Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

[JLeezy23]

I agree that DC will get full praise for a female-led superhero film so early in their run, it'll bring in much more audiences and I think people will be more open minded about the films. Even adding Harley this year will help them to bring in more viewers, and there's 2 other females in the SS film, I think people will begin to love DC films because they have multiple stong female leads.
Batman is a cash cow, but actually, Superman and Wonder Woman are too. Having all three in one film is amazing to have!

 

[Mr Mold Maker]

In a word, no. "Batman" and "Superman" are recognizable even to people who don't read comic books, and will likely attract more attention and sell more tickets. "Dawn of Justice" is too generic and could be the title of any number of "lone guy gets revenge for being wronged by the bad guys" movie if it isn't accompanied by images of Batman and Superman.

Fair point, and I do agree to an extent.

Man of Steel and The Dark Knight had no issues at all bringing in viewers but I guess those terms are more associated with the characters.

Batman V Superman just doesn't seem like the correct title given what we know about the film. They will fight, obviously, but the fact they've already given away the big bad and the teamed up trinity, it feels more like Batman ft. Superman and Wonder Woman V Lex Luthor: Rush to the Justice League.

 

[Fawbish]

Fair point, and I do agree to an extent.

Man of Steel and The Dark Knight had no issues at all bringing in viewers but I guess those terms are more associated with the characters.

Batman V Superman just doesn't seem like the correct title given what we know about the film. They will fight, obviously, but the fact they've already given away the big bad and the teamed up trinity, it feels more like Batman ft. Superman and Wonder Woman V Lex Luthor: Rush to the Justice League.

I think you're possibly also over-estimating the average movie goers (a big bulk majority of ticket sales I imagine, though don't know true figures) assumed knowledge of the film, and that they will also pick up on the 10 seconds of trailer that shows another big bad. I reckon quite a lot of the bulk of people seeing this will only ever maybe catch a trailer once, or twice in the cinemas. Then the occasional people seeing the trailer on TV, or on a spot somewhere. Then facebook/youtube/online the amount of viewings per user will grow from there.

To those of us chasing this stuff online (definitely, a growing group of the ticket buyers) it seems absolutely blatantly obvious. Not so much for the ticket sales fodder, IMO!

 

[Zombie_61]

Batman V Superman just doesn't seem like the correct title given what we know about the film. They will fight, obviously, but the fact they've already given away the big bad and the teamed up trinity, it feels more like Batman ft. Superman and Wonder Woman V Lex Luthor: Rush to the Justice League.

I definitely agree about the "Rush to the Justice League" part. They need to lay the groundwork for that first by having stand-alone Affleck Batman and Wonder Woman movies (at least) to get the potential audiences who don't read comic books up to speed. In my opinion Marvel did the same thing with The Avengers; I would like to have seen one or two more Captain America movies set in the 1940s and a decent Hulk movie first. But I think Marvel pulled it off anyway, so maybe lightning will strike twice.

 

[Fawbish]

I definitely agree about the "Rush to the Justice League" part. They need to lay the groundwork for that first by having stand-alone Affleck Batman and Wonder Woman movies (at least) to get the potential audiences who don't read comic books up to speed. In my opinion Marvel did the same thing with The Avengers; I would like to have seen one or two more Captain America movies set in the 1940s and a decent Hulk movie first. But I think Marvel pulled it off anyway, so maybe lightning will strike twice.

Don't agree. Yeah, it happens to align with the idea of rushing it, but it fits nicely. It's a different approach. No one that goes to see Wonder Woman as a standalone film will be anyone that won't already go and see Batman v Superman - I'm speaking broadly of course, in terms of "audience", not individuals. So releasing that first wouldnt achieve anything, it's story is chronologically before BvS sure, but I don't think it will impact as heavily.

The Affleck Batman movie - this is pretty much that as far as we can see. If I'm going to take a swing in the dark with a criticism for this movie, it's that personally, I wanted to see Superman get some further decent development - so if I was going to stretch, I'd rather have seen what this would have been (MoS 2) if things had panned out normally. At no point do I think what's happening is a mistake though.

