The Marvel/DC/Fox Pre-Expande Universe

Hi everyone, is a fact we like superhero movies, we have thread for the biggest comic expanded universes right now, them we make separated thread for them and we even make or typical pissing match because....well, fuck it,we can.

But I want to talk about something diferent but related: the Pre-Expanded universe, back them when it was the norm to pick Superhero movies as concept and stand alone film rather than part of a ever growing universe, back when how a director vision of the character have the biggest influence rather than the universe itself, I want to talk of times the Piss jar,Wanda getting away or Wolverine having to much time, to more simpler years, when most important things like Peter Parker awfull dance, Green Lanter dreadful special efects and of course, Wolverine having to much damn time.

This is, the Pre-Expanded universe.

So before I start this, I want to lay a few things here:

-NO DC vs Marvel debates, we already have a thread locked for that and I dont want this one to be locked yet again, specially since this is more a Them vs Now thread if you wanted it.

-Since this is more about Superhero movies before the expanded universes(That mean before Iron man, before Man of steel and since Fox pretty much retcon the whole thing, before first class) the idea is that we focus on it, the EU should be brought only them, after all we have the expanded universed for that Stuff

So that been said...I will start with Batman return since I just saw the movie a hour ago, I must said the next:

-First of all: Jesus fucking god, the Penguin was DARK, and I mean it in a very unconfortable way, this Penguin can be described as mix between a beast(He bites a men nose because he mock him, he hate being around people and is plan is to take Gotham first born and drown them which is really nasty) an Donald trump(he talk about touching a women AFTER he bite said man noise, is petty as hell an he manage to be popular even when he is clearly evil) of all villains, he really come as off putting which is accomplish for comic book villains

-Maybe is just me but the more I saw Catwoman, the more I was thinking in how Michel fifer could have been a good Harley and yes, IM serious about it, things like thethe scene in the store when she just enter and move around have this "Off" which I feel is something that fit Harley or the way she move between Seline kyle the awkard secretary to Catwoman, the borderline BDSM dominatrix, hell at one point she said to batman that the world dosent have place for people like them which sound a lot like Harley in suicide Squad.

Also, Im surprise the comics never used that "She have 9 lives" Idea, sound cool.

-A lot of people said this is more a Burton movie than a Batman one and I can see why: Unlike modern Comic books there is not prevalent theme around or some narrative tools linking the hero with the villain or anything like modern comic book movies, the best I could find was some dialogues about how Bats is like them(including the Penguin saying he is mad because he is a real monster unlike that is just wearing a mask, Bat just said he may be right)

Also, this movie is the one that start a trend on Batman movie of having at least two villians per movie, im wondering if they are going to do the same in Batffleck movie.

So, anyway, that is my review of Batman return and how it sorta compare with the others, bring your on and let have a good thread

I don't think that this works....it basically means just ignoring one very important part in the development of Comic book movies.

Plus, this would basically means talking about a bunch of honestly really, really sh... movies, because the studio which had the best track record back then was Sony....even Warner Bros only managed to make roughly every third movie watchable.

Not really, is just about how movie was before and how it change now, is more a comparaton thread of what was before to what is now.

Also there are bad movies now: Suicide Squad, Iron man 2, Fantastic.....is not like movie stop being bad at all, things change and I think is a good idea to make a thread of how much thing change.

And let be honest, it look like a better thing to talk that "who EU is shitter" or "What is to come" which we already have thread for that.

I think Batman and Robin is way underrated and overcriticized. Sure, it's campy, lighthearted and very tongue in cheek - but these aren't flaws, as much as they were deliberate creative decisions. (Seems to be a pattern regarding criticism of DC films, now, doesn't it?) I would say Clooney was miscast, though, and that the best Batman is still Val Kilmer (and Bob Kane agrees), because he had just the right amount of self-awareness and deadpan humor. At the same time, he was also spot-on as Bruce Wayne questioning his future, in a much gentler way than Bale did. Also, Arnold's Freeze was by far the best villain of the lot, even now - he had grand goals, human motivations, a turn to redemption... dude was just cool.

