You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 12:37:39 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen  (Read 4325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« on: August 07, 2014, 02:25:33 PM »
Apparently the Batman Vs. Superman movie has, indeed, backed down from their supposed debut which shared a date with the release of the 3rd Captain America movie. Personally I never doubted for a moment that this would happen but now it's official; one of them was bound to change it rather than having both companies lose money by sharing the same release date but even with two of DC's biggest names coming together in the same movie (at long last) they still apparently weren't prepared to compete directly with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and their no-slowing-down pace and success.

So have a ball discussing anything about upcoming or previously released DC and Marvel films (though we should try to keep them as recent as possible; I'd say no earlier than Blade or X-Men's first movie for Marvel, and Batman Begins for DC.) Are you surprised DC backed down first? Disappointed?

Guardians of the Galaxy made back its budget before its first week was over (no surprises there). I'm just wondering if, by the end of its run, it will double or triple its budget (which is the norm for MCU flicks). I think quadrupling it would be pitiful wishful thinking but hey, I want them to do better. What amazed me was that before they even opened the film in the U.S., the sequel to Guardians was confirmed. I mean, that's pretty risky, not knowing exactly how much it was going to make or what audiences at large would think of it. Seems like it's going to pay off, with it having still very high reviews. Things may change this coming weekend but probably not too much. If anyone's seen it, please, render your opinions (especially if you saw it in 3D).

One last thing before I conclude my first post: I wasn't holding out any deluded hopes of GotG making 1.3 billion (which would have pushed the MCU into the top-grossing film franchise of all time; we'll have to wait for Avengers: Age of Ultron for that) but that would have been funny, seeing the MCU acquire that title before their second Avengers film/before their second phase's conclusion. But it would seem that once they reach that pinnacle, nobody's going to ever top them. Like, literally, EVER.

Offline Beorning

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2014, 03:09:01 PM »
Well, early Marvel movies were of varying quality: first X-Men movie was okayish, the second one was great, the third one was awful. There was similar arc (less extreme, though) for Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Daredevil was, apparently, butchered by the producers. Hulk was... just too strange. Both Fantastic Four movies were, as I've heard, bad... But the coming of MCU changed the situation: these movies seem to be rather good. They are doing great at the box office.

Meanwhile, DC isn't doing too well, lately. Batman Begins was good. The Dark Knight was okay, although it was elevated mostly by Heath Ledger's amazing performace. The Dark Knight Rises was rather bad, though... as well, as far as I know, both recent Superman movies. And I've heard only bad things about Green Lantern...

Overall? Marvel wins hands down.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2014, 03:32:40 PM »
Well, early Marvel movies were of varying quality: first X-Men movie was okayish, the second one was great, the third one was awful. There was similar arc (less extreme, though) for Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Daredevil was, apparently, butchered by the producers. Hulk was... just too strange. Both Fantastic Four movies were, as I've heard, bad... But the coming of MCU changed the situation: these movies seem to be rather good. They are doing great at the box office.

Meanwhile, DC isn't doing too well, lately. Batman Begins was good. The Dark Knight was okay, although it was elevated mostly by Heath Ledger's amazing performace. The Dark Knight Rises was rather bad, though... as well, as far as I know, both recent Superman movies. And I've heard only bad things about Green Lantern...

Overall? Marvel wins hands down.

Agreed about X-Men, although with the exception of The Wolverine which was a whole lot of nothing, their films have actually been improving quite a bit since the inception of the MCU. About the Nolan Batman trilogy, I have no idea what made you think of the Dark Knight as only 'okay', it was hands-down the best of the three. But TDKR was pure shit, they spent an entire extra year preparing it for a negative payoff story-wise. And the less said about Supes, the better (hard to make an interesting movie about a guy who's straight-up invincible).

Green Lantern was...well, it wasn't worth the 3D ticket price but the more I watch it (totally worth $5 at Target) the less I hate it. It's by no means great, or even good, but 'okay'. If you take it as it is and ignore how good it could have been, it's pretty all right. I'm hoping they have him pass on the ring to Kyle Rayner for the next time we see him and then by the time Justice League officially comes out, we have the John Stewart version. If there's one thing BOTH companies need, it's more diversity.