DC have gone all out, they've created TV specials etc and used people that are very knowledgeable and that have been involved with the process (Geoff Johns etc) to give us insight into this movie. It's a smart strategy in my eyes - they have arguably the two most well known heroes on the planet - they're using them to bring in each of those audiences. They're dragging in the Wonder Woman audience with her inclusion in the trailers. Once people have seen this movie, it's pretty much a guarantee that every single one of those audience will buy a ticket for Justice League.

Even if this is a mediocre to good film instead of a great one (for whatever reasons). We will all come back for JL. So having less grossing solo films in the meantime isnt really a requirement I don't think. In story terms, this film was written pretty much exactly to pick up our criticisms of MoS - fingers crossed it hits those beats, but that's the story they are telling. A reaction to exactly what we didnt like about MoS. I love that to be honest. Avengers was planned - and I loved that too, but this isnt that. They have to do whats right for them and their story (and ticket sales) otherwise we don't get to see our favourite heroes on the big screen in the future.

 

[Mr Mold Maker]

I agree and disagree with certain aspects of both of your points.

I feel like they're doing some things right. As I said a bit back in the thread, now is the perfect time to introduce Batman, and to have the fight. I even feel like Wonder Woman being introduced would be fine, assuming it was/is done correctly.

What I feel may be a problem for this movie is its not just Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. They've stuck Lex in. They've stuck Doomsday in. They've stuck Lois in. They've stuck Bruce's parents dying in (again!) and this is a two and a half hour movie? We've also got Batman fight scenes, the Apocalypse (Knightmare) scene, Superman love-in-a-tub scene, Superman court scene.. Etc. That's just what we KNOW about.

I feel like the team up, the fight, the big bad, the whole story will be rushed. Unless they have some phenomenonal pacing, it just seems like a little too much to cover in one film. I am also concerned about how much of this film will end up on the cutting room floor.

They have to essentially introduce us to the whole Universe again, make a conflict, and solve it, in just two and a half hours.




Obviously these are just my concerns and opinions, and I honestly do have very high hopes for this film and believe they'll pull it together somehow.

 

[Fawbish]

I'm definitely concerned in the same way. All your points there are valid worries.

However I try to justify myself a little. Think about Watchmen. That was an unknown property (to the masses). Many characters. Some unconventional pacing. Some great scenes. And it felt great (IMO) - it was a great comic adaptation to the screen (I'm not speaking about the specifics of the comic, more the whole story)

And then I think about some of my favourite longish run time films.

Interstellar. Avengers. Inception. Saving Private Ryan. LOTR's etc. And for the most part I didn't feel like those films felt too full. And they all deal with fairly expansive subject with multiple characters etc. So from a personal perspective, I will be trying to reduce my expectations a little, because I really do build these films up in my head far too much. So of course its important to remember that films are also subjective in their appeal.

I've noticed a trend with myself. Two main films that ring the bell are Man of Steel and Force Awakens. I got really stoked for both. Like - mental excited. The trailers were AMAZING. I was utterly enthralled. And then I walked out of the cinemas...with something missing. Something felt a bit off. And of course then you analyse etc and you think...urgh. If only they'd done this! or that!

And then....the second viewing. Then time passes. And you think some more. And a third viewing. And I can honestly say now, that Man of Steel gets better for me every time I see it.

And my second viewing of Force Awakens let me quash those initial worries - yes, there were still some issues but generally - great stuff.

So I know that despite my high expectations - which were slightly snubbed by the second trailer and then AMPED by the final trailer, I know this will stand up after the fact. It might not be everything I want on the first viewing. But I'm more chilled about that now. And I'm confident I'll love it, even if thats 2 or 3 showings down the road and some time to absorb it haha.

Do you all have snap judgements on films? Do they tend to stick, or do you remain open with them? I used to make a decision and it would stick, but I think I'm maturing a little haha.

 

[Solo4114]

I agree and disagree with certain aspects of both of your points.

I feel like they're doing some things right. As I said a bit back in the thread, now is the perfect time to introduce Batman, and to have the fight. I even feel like Wonder Woman being introduced would be fine, assuming it was/is done correctly.

What I feel may be a problem for this movie is its not just Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman. They've stuck Lex in. They've stuck Doomsday in. They've stuck Lois in. They've stuck Bruce's parents dying in (again!) and this is a two and a half hour movie? We've also got Batman fight scenes, the Apocalypse (Knightmare) scene, Superman love-in-a-tub scene, Superman court scene.. Etc. That's just what we KNOW about.

