Amph Justice League

A significant number of their DCEU-related posts boil down to "I cannot even RN" and semi-detached faux apathy/anger, but they're still better than Ben "Hot Takes" "Bad Opinions" "How Spider-Man Avoided the Worst Mistake of The Justice League Trailer" Kuchera.

Like, I get ridiculously angry at the state of the world sometimes, but even still, I should never be in the same room as ol' "30-Something White Guy With Opinions" Kuchera because bad things would happen.

 

Like, I get that the litmus test for comic book fans is how much usually socially isolated nerds can have their long term passions validated by quantifiable metrics like box office returns. I get, therefore, that Marvel's approach to filmmaking, which is more inclusive, is more successful. I still really enjoyed BvS, and MoS. They were great DC stories to me.

So the fusion of faux-scientific measurements and click bait reporting is infuriating.

 

Agreed. I'll also add that I find marketing for superhero/comic book movies to be the worst thing ever, far worse than the movies ever are.

That said, I love really dumb tie-in toys.

 

By what metric? All that you've really said is that you like the concept of considering how a litigious society like the US would likely respond to a super-powerful being. But there's a huge potential gap between concept and execution. It's like saying you like the Trump Presidency for the "concept" of bringing a fresh perspective to Washington or that TPM is good solely because the "concept" of a supremely evil figure having a relatively innocent childhood is intriguing, or even that we should all be communists because the "concept" of everyone having equal access to material goods is appealing.

 

Since last year I've had this, popped off the base, on my monitor stand:



He stands next to 28mm Pierce Brosnan James Bond, 26mm Daniel Craig James Bond, and the black series BB-8 that comes with Rey.

Unassailable!

 

Jabba-wocky -

Do you know of DC's Elseworlds, before I start?

 

I'm pretty sure DC didn't want to make "Elseworlds" movies, except that's what they are. If they said "WE're making Kingdom Come" I'd be ecstatic

 

Erm, they're not Elseworlds movies, but they are Elseworlds-esque. Elseworlds would be the basis of an ongoing story, and yes I know there are sequels to the Injustice and KC stories.

But christ yes, Kingdom Come.

Did you ever play Heroclix, dp4m?

 

I'd love to see an updated Kingdom Come, whereupon the heroes reemerge to rein in and imprison the grimdark DCEU characters. It would begin with Cavill's Superman inadvertently destroying Metropolis when he drowns Toyman in a nuclear reactor, thus forcing Mark Waid's Superman out of retirement, and it would end with the elder Bruce Wayne taunting Batfleck with "Martha" as he walks through the infirmary.

 

I've never read Elseworlds. But I have literally never seen any of the comics that have served as inspiration for any comic book film. I know the characters and expect them to stand on their own in whatever story is presented.

 

That's okay, Zach Snyder supposedly read both The Dark Knight Returns and The Death of Superman and learned all of the wrong lessons from them...

 

I just needed a yes/no answer. I'm striking through the redundant guff.

DC have a long tradition of taking their characters and exploring new takes and situations on them in these "Elseworlds" books. It gives them a chance to examine the characters in a different and tonally more serious light than Marvel's "What If" books.

A good example is "Red Son", a tale that asks what would have happened had Superman landed not in Kansas, but in Soviet Russia.

So, as a DC fan, I'm used to and enjoy it when they have these takes on characters that are internally consistent with the world they are placed into. It's interesting to see where they go with the existing elements of the character plus the new elements they add in.

As I've said, I liked that Man of Steel imagined Superman in our world. America likes to style itself the home of the brave (and in Dick Donner's films, it is), but it's an incredibly fearful, frightened, reactionary country and so to that end I believe they absolutely nailed the climate in which Superman would struggle to be seen as heroic. BvS explored that, and the human insecurity, further. Yes, "Martha" was dumb but the idea of using Superman's innate goodness, and the innate fear of the American people, as weapons against him, I thought, was a great take. It made Superman question the worthiness of what he was doing. And we got to see a Batman that was highly affected by Robin's death and therefore slightly (!) extreme already be concerned about Superman being tipped over the edge by Lex's breadcrumb trail of Superman to "bad things".

When I'm watching this I'm asking; a) am I enjoying myself? b) Does this feel like Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman, and c) does it feel consistent?

