Who didn't see this coming? Civil War reviews are starting to trickle in.

[mduncan50]

People are saying there's a conspiracy going on here? Sure, that's the rational explanation. Couldn't possibly be the fact that Marvel has proven numerous times already that they know how to make a good - and fun, which is the important part - superhero movie. DC has yet to make one. Suicide Squad looks like it could indeed be a fun movie, but we'll see.

..........I still don't like the Joker that they're giving us, though.

You don't like their version of The Mask? They obviously couldn't have Jim Carey do it, since he's the Riddler.
Yeah, I see that movie as being problematic at the moment, but I will be more than happy if I am wrong. At the very least it looks like a step in the right direction. I'll go and see it and give it a chance. The caveat to that is that if DC does go through with rumored plans to release the R-rated Extended cut of BvS to theaters, I reserve the right to skip it in theaters in protest, and instead catch the Ultimate Director's X Rated 7 hour Edition when it hits home video.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Honestly, that's what I never understand about the whole "fanboi" debate. Just because I like Marvel, I must want DC to fail? Definitely not. I would much rather have two great superhero fanchises than one. Besides, competition is good; it forces both sides to improve and diversify.

I think it's less "if you like one than you must hate the other" and more "if don't think that every movie that DC/Marvel made is the best movie ever, then it can only be because you are a fanboy and shill of Marvel/DC". I think some people just invest so much of themselves into their fandoms of things that if at any time the thing they love is seen as less than perfect, or seen as not being as good as something else, that it becomes very personal to them, and they find a need to come up with a reason that other people say those things because they know that it's not true. And to be clear, when it comes to comic book movies there are plenty of these people on both sides.

Most of my criticism to DC movies comes from me being an all-sides comic fan. I read nearly every comic I could get my hands on in the 90's, from Valiant to Image to Homage to Dark Horse, Marvel, DC... I love comics and hold no allegiance to one publisher. In fact around the end of the 90's I stopped reading Marvel for a while because I felt their stories were getting to be crap and didn't return for about 10 years or so.
I loved Batman/Batman Returns, was meh about Forever, hated Batman & Robin (until I looked at it as a continuation of the campy Adam West style, then I only thought it was meh). I loved Batman Begins, Dark Knight but didn't think the last movie was as good as it could have been. I even enjoyed Superman Returns for what it was. I don't hate Man of Steel or BvS just think they're poorly put together and suffer most from the construction rather than the overall story and performances. Unlike some, I'm not a purist and can deal with character changes like Superman's collateral damage and Batman crossing the line a bit too much because of attrition. I just don't think they did a good job framing those concepts.
Marvel movies aren't 100% great, especially the ones they don't own IPs for, with the exception of the Singer X-Men flicks and the first Spider-Man trilogy (I didn't hate 3 either, just felt it was a reflection of Raimi's frustration with Sony). Thor 2, Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk were the worst of the MCU flicks but still so much better put together than DC's attempts at a shared universe.

 

[mduncan50]

Wow, they are literally trickling in lol

The Russos deftly craft compelling blockbuster entertainment out of moral and emotional conflicts.

The best Marvel yet, with the greatest superhero action on film. It's immense, marvelous action-packed fun... The single greatest pure superhero movie ever made.

 

[mduncan50]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

 

[The Philistine]

Critic response is probably going to help polarize fan reactions to Civil War. Will probably also fuel diehard BvS fans' insistence of dissonance between critic and fan opinions.

 

[mduncan50]

Haven't heard any polarizing of fan reactions, other than the BvS fans that are saying (without seeing it, of course) it is the worst thing since the actual American Civil War. Critic and fan opinion were pretty much the same for Dawn of Justice when you remove the hundred thousand+ fan reviews that came out before the movie did. They're both around 4.9/10. Someone actually did the math for me in another thread.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

.

However, a thought - Does anyone think BvS may have affected the scores? Could it have been so bad, and the critics hated it so much, that Civil War did get a ratings bump just because it wasn't Dawn of Justice?

Yes actually, but not in the way you think. Some reviewers commented that the "superheroes need to pay the consequences of their actions" thing is getting old, indicating they might have appreciated the plot more if BvS hadn't come along.

OT: I have only read one review, from IGN, and in a spectacular change of pace, they gave it a 7.8. Which isnt bad, no, but they gave it as much cons as pros, and its a lower score than what they gave Ant-man. But hey, I'm gonna watch it anyway and I'm gonna enjoy it anyway.