I feel like the team up, the fight, the big bad, the whole story will be rushed. Unless they have some phenomenonal pacing, it just seems like a little too much to cover in one film. I am also concerned about how much of this film will end up on the cutting room floor.

They have to essentially introduce us to the whole Universe again, make a conflict, and solve it, in just two and a half hours.




Obviously these are just my concerns and opinions, and I honestly do have very high hopes for this film and believe they'll pull it together somehow.

Don't forget about introducing Aquaman and The Flash, too.

And I agree with your thoughts. This film seems WAY too busy. Part of why Marvel's approach worked was because it had time for people to get to know the characters and allow for some build-up. But DC's whole "We'll just do another movie, stick everyone in, and then do a JLA film and other spin offs" seems way, way too hectic. It won't allow time for the film to breathe.

 

[Tanker]

Don't forget about introducing Aquaman and The Flash, too.

And I agree with your thoughts. This film seems WAY too busy. Part of why Marvel's approach worked was because it had time for people to get to know the characters and allow for some build-up. But DC's whole "We'll just do another movie, stick everyone in, and then do a JLA film and other spin offs" seems way, way too hectic. It won't allow time for the film to breathe.

Wait, it's actually a movie not just a series of trailers. No way. What year is this coming out? Is this DC's attempt to catch up to 4 plus years of Marvel's universe expansion? DC has some big shoes to fill and a lot of serious catching up to do. Even with them main streaming the DC universe on Netflix. JLA, isn't Green Lantern apart of that team?

 

[Fawbish]

@Tanker Anything that is on TV, netflix etc that is DC isnt connected to anything in the DC Extended Universe.

Having the films internally interconnected was always the next logical step up from trilogies, it just happens that Marvel hit the ground running - not easily either, but it took some ballsy moves on their part to get that universe started.

If anything, DC don't have as hard a time of it in some ways - the normal movie going audience is totally onboard and used to the connected movie idea.

I don't think of it as catching up to be honest. It's just another comic property, with some amazing characters, getting their time on screen.

If they were truly gunning for pure catch up, they would have gone with Superman founding the Justice League - they could have, if they wanted, have gone straight in for the kill. Two years of marketing similar to Batman vs Superman - look at the hype. Justice League would have generated the same hype. I don't think it would have done Justice League...justice (haha) and therefore Batman v Superman introduces Batman and Wonder Woman. To a lesser extent it will show us Aquaman, Flash and Cyborg. That is perfect to me.
This film simply allows a little breathing room before JL kicks off. And it should be a cracking film in its own right.

Not every character needs their own movie, in my opinion. You can't carbon copy a formula and expect it to be successful - see the argument made for R rated movies post Deadpool.


Avengers vs Justice League "Build Up"


OK - just because I was slightly curious, I thought I'd have a quick look at the MCU stuff just as a comparison.

So before Avengers aired, there were five films.

Incredible Hulk
Iron Man
Iron Man 2
Captain America
Thor

Now - absolutely aware that I'll get a lot of disagreement on this, and please know that I am a massive fan of the MCU! I love getting our favourite characters in all mediums - I'm just being objective for a bit.

Hulk wasnt particularly well received - and if we are honest, adds nothing to the MCU in broad terms. People don't see Ed Norton as the MCU's Hulk, and that film is barely referenced at large. So discount Hulk.

So effectively four films.

Iron Man 2 - does it achieve a lot? It helps us connect a little more with Shield. A throwaway comment about New Mexico. The biggest thing it does is introduce Black Widow. Now fair play, thats pretty big. But overall - did that prepare us much for Avengers? We only learned her connection to Hawkeye in avengers, which is a major point of that story. I don't think there would be much missing in Avengers if we hadnt seen her in IM2.

At a push admittedly...down to three.

Absolutely essential - Iron Man. Iron Man introduces the world and sets the tone for the Avengers film - good action, smart comedy. And I can't really argue with Captain America too much - but for all I can gather (and which I always found perplexing) is that a lot of people disliked Cap movie. I loved it! However all it really does for Avengers...is introduce our Captain and OK, the tessuract too - and only right at the end does he get connected to the current timeline. Avengers wouldn't have suffered MASSIVELY (it would have suffered some yes) if Cap film didnt exist. I also think the same could be said for Thor.

