What it is it that DC gets so wrong and Marvel gets so right making films?
And I mean Marvel films - not the films not made by them.
That being said - Deadpool was fantastic and I cant believe that came from Fox. The new FF was a great film about people getting super powers. Just wasn't a good FF film.
The Chris Reeve Superman films were fun and well done. (well most of them, ok two of them)
The Keaton Bat films were ok. The others - meh. I only loved the one with Mr. Freeze for the Cold Miser joke.
And its not because they stray from the source - most of the Marvel films changed a lot from the comic book source and they still work.
I think DC is trying too hard to catch up to Marvel and its screwing them up.
Could be also that Marvel films has Marvel people working on them. DC is owned by Warner but they probably don't have much say as to what goes in to the films.
At least DC does good TV. and animated.
Oh... and I saw the film on Saturday and really enjoyed it. It's exactly the chaotic mess that a Suicide Squad movie *should* be. The characterizations were nearly all spot on. And save for a moment with Amanda Waller, I have few quibbles with the story. (Although, team member going rogue should not be the first movie)
And, I like this Joker. He seems like the kind of psychopath that would cause a guy to dress like a bat to fight him.
;D
I could have liked the Joker... sans the metal teeth and with some humour added.
The main problem I had with the plot, is that the Squad was sent to take care of a problem that, ultimately, was caused by the very formation of the Squad in the first place.
Just got back from seeing it. It was pretty fun. I'd watch it again over any of the X-men movies I've seen. Or over Nolan's third Batman. The Joker was kinda crappy, but still more watchable than Eisenlex.
Yeah... he was just psycho violent guy. It's a shame, because there was a moment or two with him and Harley together that were pretty good, but they're gone in a flash and it's back to generic psycho trying to get by on a zany aesthetic.
Who thinks 'Sausage Party' will be better than 'Suicide Squad'?
What it is it that DC gets so wrong and Marvel gets so right making films?
ALSO! I want to get this off my chest....Spoiler for Hidden:
They do a lot of things better. Marvel has patience. Look at the arc of the three Iron Man movies, the three Captain America Movies, the three Thor movies. Since the first Iron Man movie, we've been watching these movies for eight years now.
Marvel movies also tend to be very character focused. The Iron Man movies is not about Iron Man, they are about Tony Stark. The Thor movies are about Thor the person not Thor the thunder god. The Captain America movies are really about Steve Rogers.
The Avengers movie profited from both good things. Patience let Marvel develop the characters in stand alone features that focused on the specific characters so we would know and care about them. So when the Avengers movie comes out we don't have to develop these characters from scratch: we already know them. We already know the prime antagonist Loki. We already know the core heroes and Nick Fury. We can just let the story flow organically.
But I think maybe the least appreciated thing Marvel does well is something it does because it was forced to. Marvel couldn't make movies about its most popular characters and strongest properties. It couldn't make Spiderman movies or X-Men movies or even Fantastic Four or Hulk movies because of licensing issues. It couldn't make movies about the characters people knew the best. So it had to go to the well and pull up less well-known characters. Which is not to say that Captain America or Iron Man are unknowns, but compared to Spiderman their backstories are less familiar. So Marvel couldn't rely on people just knowing who these characters were, and had to invent them for the movies. Captain America and Iron Man have decades of twisted conflicting backstory. Marvel had to reduce that down to something simple they could convey on-screen. Marvel seems to be extremely good at taking a character like Captain America and distilling it down to something simple that movie goers can understand. He's a naive eager boy-scout that just wants to fight for his country, and is gifted with the ability to do so but finds the politics of it to be something he didn't expect. He's a straight arrow in a crooked world. Tony Stark is a rich genius with engineer's syndrome: he thinks he can fix anything with technology. But he also has PTSD (from multiple trauma) and guilt (also from multiple instances). Tony Stark is easy to understand: he's tech-smart, but emotionally stunted. His heart is in the right place but he doesn't have the morals or the boundaries that would prevent him from throwing gasoline on a fire to try to put it out. Even Thor is someone audiences can relate to. He's kind of a spoiled child trying to live up to his strict uncompromising father.
Marvel takes comic book characters with fifty years of history, waves a magic wand, and turns them into blank slates. Then they try to extract a core nucleus of character and backstory that neophyte audiences will be able to appreciate and relate to, and then rebuilds their world around that core. Asgard is what it is specifically because it serves to understand Thor. SHIELD and HYDRA exist specifically in the forms they do because it is the world that creates the best opportunity to tell interesting stories about Steve Rogers, super-boy scout. And in a synergy that feeds itself Marvel builds worlds to suit its characters, then adapts its characters to fit that world. Ant-Man is the version he is because that fits into the MCU. Spiderman very obviously is going to be an iteration of Spiderman that fits into the MCU with specific ties to the MCU version of Tony Stark. I have faith that magic in the MCU will be explicitly a version of magic that fits the MCU and provides the best opportunity to tell an interesting Doctor Strange story, and the version of Doctor Strange we get will explicitly be the one that they can tell the best story about within the current MCU.
I guess if I had to summarize all of that, I'd say what Marvel does well that DC hasn't done well or even at all is they are really good world-builders. The characters fit the environment and the story, the environment shapes the story and the characters, and the story serves the characters and the environment. They set reasonable goals for the next step in world building, then execute that goal very well. They do not try to do more than what their world can contain, but they always try to push the envelope of their world outward for the next set of movies to inhabit.
