You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
November 20, 2017, 01:12:08 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!

The Elliquian Herald & Post
Issue 74 (Autumn) ~ August thru October 2017

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen  (Read 5782 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Slywyn

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #150 on: September 03, 2014, 11:22:14 PM »
Adam Warlock, not Doctor Strange.

w/e. =p I'm not really up on who everyone is.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #151 on: September 03, 2014, 11:28:11 PM »
w/e. =p I'm not really up on who everyone is.

I couldn't tell you anything about them, I just remember the names from an earlier discussion.

Offline Oniya

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #152 on: September 04, 2014, 01:29:48 AM »
A - a superhero inspired by the soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar?  O_o

This could go really well, or really badly. 

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #153 on: September 04, 2014, 01:34:46 AM »
A - a superhero inspired by the soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar?  O_o

This could go really well, or really badly.

Huh?

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #154 on: September 04, 2014, 02:23:52 AM »
I don't think we were supposed to believe Hammer was a serious rival to Stark, it was pretty obvious from the start that he was far behind Stark and trying to be bigger than he was. He's just the next best thing with Stark out of the weapon business.
If he wasn't half as 'good' as Stark, then he wouldn't have been chosen to replace him.  Justin Hammer was portrayed as so incompetent that no amount of suspension of disbelief allowed me to believe that his shareholders would have allowed him to remain as CEO.  They'd have replaced him with someone better.

He's a joke, and so is his company.  Which ironically, makes Stark Enterprises look like a joke if Hammer is supposed to be a 'threat' financially.  And they were a threat, because they were part of the movie's plot.  Hammer and Stark were put in competition, for some stupid reason.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #155 on: September 04, 2014, 04:39:34 AM »
If he wasn't half as 'good' as Stark, then he wouldn't have been chosen to replace him.  Justin Hammer was portrayed as so incompetent that no amount of suspension of disbelief allowed me to believe that his shareholders would have allowed him to remain as CEO.  They'd have replaced him with someone better.

Fair enough, but -

Quote
He's a joke, and so is his company.  Which ironically, makes Stark Enterprises look like a joke if Hammer is supposed to be a 'threat' financially.  And they were a threat, because they were part of the movie's plot.  Hammer and Stark were put in competition, for some stupid reason.

Hammer was never a threat financially, and was never intended to be. They were only competitors in Hammer's mind. Stark wasn't even in the arms business any more, or they wouldn't have been relying on Hammer.

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #156 on: September 04, 2014, 05:18:28 PM »
Seems likely. I know I initially skipped Thor 2 because of it and only gave the Winter Soldier a chance because I really liked what I was seeing and hearing about it.

More to tease future events or provide closure, I think. Guardian's of the Galaxy's was kinda a waste in my opinion.

Frankly I don't even think Man of Steel should be included in the DC movie 'verse, it makes even Iron Man 3 look good by comparison. It's not even that it's a bad Superman movie - it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen, period. But it's done, so moving on - I don't think the Green Lantern movie really fits the tone set by Man of Steel.

Wow, this is so in line with my own thinking I'm kind of freaked out. Though, I didn't think Man of Steel was as bad as all that; I just didn't think it was particularly good at all. It was more of a middle-of-the-road thing, nothing remarkable as far as I'm concerned, but not something I actually disliked.

Hopefully no one is upset about the post-credits GOTG spoilers not being hidden. But in response to the Howard the Duck and Deadpool stuff...
Yeah, Marvel and Fox aren't in the mood to share, hence no mutants allowed in the MCU and so no Wade Wilson making trouble for the Avengers. But James Gunn, director of GOTG pretty much made it clear no Howard the Duck movie would be appearing anytime soon, though he may reappear in the GOTG sequel for another cameo. I'd love to see that, especially if they did a spoof of the Yoda Vs. Dooku battle from Star Wars: Attack of the Clones where little Howard is busting out some Quack Fu on a much larger opponent.