Pretty bold statements I know - it's not fact, its just a fairly relaxed interpretation of these events.

In reality at a real push - two films prior to Avengers? We had to have Iron Man I think, and at a stretch, Captain America.

So I'll of course admit that DC are pushing the boundaries probably for story with only MoS and BvS to kickstart JL. But let's also not forget Suicide Squad. So there's three DC universe films. And there could be some bigger implications from Suicide Squad than we are seeing at the moment I reckon.

But let's also remind ourselves that the Justice League wont even necessarily follow the same story beats as Avengers (on paper I assume it will look identical). We of course want our guys to save the day and unite against the big bad presumably alien threat, but there is a reason there are different comics. They arent the same characters, and they won't have the same story.

Anyway. I'm bored at work and thought I'd chuck down some thoughts!

 

[Pikezer1337]

Honestly how can anyone say DC is rushing... As stated above, take a look at how many movies it took Marvel to set up the Avengers compared to Justice league
Iron Man -1
Iron Man 2 -2
Captain America- 3
Thor- 4
The Avengers - 5

Man of Steel - 1
BVS - 2
Suicide Squad - 3
Wonder Woman - 4
Justice League -5


I love my Marvel movies but let's face it, prior to 2008 the general audience had no effin idea who Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow or Iron Man was. Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and even Green Lantern were exposed to generations with cartoon shows and other things. They don't need origin stories because we can go to the movies and already know who these characters are. Besides, from a logistics point this approach makes sense as well. Throw an Aquaman movie at the general audience and they may say ehh all he does it talk to fish. Depute him in Justice League and show everyone he is badass and then they go whoa I wanna see his solo film. There's a reason Captain America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 made a buttload more than their first movies--because they had exposure from The Avengers.

 

[Fawbish]

Honestly how can anyone say DC is rushing... As stated above, take a look at how many movies it took Marvel to set up the Avengers compared to Justice league
Iron Man -1
Iron Man 2 -2
Captain America- 3
Thor- 4
The Avengers - 5

Man of Steel - 1
BVS - 2
Suicide Squad - 3
Wonder Woman - 4
Justice League -5


I love my Marvel movies but let's face it, prior to 2008 the general audience had no effin idea who Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow or Iron Man was. Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and even Green Lantern were exposed to generations with cartoon shows and other things. They don't need origin stories because we can go to the movies and already know who these characters are. Besides, from a logistics point this approach makes sense as well. Throw an Aquaman movie at the general audience and they may say ehh all he does it talk to fish. Depute him in Justice League and show everyone he is badass and then they go whoa I wanna see his solo film. There's a reason Captain America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 made a buttload more than their first movies--because they had exposure from The Avengers.

You put it much more succinctly. And I completely forgot Wonder Woman would air before JL.

 

[KrangPrime]

Honestly how can anyone say DC is rushing... As stated above, take a look at how many movies it took Marvel to set up the Avengers compared to Justice league
Iron Man -1
Iron Man 2 -2
Captain America- 3
Thor- 4
The Avengers - 5

Man of Steel - 1
BVS - 2
Suicide Squad - 3
Wonder Woman - 4
Justice League -5


I love my Marvel movies but let's face it, prior to 2008 the general audience had no effin idea who Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow or Iron Man was. Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Flash, and even Green Lantern were exposed to generations with cartoon shows and other things. They don't need origin stories because we can go to the movies and already know who these characters are. Besides, from a logistics point this approach makes sense as well. Throw an Aquaman movie at the general audience and they may say ehh all he does it talk to fish. Depute him in Justice League and show everyone he is badass and then they go whoa I wanna see his solo film. There's a reason Captain America 2, Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 made a buttload more than their first movies--because they had exposure from The Avengers.

The problem I have with this reasoning is simple.

Yes, the general public had no idea who these Marvel characters where, because DC made a more concerted push to get them out there in mediums other than comic books. but, guess what? I'm now more interested in the marvel cinematic universe than I am in the DC one...

And I'm a DC fan boy at heart. at least of the animation side, and the earlier comic book years before things became too convoluted.

