DC Movies- if at first you don't succeed...

[Lord Liaden]

Interesting turn in the discussion to me, because the fact villains don't die more often in comics, and in fact "return from the dead" so often, is one of the criticisms I've heard most often leveled against the medium by comics readers over many years. "Why hasn't Batman killed the Joker by now?" is probably the top of that list. The reasons have already been mentioned on this thread: initially the Comics Code Authority would not sanction on-panel character murder; and the comics publishers have to produce too much material on an ongoing basis to routinely kill off their characters, villain or hero. Particularly fan favorites whose popularity helps sell comics. It became a genre trope more out of necessity than design.

 

Movies don't have the same character consumption rate, and so can afford to kill villains more often. As I pointed out in a previous post, some MCU villains have survived, others have not. For example, I thought Brock Rumlov being shown brought to hospital, alive but badly disfigured, at the end of Winter Soldier, was a classic example of that shtick. But frankly, if that sort of thing happened too often it would work against the credibility of these movies for the audience.

[zslane]

I like all the CW superhero shows. I realize that there have been legendary comic book stories along the way; stories that are real landmarks. Most of them are not. I consider the CW shows on par with following a monthly comic. You're going to get episodes that range from brilliant to blunder. I've found them much more watchable than the endless cycle of "reality TV", criminals as heroes, hokey sitcoms, and yet another police procedural shows.

Except that for me, the entire previous seasons of Arrow and Flash were simply unwatchable. That would be like an entire year's worth of a comic's run being composed of blundering trash. Not just an issue/episode here and there, but the whole year's output. And don't even get me started on Legends of Tomorrow. That was painfully bad right out of the gate. Even the joy that is (usually) Lance and Snart (not together, but as individual characters) couldn't overcome the rest of that show's embarrassing awfulness. Comparing these shows to reality tv and bad sitcoms is setting the bar so low they'd have to trip over the bar to be worse (and actually, they have now and then, which is sad).

 

I took Gotham off my DVR after one and a half seasons. I took Arrow off after four and the Flash off after two. I didn't even bother putting Legends on in the first place because I knew better. As inconsistent as Agents of SHIELD can be, it is still far better than anything else involving superheroes, except Supergirl. I'm still saddened by the cancellation of Agent Carter, and while I was never looking forward to a "World's Most Wanted" spin-off, I will be sorry to see Agents of SHIELD go at the end of this season. This will leave Supergirl holding all my hopes and dreams for superheroes on television.

[Pattern Ghost]

Comics can suck too, and most of them do. It's like we're criticizing the shows for not living up to the very best of comics' potential, while ignoring the vast amount of mediocre to laughable material that makes up about 95% of comics ever published.

 

I watched all of the  CW/Berlanti shows, Agents of SHIELD, and even Lucifer last season. (And previous seasons for the older shows.) They all had some good points and some bad. Some of the shows with the worst bad points were also some of the most comic book-like shows, and I appreciated the attempt to embrace the genre, even when the plot induced stupidity was making me facepalm so hard that I risked concussing myself.

[Starlord]

It's also difficult (at least for me) for any tv show to remain watchable after 3-4 seasons.

[Pattern Ghost]

Speaking of Supergirl, just found these:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs1wD1kudCs

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzcUrc529Po

[Christopher R Taylor]

For me, the CW shows are too soap opera-y and targeted at tweens, or at least someone clearly younger than I am.  That pair of kids running the computers in the Flash show fill me with the urge to punch faces.

[Lord Liaden]

As I've remarked before on these forums, I often notice people conflating "I don't like it" with "It's no good." Any comment that starts with, "For me..." implies a high degree of subjectivity; which is highly relevant to the person making the comment, but may not be shared at all by someone else.

 

The range of opinions displayed on this thread alone regarding the exact same productions, show how much individual tastes color people's assessment of the quality of a given work. None of these opinions are necessarily "right" or "wrong," nor are they mutually exclusive.

 

I believe it's possible to separate subjective and objective criteria to some extent. There are a number of entertainments that I admire for their compelling acting, intelligent scripts, beautiful cinematography, exciting visual effects, etc. but simply don't like, even hate, for their style or subject matter. There are others that I enjoy a lot while recognizing they're severely lacking in any or all of these areas.

[zslane]

Well of course we're being subjective. This should be self evident. Forum posts should not require diclaimers stating, "This is my opinion, a very subjective one which I don't believe holds true for everyone." That is supposed to simply be understood. Imagine how (even more) annoying every single forum post would be if prefaced with that.

 

Opinions are just opinions, no matter how passionately expressed. Are readers really unable to separate conviction from delusion?

[Lord Liaden]

Honestly, I look at some of the preceding posts which appear to present subjective opinion as objective fact, and I have to ask myself that question. (Also while reading just about any social site on the Internet.)

[Pattern Ghost]

For me, the CW shows are too soap opera-y and targeted at tweens, or at least someone clearly younger than I am.  That pair of kids running the computers in the Flash show fill me with the urge to punch faces.

