DC Extended Universe

I don't want to see John Cena in a superhero movie either, but in my case it's mainly because I don't make The Most Obnoxious Meme Ever Conceived to be resurrected.

After 12 years of Cena I've become too good at seeing him.

I see most every Marvel movie as basically having a theme that they wrap up in one or two scenes, because otherwise it interferes with the actual story. The plot is moving too fast to let their themes stick. Guardians of the Galaxy is an excellent example of that, the whole "The universe sucks, but we can make it better" pretty much comes up in that one scene, the rest is a lot of goofy action with funny characters. Something I've been saying ever since Civil War came out is that it is not really about the morality concerning the Avengers taking responsibility (via the Sokovia Accords), and even then the final theme of "Don't let revenge consume your life" had pretty much nothing to do with the the issues the main characters were dealing with. And that's an issue throughout all the movies, a main plot and a personal plot that doesn't connect at all.

On a more personal note, those themes are usually just superficial "Do the right thing" or "Friendship is important" or "do heroes exist?" that doesn't have a lot of depth to me. Makes me think "Well, I'm glad you cleared that up." Don't get me wrong they're good morals, it's just that they're reliable, not inspiring.

Man of Steel and Batman v Superman take their themes and run it through the entire story. Almost every scene supports it, provides more context and shape. After most of Man of Steel shows Clark being ostracized and feared, the moment Colonel Hardy says "This man is not our enemy" is all the more triumphant. It's a vital part of both the story and Clark's personal journey. I always prefer that kind of storytelling over just having entertaining characters with a moral tacked on to it. The DCEU hasn't offered any questions or themes that have easy answers to them, and I like that.

I wouldn't say Guardians was themeless antics. There's pretty visible themes of importance of family, coming into another culture, moving beyond sins of the past, finding heroism despite one's peculiarities, and putting one's day-to-day crimes in perspective of the needs of the larger world. These themes have been covered in prior movies, even prior Marvel movies, but Guardians's execution is what of them is what pushes its themes into excellence. In Thor, his redemption amounts to flipping his whole personality in a single day. In AoU, it's a "get out of jail free" save of the world for the Maximoffs. But in Guardians, the heroes are redeemed but afterward are still looking to see what crimes they can get away with, more realistically having a long way to go morally.

I feel that's all about the execution. A story can aim for bigger themes than other stories, but then it's required to actually explore them well. As analogy, I would rather have a basic sandwich where the ingredients go together great and are fresh, than a filet mignon and quail eggs where the ingredients are just mashed together and undercooked. Doesn't matter how rare these are, if they're cooked to taste like crud.

edited 1st Jul '16 1:00:53 AM by Tuckerscreator

Yes, I agree, which is why Got G is alongside with Winter Soldier my favourite MCU movie (actually, my favourite comic book movie in general). I like Got G because thematically it is fairly simple...it is more or less the standard Disney themes (which I happen to enjoy, as do a lot of other people, or Disney wouldn't have been so successful with them for decades), but it is told in perfect balance. There is fun, but mixed with serious and sad moments. In one scene you are amused that Marvel found a reason to show off Chris Pratt's abs in orange goo, in the next you get a huge chunk of backstory on Rocket just by showing the cybernetics on his back, while simultaneously furthering the understanding between two of the main characters just by showing Quill's reaction to it. Got G is a perfect example of a fairly simple concept executed exceptionally well.

The Winter Soldier on the other hand addresses a mix of political and emotional themes in a construct full of symbolism (for example, ever notice how the masks of Steve's and Bucky's costume contrast to each other? Bucky hides exactly the parts of his face which are free on Steve's, and while Steve's helmet is definitely designed to protect him, Bucky's mask is practically a muzzle which makes me doubt that he is even able to speak while wearing it). It is a completely different kind of enjoyment.

Man of Steel and Batman v Superman fall for me in the "there was someone who thought he was really smart but he didn't even manage to keep his ideas straight" category. It is like Thor the Dark World with the difference that this movie at least had Loki to make up for the fact that everything else just didn't work. And I actually suspect that most of the Loki stuff was added later into the movie by another team after Marvel realized that they had a potential dud on their hand, so they did some last minute quality control.

