Justice League

and I was linked to this list the other day. http://screenrant.com/movies-critics-audience-split/

In general, my impression has always been that audiences don't like "artsy" movies. Critics will generally appreciate a movie's ambition while the audience will just see it as boring and pretentious. Ang Lee's Hulk is notably on that list, as is stuff like Blair Witch Project.

(Favorite thing is that audiences hated Spy Kids for being too "kiddy")

So am I saying that audiences are too dumb to appreciate more intellectual works and that's why they love the MCU? No because I favor the Audience rating with Man of Steel. There, the audience were the ones who actually appreciated the depth of the movie while the critics were just pissy that it wasn't more Donner.

All it comes down to it expectations. What do you want out of a movie. Superhero movies are loaded with expectations thanks to Donner, Burton, etc.. The Avengers satisfied those expectations. But not everyone wants a cheesy action flick where the good guys wear silly costumes instead of tanktops.

You keep only focusing on the Critics score and I keep talking about the Audience score....

edited 11th May '17 8:09:40 PM by Nikkolas

Aaaand this is why people are asking you to tone it down. Because now it seems like you are saying that audiences are dumb for not liking Hulk, but critics are dumb for not liking Man of Steel, since audiences were able to "appreciate the depth of the movie." (Or critics, being more critical of films, looked at things that general audiences don't and therefore gave bad reviews to films that they felt tried to have depth and failed — like Man of Steel — but gave good reviews to films that they felt tried for something and succeeded.)

Or, how about this: everyone has their own opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Saying someone is stupid because of their opinion is wrong and therefore one shouldn't do that.

Also, saying how much you hate the Avengers every time someone brings it up is not really going to endear you to anyone.

edited 11th May '17 8:28:49 PM by alliterator

Depth? From a film that on its best day is described as a live action DBZ? (Not that one). That's a laugh.

More depth than most of what's been done with Superman in the modern day. Snyder at least was trying to break out of the Silver Age/Reeves wanking

Yep, depth. The first live-action Superman who was a real person first and a superhero a distant second.

And thre's like, barely any action in MOS.... That's not the DBZ I know and love/hate.

You claimed that lady said Avengers was better than JL. I have every right to say that lady is full of shit, if that is indeed what she was claiming.

It's a faux-deepness, though. It's telling the audience "Hey, look how deep this is!" without actually being deep. For example: Jonathan Kent's death. What lots of people remember about that scene is how stupid it was — because Clark could have totally saved him without any effort, yet Jonathan Kent insisted on dying because...he didn't want his son to expose his powers or something. I mean, the scene tries to be deep, but it utterly fails when anyone thinks about it for more than two seconds.

The same thing with the whole "Martha" scene in Batman v Superman. It's telling the audience "Hey, both of their moms' names are Martha, isn't that deep?" but merely thinking about that brings up a big "nope." It's not deep, it's a coincidence that Snyder tried turning into a plot point and ended up becoming a joke.

I...what? The whole second half is like a giant fight scene.

So we're not counting Smallville here?

edited 11th May '17 8:39:32 PM by alliterator

Felt to me like there was a lot more talking than fighting in the movie. I might have gotten my impressions wrong, though.

As for Smallville, Iwould prefer to ignore its existence, yes. But I did speak a bit too hastily. I loved Lois & Clark and that show was absolutely more about Clark Kent than Superman. Dean Cain was also a much better Clark than Superman.

edited 11th May '17 9:17:40 PM by Nikkolas

so you just full a post with you laughing because....

"because Clark could have totally saved him without any effort, yet Jonathan Kent insisted on dying because...he didn't want his son to expose his powers or something"

without effort? the tornado was close and Clark almost risk is identity if something happen, are we really going into another "scene for scene " review to said why is not deep? because we should move to the Men of steel thread them.

edited 11th May '17 9:19:49 PM by unknowing

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

On this, we can agree. I love Lois & Clark.

Clark has super speed and I didn't see anyone else around them (people were fleeing by this point and certainly not looking back) that could possibly have seen Clark use his powers. Even if they could, again, super speed.

Who says he had super speed at that point?

yes, are you going to do another useless post or just act like troll?

I dont remenber him with super speed, at best he can bounce like he does with the warlord but he cant do a smallville or a flash

And also pretty damn sure there was people behind him.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

The fact that he's clearly an adult and as an adult, he can clearly move at incredibly fast speeds. It's all in the movie.

We don't see him using super speed at all in that scene. Later ones yes but not that one.

It doesn't matter if we see him use his powers or not, he clearly had them. His father even warns him away from using them, meaning he could have used them. Hell, he didn't even need to use super speed — he could have just walked over to his dad and shielded his body from the tornado. Since nobody can see inside the tornado, nobody would have been able to see it.

You know, going back on the "JL vs Avengers" topic, one of the biggest issues the Justice League movie is gonna have to deal with is how they'll have to make time to estabilish The Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, their motivations and tell a decent story. Like them or not, the Avengers had several movies to get their ensemble in place.

Wake me up at your own risk.

That is something I worry about. They should have at least held off on JL until Aquaman came out. But, quite understandably, they expect Justice League to bring in more bucks than an Aquaman solo flick.

Man, I want Aquaman to be the best thing. I don't think the DCAU, video games and comics have quite salvaged his reputation yet. If he's as badass as he should be in JL and his movie, it will mark a whole new life for the character.

Then Family Guy will double the Superfriends references and it will be right back in the toilet.

Did the superfriends creators forget about Aquaman's Required Secondary Powers ? Except no one was allowed to punch in that show.

Completely.

Diane Lane got to clarify what she mentioned in her comment on that show.

Comicbook.com reached out to her.

Batman Ninja more like Batman's Bizarre Adventure

If the movie is successful nobody is gonna give a shit about Family Guy jokes.

The reason Aquman sucks as a meme became so widespread is because Super Friends was an entire generation's sole exposure to the character.

edited 12th May '17 7:41:47 AM by comicwriter