And yes, both Fantastic Four movies were a complete waste of time. The second one actually managed to be worse than the first (just like the Tom Jane Punisher being followed up by the god-awful War Zone) and now they're completely wiping their asses on it with this reboot they're making.

And I liked Daredevil, I don't care what anyone says. Elektra, however, was pure crap. Even worse than both Ghost Rider failures.

I'm really looking forward to Doctor Strange, who already has a director and, I think, a screenwriter locked in. Methinks them planning it this far ahead means it's going to immediately follow the Cap 3 film which will follow the steadily-looking-less-appealing Ant-Man movie. God only knows who's going to end up playing the Sorcerer Supreme but I really hope it's Luke Evans. Nobody I've seen on IMDB looks more perfectly like the man than him and he's pretty much used to roles of that sort, plus he's not as expensive as R2DJ to cast in multiple films.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2014, 04:19:22 PM »
I still get visions of Vincent Price when I think of Dr. Strange.  Appearance, delivery...  *sighs*

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2014, 10:59:50 PM »
The thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that NONE of the "Marvel" movies that came out before Iron Man were actually made by Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios didn't even exist before Iron Man.

FOX makes X-Men and Fantastic Four

Sony makes Spider-Man and Ghost Rider (and I *believe* Blade)

So in that regard, this isn't even a fair fight, because DC doesn't have the same level of control over "their" movies. Marvel is making their movies on their own, DC is relying on Warner Brothers to make their movies, and that's honestly what's going to bite them in the ass. Warner Bros. is one of the oldest studios in the business, and as a result, they're stuck in the old-school studio mindset. This has resulted them desperately trying to play catch up with Marvel, rather than taking the time to pause, analyze what Marvel has done that makes their movies work so well, and then replicate that technique themselves. That's why BvS is turning out to be such a bloated movie. They're trying to compress what should be at least three movies into one.

Man of Steel was the first time I've ever genuinely liked Superman and I left that theater super-pumped for a Man of Steel 2. When they announced it as Batman vs. Superman, I'll be generous and say my excitement increased. But when they announced Wonder Woman and Cyborg were also showing up, my excitement level crashed through the floor. One of the reasons the Avengers worked so well is because each of the heroes in it had already been introduced in their own movies, so the film didn't need to spend half its running time introducing everyone and explaining their origins. Batman vs. Superman isn't going to have that luxury, and I will be amazed if the film doesn't collapse under the weight of its studio's greed.

So yeah, like I said, Marvel is so far the clear winner in this fight, but the fight isn't even close to fair.

It's really Marvel vs. Warner Brothers.

Offline Shjade

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2014, 01:48:42 PM »
And the less said about Supes, the better (hard to make an interesting movie about a guy who's straight-up invincible).

No.

This argument comes up about Superman pretty frequently and it always seems wrongheaded. It might be hard to make an interesting life-threatening situation for a guy who's straight-up invincible, but there are a lot of options for conflict that aren't life-threatening. If the only movies worth making were about people in danger of being killed there'd be no genres outside of horror and action.

You just have to give him a story that isn't based around bad guys asking, "Do you even lift?" Because yeah, Superman can lift. We all know this. You have to try another angle.

Offline Beorning

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2014, 01:56:32 PM »
About the Nolan Batman trilogy, I have no idea what made you think of the Dark Knight as only 'okay', it was hands-down the best of the three.

I'm not so sure  ;)

Of course, it's all a matter of personal opinion, but I thought about The Dark Knight some time after I watched it... and I came to opinion that it's not a great movie in itself. It's good, but there are some downsides (like wasting the character of Two-Face completely). As I said, the thing that really elevates this movie into greatness is Heath Ledger's Joker. Replace him with a lesser actor and the movie becomes... just good.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2014, 02:05:01 PM »
Echoing someone from another forum...DC/Warner Brother's problem is that they're turning all their heroes into Batman. They're...ashamed of superhero stories, in a way, so they think the only successful format is Grim and Gritty and Brown And Grey. Batman works as Gritty, because he's Batman. Superman does not work as Gritty, but they tried it in Man of Steel. The previewed Wonder Woman costume from Dawn of Justice is all dark brown leather and bare metal, with nary a red, blue, or gold in sight.