HOW??? IGN is the site that gave aliens colonial marines a 5, duke nukem forever a 5,5 and Too human a 7. i loved Skyward sword but even i think a 10 was way too much. maybe it is a trick to gett views on the site as a result of the flame wars

 

[Chanticoblues]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

 

[DefunctTheory]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

The overall ratings/all takes a bit to update. It's at 94% right now.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I figure as much, to be honest. I'm not talking about the movie going from a C to an A or anything, just wondering if maybe reviewers thought it was slightly better due to BvS.

Kind of like air - You never really think about it, until you can't breath it for a bit. And then once you can breath again, it's the greatest god damn thing in the universe.

gotta agree with this, I don't think it made the movie jump to godlike levels based on BvS, but any critic that saw BvS has a bias in their mind whether they like to or not since it's so fresh, and apparently since civil war "worked" so well, it just made it seem so refreshing.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

 

[Hawki]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

Speaking personally, the "safe" criticism lies more in terms of execution than concept.

Since you've mentioned Rocket, lets go with GotG, one of the few MCU films that I like. Yes, it's got a talking raccoon and talking tree (whether a talking tree is a risk is debatable though - Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.). That doesn't mean its plot isn't cliched, predicable, the characters are archeatypical with little to go outside said archeatypes, the villain is a 2D whackjob whose plan is "I will destroy Xandar because...I'm evil?", it ends with a dance number and "power of friendship" moment, it can't even kill off one of its main characters (Groot) because hey, all the heroes will make it out alright in the end. GotG is "fun," even for someone like me, but I've seen other sci-fi comedies (e.g. Galaxy Quest) that had comedy mixed with character development, themes, ideas, etc.) or space adventures (e.g. Star Wars) that felt like I was truly in a galaxy rather than the space where action goes down.

Apply those same criticisms to most MCU films I've seen and you'll get the "safe" bit. Even something like Thor (Norse mythology, gods, frost giants, etc.) still boils down to "jackass must learn to become humble and deal with brother who has daddy issues."

 

[Chanticoblues]

I was referring to 'safe' in the artistic sense (particularly in writing and direction), but I agree that what Disney is doing (mending all these films together, planning them years and years in advance) is a very risky financial decision.

 

[mduncan50]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

Speaking personally, the "safe" criticism lies more in terms of execution than concept.

Since you've mentioned Rocket, lets go with GotG, one of the few MCU films that I like. Yes, it's got a talking raccoon and talking tree (whether a talking tree is a risk is debatable though - Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.). That doesn't mean its plot isn't cliched, predicable, the characters are archeatypical with little to go outside said archeatypes, the villain is a 2D whackjob whose plan is "I will destroy Xandar because...I'm evil?", it ends with a dance number and "power of friendship" moment, it can't even kill off one of its main characters (Groot) because hey, all the heroes will make it out alright in the end. GotG is "fun," even for someone like me, but I've seen other sci-fi comedies (e.g. Galaxy Quest) that had comedy mixed with character development, themes, ideas, etc.) or space adventures (e.g. Star Wars) that felt like I was truly in a galaxy rather than the space where action goes down.

Apply those same criticisms to most MCU films I've seen and you'll get the "safe" bit. Even something like Thor (Norse mythology, gods, frost giants, etc.) still boils down to "jackass must learn to become humble and deal with brother who has daddy issues."

Does that mean you have some examples of non-safe superhero movies? Because I believe that your style of "safe" can be applied to pretty much all of them.

 

[Hawki]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

Speaking personally, the "safe" criticism lies more in terms of execution than concept.

Since you've mentioned Rocket, lets go with GotG, one of the few MCU films that I like. Yes, it's got a talking raccoon and talking tree (whether a talking tree is a risk is debatable though - Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.). That doesn't mean its plot isn't cliched, predicable, the characters are archeatypical with little to go outside said archeatypes, the villain is a 2D whackjob whose plan is "I will destroy Xandar because...I'm evil?", it ends with a dance number and "power of friendship" moment, it can't even kill off one of its main characters (Groot) because hey, all the heroes will make it out alright in the end. GotG is "fun," even for someone like me, but I've seen other sci-fi comedies (e.g. Galaxy Quest) that had comedy mixed with character development, themes, ideas, etc.) or space adventures (e.g. Star Wars) that felt like I was truly in a galaxy rather than the space where action goes down.

Apply those same criticisms to most MCU films I've seen and you'll get the "safe" bit. Even something like Thor (Norse mythology, gods, frost giants, etc.) still boils down to "jackass must learn to become humble and deal with brother who has daddy issues."

Does that mean you have some examples of non-safe superhero movies? Because I believe that your style of "safe" can be applied to pretty much all of them.

