MCU and DCCU Differences in Mentality

^^ That's honestly the coolest part of All-Star Superman, Superman secretly allowed Luthor to perfect a formula to give him temporary Kryptonian powers and once he gets off the power high, his ability to see in different spectrums drives him to tears, basically discovering the meaning of life.

edited 30th Aug '15 4:35:26 PM by KJMackley

Saw the animated adaptation of it. Never read the GN. But yeah, that ending was in it.

http://samepageteam.com/2015/07/20/marvel-dc-comics-superman-batman/

A really good article about the different approaches.

That article is making some assumptions about what they think will happen in Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad.

Also I took it as them saying the Marvel approach is the correct way.

edited 31st Aug '15 8:08:06 AM by Halberdier17

No, it just argues that the approach gives Marvel an emotional layer they can rely on, while DC has to impress differently.

Okay

Marvel is more dedicated. When they have to bring a Civil war on screen, they re-enact if beforehand in real life!

The difference is DO YOU BLEED?

For what I see in that article, Marvel is more tone down and focus in the charisma or their chararter while DC is trying to imprese with the narrative.

I assume that is what DC is trying to do. Man of Steel is less about the character Superman and more about the overall themes, as choppily executed as they are.

I'm just terrified that the DCCU will revive a trope nobody likes: the '90s Anti-Hero.

Also, I never understood why people thought drunk Tony in Iron Man 2 was stupid. He's an alcoholic, him drinking at all is supposed to be sad and tragic. Combine that with the fact that he's drinking because he's dying and the scene becomes a borderline Tearjerker.

I don't get why people would think that they aren't going Grim dark with the universe no matter what haters would have people believe.

The only movie in the DCEU isn't even dark. Batman v Superman looks like they brightened things up compared to Man of Steel. Suicide Squad does look dark but David Ayer said it will actually be hilarious.

I don't remember many Ninties Anti Heroes crying after they killed just one person.

Tony's alcoholism doesn't seem to be given much thought or focus. It pops up when it's convenient for a spat between him and Rhodey and then just vanishes.

....Not for the cast, if the on-set therapist is anything to go by.

Seriously, why do people act like Superman spent the film beating up guys in back alleys?

Because Superman doesn't kill and the movie ended with him killing. If the movie disregards one of the most fundamental rules of Superman, then people are going to think it's a dark portrayal of him. And, really, it is.

Superman II had Superman killing the Phantom Zone criminals after they were powerless and not a threat to anyone anymore. Superman Returns had Superman tossing a whole island with Luthor's goons on it into space. He doesn't show any regret after either action.

Yet they get a free pass while Man of Steel's Superman is branded a murderer after killing a single man who was still a threat, to save others, and after he griefs about it as soon as he's done it.

Except he has killed. Doomsday, the Zod of the alternate world, and in the DCAU he seemed perfectly fine with ending Darkseid once and for all.

Superman II had Superman killing the Phantom Zone criminals after they were powerless and not a threat to anyone anymore.

Then that's a problem with that movie. I always found Superman II pretty crappy, in any case.

Superman Returns had Superman tossing a whole island with Luthor's goons on it into space. He doesn't show any regret after either action.

I'm pretty sure Luthor's goons were not still on the island. I think Luthor took them with him when he left Superman for dead.

Except he has killed. Doomsday, the Zod of the alternate world, and in the DCAU he seemed perfectly fine with ending Darkseid once and for all.

I didn't say that he never killed in the comics. I'm saying that "Superman doesn't kill" is a fundamental rule that the comics mainly abide by, with very, very few exceptions. If the very first movie you are putting out to begin a Cinematic Universe has Superman killing — not at the end of the trilogy, not in the sequel, not even after his "no killing" rule has been firmly established, showing exactly what a big deal this is — then you demonstrably showing that, hey, this is a pretty fucking dark story.

That's what I object to more, actually: Superman killing someone is a heavy, heavy thing, but the movie doesn't build up to it at all. It doesn't have Superman showing any sanctity for all life, it doesn't show him saving any villains or trying to avoid killing Zod — in fact, previously in the film, it looked like he was trying to kill Zod. There is no reason whatsoever that Superman should actually cry after killing Zod because there's no build up to what is supposed to be this momentus event. It just happens. And then it's over. No build up, no resolution.

And it's the first movie in the DCEU.

I think Luthor took them with him when he left Superman for dead.

No, I'm pretty sure there were only Luthor, Miss Kitty and their dog in that helicopter.

Then I'm pretty sure they jumped off the island when Superman picked it up. If they saw "Hey, Superman's picking up this entire island" then I don't think they would have stuck around.

They're shown getting crushed by falling rocks as Supes lifts the island into the air.

"Tony's alcoholism doesn't seem to be given much thought or focus. It pops up when it's convenient for a spat between him and Rhodey and then just vanishes."

Because to put it blunly, nobody want to see Tony strugle with alcholism, maybe be drunk or something similar but nothing that disprut the charisma of the chararter, so instead of a big issue it become his focus strugle in the movie, went he fix it....that it.

"Because Superman doesn't kill and the movie ended with him killing. If the movie disregards one of the most fundamental rules of Superman, then people are going to think it's a dark portrayal of him. And, really, it is."

Is not that really, is how Zod put the rule in combat and Superman coundt turn around the table, usually in this cases he would find a way to stop Zod without killing him or damaging anyone but that did not happen at all since Zod REALLY want to hurt superman in the only way he can now, so in the end he dominate the entire fight.

THAT itself is dark which have split the fanbase: some here saying it take Superman of his biggest quality making the whole thing very hopeless feeling AND the people who feel intrigued by how Clark is afect by this and are at less happy there wasnt any deus ex machina in order to preserve Clark integrity(like the helicarrier or Tony new element)

So for what I see, people complain that Marvel dosent go to epic or serious with his movies while DC try to hard to be a Dark epic, which it can work really well..or fail harsh and horrible.

I was kind of hoping for MCU to bring to life that one comic panel of Tony in full armor flying straight into his home right through the paned glass, booking it towards the liquor cabinet, and downing everything in sight like a famished traveler in the desert.

edited 7th Sep '15 10:30:48 AM by nervmeister

"Tony's alcoholism doesn't seem to be given much thought or focus. It pops up when it's convenient for a spat between him and Rhodey and then just vanishes."

Kevin Feige: There is no dark turn in the MCU.

Further branching open Tony's alcoholism would probably make this no longer PG 13 material, thus totally dark, or a step in another direction the studio does want to take.

Shane Black: I think we were just told by the studio that we should probably paint Tony Stark as being kind of an industrialist and a crazy guy, or even a bad guy at some points, but the Demon in a Bottle stuff of him being an alcoholic wouldn't really fly," said Black. "I don't blame [them for] that.

Shane Black: It's also kind of a 'pick your battles' thing," added Pearce, who described Stark as being "more rock 'n' roll" in the first draft of the screenplay. Alcoholism is a massive problem but it's also not the best villain for a movie.

If there was a bunch of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOIZId6Z9CI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSFjFGUZGIgbut escalated then we would have a whole other movie. Instead we have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PoLfHfPXc, which still contributes to the fact his lifestyle was detrimental to his career pre Ironman 3. It was just more subtle than it could have been. To get around it Marvel Studios used his lack of responsibility as a conflict he must overcome. He has to understand himself and the impact this self has on the people around him through his eyes. Blind eyes. Then he must cope the best ways he learned how

edited 7th Sep '15 10:55:57 AM by xbimpy