I must say, I miss the sense of freedom and open-ended storytelling in the old films, when things were allowed to wrap up in a single story, as well as have some lasting changes here and there. I do hope this approach would be applied to the inevitable reboot of the big two verses. We've seen the origin stories, we've seen the crossovers, and we've seen the pointless teammate fights. Maybe going back to basics, with independent self-contained adventures, wouldn't be a bad direction to go in.

Meh, I will go with Batman and Robin who have everything wtih you just said, specially since Tommy lee jones Two face and jim carry riddler beat Arnold any good damn day of the weak, hell they arent as inefectual since one almost kill Batman and the other ruin Bruce buissness and storm is house, no other villian in movie have got so far, no even Luthor who knew is identity.

Also, while at times one can miss this self contain universes, is not so bad: Iron man 2 and 3 feel self containts(which at times it feel off with the rest of the EU) and Suicide Squad barely have to do with Bv S, granted THAT was in phase 1, let see if the same can be said in the future.

I think it's been pretty well established by now just how little Kane contributed to Batman's creation

Despite that damning endorsement from Kane, I do think Kilmer actually played the best Bruce Wayne.

@indianna Joel Schumacher has gone on record that the movie was subject to huge amounts of executive meddling and was not the movie he wanted to make.

I don't hate it as much as I used to. I thought Batman Forever was okay.

I recall reading reports about Schumacher literally telling the actors they were filming a live-action cartoon - can't say if it was his genuine idea, or merely camping everything up so as to spite said executives wanting something lighter and softer than Burton's films.

I do like the structure of the Schumacher films - the start with a Bat-signal spelling emergency, the suit-up montage (maybe without the bat-nipples), the story that focuses on a case first, with personal dramas on the side. It's basically the superhero version of a police procedural, and it's a great basis for serial fiction. Sans their origin and certain "iconic" stories, superheroes don't really have all that much room to shake things up, so actually rolling with it is a pretty good idea.

I suppose I can agree with that. Except the not much room for shake ups part. That really is all down to execution.

Val Kilmer is my sister's favorite Bruce Wayne.

edited 28th Dec '16 9:05:50 AM by Halberdier17

I agree that self-contained stories are a thing I miss, not only because of the conceit itself but mostly because I feel it allowed for much greater creative and stylistic freedom.

The Burton and Nolan Batman movies weren't really beholden to any constraints outside of general movie studio stuff, and as such they are VERY distinct stylistically from not only other superhero films, but films in general, and unmistakeably bear the thumbprints of their directors.

I much prefer that over movies that end up blending together stylistically like a lot of Marvel movies do.

Shame then that the tone was set by Farveau since he as a director doesn't have much of a distinct style.

I dunno, Favreau's trademark seem to be freely improvised conversations, which feature in his Iron Man films, but not elsewhere. Whedon is likely the most influential from Phase 2 onward, what with the dysfunctional team squabbles and everyone quipping like there's no tomorrow.

The thing about shared universes is that it's best for them to have shared issues, rather than just go with "these fights all happen in the same world". The X-Men films are great because all of them are built around the meta origin of mutants and how it affects the world at large. Similarly, you can have any number of Blade spin-offs, because the franchise is built on hunting hidden vampires, not just the one guy who's really good at it. I'm baffled at how he has yet to get his own series in the MCU. The guy's a one-man Hellsing, that's a premise that writes itself.

I actually don't mind the shared universe concept but I think it's created a problem with a lot of imitators that can't do it nearly as well. (Did anyone ask for a Robin Hood Cinematic Universe? And Universal has already had to now reboot Dracula AGAIN because their first installment didn't work.)

Sequel baiting has always been a problem with movies but it's gotten way worse since then. If you look at Spider-Man 2 (in my mind still one of the best Spider-Man movies) vs. Amazing Spider-Man 2, there's a very marked corporate cynicism in the latter. Also why I think the Burton Bat-films and the two Donner (well, one and a half) Superman movies are better than anything the DCEU has shat out thus far.

I do think that a director imprinting a work with is vision help a lot in superhero movies, the russo brother have is mark in Marvel and so far it show, Wheedon was also good in avenger but for some weird reason he pretty much copy himself in Ao U.

granted it also let to some clash like Tony getting chararter devoptment in Iron man 3 that have to be ignored in AOU and Civil war.