Examples of non-safe:

-Dark Knight Trilogy: Getting Batman as realistic as possible, making it contemporary to current themes/concerns (Wall Street, survailance, terrorism), doing Batman at all after everyone remembered Batman & Robin, etc.

-Iron Man 3: Favorite MCU film, BTW. But that aside, daring to touch on contemporary ideas (the nature of perception, media - hardly deep, but far more so than most MCU films I've seen), the whole Mandarin twist, etc.

(Note that this can be also applied to IM1 to a lesser extent - I can sort of call this safe as it's perhaps the only MCU film that had to succeed or fail on its own merits, and Iron Man himself being relatively unknown at the time. Second best MCU film for me, and alongside GotG, one of the three I like.)

-Man of Steel: Basically the whole movie in regards to tone, how different it is from what we might expect of Superman. MoS is probably the weakest film for me on this list, but it's still one of those rare superhero films I enjoy.

Something that all these films have in common are interesting villains with defined motives (or, in the case of the Joker, where their apparent lack of motive is the selling point in itself), where said motive either being rational or being rooted in distinct ideology.

So, yes. I'd call those examples of "non-safe." Doesn't mean I can't enjoy "safe" films (e.g. Rami's Spider-Man, and whether that counts as safe is iffy considering that, again, had to succeed on its own merits), and I think that execution is more important than conception at the end of the day, but having both is a boon.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmJRQ6IKkk is probably a good summing up of my feelings.

 

[mduncan50]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

Speaking personally, the "safe" criticism lies more in terms of execution than concept.

Since you've mentioned Rocket, lets go with GotG, one of the few MCU films that I like. Yes, it's got a talking raccoon and talking tree (whether a talking tree is a risk is debatable though - Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.). That doesn't mean its plot isn't cliched, predicable, the characters are archeatypical with little to go outside said archeatypes, the villain is a 2D whackjob whose plan is "I will destroy Xandar because...I'm evil?", it ends with a dance number and "power of friendship" moment, it can't even kill off one of its main characters (Groot) because hey, all the heroes will make it out alright in the end. GotG is "fun," even for someone like me, but I've seen other sci-fi comedies (e.g. Galaxy Quest) that had comedy mixed with character development, themes, ideas, etc.) or space adventures (e.g. Star Wars) that felt like I was truly in a galaxy rather than the space where action goes down.

Apply those same criticisms to most MCU films I've seen and you'll get the "safe" bit. Even something like Thor (Norse mythology, gods, frost giants, etc.) still boils down to "jackass must learn to become humble and deal with brother who has daddy issues."

Does that mean you have some examples of non-safe superhero movies? Because I believe that your style of "safe" can be applied to pretty much all of them.

Examples of non-safe:

-Dark Knight Trilogy: Getting Batman as realistic as possible, making it contemporary to current themes/concerns (Wall Street, survailance, terrorism), doing Batman at all after everyone remembered Batman & Robin, etc.

-Iron Man 3: Favorite MCU film, BTW. But that aside, daring to touch on contemporary ideas (the nature of perception, media - hardly deep, but far more so than most MCU films I've seen), the whole Mandarin twist, etc.

(Note that this can be also applied to IM1 to a lesser extent - I can sort of call this safe as it's perhaps the only MCU film that had to succeed or fail on its own merits, and Iron Man himself being relatively unknown at the time. Second best MCU film for me, and alongside GotG, one of the three I like.)

-Man of Steel: Basically the whole movie in regards to tone, how different it is from what we might expect of Superman. MoS is probably the weakest film for me on this list, but it's still one of those rare superhero films I enjoy.

Something that all these films have in common are interesting villains with defined motives (or, in the case of the Joker, where their apparent lack of motive is the selling point in itself), where said motive either being rational or being rooted in distinct ideology.

So, yes. I'd call those examples of "non-safe." Doesn't mean I can't enjoy "safe" films (e.g. Rami's Spider-Man, and whether that counts as safe is iffy considering that, again, had to succeed on its own merits), and I think that execution is more important than conception at the end of the day, but having both is a boon.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmJRQ6IKkk is probably a good summing up of my feelings.