 

You should probably seek help for that.

 

I find the kids comment funny (partly because I'm guilty of the same thing sometimes). I was in charge of millions of dollars in weapons and munitions for my unit in Berlin when I was a good deal younger than those "kids."

[aylwin13]

[deja vu moment]

 

Yes, these shows have faults... and will probably never win any awards; but they're superhero shows that are on the air, dang it! And IMO still better than the other dreck on the airwaves.

 

[/deja vu moment]

[sinanju]

And as long as Justin Hammer is alive there could still be villains in the Iron Monger/Whiplash vein.  The Destroyer can be reforged. The Abomination Formula is still out there. And then we have Extremis which really should be researched actively but clandestinely because regenerating lost body parts is kinda a multiple Nobel Prize medical breakthrough and it can be safely removed from the patient afterward, 

 

I admit this i my personal (head)canon, but...no, it can't. Tony figured out how to *stabilize* Pepper so she's in no danger of explosive spontaneous combustion...but he didn't remove the DNA alteration. Why? Because, in my opinion, unwriting the change is at least as dangerous as initiating it in the first place, and that had a pretty high (and spectacular) failure rate. (And also why the technique isn't being used all the time--it's still extremely dangerous to implement.)

 

Why would Tony risk killing Pepper that way when he can cure the flaw and leave her alive and pretty much unkillable? For extra bonus points, Pepper might not see it that way, and that might have contributed to why they're "taking a break" in the latest Avengers movie. Tony's unhappy that she's not with him...but happy to know she's alive and well and pretty much unkillable by most threats.

[sinanju]

[shrug] It's also quite possible they made twice as much money as they could have if they'd more closely followed comic book tropes instead of action movie tropes. I mean I get your point, but given the orders-of-magnitude difference in audience sizes we're talking about, I can't really get too mad at the studio for not throwing away all the lessons they've learned from decades of making movies that are backed up by an ocean of (flawed but extensive) research and focus-grouping, in favor of tropes favored by a relative handful of nerds just because I happen to be one of the latter. And as for taking half measures, don't forget they already took a huge number of risks that many people at the time didn't expect to pay off. They only look safe now in hindsight because we know they paid off.

 

As for the CW shows, I love Supergirl, really like Flash, enjoy Arrow in spite of its flaws, and thought Legends was a complete train wreck. (Haven't seen any of this season's premieres yet.)

 

Agents of SHIELD I gave up on after I realized that each week I couldn't remember the previous week's episode until the "Previously on..." recaps; at least the CW shows are seldom boring.

 

I'd like to point that the X-Men movies, in many ways, were the alpha test for this approach. I remember hearing that an X-Men movie was in the works way back when. I was both excited by the prospect, and alarmed that it would end up being another embarrassing, half-assed and campy effort aimed at children by adults who were clearly embarrassed to be associated with it. I went into the premiere hoping not to cringe in embarrassment.

 

It wasn't like that at all. Yes, they did away with some of the comic book mainstays (swapping black leather for yellow spandex, for instance) because things that look good in the comics look silly in real life. But the movie took itself seriously. There was no mugging, no winking at the camera (even metaphorically). Within the context of the story, it was real. And we got an opening scene with two heavyweight actors to set the tone. And it worked. It was a financial success, and proved that a "comic book" movie that was presented like it expected you to take it just as seriously as any other action-oriented film could pull in audiences. (the 70s Superman, for all its virtues, still succumbed to the belief that audiences needed some camp and to be able to laugh; hence the silliness of Luthor's oafish minion Otis, among other things).

 

So I don't think the Marvel MCU was quite as unprecedented as it might seem. What they did that DC could have benefited from emulating, was patiently build the universe over a series of movies before launching the big team franchise.

[bigdamnhero]

Comics can suck too, and most of them do. It's like we're criticizing the shows for not living up to the very best of comics' potential, while ignoring the vast amount of mediocre to laughable material that makes up about 95% of comics ever published.

This. I freely admit the CW shows aren't exactly Emmy material, and I could definitely do with dialing down the teen angst/soap opera quotient a few notches. But compared to the superhero shows I grew up with, they're effing high art! If they don't work for you, fine. But saying "they're not as good as the comics" really begs the question: "Which comics?" There's an awful lot of crap being published too.

 

And comparing the current crop of superhero shows to the ones I grew up with? No contest!

[bigdamnhero]

I'd like to point that the X-Men movies, in many ways, were the alpha test for this approach.

...

So I don't think the Marvel MCU was quite as unprecedented as it might seem. What they did that DC could have benefited from emulating, was patiently build the universe over a series of movies before launching the big team franchise.

True dat. X-Men and the first Spider-Man really paved the way for treating the material seriously, while also recognizing that not everything that works in a comic book is going to work on the big screen.

 

You also make a great reminder about how painfully awful most superhero movies were before 2000. Campy, badly written, atrociously-acted, with cringe-inducing effects...and yet in many ways, they followed comics tropes much more closely than today's movies. Which should be a sign that "following comics tropes more closely" doesn't automatically translate to "better movie." I'll take the MCU any day, thanks!