Which is another thing: Bv S was already full of problems, but Warner made it even worse by hacking the needlessly overcomplicated story into pieces in order to create the worst edited high-budget movie I have ever seen. Even Michael Bay does better scene transitions than that!

I wouldn't say Guardians of the Galaxy is really anything of a redemption story, because none of the characters do or have done anything particularly bad that they feel guilty over. Excepting Gamora they're all pretty huggable, even Drax the "rip your spine out" Destroyer. The movie does have some themes of banding together and choosing what side you're on, but it doesn't really kick in until the meeting they had right before the climax. Before then it's more like these random characters stumble into each other and happen to grow fond of each other. None of that is to say I dislike the movie, it's quite a lot of fun, but I think the direction is far better than what is in the script.

But there is something to be said for how well the Marvel movies have appealed to general audiences. Most of that comes from branding, like buying an iPhone people are aware of what they are going to get from a Marvel film. Guardians of the Galaxy in particular is about the insanity of a talking raccoon and has enough heartfelt moments to be a feelgood action/comedy. Civil War had the insanity of the airport fight. I'm honestly more interested in Dr. Strange because it's the first Marvel Film that's trying to market itself as a serious reality bending story instead of an action film with varying degrees of light comedy. Half the reason I defend the DCEU is because so many people seem to have the opinion that Marvel "gets it" and that all movies should follow that pattern. The thing is that there actually is a recipe for making movies with broad appeal, deviating from that is definitely a risk. Some of the most refreshing movies are the ones not trying to appeal to all audiences.

Both Man of Steel and BVS offer scenes I consider brilliant, far more insightful and ambitious than what you see in regular blockbusters, so I don't really get the whole "They don't know anything they are talking about" argument. Clark having religious questions about his powers and later going to the priest for spiritual guidance ranks high up there, someone as powerful as Superman deciding he needs to turn to a higher power is a fascinating concept. And he only finds direction through the idea of a leap of faith, something he reiterates when talking to Swanwick about if humanity should fear him. That's what I mean when I talk about how the story is told through themes building on each other, instead of just putting the characters in clever action sequences and call it plotting. Even if there were a lot of rough spots even the theatrical version of BVS had a better narrative than most films.

edited 1st Jul '16 3:19:37 AM by KJMackley

Actually quite of the brilliance of the MCU is that I don't know what I can expect next. This is not the X-men franchise in which every movie has basically the same plot in every movie aside from First Class. The only thing I can be sure concerning the MCU is that I can expect a certain level of quality, and that the movies will rarely retreat old steps. I can't wait for Doctor Strange for exactly that reason.

Though, to be fair, that is the one thing I liked about Bv S....Man of Steel felt like a badly done rehash of Batman Begins (which in turn feels more like a Doctor Strange origin story made to fit Batman), but Bv S is at least the attempt to treat new ground. I actually don't oppose the DCEU treating Superheroes as "gods among us" with Batman as the one human in the line-up, not at all. I just want them to be consistent concerning the themes, not throwing everything to the wall to see what sticks.

For me it's a case of Marvel finding (by luck or judgment) a winning formula and sticking to it with enough minor tweaks to keep it fresh, whereas the DCU is still fumbling around trying to find their own equivalent formula - but to me, not one of their post-Nolan movies have been particularly satisfying, whilst even a weak MCU film is still at least an enjoyable way to spend a few hours.

Except WB isn't trying to find a "formula". It already has it. These movies are director-driven. We're not getting films by committee here. Suicide Squad, based on just the trailers, is David Ayer yelling at us. Batman v Superman and Man of Steel are distinctly Zack Snyder. Each of these films is gonna have the director's voice behind it, and as Nolan once said, that's the cinema that I'm interested in.