To me, it just seems like marvel took it far more slowly. They did iron man (twice) Hulk, Thor, AND Captain America before Avengers was probably even being planned. Or if it was, it seems like they might have planned it all out before they started. They gave their other characters chances, and turned them over to people who either understood the core of what each character was, or who could re invent them in a way so that their core would be kept in this new continuity.

With DC, the only one they are able to seem to get right is batman. After Green Lantern tanked for whatever reason, they got scared. they laid low. Then Marvel started hitting it out of the park with characters most people didn't even know about (guardians of the who?)....all of a sudden Superman got greenlit. most people didn't care for that...so superman 2 never happened....Now they are falling back on Batman to carry Superman on his back in the hopes that seeing both on screen together will make people want to see justice league happen. And if you don't think that is the case, does batman even need to be in suicide squad at all? from what I can gather since i'm not really following it, he seems to mostly have a small cameo in it.

why have him in there at all if WB thinks suicide squad is strong enough to hold it's own as a movie?

I think with the Marvel verse, it worked the opposite. People LIKED the first Captain America. People liked the first iron man, and wanted to see more. If for some reason you didn't see those movies, and decided to give the universe a chance with Avengers, and LIKED Avengers, then you wanted to go back and see what you missed. And when those turned out to be good, you get instantly hooked in the universe because you know what to expect.


To me, that's why I think it seems like WB is rushing things to catch up to marvel. Marvel took it slow, figured out what made the characters tick, and made the best version of those characters. WB seems to be throwing things at a dart board and seeing what sticks. how else can you explain the drastic look change of the joker from dark knight returns to suicide squad? making it ANOTHER movie universe is just too much baggage.......

 

[Fawbish]

The problem I have with this reasoning is simple.

Yes, the general public had no idea who these Marvel characters where, because DC made a more concerted push to get them out there in mediums other than comic books. but, guess what? I'm now more interested in the marvel cinematic universe than I am in the DC one...

And I'm a DC fan boy at heart. at least of the animation side, and the earlier comic book years before things became too convoluted.

Same here with animated stuff, their animated universe is excellent for the most part :thumbsup

To me, it just seems like marvel took it far more slowly. They did iron man (twice) Hulk, Thor, AND Captain America before Avengers was probably even being planned. Or if it was, it seems like they might have planned it all out before they started. They gave their other characters chances, and turned them over to people who either understood the core of what each character was, or who could re invent them in a way so that their core would be kept in this new continuity.


Avengers had a script being written in 2007 by Zak Penn I think. So some version of the planning goes further back than when those films were released. Even though thats the case, you seem to have two conflicting praises there...it wasnt planned until it was needed but then it was planned all the way? They have managed to capture the core of the characters quite well...but then as you've said yourself - the general public had no preconception, so getting the core right matters less??

With DC, the only one they are able to seem to get right is batman. After Green Lantern tanked for whatever reason, they got scared. they laid low. Then Marvel started hitting it out of the park with characters most people didn't even know about (guardians of the who?)....all of a sudden Superman got greenlit. most people didn't care for that...so superman 2 never happened....Now they are falling back on Batman to carry Superman on his back in the hopes that seeing both on screen together will make people want to see justice league happen. And if you don't think that is the case, does batman even need to be in suicide squad at all? from what I can gather since i'm not really following it, he seems to mostly have a small cameo in it.

Batman is a well done property yes - except of course the historically definitive superhero movie is widely agreed to be the 1978 Superman. Nowadays batman is more relatable to a darker world yes, and therefore probably slightly easier to get right on the big screen. However Man of Steel was being planned far, far in advance of Guardians of the Galaxy - Man of Steel was being planned in 2008! Taking pitches for film ideas etc because they had to start production by 2011 to retain rights that would revert to Siegel and Shuster (creators of Superman) - Man of Steel 2 didn't happen (yet) because once the film was under way, it made sense to Snyder and co to embrace the connected film verse. It was almost always planned after MoS to have Batman introduced at this point I believe.

why have him in there at all if WB thinks suicide squad is strong enough to hold it's own as a movie

Because it's an interconnected universe with a crew of bad guys that are almost exclusively picked out from Batman's rogues gallery? It literally wouldn't make sense for Batman NOT to have a cameo in this movie...this seems a slightly strange concern?