Also, im the only one who think Daredevil is underated? I always feel it dosent deserve the reputation it have, is not a bad movie

It's a pretty bad movie but the Director's Cut is actually infinitely superior. It sounds like the studio asked for a lot of plot-relevant scenes to be cut in favor of more Elektra stuff.

And Elektra is easily the worst part of Daredevil.

Seriously, it does do a lot right. Matt's daily routine bits are great, him and Foggy are fun, Fisk is great, Bullseye is a delight... it's just that it completely falls apart anytime Elektra gets even slightly involved, which in turn makes its other flaws all the more irritating.

What I miss about pre-expanded universe is the ridiculous Power Creep, Power Seep and Superman Stays Out of Gotham required now. It actually makes me like the non-mainstream movies more (GOTG and Doctor Strange, for example) since I spend less time forcing my Willing Suspension of Disbelief. It came to a head when BVS revealed that Gotham and Metropolis are right next to each other. WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

edited 28th Dec '16 12:46:37 PM by Larkmarn

What's funny is someone pointed out DD attempts a lot of the same things the Nolan Batman movies would be lauded for. Agreed, I like Garner but that was a woefully miscast part.

One thing I find interesting about the Burton movies is that they sort of show the nuances there can be in a movie's tone.

People usually only talk about extremes when it comes to comic book movies, either it's Adam West Batman or Nolan Batman (to use them as the extremes of a scale), but Burton's is very much somewhere in between.

It has very gothic aesthetics and a certain moodiness to it, but I would also say they have a certain campiness to them as well, just not the same kind that the Adam West show has. It's hard to explain in words, but it's stuff like Jack Nicholson's performance (which I find more entertaining than frightening), The Penguin's giant rubber duck in the sewer in Returns, the Joker's parade set to a Prince song in the first movie, etc.

There's never really been another superhero movie quite like them in that regard. I think the closest thing to compare them to is probably the Neal Adams Batman stories from the 70's (which incidentally Burton's batsuit is very similar to the costume Batman wore then, except black). It's why I really miss the more auteur-driven era of superhero films, because you could get unique stuff like that. Nolan's were the last super big example of that I think.

I really enjoy seeing different creators' takes on these types of characters since I think that's arguably their biggest advantage, the fact that they are malleable. People can debate the merits of Burton's, or Nolan's, or even Schumacher's interpretations but they all at least bring something new or different to the table and add to the character's mythos.

edited 28th Dec '16 1:04:05 PM by Draghinazzo

To be fair a lot of director let their on thumb in movies, you can see Nolan vision in Man of Steel, specially in is sci fi part of kyrpton, aryer let is mark in Suicide squad and Watchman,Bv S and Men of Steel have a lot of Sydner there(whatever you like or not)

and while Daredevil did a lot of thing wrong, I feel people were to harsh in their day, since watching again is not much diferent o comic book movies nowdays

Like anything else it's a trade off.

A shared universe means more creative potential in one regard but less in another.

A lot of it is Seinfeld Is Unfunny. The idea of taking a superhero movie and doing it completely straight was unheard of at that point, so despite Burton's movies still having a lot of camp, people didn't really pay attention to it because the only other frame of reference they had for Batman was Adam West or the Super Friends.

They got shit on by parents a lot back then because a lot of people thought his movies were too dark for kiddy characters like Batman. Burton himself commented on this by saying if people had any idea what superhero movies would turn into they'd have left him the hell alone.

As for director-driven movies it depends. A lot of franchise films aren't but Guardians of the Galaxy is absolutely a 100 percent James Gunn movie, especially if you're familiar with his previous movies. As are the two Avengers films (which ironically was something I disliked about the sequel). Even Batman v. Superman is unmistakably a Zack Snyder movie, however much I wish it wasn't.

edited 28th Dec '16 1:22:08 PM by comicwriter

it also depend of the movie, Marvel phase 2 is where the "Formula" come down since most of it were sequels while GOG being a periferic movie can do a lot more, the same logic was used in Suicide Squad ant it show

The Daredevil movie has good elements but it suffers from a terrible aesthetic that aged really badly. The Spider-Man and X-Men movies of the early 2000s make up for the aged CGI and some outdated elements by having more legitimate character drama and in the case of Spider-Man just being overall charming. The Daredevil movie however has Evanescence blaring by to action scenes, horrible CGI character models constantly barging into action scenes, the excess of slow-mo and things of the like.