredible comic book adaptation film.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Keanu Reeves as Constantine.

BRILLIANT


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Once Del Toro gets the go ahead for Dark JL, and DC gets the balls to put out movies about their Vertigo line.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

I can't wait until DC casts Zach Efron as The Flash.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> Keanu Reeves as Constantine.
> 
> BRILLIANT



People wanted him to play Spike from Cowboy Beebop was well .


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> Keanu Reeves as Constantine.
> 
> BRILLIANT





Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> I can't wait until DC casts Zach Efron as The Flash.



i really don't see how that follows, even in a totally humorous sense

i mean, keanu reeves might basically be giving the same performance in every film, but it's not like he's some polished disney joke


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> if you had phrased your complaint as 'the movie didn't make it clear that clark's only option was to kill, and the act itself didn't have sufficient build-up by expressing his concern and guilt for the millions zod had already killed, and so it didn't work for me'
> 
> i would totally see where you were coming from
> 
> ...


No that's not what I meant. I'm saying Goyer did not make it clear and, as I said before, he left it up to viewer inherently knowing Superman dosen't kill. It's bad writing. Of course I knew he was against killing as I have knowledge of the character, but relying on that is bad and lazy writing, plain and simple. That has been my point the entire time.



> and zod was the one fighting with reckless abandon and doing the vast majority of property damage. furthermore, he was too busy trying to STOP the world engine - and save as many lives as possible - to stand around looking at the devastation and letting loose a single, shining tear


That doesn't excuse Goyer from not showing Clark's reluctance to kill whatsoever throughout the film if he was planning on having him kill Zod the entire time. He should have at least shown him worried about the millions being killed or something or shown him trying to get Zod OUT of Metropolis to save lives, but they didn't because they wanted to show a battle in the city of Metropolis. 

Like I said, it's just lazy writing. It doesn't take much to show Superman is concerned about people's lives and they just didn't do it. The most I could give them is when he saved the chopper that was going down but that's it. From there on they didn't once show Superman being concerned about people's lives until Zod was about to kill, much less did they show Superman having reservations about performing the act himself.



> the act of killing zod was bad writing. superman's reaction to killing zod was not bad writing...


Yes, that's my point...I have not said Superman's reaction is bad, I've said the build up to it (or lack thereof) was bad.




> i, uhm
> 
> i don't actually get where you're getting this childhood friends thing from
> 
> ...


It's in a prequel book or something. Only then did their relationship make sense to me and why Zod said he regretted killing him every day of his life. Before I found that out I was completely confused by exactly what kind of relationship they had because in one scene it appeared they were just colleagues who respected each other and became enemies and in others it seemed like their relationship ran deeper. You just would never know by simply watching the film. It's bad writing. It's just like how Thor shows up out of nowhere in Avengers even though the Bifrost bridge was destroyed in Thor (although they at least mentioned Odin use Dark Energy to send him to Earth).




> plenty of reviews actually seem to feel TDKR has a lot of intrinsic merit
> 
> i can find 'em
> 
> ...


Then forget critics. In general the movie is flawed for reasons I mentioned (and more). It's not as bad as MoS or GL (because lolNolan) but Goyer, once again, did a terrible job with the story and script and it shows that they had problems writing it (and during this that's when Goyer came up with MoS btw).


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> DC still has the only female hero that can contend with the boys. I am still waiting for my Birds of Prey .


You mean the character that can't get a decent comic run to save her life.
[YOUTUBE]F1cDmZeHIY4[/YOUTUBE]
I can't wait til it hits screens


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

narutosss pretending greg rucka is something that has never happened


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss act like he doesn't buy Wondy comics to masturbate to. The first eye candy of Comics .