Marvel, on the other hand, gleefully embraces their four-color origins. They're not afraid to let Superheroes be Superheroes. They take some of the sillier stuff and tone it down a bit, sure, but they don't try to pretend it doesn't exist.

Offline Beorning

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2014, 02:22:42 PM »
Totally seconded. DC/Warner really does seem to be ashamed of superheroes and their related tropes. It's not only that they are trying to turn everyone into Batman... even their current vision of Batman himself is very down to Earth. That's my problem with Nolan's Batman movies: every installment, the superheroics were being more and more phased out. It's especially visible in the third movie, when they actually don't have the balls to even name Selina Kyle as Catwoman...

Something related:

http://comicsalliance.com/um-actually-man-of-steel-writer-david-goyers-remarks-on-green-porn-star-she-hulk-and-other-nasty-business/

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2014, 02:29:45 PM »
Yeah, David Goyer is an idiot who hates comic book fans. But then again, Marvel has Joe Quesada, who pioneered the 'One More Day' storyline because he didn't think Spider-Man readers could relate to a Peter Parker who wasn't a nerdy single loser with a dead-end job.

Offline Beorning

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2014, 02:34:37 PM »
One More Day is something that single-handily killed any remaining interest I had in Spider-Man. I can't take the character seriously anymore.

Thank you, Quesada... *shakes fist*

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2014, 02:43:28 PM »
The thing that everyone needs to keep in mind is that NONE of the "Marvel" movies that came out before Iron Man were actually made by Marvel Studios. Marvel Studios didn't even exist before Iron Man.

FOX makes X-Men and Fantastic Four

Sony makes Spider-Man and Ghost Rider (and I *believe* Blade)

So in that regard, this isn't even a fair fight, because DC doesn't have the same level of control over "their" movies. Marvel is making their movies on their own, DC is relying on Warner Brothers to make their movies, and that's honestly what's going to bite them in the ass. Warner Bros. is one of the oldest studios in the business, and as a result, they're stuck in the old-school studio mindset. This has resulted them desperately trying to play catch up with Marvel, rather than taking the time to pause, analyze what Marvel has done that makes their movies work so well, and then replicate that technique themselves. That's why BvS is turning out to be such a bloated movie. They're trying to compress what should be at least three movies into one.

Man of Steel was the first time I've ever genuinely liked Superman and I left that theater super-pumped for a Man of Steel 2. When they announced it as Batman vs. Superman, I'll be generous and say my excitement increased. But when they announced Wonder Woman and Cyborg were also showing up, my excitement level crashed through the floor. One of the reasons the Avengers worked so well is because each of the heroes in it had already been introduced in their own movies, so the film didn't need to spend half its running time introducing everyone and explaining their origins. Batman vs. Superman isn't going to have that luxury, and I will be amazed if the film doesn't collapse under the weight of its studio's greed.

So yeah, like I said, Marvel is so far the clear winner in this fight, but the fight isn't even close to fair.

It's really Marvel vs. Warner Brothers.

I purposely omitted the mention of studios because we're talking about the SOURCE MATERIAL and not the peeps producing them. Why limit the discussion by keeping X-Men and other Marvel properties out just because they're not supervised directly by Marvel studios? It doesn't make sense. That being said, Warner Bros. has missed opportunity after opportunity to do as well as Marvel and now they're shooting themselves in the foot (and slapping fans in the face) because of the writing on the wall Marvel's success has left behind them in their wake. If the entire DC library has to suffer because of their intellectual property owners' fuck-ups, screw 'em. I have plenty of Marvel goodness to keep me satisfied, regardless of what studio is backing which franchise (exception being F4 and Spidey which all suck).

No.

This argument comes up about Superman pretty frequently and it always seems wrongheaded. It might be hard to make an interesting life-threatening situation for a guy who's straight-up invincible, but there are a lot of options for conflict that aren't life-threatening. If the only movies worth making were about people in danger of being killed there'd be no genres outside of horror and action.

You just have to give him a story that isn't based around bad guys asking, "Do you even lift?" Because yeah, Superman can lift. We all know this. You have to try another angle.

And where, pray tell, is this story? It seems to have eluded six different films. I mean, strike three and you're out, but doing it twice over? Sorry, I'm done giving them chances to wow me and it doesn't look like BvS is going to change that. Then again, forcing him to be downplayed in favor of other heroes does have the potential to keep him from stealing the spotlight.