I think with the Marvel verse, it worked the opposite. People LIKED the first Captain America. People liked the first iron man, and wanted to see more. If for some reason you didn't see those movies, and decided to give the universe a chance with Avengers, and LIKED Avengers, then you wanted to go back and see what you missed. And when those turned out to be good, you get instantly hooked in the universe because you know what to expect

it was my understanding of the opposite in general circles - i dont think captain america was particularly well received. Iron man yes definitely. I dont know many people that started watching this universe with Avengers, but yeah, Im sure theyre out there, and thats how it went down for them. But bear in mind, its the majority of movie goers, not just casual watchers on DVD etc that these films are made for - the opening weekends etc that sell tickets.


To me, that's why I think it seems like WB is rushing things to catch up to marvel. Marvel took it slow, figured out what made the characters tick, and made the best version of those characters. WB seems to be throwing things at a dart board and seeing what sticks. how else can you explain the drastic look change of the joker from dark knight returns to suicide squad? making it ANOTHER movie universe is just too much baggage.......

I dont see it as the dart board, but I do agree that Marvel planned it out fairly well. But their early planning was very small amounts of interconnectedness. DC can take advantage of that and jump straight into being connected. Once again though, I'm a bit confused by your concern - the drastic change of the joker? This is an entirely different universe. Nolans batman didnt even have a Superman. Or a wonder woman etc. It didnt care about the rest, it was isolated. If you're complaining at that, is that not the same as Hulk changing from Incredible Hulk to Mark Ruffalo. What about 2006 Superman to 2013 Superman? What about X-Men? It is the absolute nature of comics to reinvent and reimagine our favourite characters regularly. The Marvel characters have also recently had multiple back stories and reinventions done last year. In ten years that will also affect the Marvel movie-verse. DC are technically further ahead in that respect, they've had mainstream big hero movies for just that slight bit longer than Marvel, with 78 Superman, 89 Batman etc. With Marvel catching up in about 1998 with Blade etc. (Older Captain America movies etc fair enough, but most were direct to video etc)

 

[KrangPrime]

I wish I knew more about the marvel universe so I could address some of your points, but I don't..

so, the thing about multiple universes...

Marvel movie verse seems to be it's own. Minus perhaps the one false start of the incredible hulk. after that, they seem to have made it all one continuity. Even Ant Man got to fight the avengers. After everyone saw the success of that approach, it seems to be the go to idea to have everything connected now.

With The DC universe, it's jumping around everywhere...and to me, that seems to be a 'lets throw darts at a board to see what works' approach. does that make more sense?

For instance, At the end of the Nolan Batman verse, you had bruce retire, and another character looking to pick up the batman mantle. Now in Batman VRS superman, it's ANOTHER universe with ANOTHER batman. It's almost like DC said 'yeah, we wrote ourselves into a corner with that one, as we don't think an audience would accept anyone but bruce being batman, so lets start AGAIN'. Either that, or DC just likes the idea of showing different takes and different universes, and doesn't want to lump themselves with one iteration. IF that is the case, I kind of wish they'd come out and say it. It'd be less confusing for me at least, if that makes sense..


and i'm just talking about the movie verse here, not the comic verse. you get even more confusing with the comics. Marvel has rebooted once, I think recently...DC has rebooted TWICE in recent months. New 52, and one to try and connect the comic book verse to the movie verse.. to me, the DC side just comes off as very confused, no leader with one clear vision. All it seems to know is 'our batman stuff works'....everything else is kind of hit or miss.


As for suicide squad.....if it was more set in the batman verse, wouldn't it be more marketable to call it something like 'batman: Suicide Squad?' elite killers for higher that bruce has to figure out how to stop would make an interesting batman movie in and of itself. but since the general public doesn't know much about the suicide squad characters, it would make sense for them to throw in a batman cameo just to get the general public interested in the idea.

again, I don't follow that movie, but from what I heard, the batman being in it is just a small, brief cameo. IF you want to set up your own cinematic universe, wouldn't it be better to let these characters stand on their own?


when you have a chaotic mind like mine, sometimes it's tough to organize your thoughts into something coherent, so I hope this all makes some kind of sense; o).

 

[Pikezer1337]

The problem I have with this reasoning is simple.