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

When DC gets Victoria Justice to play Wonder Woman, I'm sure their streak of bad luck will end.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Banhammer
> 
> And that....has absolutely nothing to do with making an incredible comic book adaptation film.



it has everything to do with the expectations of a comic book franchise and it's ensuing adaptations, in case you were hit with a brick in the past thirty seconds


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

> No that's not what I meant. I'm saying Goyer did not make it clear and, as I said before, he left it up to viewer inherently knowing Superman dosen't kill. It's bad writing. Of course I knew he was against killing as I have knowledge of the character, but relying on that is bad and lazy writing, plain and simple. That has been my point the entire time.



i am seriously scratching my head in confusion here

even if you take superman completely out of the equation, clark is a well-adjusted, mentally stable human being raised by a loving family 

why in the hell do you need it spelled out for you that he's averse to killing?



> That doesn't excuse Goyer from not showing Clark's reluctance to kill whatsoever throughout the film if he was planning on having him kill Zod the entire time. He should have at least shown him worried about the millions being killed or something or shown him trying to get Zod OUT of Metropolis to save lives, but they didn't because they wanted to show a battle in the city of Metropolis.



he punched him into space

zod's intent was to devastate metropolis and he was just as powerful as clark. and a much better fighter. clark did the best he could



> Then forget critics. In general the movie is flawed for reasons I mentioned (and more). It's not as bad as MoS or GL (because lolNolan) but Goyer, once again, did a terrible job with the story and script and it shows that they had problems writing it (and during this that's when Goyer came up with MoS btw).



TDKR has all of MoS's scripting problems and them some as well a _far_ greater number of implausibilities, contrivances, and plot-induced stupidity. worse pacing, too

it's a worse film


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

unless I took my stupid pills this morning, and having on the most critically acclaim series in the entire company at the time of it's publishing is actually not a significant factor towards the expectations of it's ensuing adaptations

In that case, I do apologize


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Marvel made Nick Cage as Ghost Rider work and they were able to get two movies made.

DC's script writing might be just that bad.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Narutossss act like he doesn't buy Wondy comics to masturbate to. The first eye candy of Comics .



I'd never betray black canary for that flop wonder woman.

:

you know you want to react down below


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> Marvel made Nick Cage as Ghost Rider work and they were able to get two movies made.
> 
> DC's script writing might be just that bad.



ghost rider is actually collumbia pics


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> I'd never betray black canary for that flop wonder woman.
> 
> :
> 
> you know you want to react down below



Wondy is the forbidden fruit


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> narutosss pretending greg rucka is something that has never happened


Banhammer pretending Amazons attack is something that never happened


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Wondy is the forbidden fruit


what's a wonder woman?:sanji

the hottest superhero of my childhood


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Pffft.....John left her for Vixen...datVixen .


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

The hottest Wonder Woman was always Artemis.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Just because she is a Red head .


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Dat ponytail


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> Pffft.....John left her for Vixen...datVixen .


bitch please, vixin isn't even half as sexy as masked hawkgirl, let alone the unmasked one and who did john ended up having a child with again?


----------



## Tony Stark (Jun 23, 2013)

Zatanna is where it's at.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> bitch please, vixin isn't even half as sexy as masked hawkgirl, let alone the unmasked one and who did john ended up having a child with again?



You forgot when Hawkgirl went to John after finding out, he turned her down saying he will stay with datVixen .

Plus Vixen powers > Wings .


----------



## Arya Stark (Jun 23, 2013)

I think MoS isn't bad and Batman franchise is very good, what the hell? 

Opinions and tastes I guess.


----------



## ~Kakashi~ (Jun 23, 2013)

Batman Begins, in my opinion, is one of the greatest movies ever made. One of my favorite movies ever, for sure.

I liked TDK pretty well, but not nearly as much as Begins, but I would label it as a very good movie.

TDKR was a disappointment to me, but I don't think it sucked. A step or two below TDK and not even in the same universe as Begins, but a decent enough movie.

Why they've failed for other characters I'm not sure(I haven't seen MoS yet), though they fail in comparison to the Dark Knight trilogy in large part thanks to Nolan's brilliance. Saying they can't make good movies when they're just coming off a trilogy that most people consider one of the greatest ever(I'm not one of those thanks to the disappointment of TDKR, but Begins/TDK are both fantastic) doesn't make a whole lot of sense though.


----------



## Rindaman (Jun 23, 2013)

Because they try to be too original instead of sticking to the Source material of the comics.