They did confirm that one new member of the Guardians would be making their debut in the sequel, however, and the list of possible peeps is quite short so,
Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide
if we infer from the previously mentioned cocoon's opening making Adam Warlock emerge, he's pretty much at the top of the list.
But I'd been SO hoping it would be Ms. Marvel who was also a member of the team in the comics. Though speculation has it that she'll be more likely to end up on the Avengers roster than the Guardians of the Galaxy.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #157 on: September 04, 2014, 07:26:19 PM »
Ah, I didn't catch that bit in the Guardian's post credit scene, good call. I guess I was really just hoping for something from Thanos.

Wow, this is so in line with my own thinking I'm kind of freaked out. Though, I didn't think Man of Steel was as bad as all that; I just didn't think it was particularly good at all. It was more of a middle-of-the-road thing, nothing remarkable as far as I'm concerned, but not something I actually disliked.

I felt like it could have been a great movie if the execution had been better, but it just didn't work for me as is. I didn't get the sense there was any real emotion there at all, the character development fell flat or they didn't even bother, and using Clark as the viewpoint character worked against the structure of the story they were trying to tell. They even managed to make Zod kinda lame, in my opinion. Zod's death was the only scene that worked  for me and the rest of the movie just wasn't there to support it, before or after.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #158 on: September 04, 2014, 09:28:13 PM »
You know, I'm always amused by watching people pick apart Man of Steel. I have never liked Superman. In fact, I've almost always hated him. But Man of Steel, for all its faults, was the first time I've ever genuinely liked Superman.

Which makes me all the more upset that Dawn of Justice is looking more and more like a complete clusterfuck. I mean, Spider-Man 3 couldn't handle three villains even when one of them had been built up since the first movie. How the hell is Dawn of Justice supposed to handle three heroes!?

I get that Warner Bros/DC didn't want to straight up follow in Marvel's footsteps, but I really think that pride is going to come back and bite them in the ass when Dawn of Justice finally releases.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #159 on: September 04, 2014, 09:48:23 PM »
You know, I'm always amused by watching people pick apart Man of Steel. I have never liked Superman. In fact, I've almost always hated him. But Man of Steel, for all its faults, was the first time I've ever genuinely liked Superman.


Those two things are probably closely related. So many people dislike MoS because it's "not Superman" - the main character is so un-Superman-like that he has basically nothing in common with the comics character except the name. "Snyderman" is my favorite of the fan-names for him.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #160 on: September 04, 2014, 10:37:14 PM »
Those two things are probably closely related. So many people dislike MoS because it's "not Superman" - the main character is so un-Superman-like that he has basically nothing in common with the comics character except the name. "Snyderman" is my favorite of the fan-names for him.

+1 to that. Superman can be done well without completely missing the point.

But I still think it was a terrible movie regardless, it's lack of resemblance to Superman is the least of my problems with it.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 10:38:45 PM by Vorian »

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #161 on: September 05, 2014, 04:43:06 PM »
I love watching Man of Steel fights.  It's hilarious.  I mean, everyone's (and I'm talking anyone whose seen the film) complaining on how it's not 'Superman'.  And either completely missing the fact that he wasn't really Superman, it was more a Year 0 as opposed to Year 1, which means he hadn't really settled into who he was.  And secondly, I'm sorry, but Superman cannot save everyone, it's a sad fact of life, but Superman can do a lot of good, he can't do it all.  And I'm wondering why people expect him to be able to.

My issues about Man of Steel is twofold.  One of which I understand why they did it, but it's still kinda breaking my brain a bit.

The first and biggest is Jonathan Kent.  That entire thing with him was STUPID.  That's it, his entire attitude and reasons were plain dumb and nonsensical.

The second point was the Kryptonians being as powerful as Superman after being on Earth for mere HOURS.  BUT the issue with that is having Supes more or less beat Zod in seconds because he's been powered by the human sun for about 30 years doesn't make for good viewing.

Other than that it was a decent film to me.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #162 on: September 05, 2014, 05:39:41 PM »
Well he didn't come across as Clark Kent or anyone who could ever become Superman either. I don't expect him to be perfect right out of the gate, especially being thrown in the deep end like that, but I expect the foundation of his character to be there. It really wasn't. Smallville handled that angle much better.

The second point was the Kryptonians being as powerful as Superman after being on Earth for mere HOURS.  BUT the issue with that is having Supes more or less beat Zod in seconds because he's been powered by the human sun for about 30 years doesn't make for good viewing.

