Its hard being a DC fan. (Rant)

[tzimize]

-snip-

When did emo = bad?

And I am of the opinion that BvS is not a bad movie according to my standards because I have seen Bad movies. I have seen awful movies. To throw this movie with the likes of Birdemic, The Room, Foodfight, Gigli, and Uwe Boll's films etc. is just wrong.

Heck I did not think most 2000s Marvel movies like Ang Lee's Hulk and Fantastic Four and even fuckin Daredevil were not that bad of a movies.

Slow motion is better then shaky cam and 300 would have felt neutered without it.

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of a bad movie.

Is it a B-movie? Not by any stretch. Does it fail where it should succeed? Most definately.

It LOOKS fantastic, for the most part. It is acted...somewhat competently. But it is just dumb and chaotic.

The opening scene with Bruce Wayne is GREAT. But from then on the movie takes a nosedive.

Lex or whoever it is (his son?) is spectacularly bad. You can almost HEAR the suits going "people liked joker, do him like that and we get the big bucks". His motivations are all over the place, it is not even slightly believable that he could 1up Batman (and in this case an experienced, cynical batman) so thoroughly. And his decisionmaking in the end is just....what? Why did he create doomsday? It made no sense.

Batman has a ton of stupid dream sequences that does NOTHING To further the plot and takes up precious time. We already know he is paranoid and hates superman. And was it Flash jumping in with the speed force? I had no idea what was happening and I am pretty geeky when it comes to comics. That governor lady, while decently acted has NO place in the movie besided being a plot device Luthor can show off his crazyness to and she takes up tons of time that could be spent developing Batman and Supermans relationship. Or Batman and Wonderwomans relationship. Or Superman and Lois' relationship....ANY relationship. The only other scene from the movie that was any good was when batman beat up that group of thugs towards the end. Excellent.

Also...that scene with the rest of the JLA...the casting....who the hell have they cast as Flash? And that Aquaman. I was terrified of this movie, because mopey dark characters like Batman work badly on their own. They need a Joker or a Catwoman or a Robin to bounce off of. A mopey Superman is NOT sufficient. And now we get mopey flash and mopey aquaman too? Seriously? A DC team up with team slice-our-wrist? If it wasnt so Emo I'd cry for humanity.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

The TV and Animated stuff DC makes (or farms out) pretty much schools anything Marvel* are doing (although Arrow is starting to slide badly) but not content with quite a lot of the moneys they have chosen the expensive all of the moneys movie route, and you can make an awful lot of telly for movie money

*I've excluded the very fine Daredevil and Jessica Jones shows in this assessment as I suspect they wouldn't have happened without Netflix

Arrow is starting to slide? You must be joking, the show strangled itself with a bowstring when the third season started. Supergirl, with all my like 40 minutes of experience with it, is complete trash. Legends of Tomorrow has promise, but still needs to find its feet. Flash is great, though as of late I am worried for the series. I don't see why you would exclude DD and JJ just because they're on Netflix.

And the animations? You've got to be kidding, these "modern" DC animations are just utter crap. They spit on the memory of everything that had come before them. Though you are right, the animations are better, because Marvel doesn't make them anymore.

Sorry for sounding like a negative Nancy, but Jesus it's sad to see the state DC is in right now. I am a DC guy, its second only to Star Wars in my mind. The reasons that they fuck everything up too, its so Goddamn infuriating. Young Justice and Green Lantern? Fuck that, let's pander to little kids who still enjoy fart jokes. A series that brings a beloved hero to the big screen, with awesome action and interesting storylines? Fuck you, we'll turn Arrow into amateur fanfiction, the ladies will dig that.

 

[mduncan50]

I am honestly at a loss as to why DC/WB keep squirting so much money trying to play catch up with the MCU.

The TV and Animated stuff DC makes (or farms out) pretty much schools anything Marvel* are doing (although Arrow is starting to slide badly) but not content with quite a lot of the moneys they have chosen the expensive all of the moneys movie route, and you can make an awful lot of telly for movie money

*I've excluded the very fine Daredevil and Jessica Jones shows in this assessment as I suspect they wouldn't have happened without Netflix

I don't understand why DD and JJ aren't included just because they are Netflix. It's no different than any other network. They provide the funding, and receive the broadcast rights for the finished product. Everything is still being made by Marvel. I think the "Netflix Originals" tag causes some confusion for people, they don't actually produce any of their own shows.