To me, it just seems like marvel took it far more slowly. They did iron man (twice) Hulk, Thor, AND Captain America before Avengers was probably even being planned. Or if it was, it seems like they might have planned it all out before they started. They gave their other characters chances, and turned them over to people who either understood the core of what each character was, or who could re invent them in a way so that their core would be kept in this new continuity.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Marvel only did 3 backstory solos. Iron Man, Thor and Captain America. Hawkeye and Black Widow were no more than snippets in those movies. DC did Superman's origin, Batman's origin(which will be quickly observed in BvS although everyone knows it) and Wonder Woman's origin. They both have three large origin stories before they kick off their ensemble.

With DC, the only one they are able to seem to get right is batman. After Green Lantern tanked for whatever reason, they got scared. they laid low. Then Marvel started hitting it out of the park with characters most people didn't even know about (guardians of the who?)....all of a sudden Superman got greenlit. most people didn't care for that...so superman 2 never happened....Now they are falling back on Batman to carry Superman on his back in the hopes that seeing both on screen together will make people want to see justice league happen. And if you don't think that is the case, does batman even need to be in suicide squad at all? from what I can gather since i'm not really following it, he seems to mostly have a small cameo in it.

why have him in there at all if WB thinks suicide squad is strong enough to hold it's own as a movie?

It's a movie about mostly Batman villians and the Joker... That would be like me complaining if Spiderman was in a Sinister Six movie.

I think with the Marvel verse, it worked the opposite. People LIKED the first Captain America. People liked the first iron man, and wanted to see more. If for some reason you didn't see those movies, and decided to give the universe a chance with Avengers, and LIKED Avengers, then you wanted to go back and see what you missed. And when those turned out to be good, you get instantly hooked in the universe because you know what to expect.

What Marvel did was absolutely awesome and it worked wonders for them. It doesn't mean that it's the only way to make a cinematic universe. With the DC properties who have(let's be honest) more recognizable names than Marvel did in 08 they don't need to go that route. If they did most people would be here arguing that they are copying Marvel. There is no single one way to create a coherent universe. We have to wait and see how this pans out for them before shutting it down. As I was saying though, from a business perspective this model makes sense.

To me, that's why I think it seems like WB is rushing things to catch up to marvel. Marvel took it slow, figured out what made the characters tick, and made the best version of those characters. WB seems to be throwing things at a dart board and seeing what sticks. how else can you explain the drastic look change of the joker from dark knight returns to suicide squad? making it ANOTHER movie universe is just too much baggage.......

So because the Joker looks different it means WB is rushing? Was Marvel rushing when Hank Pym didn't create Ultron? Was Marvel rushing when they didn't include F4 in Civil War? Just because an origin or an appearance is changed doesn't mean things are rushed. This is especially true in the case of the Joker. He has been successfully portrayed by so many great actors. They need to do something different to distinguish themselves from previous incarnations. I myself am not a fan of the tattoos for the matter but oh well. In the future when Iron Man gets rebooted people will complain, "Oh RDJ did it better". It's the same thing Batman and the Joker have had to deal with. You need to change things up. Changing them has no correlation on rushing though.

 

[Fawbish]

I wish I knew more about the marvel universe so I could address some of your points, but I don't..

so, the thing about multiple universes...

Marvel movie verse seems to be it's own. Minus perhaps the one false start of the incredible hulk. after that, they seem to have made it all one continuity. Even Ant Man got to fight the avengers. After everyone saw the success of that approach, it seems to be the go to idea to have everything connected now.

With The DC universe, it's jumping around everywhere...and to me, that seems to be a 'lets throw darts at a board to see what works' approach. does that make more sense?

For instance, At the end of the Nolan Batman verse, you had bruce retire, and another character looking to pick up the batman mantle. Now in Batman VRS superman, it's ANOTHER universe with ANOTHER batman. It's almost like DC said 'yeah, we wrote ourselves into a corner with that one, as we don't think an audience would accept anyone but bruce being batman, so lets start AGAIN'. Either that, or DC just likes the idea of showing different takes and different universes, and doesn't want to lump themselves with one iteration. IF that is the case, I kind of wish they'd come out and say it. It'd be less confusing for me at least, if that makes sense..


and i'm just talking about the movie verse here, not the comic verse. you get even more confusing with the comics. Marvel has rebooted once, I think recently...DC has rebooted TWICE in recent months. New 52, and one to try and connect the comic book verse to the movie verse.. to me, the DC side just comes off as very confused, no leader with one clear vision. All it seems to know is 'our batman stuff works'....everything else is kind of hit or miss.