TDKR was cool , but I think it suffered from Bane not being the Main villain and Nolan completely gyping 
us on the Robin thing, if he was gonna do something like that i'd rather John Blake stayed a completely separate character instead of pawning off the Robin monkier on whats seems like an insignificant character.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

Danger Doom said:


> You forgot when Hawkgirl went to John after finding out, he turned her down saying he will stay with datVixen .
> 
> Plus Vixen powers > Wings .



at the end of the day john went back to tight sexy alien pussy, he couldn't take vixins loose ass vagina anymore, bitch probably got tapped by 100 street hoods back in her high school days.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Lucaniel said:


> i am seriously scratching my head in confusion here
> 
> even if you take superman completely out of the equation, clark is a well-adjusted, mentally stable human being raised by a loving family
> 
> why in the hell do you need it spelled out for you that he's averse to killing?


It's not about it being spelt out. I've already addressed this. V



> That is not the point. Are you honestly going to tell me that it's not bad writing when Goyer goes through the whole movie not bringing up once Superman's hesitance of killing, and indeed almost implying an apathy to it with how he fought Zod with reckless abandon most of the time and pretty much showed no remorse for the millions of people that died during the World Engine bit, and then decides to end the movie with Superman killing Zod and crying as if the main theme in the movie was Superman being hesitant to kill people? Come on, it's bad writing. It came off to me as just something they put in to get controversy going and have a big moment in the movie people will talk about. Same as how they put that jarring funny moment at the end just to have one big laugh or something.
> 
> The big story arc in the film and theme of the movie was would people accept Superman...not Superman being unable to kill.


The way Zod's death is treated at the end is as if that was some sort of climax to Superman's character story arc...and it came out of fucking no where. Like I said, bad writing. You don't just put things like that in the film for no reason other than to shock the viewers.



> he punched him into space
> 
> zod's intent was to devastate metropolis and he was just as powerful as clark. and a much better fighter. clark did the best he could


But they never showed Clark trying to get him out of Metrolpolis, you're pretty much inferring that he couldn't because Zod was so powerful, but in the movie it's never even touched on or attempted. Superman just  fights him blow for blow in Metropolis without being shown to worry about the millions living there. It's just bad and lazy.



> TDKR has all of MoS's scripting problems and them some as well a _far_ greater number of implausibilities, contrivances, and plot-induced stupidity. worse pacing, too
> 
> it's a worse film


I can't consider it a worse film because to me, I'm willing to forgive some things if the director is able to sale the characters and have me emotionally invested in them. I felt Buce Wayne's pain in TDKR and I felt connected to the characters. In MoS I felt completely apathetic to what I was watching because Snyder is ass at portraying his characters in a way that I can get emotionally invested in them. The best scenes in the movie from a character stand point were the ones with Pa Kent and Zod's speech at the end after he was defeated, and the only reason I liked the Pa Kent scenes is because Kevin Costner killed it.

If I'm emotionally invested in the characters then it's easy for me to overlook certain plot holes and just enjoy their journey. All of MoS' flaws were glaring to me because the character portrayals just weren't good. 

Oh, and whoever played Lor-El was fucking horrible. They hammed it up the entire time they were on screen. It was hard for me to even watch the scenes with Jor-El at the beginning because she was so fucking bad. 



Narutossss said:


> what's a wonder woman?:sanji
> 
> the hottest superhero of my childhood


Hawkgirl gave me many boners as a six year old.


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

see suzuku knows what's up


----------



## Linkofone (Jun 23, 2013)

Ra's al Ghul said:


> Zatanna is where it's at.



This.


