Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Upcoming DC Extended Universe (DCEU) Movies
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
It just takes one good story to find the right characterisation on screen. Snyder thought he had done that with The Dark Knight Returns but he just ended up taking that story, and a straight forward characterisation, and applied his own bizarre take to it.
Nolan always got grief for being loose in his interpretation of Bruce especially in TDKR, yet he stayed more true to Miller's interpretation of Bruce than Snyder did. He captured the kamikaze like state of mind; the hopeless dismay at what Gotham had become without adapting a murderous mentality; the dark joy at being back in the game without becoming too sadistic.
Perhaps, and I'm giving Snyder the benefit of the doubt here, he realised all of that and thought he had too push the envelope further in his loose presentation of a story he always desperately wanted to tell.
They made a mistake from the beginning in that they wanted to get away from Nolan's trilogy yet still become more fantastical. Superman by his very nature is fantastical yet in the first hour of MOS, there are scenes from it that could be put side by side with some scenes from Batman Begins and they're identical.
Think you're bang on there. It's always felt to me like Nolan wanted to get into what drives Batman, the character, whereas Snyder was happy plucking cool images of what Batman is and does, as a symbol. If you get me.Nervous Wreck wrote: »
And finally, if you don't find a way to bring Clark Kent back from the dead along with Superman, you've lost it all anyway.
Agree with everything, but this will be particularly telling.
As the old saying goes, Superman is the mask, not Clark Kent. Unless you're telling a story about him losing himself deliberately, not having Clark about is a sign you don't get Superman at all.I have no issue with the DCEU films being darker in tone than the Marvel films. But degree matters, and with MoS and BvS (especially BvS), they went waayyyyy too dark too quickly with characters who weren't developed enough to warrant it. You have to balance out the dark with a bit of light. My first time seeing BvS in the cinema, when Lex is talking about Superman versus Batman being Day versus Night, it really stuck out that Superman wasn't Day. There wasn't nearly enough contrast between him and Batman. It was Dusk versus Pitch-Black-New-Moon-Night.
Be darker than the MCU films. Go for it. But give us a bit of f*cking light to actually like and sympathise with the characters first. Give us a reason to care about the characters before you cause them pain/anguish.
God, yes. I think if every DC film were sweetness and light we'd get very bored of the new world. Lest we forget, gritty reboots are what brought a lot of the superhero films to the screen at all- "yellow spandex".
Making something gritty for the sake of it though is pretty boring, and senseless, and yes we have to like the character before we'll feel for them.I think fundamentally those in charge of DC films need to relax and show a little faith in their own properties. I dunno how rampant the insecurity is in DC, but it feels like they're all paralysed by a fear of both marvel and their own TV shows' tone. The quality may vary but there's no disguising just how overtly comic book those shows are & they're just so ... sunny. Not necessarily in outlook or plot, but there's a cocksure, bluesky confidence that CW can tell these tales of telepathic gorillas, immortals and heroes in tennis skirts, and that the audience will accept it all for what it is. Of course, that in turn only works if the groundwork is solid in the first place. Barry Allen is still a decent, honest kid behind them all the temporal f*ck ups and angst, while is support network, although sketchily drawn, are all still fundamentally human, emotional beings. That goes a long way in grounding events when they take a turn for the silly if the people reacting feel genuine.
DC movies can't claim any of the above & just seem aggressively predisposed to rejecting that approach, to the point where it feels like those in charge are all faintly embarrassed by it all. Rebooting Jimmy Olsen as a blackops CIA agent, who gets violently killed after 5 minutes, to me, was one of the more egregious examples, screaming of a department that neither cares or respects the material they're working with, instead feeling the need to subvert a solid human character with an 'edgy' twist that has earned nothing from the audience, or justified his own rebooting. Remember Superman's good pal Jimmy? Well now he's an awful human being! How ADULT!!! :rolleyes:
Then I read stories about the apparent 'no jokes' policy the head honchos are demanding, or the scuttlebutt from Brett Easton Ellis of all people, who claimed some DC execs confided in him that they don't care how poor the Batman is, that they'll make megabucks in the box office regardless (though Ellis has supposedly downplayed the truth of his own story).
Very much so. Everyone but Marvel is like that. Sony kept taking Spider-Man's mask off, when people wanted Spidey to just be Spidey. There's a book that could be written on how little Fox trust the X-Men (really, it took how long to put Psylocke in? She has a massive army of fanboys... but you know if she was in earlier she wouldn't have been psi blading people or possibly even have purple hair... "yellow spandex"
).
Why would a company want to be like Sony, not Marvel?I think the problem is hidden in a way within your post. To me, there isn't a DC equivalent of Marvel Studios. DC Movies doesn't exist. There's DC Comics that once appeared as a logo at the start of their movies, now it's "DC Entertainment"......a fluff department which WB are pulling the strings of.
I mean Geoff Johns is nothing but a name that WB are using to get themselves some legitimacy among fans but make no mistake about it; John's doesn't have the power Kevin Feige does. No where near it. I've a feeling Affleck is starting to realise that.
The bucket stops with WB unfortunately. It speaks volumes that I can't even think of one legitimate name out of DC who seems to be an influential figure. It's just a sea of WB suits that are dictating things.
Yup, that makes sense.0
Advertisement