Hence, I enjoyed it. I'm not going to suggest it's a good or bad film; I don't care. I enjoyed it.

 

This right here. This is how I measure my enjoyment of not just comic book adaptations, but pretty much anything. Jabba-wocky, there is no reason to compare these types of films against each other, much less films with far better storytelling. These aren't supposed to be on par with some of the greatest Hollywood and Independent films. They're just simple entertainment.

Right. Batman editor Denny O'Neil basically said as much back in 89, after the first Burton film had come out. And that was before Elseworlds had been thought of.

"Speeding Bullets"



Yeah, that's a good one.

 

That reminds me of a Kevin Smith comment when he said: "There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of what those characters are about," Smith says. "It's almost like Zack Snyder didn't read a bunch of comics, he read one comic once and it was Dark Knight Returns, and his favorite part was the last part where Batman and Superman fight."

I've pretty taken every DC film as Elseworlds-esque; especially Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy which Zach Snyder tried to emulate in his DCEU films.

Man of Steel annoys and angers me for so many reasons; but the concept nor they real world elements are among those reasons. However, the real world elements trampled over Superman; so much so that many fans didn't have that emotional connection when Snyder decided to kill him off.

 

I actually like Man of Steel. It's the first Superman movie that I actually found to be interesting. These studios have to make these characters relevant to non-comic book fans (most people). Superman, basically a god-like character with one contrived weakness is actually a pretty boring character. I think exploring how society might actually respond to his existence is quite interesting (and I found some of the depictions of this to be quite realistic). The other thing is of course the old (but effective) trope of looking at how it impacts Superman that he can't fix everything/save everyone despite being nearly omnipotent. Man of Steel wasn't perfect, but I liked the angle they approached the character from (and having more emphasis on the fact that he's an alien... and accountable to no one).

I actually enjoyed Batman vs Superman to some degree...... and what's frustrating is that it wasn't a fatally flawed film. Even some better editing could have IMO made it quite a bit better for general audiences. They needed a better final confrontation/enemy (that actually had some real build up towards) and possibly a recast for the Lex Luthor character. Also, the motivation for the fight between Batman and Superman was pretty stupid.

I'm not a huge comic book guy, but I own a (dog-eared) copy of the Dark Knight returns I love it. It's unfortunate they didn't find a way to work in something like that premise. The whole idea of the US govt sending in Superman to take care of the out of control vigilante Batman was simply a great and fascinating angle to take

 

JUSTICE LEAGUE Star Diane Lane Issues Statement On Controversial Comments About THE AVENGERS

I think this was damage control. Too bad Andy Cohen isn't a comicbook geek (like Kevin Smith and not Chris Hardwick), because if he was he would have a follow up question to Lane's answer. Chris Hardwick would have helped Lane with the damage control and probably have a leading question that would defuse the comments.

 

LOL damage control? I honestly can't believe anyone actually thought she was saying a movie she is actually in and promoting is worse than another film in that genre. It was obvious she always meant exactly what her representative just clarified for the clueless among us.

This is such a perfect example of how idiotic fanboy culture can be.


I mean - if you honestly think someone like Diane Lane would intentionally make a public comment like that... ... I mean come one.

I actually wouldn't be surprised at all if she hasn't actually seen The Avengers.

.

 

Yes, but they clarified the less damaging part of the quote and hoped people (like you) would fixate on that.

 

You're a fine one to talk about D.C. Fixation!

 

My DC fixation are Cabs and Fontanas.

 

WHO CARES

None of these people were "interviewing" her. And if they were, it's not their job (nor is it yours, mine, or anyone else's) to "clarify" poorly-worded comments and thoughts. The movies will live and die on their own merits and flaws.

 

No one really cares. Seriously, it's the normal internet chatter and reaction in the absence of real news.

And it is the job of any quality interviewer to clear up/confirm poorly spoken comments or have follow up questions to such comments, as not only does it make for good journalism but creates a buzz and increases ratings, which almost every form media needs to survive.

 

"I care."

Are you making this judgement because you've read a bunch of comics, watched the films and television series or are you just generalizing? How is Superman uninteresting because he's godlike, Batman is "Bat God"? Over powered? Seems to me you don't know a whole lot about Superman if you make that kind of assessment. Same with the Flash.