One More Day is something that single-handily killed any remaining interest I had in Spider-Man. I can't take the character seriously anymore.

Thank you, Quesada... *shakes fist*

Them killing off Peter Parker in the Ultimate Comics universe destroyed my Spidey excitement, and he was literally my all-time fave of any comic company. The fact that the movies are all lousy didn't help, of course.

I disagree slightly about the DC universe stuff trying to make everyone Batman; Green Lantern didn't go that route (not that it helped much) so there's still hope, just probably not in the form of the last son of Krypton.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2014, 02:53:05 PM »

And where, pray tell, is this story? It seems to have eluded six different films. I mean, strike three and you're out, but doing it twice over? Sorry, I'm done giving them chances to wow me and it doesn't look like BvS is going to change that. Then again, forcing him to be downplayed in favor of other heroes does have the potential to keep him from stealing the spotlight.


Because they're using bad source material - they keep telling his origin story over and over because it's all they know. He's had a long run, but Hollywood writers are by definition edgy about treading new ground.

I don't read Superman, but I know some ones that have been recommended to be for exactly these reasons - confronting Superman with problems he can't just Superpunch to death...
-Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?
-All-Star Superman?
-Superman: Red Son
-Superman vs. The Elite (one of the better animated movies)

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2014, 03:24:13 PM »
Red Son was the one where Kal-El landed in Russia, right?  That would knock the average movie-goers on their collective ears.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2014, 03:58:35 PM »
I purposely omitted the mention of studios because we're talking about the SOURCE MATERIAL and not the peeps producing them. Why limit the discussion by keeping X-Men and other Marvel properties out just because they're not supervised directly by Marvel studios? It doesn't make sense.

Because the title of the thread is "Marvel vs. DC on the Silver Screen". That, at least to me, says we're talking specifically about the movies and not the source material. And in that conversation about the movies, which studios are actually producing said movies is enormously important. Which is why I said that this particular Marvel/DC fight wasn't a fair one, because DC doesn't have creative control over "their" movies and Marvel does.

In Hollywood, that makes all the difference in the world.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2014, 04:06:33 PM »
Red Son was the one where Kal-El landed in Russia, right?  That would knock the average movie-goers on their collective ears.

Yup. I doubt it would ever get a movie, for particularly that reason - it's simply too divergent from the collective-image view of Superman for the general public to swallow. But it's also, reportedly, one of the best-written Superman stories.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2014, 04:24:12 PM »
Wonder if they could sneak it through the studios by not playing up the 'This is an alternate Superman' angle?  Kind of like 'Stand By Me' wasn't touted as a Stephen King story, and so the people who weren't horror fans actually went to see it.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2014, 04:53:50 PM »
Superman with a giant hammer+sickle on his chest would be kinda unmistakable, I think. I consider myself a horror fan and I've never read 'Stand By Me', or seen the movie. But I'm definitely not a comic book reader and I absolutely know who Superman is and what he looks like.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2014, 05:29:12 PM »
Superman with a giant hammer+sickle on his chest would be kinda unmistakable, I think. I consider myself a horror fan and I've never read 'Stand By Me', or seen the movie. But I'm definitely not a comic book reader and I absolutely know who Superman is and what he looks like.

The story was a short in 'Different Seasons' called 'The Body' (Fall from Innocence?)  I think that was the same compilation as 'Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption' (Hope Springs Eternal?)

Offline consortium11

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #19 on: August 08, 2014, 09:53:39 PM »
Red Son was the one where Kal-El landed in Russia, right?  That would knock the average movie-goers on their collective ears.

It also features Batman with the most adorable pair of mitten ears and Lex Luthor being respected for how intelligent he is without it descending into "build us a weapon".

On the other hand the portrayal of Wonder Woman is somewhat problematic.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2014, 12:33:21 PM »
Because the title of the thread is "Marvel vs. DC on the Silver Screen". That, at least to me, says we're talking specifically about the movies and not the source material. And in that conversation about the movies, which studios are actually producing said movies is enormously important. Which is why I said that this particular Marvel/DC fight wasn't a fair one, because DC doesn't have creative control over "their" movies and Marvel does.