While I agree that DC Animated is ahead of the game in the that area, I've not seen anything of interest with their live action shows, though I would be lying if I said I've really given it a hard look, I never watch shows on actual TV anymore. Still think it was a big mistake to keep the TV and movie properties separate, because regardless of my own preference I know there are a lot of people that really enjoy their shows, and it must disappoint fans when characters from the TV shows are played by different people in the movies, and vice versa.

 

[Cicada 5]

The TV and Animated stuff DC makes (or farms out) pretty much schools anything Marvel* are doing (although Arrow is starting to slide badly) but not content with quite a lot of the moneys they have chosen the expensive all of the moneys movie route, and you can make an awful lot of telly for movie money

*I've excluded the very fine Daredevil and Jessica Jones shows in this assessment as I suspect they wouldn't have happened without Netflix

Arrow is starting to slide? You must be joking, the show strangled itself with a bowstring when the third season started. Supergirl, with all my like 40 minutes of experience with it, is complete trash. Legends of Tomorrow has promise, but still needs to find its feet. Flash is great, though as of late I am worried for the series. I don't see why you would exclude DD and JJ just because they're on Netflix.

And the animations? You've got to be kidding, these "modern" DC animations are just utter crap. They spit on the memory of everything that had come before them. Though you are right, the animations are better, because Marvel doesn't make them anymore.

Sorry for sounding like a negative Nancy, but Jesus it's sad to see the state DC is in right now. I am a DC guy, its second only to Star Wars in my mind. The reasons that they fuck everything up too, its so Goddamn infuriating. Young Justice and Green Lantern? Fuck that, let's pander to little kids who still enjoy fart jokes. A series that brings a beloved hero to the big screen, with awesome action and interesting storylines? Fuck you, we'll turn Arrow into amateur fanfiction, the ladies will dig that.

The Supergirl tv show seems to have gotten quite strong fan base who see it as a good alternative to the DCEU. I'm not fond of Teen Titans Go but is gets high ratings and there are at least plans to get Young Justice a third season. And there is the upcoming cartoon starring Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman.

 

[Dandymanx]

Okay maybe was a bit harsh to exclude DD and JJ but AoS is so terrible it almost undoes all their good work

Also am a bit behind on Arrow, as I don't have Sky TV, hauled myself to the end of S3, and I think that's most likely enough, although I do want to see the Constantine episode

As for the animations, maybe some of them aren't great but I'd rather they made 10, meaning at least 4 or so would be good, rather than the all eggs in one basket tactic of big budget movies, also The Brave and The Bold still cheers me up even if it is a tad goofy and silly, but thats what happens when you pilfer from the Silver Age I guess

 

[mduncan50]

Okay maybe was a bit harsh to exclude DD and JJ but AoS is so terrible it almost undoes all their good work

Also am a bit behind on Arrow, as I don't have Sky TV, hauled myself to the end of S3, and I think that's most likely enough, although I do want to see the Constantine episode

As for the animations, maybe some of them aren't great but I'd rather they made 10, meaning at least 4 or so would be good, rather than the all eggs in one basket tactic of big budget movies, also The Brave and The Bold still cheers me up even if it is a tad goofy and silly, but thats what happens when you pilfer from the Silver Age I guess

Nothing wrong with being a bit silly at times, you just need to convince WB/DC of that.

 

[Kyman102]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

 

[DefunctTheory]

...also The Brave and The Bold still cheers me up even if it is a tad goofy and silly, but thats what happens when you pilfer from the Silver Age I guess

It doesn't cheer you up even though it's a tad goofy, it cheers you up because it is a completely goofy. Brave and the Bold is a show about super heroes doing super things, and everything else can be damned. It's a show made for the sole purpose of being fun, and that was fantastic. And it featured probably the last truly new thing in the DC universe worth a damn.