I actually don't entirely agree on this point. They picked up the secondary powers awfully fast, but in Man of Steel in particular a good portion of their physical strength was due to Krypton's higher gravity. The others grew up and lived in that environment, while Clark grew up in the much weaker earth gravity with active powers. Additionally the other Kryptonians were genetically engineered soldiers, and we don't know for certain how long they'd been in system before revealing themselves or how much exposure to the sun they had. So while they shouldn't really benefit from Earth's environment as much, their baseline physical capabilities would actually be significantly higher. It's also the first time Clark had fought anything even approaching his level.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #163 on: September 05, 2014, 05:42:57 PM »

My issues about Man of Steel is twofold.  One of which I understand why they did it, but it's still kinda breaking my brain a bit.

The first and biggest is Jonathan Kent.  That entire thing with him was STUPID.  That's it, his entire attitude and reasons were plain dumb and nonsensical.


Isn't this a big contributor to the 'he's not Superman' argument? Ma and Pa Kent are the two most defining figures in Superman's backstory - the people who raised him and instilled in him the values that he's so symbolic of. The utter character assassination committed upon Pa Kent here takes away Clark's traditional motivations to become the Big Blue Boy Scout, and instead creates grimdark 'Snyderman'.

Very few people expect the Origin Story movie to start out with the fully developed hero. But they do expect it to convincingly tell the beginning of that development; MoS doesn't do that.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2014, 05:44:52 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline MathimTopic starter

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #164 on: September 06, 2014, 12:20:57 PM »
You know, I'm always amused by watching people pick apart Man of Steel. I have never liked Superman. In fact, I've almost always hated him. But Man of Steel, for all its faults, was the first time I've ever genuinely liked Superman.

Which makes me all the more upset that Dawn of Justice is looking more and more like a complete clusterfuck. I mean, Spider-Man 3 couldn't handle three villains even when one of them had been built up since the first movie. How the hell is Dawn of Justice supposed to handle three heroes!?

I get that Warner Bros/DC didn't want to straight up follow in Marvel's footsteps, but I really think that pride is going to come back and bite them in the ass when Dawn of Justice finally releases.

Are you serious? Have you not seen the Avengers? They've proven that up to six heroes can be more or less fairly balanced against one charismatic villain in one film. By the way, there are actually at least four heroes in BvS, since David Momoa was cast as Aquaman. So it's Supes, Bats, Wonderbra and Seaman. Let's see DC screw this one up for other reasons. Like the fact that only Superman got an actual standalone origin story/reboot before this ensemble was thrown together.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #165 on: September 06, 2014, 01:25:09 PM »
Are you serious? Have you not seen the Avengers? They've proven that up to six heroes can be more or less fairly balanced against one charismatic villain in one film. By the way, there are actually at least four heroes in BvS, since David Momoa was cast as Aquaman. So it's Supes, Bats, Wonderbra and Seaman. Let's see DC screw this one up for other reasons. Like the fact that only Superman got an actual standalone origin story/reboot before this ensemble was thrown together.

Howabout who the ensemble contains? NuSupes is the only one to get an established standalone movie. Bats is explicitly not NolanBats, so he's coming in cold without any intro - if Affleck can pull off the role, though, Bats has enough film legacy to cope. Wonder Woman has languished with a constant strong of weak scripts and failed TV show pilots for decades, along with suffering from a severe costume identity crisis (seewhatididthere). Aquaman still hasn't recovered, popular image-wise, from his portrayal in Superfriends almost 40 years ago. That makes two well-known (to the moviegoing public) characters paired up with two almost complete unknowns, one of which is a living running joke in comic circles.

As the original film, Batman vs. Superman, it wouldn't have been an awful premise. But this muddled pseudo-Avengers teamup scheme is on the precipice of disaster already.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 01:26:18 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Jmorty33

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #166 on: September 06, 2014, 02:03:16 PM »
Are you serious? Have you not seen the Avengers? They've proven that up to six heroes can be more or less fairly balanced against one charismatic villain in one film. By the way, there are actually at least four heroes in BvS, since David Momoa was cast as Aquaman. So it's Supes, Bats, Wonderbra and Seaman. Let's see DC screw this one up for other reasons. Like the fact that only Superman got an actual standalone origin story/reboot before this ensemble was thrown together.