----------



## Suzuku (Jun 23, 2013)

Zatanna is sexy as fuck do.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

How was Clark shown to be a mentally well adjusted person raised by a loving family when his father commits suicide in front of his very eyes?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jun 23, 2013)

Ghost_of_Gashir said:


> How was Clark shown to be a mentally well adjusted person raised by a loving family when his father commits suicide in front of his very eyes?


didn't stop him running into a burning oil rig to save complete strangers

don't be facetious

it's pretty clear he had a loving family, even if, yes, his dad's death would be extremely traumatic


Suzuku said:


> It's not about it being spelt out. I've already addressed this. V
> 
> 
> The way Zod's death is treated at the end is as if that was some sort of climax to Superman's character story arc...and it came out of fucking no where. Like I said, bad writing. You don't just put things like that in the film for no reason other than to shock the viewers.



well that's pretty much what i was saying

the problem isn't that we're surprised or not credulous regarding clark's sorrow at killing zod, the problem is the moment wasn't set up well enough




> But they never showed Clark trying to get him out of Metrolpolis, you're pretty much inferring that he couldn't because Zod was so powerful, but in the movie it's never even touched on or attempted. Superman just  fights him blow for blow in Metropolis without being shown to worry about the millions living there. It's just bad and lazy.



_he punched zod into space_




> I can't consider it a worse film because to me, I'm willing to forgive some things if the director is able to sale the characters and have me emotionally invested in them. I felt Buce Wayne's pain in TDKR and I felt connected to the characters. In MoS I felt completely apathetic to what I was watching because Snyder is ass at portraying his characters in a way that I can get emotionally invested in them. The best scenes in the movie from a character stand point were the ones with Pa Kent and Zod's speech at the end after he was defeated, and the only reason I liked the Pa Kent scenes is because Kevin Costner killed it.
> 
> If I'm emotionally invested in the characters then it's easy for me to overlook certain plot holes and just enjoy their journey. All of MoS' flaws were glaring to me because the character portrayals just weren't good.
> 
> Oh, and whoever played Lor-El was fucking horrible. They hammed it up the entire time they were on screen. It was hard for me to even watch the scenes with Jor-El at the beginning because she was so fucking bad.



well, then we're entering into the realm of pure and total subjectivity, aren't we?

i didn't feel apathetic to it, personally, not at all


----------



## Bender (Jun 23, 2013)

@Zatana

Look at dem titties man


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

daaaaaaaaaamn I don forgots bout zatanna


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 23, 2013)

Honestly, I dont think the overall quality is that much worse than the Marvel Movies. 

Man of Steel and Green Lantern were on par with Iron Man 3 (yeah, I just said that) and Captain America, although for totally different reasons (actually, GL probably is the weakest of these four). 

The Dark Knight Rises got a good reception, so I dont see whats questionable and dubious about its quality.

With that said, I prefer Marvel because Marvel's films have more easy going tones. Captain America might've been awkwardly paced, but they did a good job at updating the character so we can take him seriously without losing his camp value. Man of Steel should've taken some notes.


----------



## Ghost_of_Gashir (Jun 23, 2013)

Glad no one's mentioned Power Girl.

"Fill my hole, Superman."


----------



## Narutossss (Jun 23, 2013)

isn't that i*c*st?


----------



## James Bond (Jun 23, 2013)

Apparantly PowerGirl has such massive tits because the drawer was secretly increasing the size of them each issue until the editor noticed and they stayed the same size ever since.


----------



## Tony Stark (Jun 23, 2013)

James Bond said:


> Apparantly PowerGirl has such massive tits because the drawer was secretly increasing the size of them each issue until the editor noticed and they stayed the same size ever since.



I've heard the same about Batman and his balls, but they're still growing.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 23, 2013)

Narutossss said:


> Banhammer pretending Amazons attack is something that never happened



I've actually never heard of it


----------



## Bender (Jun 24, 2013)

@Martial Horror

Okay you officially lowered the seriousness I took you at  Even if Iron Man 3 did have that zany plot twist the character of Tony Stark was still spot on. While with Superman and Hal Jordan DC writers  can't decide WHAT THE FUCK they're like in terms of character.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 24, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Martial Horror
> 
> Okay you officially lowered the seriousness I took you at  Even if Iron Man 3 did have that zany plot twist the character of Tony Stark was still spot on. While with Superman and Hal Jordan DC writers  can't decide WHAT THE FUCK they're like in terms of character.