As for suicide squad.....if it was more set in the batman verse, wouldn't it be more marketable to call it something like 'batman: Suicide Squad?' elite killers for higher that bruce has to figure out how to stop would make an interesting batman movie in and of itself. but since the general public doesn't know much about the suicide squad characters, it would make sense for them to throw in a batman cameo just to get the general public interested in the idea.

again, I don't follow that movie, but from what I heard, the batman being in it is just a small, brief cameo. IF you want to set up your own cinematic universe, wouldn't it be better to let these characters stand on their own?


when you have a chaotic mind like mine, sometimes it's tough to organize your thoughts into something coherent, so I hope this all makes some kind of sense; o).

Hey we are all free to discuss and have our opinions chief, no need to justify anything. I respect your point of view, I just disagree with some of it is all.

The New 52 rebooted in 2011, so that was five years ago. People seem to forget that. And this latest change is more of a rebirth scenario, not a full reboot, which aligns some aspects better with the cinematic universe. Again, from a business perspective it makes sense. They say it is also to allow more room for original stories - and that is quite exciting. I can't wait to see what comes out of less restrictions with some stuff.

Alternate/standalone stories are often the best stories. Superman: Red Son, The Dark Knight Returns etc.

They didnt write themselves into a corner with the Dark Knight trilogy. That is quite clearly an isolated story, told over three films. It isnt the definitive Batman - it is one creative teams interpretation. This happens all the time, I don't know why it is such a big issue - but again, if thats what bugs you, its what bugs you! Which is fair enough. It's quite common though and makes total sense to me.

 

[KrangPrime]

Hey we are all free to discuss and have our opinions chief, no need to justify anything. I respect your point of view, I just disagree with some of it is all.

They didnt write themselves into a corner with the Dark Knight trilogy. That is quite clearly an isolated story, told over three films. It isnt the definitive Batman - it is one creative teams interpretation. This happens all the time, I don't know why it is such a big issue - but again, if thats what bugs you, its what bugs you! Which is fair enough. It's quite common though and makes total sense to me.

glad to see ;o).

I just wanted to make sure what I was saying makes sense, cause even i'm not sure of it sometimes ;o)..

What Marvel did was absolutely awesome and it worked wonders for them. It doesn't mean that it's the only way to make a cinematic universe. With the DC properties who have(let's be honest) more recognizable names than Marvel did in 08 they don't need to go that route. If they did most people would be here arguing that they are copying Marvel. There is no single one way to create a coherent universe. We have to wait and see how this pans out for them before shutting it down. As I was saying though, from a business perspective this model makes sense.

I absolutely agree the DC characters where more recognizable than marvel ones...no question about that.

Regarding multiples...look at Spiderman. That thing got rebooted so many times now, people are sick of it starting over again.
that's why I like the marvel approach. all connected, all one universe, all ONE try. at least until 20 years from now when they feel like they need to start over again cause the actors are getting too old ;o).

 

[Fawbish]

glad to see ;o).

I just wanted to make sure what I was saying makes sense, cause even i'm not sure of it sometimes ;o)..


Regarding multiples...look at Spiderman. That thing got rebooted so many times now, people are sick of it starting over again.
that's why I like the marvel approach. all connected, all one universe, all ONE try. at least until 20 years from now when they feel like they need to start over again cause the actors are getting too old ;o).

Spiderman is still Marvel? haha, Sony I know, but still Marvel

 

[joshvanrad]

I'll agree with Neil and say DC has laid terrible groundwork for their films, and are trying to play catchup.

We basically got one superman origins story, now we are getting a JL movie... to lead up to a JL movie. Avengers worked because of the fact that you established backgrounds to characters that people cared about. And they did it in a way that focused exclusively on 1 character at a time.

Meanwhile, DC is like "So we gave you Superman! Here is everyone else! I hope you like them!." "Oh, and remember that Batman- the Batman you knew just a couple years ago? Well, forget about him, because we have a completely different Batman that you have no background on, but don't worry because we are going to cover that in the same film that covers Superman coming to power, introduces multiple new villains, and Wonderwoman. Enjoy."

^ That is entirely too much for one film.