Avengers was not balanced. Tony Stark stole the show as he solved all the films problems, Cap was there because he's the poster boy for The Avengers and for comic relief with the out of touch with time jokes, Thor was there to tie up the Thor 1 plot and to get ladies in seats because of Chris Hemsworth, Hawkeye was a no show for 2/3's of the movie with a few quick lines, Black Widow had some development but not much, Hulk was used mostly as a plot device/ establishing the Ruffalo Banner/ Hulk.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #167 on: September 06, 2014, 02:19:55 PM »
Are you serious? Have you not seen the Avengers? They've proven that up to six heroes can be more or less fairly balanced against one charismatic villain in one film. By the way, there are actually at least four heroes in BvS, since David Momoa was cast as Aquaman. So it's Supes, Bats, Wonderbra and Seaman. Let's see DC screw this one up for other reasons. Like the fact that only Superman got an actual standalone origin story/reboot before this ensemble was thrown together.

Of course I've seen The Avengers, but one of the only reasons it worked so well is because all the heroes had already been given their own introduction movies, so they didn't need to spend any time on establishing everyone's history. The other reason it worked so well is because it was written in large part by Joss Whedon, who excels at creating and balancing ensemble casts. Hell, Joss Whedon writing and directing it was the only reason I ever got legitimately excited for The Avengers, because I knew he'd be able to handle that number of big characters.

Zack Snyder has yet to really demonstrate that kind of skill. And you can't really use Watchmen as a counter-example because that was written entirely by someone else, and Snyder basically just painted by the numbers. Which is not a dig at him for doing so, because I love that movie and think his approach to making it was absolutely the right way to go.

Avengers was not balanced. Tony Stark stole the show as he solved all the films problems, Cap was there because he's the poster boy for The Avengers and for comic relief with the out of touch with time jokes, Thor was there to tie up the Thor 1 plot and to get ladies in seats because of Chris Hemsworth, Hawkeye was a no show for 2/3's of the movie with a few quick lines, Black Widow had some development but not much, Hulk was used mostly as a plot device/ establishing the Ruffalo Banner/ Hulk.

It was balanced in the sense that everyone got a decent amount of screen time, and even though Tony was the one who wound up ultimately saving the day, everyone else still got their own moment in the spotlight.

Offline Jmorty33

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #168 on: September 06, 2014, 02:31:49 PM »
It is true that everyone got their moments, but the moments just seemed lackluster to me as all of Tony's outshone the rest of them as he really did save the day, not by himself (you can make an argument that he did do it all by himself). Though really Ruffalo didn't get a solo film before Avengers. We were going in with a new Banner, taking some parts from the Norton film, but there was some stuff that was changed.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #169 on: September 06, 2014, 03:22:56 PM »
So I finally got around to reading the Extremis arc ... Iron Man 3 screwed that one up pretty bad too.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #170 on: September 06, 2014, 04:01:05 PM »
So I finally got around to reading the Extremis arc ... Iron Man 3 screwed that one up pretty bad too.

I only partially agree. They could've done it much better than they did, but Marvel's never done a straight adaptation of any one particular storyline (at least as far as I'm aware). Rather, they take the best and major points and craft a new story around them. I read Extremis before I saw Iron Man 3 and I knew right away that they would never do a straight adaptation of it. While an interesting character story that gave a very exciting upgrade to Tony's tech, I also thought it was a bit on the boring side. So I knew they were going to have to do some serious alterations in order to make it work not only as a summer blockbuster movie, but as the first "post-Avengers" movie.

I think the only thing they did wrong with regards to Extremis itself was not mention and/or emphasize how customizable its effects were.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #171 on: September 06, 2014, 05:32:12 PM »
I wouldn't say boring, personally, but certainly heavier on character development than action. But it's really taking Tony in the direction of transhumanism, where the story they were going for was more 'who is Tony without the armor'. Really makes me wonder why they thought using Extremis over the Mandarin was a good idea. Is it really that important to the overall plot of Phase 2?

Making Extremis explosive was a little odd though, and didn't seem to serve any real purpose. And I have no idea how they came up with Killian of all people as the villian. It's like they just went looking for vaguely relevant names to slap on what they were doing without really caring if it made any sense.