My issues with IM3 went deeper than that though. It was a mess in terms of its narrative.

Plus, more goes into a movie than just that aspect for filmmaking. Man of Steel- and remember, I've been getting shit for not sucking that films metaphorical penis- at least had a stronger conflict going on. Although once again, I'd say IM3 is the overall better film, but not by much.


----------



## Bender (Jun 24, 2013)

@Martial Horror

What do you mean by it's narrative?

Also Man Of Steel by you saying "stronger conflict" I'm getting a feeling you're implying the whole retarded "smash em up aspect" which is just as obnoxious as Michael Bay's Transformeres fight scripts. Big effing deal. Also it notably ripped the aura of Nolan's Batman films and shrouded Superman in it.


----------



## Guy Gardner (Jun 24, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> I've actually never heard of it



Oh man. Find it. Read it. Squirm. It's ridiculously bad.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 24, 2013)

somehow my loins aren't girding themselves in anticipation


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 24, 2013)

why should DC make good movies, the government should stay out of the movie making business, unless its big brother the movie :fml


----------



## MartialHorror (Jun 24, 2013)

Bender said:


> @Martial Horror
> 
> What do you mean by it's narrative?
> 
> Also Man Of Steel by you saying "stronger conflict" I'm getting a feeling you're implying the whole retarded "smash em up aspect" which is just as obnoxious as Michael Bay's Transformeres fight scripts. Big effing deal. Also it notably ripped the aura of Nolan's Batman films and shrouded Superman in it.



I'll give you an example. A major part of Tony Stark's development in "Iron Man 3" is his insecurity that he won't be able to protect Pepper. Okay, that's fine, so how do they follow through with this? By having Pepper remain largely absent throughout the middle block while Tony hangs out with some kid. They needed to do one of two things. Either emphasize Pepper's presence, especially during the second act where the main characters tend to be struck by the most figurative stones. Or focus on the kid more instead of Pepper. But for that to work, he'd need to be a stronger presence in the third act, where everything is resolved. They crammed at least two stories into this movie. 

Even worse is what they do with Rhodes. He's barely in the flick until the third act, where he becomes a main character. That's a confused and sloppy narrative. 

The conflict between Tony and the Mandarin was flimsy because the majority of the screen-time was spent on Tony taking on his henchman. Whenever the Mandarin would overcome Tony, it was mainly be due to the writer making Tony uncharacteristically stupid. Mickey Rourke's character from IM2 at least would only come out on top because he was smart, not because Tony was being a moron. That doesn't even have anything to do with the twist. 

Once again, MOS has many-if not more- flaws. But even though it's an origins story, the feud between Zod and Supes was more intense because Zod was treated as a genuine threat. Even better, he was fighting for the survival of his own people, whereas Supes was fighting for humanity. This provides great, or at least, good conflict.


----------



## Bender (Jun 28, 2013)

@Martial Horror

Okay, I'm bored enough that I'll respond to your post.

Also Pepper wasn't "largely absent" from the middle of the film more like it was important to touch on Tony Stark's inner demons as a result of the big-ass bout in "The Avengers".  Moreover, after she gets taken captive things get way violent and shaky she's undergoing experimentation by "The Mandarin".

Plus, dude, Rhodes was focused on.  He was with Stark in the beginning though as a result of Stark's struggles it's pretty difficult for him to be around anyone seeing as how he's going to be remembering what happened in New York. 

Tony couldn't go ahead and just straight up face "The Mandarin" or he would be slaughtered. This was reflected in his difficulty to take on a helicopter strike and so. 

It's called exploring character depth. It's something that sometimes what makes movie going audiences complete fucking idiots. An example of looking at the depth is Avengers which was explored between  the seat-of-your-pants and dialogue scenes. 

There needs to be a distinct flow between that and going to other characters. The whore of DCcomics cashing in flicks, The Dark Knight trilogy is an example of looking in depth. While their were lengthy fight scenes and battle of wits they never sped through origins or examining what makes the superhero character of the film them. 

That's why Man Of Steel is the fail of all fail. And moreover why it just straight up sucks.


----------