In Hollywood, that makes all the difference in the world.

But you specifically pointed out that neither does Marvel over a significant portion of their franchises, i.e. Spidey, F4, X-Men, and a few others. Again, if I had meant Marvel Studios Vs. Warner Bros. I would have specifically put that in the title or mentioned the specific studios in some way. Since we're at the precipice of finally having the DC universe tread new ground it just seemed like the right time to make a thread like this. It's not a thread to split hairs, it's a thread to talk about which comic movies from which company make it into theaters and what we think of them, and our opinions on upcoming ones. Whether to compare them or not is really optional so let's stop this nonsensical distracting argument.

Lately I've been re-watching the DC Animated Universe stuff, specifically Superman's show, and I have to say, with few exceptions there are no greater plot lines than when Superman is either facing down Darkseid/Apokolips as a whole, or when he's teamed up with the Justice League in that show. I think taking the spotlight away from him is going to do DC a world of good even if they won't end up matching the quality of the MCU films.

I'm going to see Guardians of the Galaxy tomorrow; I'm so freakin' stoked. It took both Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier to get me to believe in Marvel enough again after that god-awful debacle of Iron Man 3 to actually see one of their movies in 3D again and since GotG actually looks like one of those movies that 3D was made for (and not the other way around), so much the better. All my friends, even an ambivalent one whom I hadn't expected to see it, did and said it was good. If it impresses me that much, I'll definitely see Age of Ultron in 3D as well.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2014, 09:17:54 PM »
But you specifically pointed out that neither does Marvel over a significant portion of their franchises, i.e. Spidey, F4, X-Men, and a few others. Again, if I had meant Marvel Studios Vs. Warner Bros. I would have specifically put that in the title or mentioned the specific studios in some way. Since we're at the precipice of finally having the DC universe tread new ground it just seemed like the right time to make a thread like this. It's not a thread to split hairs, it's a thread to talk about which comic movies from which company make it into theaters and what we think of them, and our opinions on upcoming ones. Whether to compare them or not is really optional so let's stop this nonsensical distracting argument.

Lately I've been re-watching the DC Animated Universe stuff, specifically Superman's show, and I have to say, with few exceptions there are no greater plot lines than when Superman is either facing down Darkseid/Apokolips as a whole, or when he's teamed up with the Justice League in that show. I think taking the spotlight away from him is going to do DC a world of good even if they won't end up matching the quality of the MCU films.

I'm going to see Guardians of the Galaxy tomorrow; I'm so freakin' stoked. It took both Thor: The Dark World and Captain America: The Winter Soldier to get me to believe in Marvel enough again after that god-awful debacle of Iron Man 3 to actually see one of their movies in 3D again and since GotG actually looks like one of those movies that 3D was made for (and not the other way around), so much the better. All my friends, even an ambivalent one whom I hadn't expected to see it, did and said it was good. If it impresses me that much, I'll definitely see Age of Ultron in 3D as well.

Honestly, I don't see what was so wrong with Iron Man 3 other than that twist with the Mandarin, which has since been ret-coned by the "All Hail The King" one-shot. I thought it was a great way to finally answer the question Captain America posed in The Avengers; without that suit "what are you?" It is without doubt my favorite of the three Iron Man films.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2014, 02:57:37 PM »
Honestly, I don't see what was so wrong with Iron Man 3 other than that twist with the Mandarin, which has since been ret-coned by the "All Hail The King" one-shot. I thought it was a great way to finally answer the question Captain America posed in The Avengers; without that suit "what are you?" It is without doubt my favorite of the three Iron Man films.

Apparently you didn't watch the film. Good, you'd be traumatized by it otherwise. About the Mandarin 'twist', the fact that the movie was ruined by NOT having Iron Man's ultimate foe behind everything was bad enough, but the villains being completely identical and interchangeable, with ridiculously pulled-out-of-the-writers'-asses powers was just awful. Immensely lacking in action, the desperation-move of adding a little-kid sidekick, the plot hole that completely negates the entire 'I'm dying' experience from Iron Man 2 because apparently he could have had the shrapnel and his arc reactor removed at any time, along with no longer being Iron Man as we know him, his blowing up all his suits...need I really go on? That had to have been the most misleading trailer ever.

Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about that 'All Hail the King' thing, that was no excuse for keeping the real Mandarin out of IM3. They're basically saying, "Well, we just fucked off our chance of using Ben Kingsley, the best possible actor we could have gotten to play that role, because we wanted to play a joke and give the fans the middle finger." I don't care who they get to play the Mandarin in the future, if they even bother with it, they wasted the best possible opportunity on the worst possible director and screenwriter.

Anyway, enough about that. I saw Guardians of the Galaxy in 3D over the weekend and DAMN, I was impressed! James Gunn hadn't struck me as the kind of guy I'd count on to make a good movie out of this, but it really blew me away how well he pieced everything together. I was a little disappointed that
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
the post-credits scene didn't do anything to tease anything important that might be coming up in either the Avengers' Earthbound capers or any future Guardians stuff (like Miss Marvel, who apparently is going to be joining them in the sequel if they're only going off of the 2008 version of the team) but it was funny as shit to see Howard the Duck, voiced by Seth Green, giving the Collector shit about the space-dog licking his face.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2014, 03:47:08 PM »
Apparently you didn't watch the film. Good, you'd be traumatized by it otherwise. About the Mandarin 'twist', the fact that the movie was ruined by NOT having Iron Man's ultimate foe behind everything was bad enough, but the villains being completely identical and interchangeable, with ridiculously pulled-out-of-the-writers'-asses powers was just awful. Immensely lacking in action, the desperation-move of adding a little-kid sidekick, the plot hole that completely negates the entire 'I'm dying' experience from Iron Man 2 because apparently he could have had the shrapnel and his arc reactor removed at any time, along with no longer being Iron Man as we know him, his blowing up all his suits...need I really go on? That had to have been the most misleading trailer ever.

Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about that 'All Hail the King' thing, that was no excuse for keeping the real Mandarin out of IM3. They're basically saying, "Well, we just fucked off our chance of using Ben Kingsley, the best possible actor we could have gotten to play that role, because we wanted to play a joke and give the fans the middle finger." I don't care who they get to play the Mandarin in the future, if they even bother with it, they wasted the best possible opportunity on the worst possible director and screenwriter.

Anyway, enough about that. I saw Guardians of the Galaxy in 3D over the weekend and DAMN, I was impressed! James Gunn hadn't struck me as the kind of guy I'd count on to make a good movie out of this, but it really blew me away how well he pieced everything together. I was a little disappointed that
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
the post-credits scene didn't do anything to tease anything important that might be coming up in either the Avengers' Earthbound capers or any future Guardians stuff (like Miss Marvel, who apparently is going to be joining them in the sequel if they're only going off of the 2008 version of the team) but it was funny as shit to see Howard the Duck, voiced by Seth Green, giving the Collector shit about the space-dog licking his face.

Immensely lacking in action? So I guess the attack on Tony's mansion, the bar fight with the Extremis woman, Tony's escape from captivity, the Air Force One sequence, the Iron Legion in the climax, none of those count as action scenes?

And the villains powers weren't just pulled out of the writer's asses. They were actually based on the actual powers of the villian in the Extremis storyline in the comics, which was in turn the basis of the movie.

I actually really liked the bits with the kid. I thought it was a decent way to bring Tony back down to Earth a little bit, by having him interact with someone so far outside of his normal social group.

Also, that "plot hole" you mentioned isn't actually a plot hole. It's poorly handled, but after everything that was said about Extremis over the course of the film and how Tony says to Pepper that fixing her would be a piece of cake, I think it's safe to say that after he sorted Pepper out, he used an upgraded version of the Extremis process on himself so he could survive that surgery. It's not obvious like it should have been, but all the pieces are there if you only take a minute to try and put them together.

And honestly, I'm glad Ben Kingsley wasn't actually the Mandarin. I hate it when white actors are hired to play what were originally minority characters. If the character is Asian, then cast an Asian actor to play them. Even though he's not Chinese, I would much rather have Ken Watanabe play the actual Mandarin than Ben Kingsley.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2014, 03:52:26 PM »
Apparently you didn't watch the film.  About the Mandarin 'twist', the fact that the movie was ruined by NOT having Iron Man's ultimate foe behind everything was bad enough, but the villains being completely identical and interchangeable, with ridiculously pulled-out-of-the-writers'-asses powers was just awful. Immensely lacking in action, the desperation-move of adding a little-kid sidekick, the plot hole that completely negates the entire 'I'm dying' experience from Iron Man 2 because apparently he could have had the shrapnel and his arc reactor removed at any time, along with no longer being Iron Man as we know him, his blowing up all his suits...need I really go on? That had to have been the most misleading trailer ever.

Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about that 'All Hail the King' thing, that was no excuse for keeping the real Mandarin out of IM3. They're basically saying, "Well, we just fucked off our chance of using Ben Kingsley, the best possible actor we could have gotten to play that role, because we wanted to play a joke and give the fans the middle finger." I don't care who they get to play the Mandarin in the future, if they even bother with it, they wasted the best possible opportunity on the worst possible director and screenwriter.

Quote
Apparently you didn't watch the film. Good, you'd be traumatized by it otherwise. About the Mandarin 'twist', the fact that the movie was ruined by NOT having Iron Man's ultimate foe behind everything was bad enough,

I guess you didn't watch the movie either? Or, at least, you missed the first two movies, because otherwise you'd have noticed that the comic book Mandarin wouldn't have been possible in the MCU as it's unfolded...science, tech, and magic alien space rings from outer space dragons? The Mandarin they created was lame - very few people disagree with that - but whatthehellhisnamewas the scientist with the tattoos was their Mandarin.

Quote
but the villains being completely identical and interchangeable, with ridiculously pulled-out-of-the-writers'-asses powers was just awful.

Your first good point. Extremis serum is a healing factor, it somehow granting pyrokinesis was beyond bizarre and their major screwup. EDIT: So apparently it is an outright super-power serum with pyrokinesis in the comics, which is still a screwup to transfer that of all things into the more down-to-earth-esque MCU.
Quote
Immensely lacking in action,

Yeah, you must have accidentally seen The Aslyum's mockbuster knockoff of Iron Man. It could have used less filler fight scenes, in fact, because action wasn't the point of the plot anyways. IM1 was Tony Stark Becomes Iron Man. IM2 was Tony Stark Is Iron Man. IM3 was Iron Man Is Tony Stark, Or Is He? Someone upthread analyzed it much better, but the whole movie and most of the characters are about various facets of the identity crisis and man-becomes-the-mask story.

Quote
the desperation-move of adding a little-kid sidekick

Unnecessary? Sure? Desperation move? Only for you.
Quote
the plot hole that completely negates the entire 'I'm dying' experience from Iron Man 2 because apparently he could have had the shrapnel and his arc reactor removed at any time,

Yeah, you went to see Steel Guy or whatever it's called, because the only way they could have made it clearer that Tony survived said operation thanks to Extremis would be to paint it in neon letters across the middle of the screen, and only then because he managed to fix the formula. Hopefully they don't forget that in Avengers 2.
Quote
along with no longer being Iron Man as we know him, his blowing up all his suits.

A dramatic gesture, but if you thought he won't have a new suit in Avengers 2...

Quote
That had to have been the most misleading trailer ever.

Trailer Fails To Portray Entirety Of Movie Accurately! Crucial Plot Twists Not Revealed Months Before Premiere! Film at 11!

Quote
Plus, I don't give a rat's ass about that 'All Hail the King' thing, that was no excuse for keeping the real Mandarin out of IM3.

All Hail The King is lame because it's blatantly a scrambling retcon. They 're-invented' Mandarin to fit the Marvel Cinematic Universe instead of the comics canon. He sucked giant throbbing hairy monkey balls, and people went into an uproar that the 'real' Mandarin of the MCU had been wasted on a firebreathing dude with tattoos. So they changed their minds and tried to imply that the 'really real' Mandarin was still out there, which is even stupider than AHTK implies because he's going after Kingsley's character instead of the actual criminal claiming the title of Mandarin that Kingsley was fronting for, like a mob boss putting a horse's head in the bed of his rival's limo driver. Sure, Fake!Mandarin is dead, but that's still no reason to blame the limo driver.

Quote
..need I really go on?


Please do, get it all out of your system. It's therapeutic, really.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2014, 04:00:45 PM by TheGlyphstone »