Notably, people complain that the Batman we see in BvS or the Superman we see in Man of Steel aren't the characters we know. But actually, the Tony Stark in the MCU isn't really the Tony Stark we knew either, neither is the Thor or the Cap, taken literally. But you know what? We *like* the MCU Stark and Rogers and Thor. And because of that, we see those characters through a prism where we can see how they touch the comic book material in certain places, and we forgive the fact that they aren't exact replicas because we think that the limited parts they did borrow connect the MCU versions of the characters sufficiently well. We allow that the MCU Thor was "inspired by" the comic book Thor. But that only works if you start with a character worth liking in the first place. I think that's why many fans seem to simultaneously hate all the killing that Batman does in BvS and yet praise Ben Affleck for portraying the character. We like Affleck's portrayal of Batman so we can forgive *him* the fact his Batman does things we think are out of character. We aren't as crazy about Superman's characterization, so we are much harsher about the "fidelity" of that portrayal.
I think the new Bruce Banner actor is great in the role. Before they always tried to make him this skinny, nerdy little guy and you don't have to. Bruce Banner is just as compelling a character as the Hulk is.
When I look at Leto's Joker, I mostly see an actor. And I don't mean that in the literal sense of "oh, look, it's that Leto guy in makeup". I mean that this Joker is a run of the mill thug playing the part of a legend. The more theatrical bits of window dressing are just there for show.
When I look at Leto's Joker, I mostly see an actor. And I don't mean that in the literal sense of "oh, look, it's that Leto guy in makeup". I mean that this Joker is a run of the mill thug playing the part of a legend. The more theatrical bits of window dressing are just there for show.So more reminiscent of the Jokers gang in Batman Beyond, then?
So more reminiscent of the Jokers gang in Batman Beyond, then?
You know, if you told me that the official backstory was that the original Joker killed Robin, and Batman killed him in a moment of weakness and then never told anyone. and then a disturbed individual decided to try to copycat the Joker and then killed everyone who knew the difference, I'd buy that.
It was always just in passing, he never killed anyone with his hands but he did shoot a lot of vehicles full of people, blow up things with people near them/in them as well as running cars/barricades that people occupy over. It was mostly left to "Maybe they aren't dead" I don't remember the scenes exactly but I remember thinking to myself a lot "Holy zonks Batman, you just killed that guy!"
I seem to recall thinking the same thing about some *police* that got wrecked chasing Batman in one of the first two Nolan movies.
While I mostly liked Waller, one scene seemed senselessly coldblooded...
Yeah, I'll probably be stuck comparing every depiction of Waller I see with the one from JLU for the rest of my life.
It was a JLU episode which served as an epic epilogue to the Batman Beyond series. Just remembering it kinda makes me want to watch it again...
It was a JLU episode which served as an epic epilogue to the Batman Beyond series. Just remembering it kinda makes me want to watch it again...
I remember that episode I think, didn't Batman like shoot Terry's dad in the wang with a laser that made it so Batman could be Terry's real father?
I remember that episode I think, didn't Batman like shoot Terry's dad in the wang with a laser that made it so Batman could be Terry's real father?
I think the movies that play in your brain are more interesting than the ones that pass through your eyeballs.
Aren't these still on Netflix? Maybe someone could check.i have the dvd within arms' reach and can't be bothered :P also i have no reason to doubt Arcana's eidetic memory since she's secretly Oracle.
Aren't these still on Netflix? Maybe someone could check.
A closer approximation would be to say that Amanda Waller "shot Terry's dad in the wang", I believe.
"Later in his career as Batman, he has a confrontation with an elderly Amanda Waller, who reveals that she engineered his origin to create a replacement Batman for Bruce Wayne. McGinnis learns that Wayne is his biological father; Waller used nanotechnology to ensure that Bruce Wayne's DNA overwrote the DNA in Warren McGinnis's reproductive cells."
I think the movies that play in your brain are more interesting than the ones that pass through your eyeballs.
Alright lazy peoples, I found it in Netflix. It was a flu shot in the arm. "The father thought he was getting a flu shot. Actually, it was a nano-tech solution programmed to rewrite his reproductive material into an exact copy of Bruce Wayne's." So there; no wang lazering.
So you're saying you don't think the nanobots had wang lasers? That sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
At least now we know there's at least one person waiting for that gritty reboot of Fantastic Voyage.
So you're saying you don't think the nanobots had wang lasers? That sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
At least now we know there's at least one person waiting for that gritty reboot of Fantastic Voyage.*hunts around for the "Like Post" button....*
I think this does a really good job of describing why the Joker was such a strong villain in The Dark Knight in a way that the character was not in Suicide Squad (granted, the Joker was not as central to the story in SS).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFUKeD3FJm8
I know this is old but I just finally got to see this film.
Not bad at all.
Not a great film but had some interesting bits.
Robbie was of course great. She played Harley as if the animated version came to life.
I thought their version of the Joker was alright too. Something a little different then every other one.
I did like the JLA cameos for their respective villains.
Hopefully we get a second one but I wont hold my breath.
The only way she played Harley the animated version come to life is if you are talking about the versions of Harley that came after the movie and were based on her portrayal. Sure she was good in the role but she in no way resembled the animated version of Harley. And their version of the Joker was an abomination.
But different strokes and all that.