I dare the movies to come up with something as brilliant, entertaining, and new as the Music Meister. Hell, I dare the comics to do it too.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

Pretty much this. "DC's films are more realistic and therefore better" argument people have is awful. It's a superhero movie. That entails no realism already. I guess I can say the characters of the Marvel films are more realistic because they for the most part act like actual fucking people. Not an emotionless robot.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Spoiler: There is one way they could have made the movie better.

OT: DC can't do live action movies. I don't know why, but they're terrible at it. Really they should just keep to animation because they do great there.

 

[Something Amyss]

So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?

Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.

Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.

Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?

It's generally considered closer to three times the budget to be a success. That means it'd need Avengers money just to break even.

But that's not necessarily why they would do this movie, or why they would keep doing them after (or not). The studio behind the Last Airbender movie put a fuckton into promotion of the movie, well over the normal promotion, because they were so sure it was going to be a franchise. They may have even gone all-out with budget on setpieces with the idea that they were investing for the long run.

BVSDOJOMGWTFLOLBBL is a movie that could technically be a failure and still be worth pursuing. The problem I see with that is not so much that it might be a failure, but how it might have failed. This is a movie that was hated by critics. It's a movie that was hated by a lot of DC fans, even some of the fanboys. It's a movie that did well the first week, and had a record dropoff the second.

At that point, it might be worth scrapping even if it was profitable, because your next outing might not get those week one sales.

 

[marioandsonic]

Hey, it could be worse, OP. At least you're not a Nintendo fan right now.

In all seriousness, I don't really care if a film is made by Marvel, DC, Fox, or whoever. I just want a good movie.

 

[Hawki]

I see that a few threads up above, Arrowverse material has entered the conversation. And it's systemic of why I don't like a shared universe approach unless it actually feels like the same universe (Star Trek, Stargate, the "Whoinverse", etc., to use TV series that have done this effectively).

So, take the first two seasons of Arrow. I liked them, even if I liked season 1 more. I liked how down to earth they felt, I liked the protagonists, I liked the antagonists (actual understandable motives...how quaint). Sure, season 2 seemed to be going down a bit more of a 'comic booky' road as it introduced stuff like the mirakuru, but I was onboard. Even if stuff like the Suicide Squad and ARGUS have their roots in comics, it still felt like something that could exist in the real world.

So then you have The Flash, which is where things start going awry for me. Taking The Flash in isolation from anything else, I'd probably enjoy it. The characters are decent, the music is pretty good, action and effects are much better than what you'd get a decade or so ago, and if looked at in through the lens of 20th century pulp sci-fi, comic or otherwise, then yes, it's a fun romp. However, I have to wrap my head around the fact that this is in the same setting as Arrow which is completely different in every regard. To me, it diminishes Arrow because suddenly Starling City feels provincial. Suddenly Ollie's efforts feel meaningless (he's never had to deal with wormholes or time travellers), and he feels redundant in terms of ability as a result. Likewise, this bleeds over into The Flash for me, because keeping Arrow in mind, Barry suddenly feels overpowered, the villains feel less 'real' (with the exception of Wells/Thawne), and I can't shake the feeling that time travel just feels...wrong, for the overall setting (time travel by its nature opens a can of worms if introduced into a fictional universe). Arrow, by itself, was enjoyable to me. The Flash, by itself, is also enjoyable. Trying to wrap my head around them being in the same universe however, and to me, both suffer because of the tonal dissonance. And then apparently you have the confirmation that demons exist in the setting (Constantine), and time police of some kind exist (Legends of Tomorrow), and there's a multiverse with flying girls (Supergirl) and...yeah.

Or, if you want a Marvel example, it's part of the reason why I was invested in Spectacular Spider-Man, but not Ultimate Spider-Man. The former is focused on one character and introduces villains at a steady state. The latter throws an entire plenthora of villains and heroes into the mix in its very first episode, and I'm under the impression that I'm meant to know who they all are beforehand. The cringeworthy humour doesn't help either, but Ultimate feels systemic of the shared universe approach, while Spectacular feels more akin to traditional storytelling. Guess which one I find more effective.

 

[Mangod]

So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?

Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.

Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.

Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?

It's generally considered closer to three times the budget to be a success. That means it'd need Avengers money just to break even.

But that's not necessarily why they would do this movie, or why they would keep doing them after (or not). The studio behind the Last Airbender movie put a fuckton into promotion of the movie, well over the normal promotion, because they were so sure it was going to be a franchise. They may have even gone all-out with budget on setpieces with the idea that they were investing for the long run.

BVSDOJOMGWTFLOLBBL is a movie that could technically be a failure and still be worth pursuing. The problem I see with that is not so much that it might be a failure, but how it might have failed. This is a movie that was hated by critics. It's a movie that was hated by a lot of DC fans, even some of the fanboys. It's a movie that did well the first week, and had a record dropoff the second.

At that point, it might be worth scrapping even if it was profitable, because your next outing might not get those week one sales.

Which is what I was getting at; are the risks of the next movie in the DCEU making even less profit (or God forbid, not breaking even), worth it at this point? If Batman v Superman could only turn a very modest profit (and that's assuming that you're wrong about it needing to make X3 it's budget to break even), are the chances of the next movie doing potentially worse worth funneling cash into the DCEU?

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

 

[tzimize]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

So, here's a question for you guys? How profitable has this movie been for WB?

Now, according to most sources I've seen, BvS had a total budget of around $400 million ($250 for making the Movie, $150 for marketing). And according to Box Office Mojo, it's made $868m, rounding up. Since the studio only sees half the box office gross (meaning a movie has to make twice its budget to break even), it'd put the total profit WB has seen from this at $34m.

Is $34 million really worth it to WB to keep making these movies? The Avengers had a similar budget, far as I've heard, but it also pulled in $1.5 billion dollars at the box office, which would put it's profits in the range of $350 million.

Is the DCEU really worth it to WB at this point, given the risks of them suffering a legit bomb?

It's generally considered closer to three times the budget to be a success. That means it'd need Avengers money just to break even.

But that's not necessarily why they would do this movie, or why they would keep doing them after (or not). The studio behind the Last Airbender movie put a fuckton into promotion of the movie, well over the normal promotion, because they were so sure it was going to be a franchise. They may have even gone all-out with budget on setpieces with the idea that they were investing for the long run.

BVSDOJOMGWTFLOLBBL is a movie that could technically be a failure and still be worth pursuing. The problem I see with that is not so much that it might be a failure, but how it might have failed. This is a movie that was hated by critics. It's a movie that was hated by a lot of DC fans, even some of the fanboys. It's a movie that did well the first week, and had a record dropoff the second.

At that point, it might be worth scrapping even if it was profitable, because your next outing might not get those week one sales.

Which is what I was getting at; are the risks of the next movie in the DCEU making even less profit (or God forbid, not breaking even), worth it at this point? If Batman v Superman could only turn a very modest profit (and that's assuming that you're wrong about it needing to make X3 it's budget to break even), are the chances of the next movie doing potentially worse worth funneling cash into the DCEU?

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

WB is in the same position most large businesses end up in at some point - It's better to produce and sell at a loss then it is to just pack it in and try again later.

 

[Something Amyss]

Granted, I'm not sure what the alternative would be at this point...

Close shop and reboot in 5 years seems common.

I think a lot of this will ride on Suicide Squad. Not because it's the DCEU lynchpin, but because it's the one that's done and coming out next. They better hope those reshoots make a difference....

"Whoinverse", etc., to use TV series that have done this effectively).

Really? The only commonalities I saw between Doctor Who and Torchwood were Barrowman and aliens. I suppose that's off-point a bit, but I was just surprised.

Or, if you want a Marvel example, it's part of the reason why I was invested in Spectacular Spider-Man, but not Ultimate Spider-Man. The former is focused on one character and introduces villains at a steady state. The latter throws an entire plenthora of villains and heroes into the mix in its very first episode, and I'm under the impression that I'm meant to know who they all are beforehand. The cringeworthy humour doesn't help either, but Ultimate feels systemic of the shared universe approach, while Spectacular feels more akin to traditional storytelling. Guess which one I find more effective.