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yes, they did away with some of the comic book mainstays (swapping black leather for yellow spandex, for instance) because things that look good in the comics look silly in real life.

 

Actually it doesn't (see Teenage negasonic whatserface in Deadpool) but they were afraid it looked bad

[bigdamnhero]

I was more entertained with the preview of the second Season of Supergirl then the entire last season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D..

BTW, my brain I totally read "preview" as "premiere" and I got all excited that it had already premiered and I'd missed it! Now I'm all bummed that I have to wait another week. [sAD PANDA]

[Nolgroth]

Except that for me, the entire previous seasons of Arrow and Flash were simply unwatchable. That would be like an entire year's worth of a comic's run being composed of blundering trash. Not just an issue/episode here and there, but the whole year's output. And don't even get me started on Legends of Tomorrow. That was painfully bad right out of the gate. Even the joy that is (usually) Lance and Snart (not together, but as individual characters) couldn't overcome the rest of that show's embarrassing awfulness. Comparing these shows to reality tv and bad sitcoms is setting the bar so low they'd have to trip over the bar to be worse (and actually, they have now and then, which is sad).

 

I took Gotham off my DVR after one and a half seasons. I took Arrow off after four and the Flash off after two. I didn't even bother putting Legends on in the first place because I knew better. As inconsistent as Agents of SHIELD can be, it is still far better than anything else involving superheroes, except Supergirl. I'm still saddened by the cancellation of Agent Carter, and while I was never looking forward to a "World's Most Wanted" spin-off, I will be sorry to see Agents of SHIELD go at the end of this season. This will leave Supergirl holding all my hopes and dreams for superheroes on television.

 

The joy of subjectivity.

 

EDIT: Just read the remainder of the thread and realized this has been brought up by other participants of the discussion. Nothing to see here. 

[Burrito Boy]

This. I freely admit the CW shows aren't exactly Emmy material, and I could definitely do with dialing down the teen angst/soap opera quotient a few notches. But compared to the superhero shows I grew up with, they're effing high art! If they don't work for you, fine. But saying "they're not as good as the comics" really begs the question: "Which comics?" There's an awful lot of crap being published too.

 

And comparing the current crop of superhero shows to the ones I grew up with? No contest!

I hope you didn't grow up with The Greatest American Hero. Because that's the best superhero show ever and always will be.

 

By the way, that's not my subjective opinion. That's an absolute fact.

[aylwin13]

I hope you didn't grow up with The Greatest American Hero. Because that's the best superhero show ever and always will be.

 

By the way, that's not my subjective opinion. That's an absolute fact.

 

I'd like some of whatever he's smokin'.

[Burrito Boy]

I'd like some of whatever he's smokin'.

"If you're looking for trouble, you just found the West Coast distributor, pal."

[Bazza]

This is my opinion, a very subjective one which I don't believe holds true for everyone. 

 

Let's see, in the battle of the blockbusters Captain America Civil War handily beats Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice. Lets look at the data points. 

 

Box Office Mojo (worldwide gross)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: $873,260,194

Captain America: Civil War: $1,152,765,346

 

IMDB (in other words ratings by fans)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: 6.8/10

Captain America: Civil War 8.0/10

 

Rotten Tomatoes (in other words ratings by critics)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice: 27%

Captain America: Civil War 90%

Resulting news:

Geoff Johns On The Future Of DC Movies: Relax, We're Changing Everything

Marvel: Nothing. Marvel is full steam ahead -- in 4 weeks (actually 26 days) Doctor Strange will be showing in Australian cinemas. 

Conclusion: MCU is still beating DCEU. 

[Bazza]

Justice League: What the DCEU Could've Been (Fan Cast)

http://moviepilot.com/p/what-the-dceu-could-have-been-with-superman-returns/4105138

 

Overall pretty good. 

[Grailknight]

I admit this i my personal (head)canon, but...no, it can't. Tony figured out how to *stabilize* Pepper so she's in no danger of explosive spontaneous combustion...but he didn't remove the DNA alteration. Why? Because, in my opinion, unwriting the change is at least as dangerous as initiating it in the first place, and that had a pretty high (and spectacular) failure rate. (And also why the technique isn't being used all the time--it's still extremely dangerous to implement.)

 

Why would Tony risk killing Pepper that way when he can cure the flaw and leave her alive and pretty much unkillable? For extra bonus points, Pepper might not see it that way, and that might have contributed to why they're "taking a break" in the latest Avengers movie. Tony's unhappy that she's not with him...but happy to know she's alive and well and pretty much unkillable by most threats.

 

That's even worse. If they keep the powers without the threat of exploding you've got an assemby line that the military will be all over. Even if they lose them after the regeneration, people will risk death rather than live mutilated.

[Lord Liaden]

Pepper should have been invited to join the Avengers. Extremis powers would be quite useful to a superhero team, and she's proven capable in a fight. And the Avengers could really use more gender balance.