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #172 on: September 06, 2014, 06:22:34 PM »
I wouldn't say boring, personally, but certainly heavier on character development than action. But it's really taking Tony in the direction of transhumanism, where the story they were going for was more 'who is Tony without the armor'. Really makes me wonder why they thought using Extremis over the Mandarin was a good idea. Is it really that important to the overall plot of Phase 2?

Making Extremis explosive was a little odd though, and didn't seem to serve any real purpose. And I have no idea how they came up with Killian of all people as the villian. It's like they just went looking for vaguely relevant names to slap on what they were doing without really caring if it made any sense.

I think making Killian the villain was an attempt to streamline the narrative for movie audiences. Because it does make a certain amount of sense to have the guy who created Extremis to also be the villain attempting to abuse it. As for using Extremis over the Mandarin, I think it could've been a good idea. I think Killian's idea of abusing Extremis to "own the war on terror" is actually a great plot for an Iron Man movie. They just should've left the Mandarin out of it.

As for Tony's transhumanism, I don't know. He goes there in the comics, and I think it's underplayed enough in Iron Man 3 that it doesn't totally ruin the message. The movie still ends with him knowing that he really can hack it without the armor. Personally, with Extremis now in the mix, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the Bleeding Edge armor to show up, but I do realize that that's an incredibly long shot.

Offline Vorian

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #173 on: September 06, 2014, 06:50:12 PM »
I think making Killian the villain was an attempt to streamline the narrative for movie audiences. Because it does make a certain amount of sense to have the guy who created Extremis to also be the villain attempting to abuse it. As for using Extremis over the Mandarin, I think it could've been a good idea. I think Killian's idea of abusing Extremis to "own the war on terror" is actually a great plot for an Iron Man movie. They just should've left the Mandarin out of it.

Killian was never the primary creator though. He was the guy who couldn't live with releasing a single dose to a wannabe terrorist in order to secure funding for the project. It's as drastic a change as turning the Mandarin into a loser in a costume, just in the opposite direction.

Edit: To expand on this a bit, I'm sure it was a matter of streamlining things, but I think they would have been better off with Maya. She was always the ringleader in the comics and already fairly ruthless, if well intentioned. Plus a strong and intelligent woman actually driving the plot might have been worth some of flaws in the film.

Quote
As for Tony's transhumanism, I don't know. He goes there in the comics, and I think it's underplayed enough in Iron Man 3 that it doesn't totally ruin the message. The movie still ends with him knowing that he really can hack it without the armor. Personally, with Extremis now in the mix, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the Bleeding Edge armor to show up, but I do realize that that's an incredibly long shot.

What I was trying to get at is that to me, the transhumanism is what makes Extremis of any real interest in Iron Man, downplaying it enough to work in the plot the way they wanted completely misses and defeats the point. If they could have managed both angles at once, great, but that's not how things played out. The Mandarin is much better for the direction they wanted Tony to go.

But in all fairness if I wasn't already irritated about the Mandarin I wouldn't be quite so inclined to pick the Extremis angle apart as well.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2014, 07:07:03 PM by Vorian »

Offline ShadowSlider

Re: Marvel Vs. DC on the Silver Screen
« Reply #174 on: September 06, 2014, 07:09:23 PM »
Killian was never the primary creator though. He was the guy who couldn't live with releasing a single dose to a wannabe terrorist in order to secure funding for the project. It's as drastic a change as turning the Mandarin into a loser in a costume, just in the opposite direction.

What I was trying to get at is that to me, the transhumanism is what makes Extremis of any real interest in Iron Man, downplaying it enough to work in the plot the way they wanted completely misses and defeats the point. If they could have managed both angles at once, great, but that's not how things played out. The Mandarin is much better for the direction they wanted Tony to go.

But in all fairness if I wasn't already irritated about the Mandarin I wouldn't be quite so inclined to pick the Extremis angle apart as well.

Ah, okay. Misunderstood you on the transhumanism part. Totally agree with you here.

I agree that the Killian change was just as drastic, but I actually think it was for the better. Villains need to have some kind of personal connection to the hero, and there was no one in the original Extremis story that fit that bill in a way suitable for a big blockbuster movie.