Honestly? I'm not so sure. Avengers Assemble and what I've seen of both Agents of SMASH and Guardians of the Galaxy seem to be pretty solid. The only flaw with AA is that it's not EMH. EMH and Spectacular were some of my favourite superhero cartoons, though. Still, I think that the overall shared universe works fine. I think Ultimate is just a weak show.

I also disagree that Spectacular took its time. Its first episode alone introduces the Enforcers, Hammerhead, an overarching "Big Man" who is totes not Kingpin because we didn't have the rights, and Doc Ock and Curt Connors. Possibly others I forget right now.

 

[mduncan50]

As I said, its a more realistic view of superhero fighting.

Y'know what? If I wanted realistic I wouldn't be watching a goddamn Superman movie. I don't watch Superhero shows and movies for a 'real world' look at superheroes. Most often because people use "But realistic!" for the reason why everything sucks in this setting.

Which is fine, but doesnt make the movie bad. I personally prefer Marvel movies over DC. I like the nolan trilogy a LOT, but Batman is that kind of character. I wouldnt have minded a Superman more filled with hope and light, but DC decided to take another approach. That in and of itself doesnt make it bad, just not what you wanted. There is a difference

Doesn't make it a bad movie, at least not that part, but it does make it a bad adaptation when you strip away everything that is identifiable about a character other than his powers. Who knows though... if they can claim that Jesse Eisenberg was playing Lex Jr, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point they revealed Henry Caville has actually been playing Bizarro.

 

[Hawki]

Really? The only commonalities I saw between Doctor Who and Torchwood were Barrowman and aliens. I suppose that's off-point a bit, but I was just surprised.

Torchwood is a bit of an outlier. I'd argue it still fits the mold though given that while it's the darkest series of the overall universe, it still conforms to its more off-beat tone and esoteric sci-fa (as opposed to sci-fi) approach. There's also stuff like K9 & Company, The Sarah Jane Adventures, the upcoming series "Class," and more obscure sub-series like Bernice Summerfield. Exposure to them has been minimal (or in the case of BS, non-existent), but they do feel like they belong in the same overall setting.

Honestly? I'm not so sure. Avengers Assemble and what I've seen of both Agents of SMASH and Guardians of the Galaxy seem to be pretty solid. The only flaw with AA is that it's not EMH. EMH and Spectacular were some of my favourite superhero cartoons, though. Still, I think that the overall shared universe works fine. I think Ultimate is just a weak show.

I also disagree that Spectacular took its time. Its first episode alone introduces the Enforcers, Hammerhead, an overarching "Big Man" who is totes not Kingpin because we didn't have the rights, and Doc Ock and Curt Connors. Possibly others I forget right now.

Can't comment on any of the above shows rather than the Spider-Man ones - original post was only dealing with the comparison. I'm also in the position of not being able to watch either show right now (or really, ever, unless I import DVDs from the US and play them using my PC's software), but my memory, as flawed as it is, does point to the first episode (the only point of comparison) of each series feel less cluttered. Spectacular does introduce us to a lot of characters in its first episode, but it feels more organic - Octavius is a long way from being Doc Oc, Sandman and Rhino are a long way from getting their abilities, Norman Osborne won't be donning his Goblin suit for awhile, Eddie Brock is just a uni student, etc. The only villain that really gets a 'proper debut' per se is Vulture, who remains the main threat in the first episode.

In contrast, as I recall, Ultimate Spider-Man starts with Peter in a street battle, where we're then introduced to Nick Fury, who then introduces us to Iron Man and Captain America (done in a way that it expects us to know who these characters are), and we're then introduced to some weirdos who attack the school, who are acting on Doc Ock's and Osborne's instructions, and this is only the first episode, whereas next episode we'll be introduced to Peter's entire team, and...ugh. Oh, and Mary Jane exists because...she does.

Maybe the approach is just systemic of writing style, but confining this comparison entirely to the first one or two episodes of each series, Ultimate is the one that sticks out in my mind as being far more cluttered. Characters are introduced in both openings, but in Spectacular, I remember characters and one bona fide villain, whereas in Ultimate, it felt like villains, and a few characters.