So unsafe is good villains and realistic settings? I would call good villains just a basic goal of any movie, though one that Marvel has struggled with, but in my opinion making comic book movies "realistic" and "grounded" is the safe course of action. It's trying to distance itself from the inherently goofy source material and not taking any chances that may prevent the general public from frowning upon it. It's been pretty much the default setting of successful comic book movies after Batman & Robin, until Marvel Studios started making movies. Steel, Blade, X-Men, Punisher, DKT, etc. And the movies that really embraced being comic books were terrible (not for being like comic books, just because they were terrible: Fantastic Four, Daredevil/Elektra, Hulk, Superman Returns, etc. And understand, I'm not saying realistic is bad when it comes to comic book movies, I think both can be great, but being grounded is definitely not taking a risk.

 

[RedDeadFred]

It seems to be doing better than the average MCU movie, so maybe the conflict between the characters is actually compelling enough to make the series feel fresh. So many of these movies feel the exact same, often to the point where I can re-watch very few of them (Iron Man, Winter Soldier, and Guardians) without getting bored. This movie has me hopeful that it'll be another standout. Especially since it's by the same guys who did Winter Soldier.

 

[ILikeEggs]

So unsafe is good villains and realistic settings? I would call good villains just a basic goal of any movie, though one that Marvel has struggled with, but in my opinion making comic book movies "realistic" and "grounded" is the safe course of action. It's trying to distance itself from the inherently goofy source material and not taking any chances that may prevent the general public from frowning upon it. It's been pretty much the default setting of successful comic book movies after Batman & Robin, until Marvel Studios started making movies. Steel, Blade, X-Men, Punisher, DKT, etc. And the movies that really embraced being comic books were terrible (not for being like comic books, just because they were terrible: Fantastic Four, Daredevil/Elektra, Hulk, Superman Returns, etc. And understand, I'm not saying realistic is bad when it comes to comic book movies, I think both can be great, but being grounded is definitely not taking a risk.

I have to agree that going the realistic, grounded route with superhero movies is often the lazy/boring way to go. Admittedly, most superhero movies are doing pretty terribly in the villain department, but it's quite clear from Daredevil Season 1 and Jessica Jones that Marvel at least understands how to write compelling villains; just not the insanely powerful, colourful ones.

 

[Hawki]

First "Rotten" review:

This movie is so toothless that you'll probably pay for your ticket in a paper cup on the side of the road... it's so concerned with keeping everything in line for future movies that it ultimately takes no risks...

Well he was obviously paid off by DC. Ha, I kid, I kid. What is kind of weird though is that to find it I had to actually look under Rotten reviews because it didn't show up under All, and the Tomatometer still shows 100%. Actual rating now should be 94.4%.

This negative review is kinda how I feel about the entire MCU. Few are objectionable films, but they're all so... homogeneous and safe.

I never understood that criticism about the Marvel universe

First of all besides for the Golden age of Hollywood big blockbusters have usually been safe, there usually just popcorn movies. Second this is the same universe with a movie about a talking raccoon and Antman, I wouldn't call them safe at least compared to the average blockbuster, in fact I would say that some of them are some of the most unique blockbusters in years(besides the recent planet of the apes film).

I can understand overbloated and oversaturated but I don't get safe with the Marvel movies.

Speaking personally, the "safe" criticism lies more in terms of execution than concept.

Since you've mentioned Rocket, lets go with GotG, one of the few MCU films that I like. Yes, it's got a talking raccoon and talking tree (whether a talking tree is a risk is debatable though - Lord of the Rings, Narnia, etc.). That doesn't mean its plot isn't cliched, predicable, the characters are archeatypical with little to go outside said archeatypes, the villain is a 2D whackjob whose plan is "I will destroy Xandar because...I'm evil?", it ends with a dance number and "power of friendship" moment, it can't even kill off one of its main characters (Groot) because hey, all the heroes will make it out alright in the end. GotG is "fun," even for someone like me, but I've seen other sci-fi comedies (e.g. Galaxy Quest) that had comedy mixed with character development, themes, ideas, etc.) or space adventures (e.g. Star Wars) that felt like I was truly in a galaxy rather than the space where action goes down.

Apply those same criticisms to most MCU films I've seen and you'll get the "safe" bit. Even something like Thor (Norse mythology, gods, frost giants, etc.) still boils down to "jackass must learn to become humble and deal with brother who has daddy issues."

Does that mean you have some examples of non-safe superhero movies? Because I believe that your style of "safe" can be applied to pretty much all of them.

Examples of non-safe:

-Dark Knight Trilogy: Getting Batman as realistic as possible, making it contemporary to current themes/concerns (Wall Street, survailance, terrorism), doing Batman at all after everyone remembered Batman & Robin, etc.

-Iron Man 3: Favorite MCU film, BTW. But that aside, daring to touch on contemporary ideas (the nature of perception, media - hardly deep, but far more so than most MCU films I've seen), the whole Mandarin twist, etc.