That's essentially meaningless in several ways because Guardians of the Galaxy is also James Gunn screaming at us. The Avengers had Joss Whedon all over the map. All three Captain Americas are stamped with the directors's mark (the first one is potently Joe Johnson, the Rocketeer and whatnot).

WB is trying to find a footing in their universe, that much is true. They first had Zack Snyder as their main guide and now they have Geoff Johns. They're trying to steer it somewhere.

edited 1st Jul '16 8:00:37 AM by Gaon

Nah, the Marvel movies don't allow for anywhere near the level of creative freedom WB is giving. That's why the ant-man dude left. That's why the original Bruce Banner left.

So far, the only time we have WB giving a flat "no" is to Wonder Woman's previous director wanting Wondy to have a talking tiger sidekick. The norm seems to be cases like David Ayer being given freedom to make his radical version of the Joker.

Also, Geoff Johns has always been part of the creative brain trust and Snyder was never in charge. It was Berg, the Snyders and Geoff Johns. Now WB has created a DC subdivision. Nothing's really changed apart from that.

edited 1st Jul '16 8:09:21 AM by Cruherrx

It's essentially meaningless because you're assuming the fact those films look like were directed by those people mean they were given complete freedom. Most Marvel movies also bear the Director's mark in them to a heavy extent and still had Marvel Studios's guidance to it. .

The "radical version of the Joker", for what it is, is not so different from Shane Black completely reinveting the Mandarin for IM 3, James Gunn creating a giant Frankenstein out of the Guardians of the Galaxy's iterations, Joss Whedon reinveting Baron Strucker, Peyton Reed redoing Yellowjacket wholesale.

What I'm saying is WB will meddle. Perhaps not as much as Marvel but that's a difficult thing to measure. That's the only way to do a cohesive cinematic universe, you need someone at the center saying what goes and what doesn't. Otherwise you end up with a mess of a universe with no logic in it.

I'm not making any assumptions. I've been saying it pretty consistently that every Marvel movie post-Avengers is the same movie. The closest thing to something different is Guardians.

For the sake of keeping this a DC thread, I will not discuss this further.

I'm not sure how that relates to anything of what I just said. I was talking about the fact WB and Marvel will meddle, and it's silly to think otherwise. It has precisely zero to do with any perceived genericness of the MCU.

It's going to be hard to keep this thread about DC films when everyone randomly swerves to Marvel once every five posts.

Clarification puproses: Goyer is the top of the totem pole for all DC EU movies now, right?

Yeah, Batman v Superman was so director driven that the theatrical released was practically hacked in pieces....

Those are just words. The results suggests something else. And yes, Marvel had some problems behind the scenes too. Strangely since Marvel Studios has been removed from Perlmutter's control, those problems seems to have vanished and everyone is suddenly eager to work with them again.

The original Hulk, Edward Norton, left because he was a control freak. That's not a problem with Marvel, that's a problem with Norton. That's one of the the things that's kept him from getting a lot of roles in the past was that Norton would try to Wag the Director.

As for Edgar Wright, if he stayed on we wouldn't have gotten that awesome fight with Falcon or that awesome bit in the Quantum Realm.

It's astounding how you try to defend DC by shitting all over Marvel.

No. In fact I don't think he's involved at all anymore.

And isn't Norton Hulk way less popular than Ruffalo Hulk? And even his film is the least liked of the MCU.

Marvel were still finding their groove when they made the Incredible Hulk, hence it being a box office failure. Either way, Ruffalo was the person who personified the Hulk more than Norton, so it worked out.

I'm not sure where you got this from? Unless I missed something his last involvement was with Bv S which was then rewritten by Chris Terrio (although we don't know to what extent).

The incredible Hulk is the lowest grossing Marvel movie, but that only means that it did decent. It was hardly a box office failure.

I thought it didn't make back it's budget?

• goes to check* oops looks like you are right, with a budget of 150 million that one was a box office disappointment....(I though it had the 130 million budget most of the starter movies of the MCU have).

Thought David Goyer was brought in to help with the DCEU. Or am I confused with someone else?