(Note that this can be also applied to IM1 to a lesser extent - I can sort of call this safe as it's perhaps the only MCU film that had to succeed or fail on its own merits, and Iron Man himself being relatively unknown at the time. Second best MCU film for me, and alongside GotG, one of the three I like.)

-Man of Steel: Basically the whole movie in regards to tone, how different it is from what we might expect of Superman. MoS is probably the weakest film for me on this list, but it's still one of those rare superhero films I enjoy.

Something that all these films have in common are interesting villains with defined motives (or, in the case of the Joker, where their apparent lack of motive is the selling point in itself), where said motive either being rational or being rooted in distinct ideology.

So, yes. I'd call those examples of "non-safe." Doesn't mean I can't enjoy "safe" films (e.g. Rami's Spider-Man, and whether that counts as safe is iffy considering that, again, had to succeed on its own merits), and I think that execution is more important than conception at the end of the day, but having both is a boon.

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tmJRQ6IKkk is probably a good summing up of my feelings.

So unsafe is good villains and realistic settings? I would call good villains just a basic goal of any movie, though one that Marvel has struggled with, but in my opinion making comic book movies "realistic" and "grounded" is the safe course of action. It's trying to distance itself from the inherently goofy source material and not taking any chances that may prevent the general public from frowning upon it. It's been pretty much the default setting of successful comic book movies after Batman & Robin, until Marvel Studios started making movies. Steel, Blade, X-Men, Punisher, DKT, etc. And the movies that really embraced being comic books were terrible (not for being like comic books, just because they were terrible: Fantastic Four, Daredevil/Elektra, Hulk, Superman Returns, etc. And understand, I'm not saying realistic is bad when it comes to comic book movies, I think both can be great, but being grounded is definitely not taking a risk.

-The realism risk was directed at Batman and Superman. When most people think of Batman pre-Nolan, they're probably going to think of the Burton/Schumaker films or the Adam West series. None of these were realistic. Superman shouldn't even need explaining. In these cases, going the realistic route is a risk because it's against pre-established notions of the characters.

-I'd also call realism inherently more risky than the lack of it in superhero films because it means that the writing and worldbuilding needs to be tighter. You need to justify how X can operate in a realistic world, where in an unrealistic world, you can do "just because." Perhaps not coincidentally, this tends to result in better villains, because their motives and personalities have to be rational. Even in the Rami Spider-Man films (not realistic, but fun), the villains had understandable motives and personalities, and the setting accomodated the unrealistic (city's reaction to Spider-Man, Peter struggling, etc.)

 

[mduncan50]

-The realism risk was directed at Batman and Superman. When most people think of Batman pre-Nolan, they're probably going to think of the Burton/Schumaker films or the Adam West series. None of these were realistic. Superman shouldn't even need explaining. In these cases, going the realistic route is a risk because it's against pre-established notions of the characters.

-I'd also call realism inherently more risky than the lack of it in superhero films because it means that the writing and worldbuilding needs to be tighter. You need to justify how X can operate in a realistic world, where in an unrealistic world, you can do "just because." Perhaps not coincidentally, this tends to result in better villains, because their motives and personalities have to be rational. Even in the Rami Spider-Man films (not realistic, but fun), the villains had understandable motives and personalities, and the setting accomodated the unrealistic (city's reaction to Spider-Man, Peter struggling, etc.)

So far as Batman, other than the Schumaker "films", I would say that realism is the default state for Batman and his films. More than most other heroes he and his rogues gallery are the result of gadgets and mental disorders as opposed to superpowers. I would compare most live action Batman movies to the James Bond films of their time. As for Superman, I don't know if you can call it a "risk" to try and make him realistic so much as "foolish". He is the very opposite of realistic, and no matter how much you try (which quite frankly I don't find MoS or BvS really tried to do, they just made him super serious and hoped we wouldn't notice) you can't make him ever seem realistic. He is an invulnerable alien that doesn't require oxygen, flies, has super strength, heat vision, x-ray vision, laser eye bursts, super speed, super smarts, super breath, freeze breath, super hearing/sight/smell, and super ventriloquism. Trying to make him "realistic" kind of shows a misunderstanding of the character on a fundamental level.

I would also disagree that writing and world-building needs to be tighter for a realistic world. In a realistic world setting you're simply saying, this is like our world, except Kolonel Kangaroo Kick can do this because (usually) science, whereas when the world is not realism based, you need to set up the rules of the world and how it differs from ours, along with how the super-powered characters fit in to it.