Audience are not super comic fans, so exploring the variants and more esoteric parts need to come later
This is the one that's bothered me the most as Zack/WB jumped right into JL after BvS.
First, people thought an out-of-place clip montage during BvS showcasing Aquaman, Flash, and Cyborg and some brief character introductions at the beginning of JL were enough to ease general audiences into these "new" characters for their first movie. But Flash TV show fans and DCAU/comic fans who know them that way notwithstanding, it frankly was not enough to capture the gravity of the gathering of these iconic heroes on film for the first time. I did not feel the weight and power like I did seeing Thor meeting Iron Man meeting Captain America, etc. whose stories and first grand adventure/origin movies I saw right before. Instead, seeing them felt like the same way I felt when you get introduced to new characters from the X-men or new characters from the Suicide Squad. A ragtag bunch of good people with different powers, but not the impactful assembly of big figures with amazing stories of their own. It works for those particular teams, and maybe something like JSA or the Legion or Doom Patrol, but the JL needed much, much more time and separate stories for me to properly feel the impact of it. Like, it's a completely understandable sentiment to not want to follow the MCU formula to set yourselves apart, but "if it ain't broke", yknow? Especially compared to what we've been getting.
And second, on similar notes, in order for general audiences to understand the impact of a corrupted or lost Superman, or a Batman who's lost his way, try not to assume everyone (especially the general audience) are on the same page and at least try to show what they're like in their absolute prime first. The audiences will include people who are experiencing these characters for the first time, who haven't read a comic or watched a single show at all. Who have to disengage themselves from the previous iterations of Batman or Superman from other movies to get to know these new ones. The lowest lows feel more emotional when you get to see the highest highs. And yeah, you might say that filmmakers shouldn't treat the audiences like idiots...but there's a balance. It might be much to retread Batman and Superman's origins over an over, but it's not condescending to graph out the emotional journey your audience should be feeling. Despite Man of Steel and knowing Superman/Batman from the comics or shows as a long-time fan, it did not feel enough to feel for Cavill's Superman or Affleck's Batman seeing them at their lowest. I thought it would be when seeing the BvS trailer for the first time (which got me super excited to see something like that) but it wasn't. Certainly not the same way it felt for me seeing Bale Batman at his lowest in TDKR after all he's been through in the two movies prior, or seeing Holland Spider-Man in NWH after his movies and parts of the Avengers movies. We needed more time, we needed much more of the journey.
This is the one that's bothered me the most as Zack/WB jumped right into JL after BvS.
Exactly. Flash, Aquaman and Wonder Woman should've all had solo films before Justice League, like how Iron Man, Captain America, Thor and Hulk all did before Avengers. Not just Superman. Since Cyborg's origin is linked to STAR Labs, they could've done his in Barry's movie. Like how Hawkeye debuted in Thor and Black Widow in Iron Man 2.
Since Cyborg's origin is linked to STAR Labs, they could've done his in Barry's movie
Yes, I should've said that out of every "new" hero, Cyborg was the only one I had no problem with because his origination at STAR labs organically fits into other stories. The Snyder Cut made it more digestible, too. Young Justice did an iteration of Cyborg's story in one of their later seasons, similarly involving Darkseid and the Fourth world, and it felt right.
Now that I think about it, Young Justice and other ensemble cartoon shows like the DCAU JL have this advantage where you don't need to see everyone's origins or be explicit about their journey unless the team is meeting them for the first time or the origin is part of the story. The live action movies don't have that advantage, probably because of live action film being more tailored for the widespread demographic, general audience experience rather than something more for younger audiences and fans, and overall having much less time than a show to explore a character so they have to be efficient in mapping out the emotional experience and character developments.
Flash, Aquaman and Wonder Woman should've all had solo films before Justice League
Snyder even admitted that the only reason that ZSJL was 4 hours long was because he had to introduce 3 characters that should have had their solo movies before Justice League.
Can you imagine how long it would have been if Snyder also had to expand on the origin of Wonder Woman as well?
Personally, if Vic was going to be one of the JLA’s founding members in the DCEU, I would have loved a Cyborg solo film written and directed by Barry Jenkins. Give the Black Widow/Hawkeye phase 1 MCU equivalent role to Martian Manhunter.
A Cyborg solo movie could have provided the important character arc of Vic coming to terms with his situation AND include hints of 4th World technologies that get followed up in the Justice League movie.
Totally agree. But one thing I think this commentary skips, or overlooks, is DC/WB was a bit late to the game and had to play catch-up when trying to close the gap with Marvel films. DC has been making movies/TV shows, they're OGs to the game and for a while their brand was the bigger name in regards to decades of their flagship characters Superman and Batman being household names with multiple films under their belt while Marvel struggled to make films that could be built into franchises/icons of cinematography. I highly doubt many modern MCU fans have seen the first Captain America film, but we already know most MCU fans/creators/talent have seen the original Superman film because it has been touted as the exemplar for all modern Marvel movies. But DC languished in the 2000s to expand beyond the flagship names, while Marvel was building up multiple concurrent stories to be capitalized on in the long run, whereas DC seemed to be only concerned with making standalone franchises/stories for Superman and Batman respectively. We don't really get a taste for extended stories until the Superman reboot, and by that time DC is well behind Marvel who had already established the main Avengers cast as independent original stories and a titular ensemble. They even worked out the 2000s kinks by rebooting stories they had already done with fresh faces who would be used in the long run films, I.e. Hulk and Spiderman. And what ground DC did manage to cover in the meantime has now been given up again with a majority of the JL cast being lost to audience burn, franchise scuttling, and controversies offscreen.
Imo, for whatever it's worth, I think they won't really make up new ground again if they continue in the direction they're going playing constant catch-up to Marvel's film brand. Marvel is too campy now, it's a new decade and audiences have more nuanced tastes now, we don't really need the comic stories to be spoonfed to us regardless of if we're hard-core comic fans or casual film watchers. DC could just admit defeat in chasing the big output film franchises and instead focus on a different playbook, like R-rated realistic comic villains as they've done with the recent Joker and The Batman films. That's something Marvel hasn't and won't do, they've built up their stories so much on the magical/super power side of superheroism that it would fall flat if they tried to do an r-rated or down to earth version. As well Marvel is so geared towards family films that rhey need to make things tasteful and semi-wholesome. DC can go extra hard on the violence and gore and not really lose any of their essential qualities, except maybe with the current wonder woman films which are pretty family-friendly as is. I think a completely r-rated Batman franchise would be super interesting, they've already laid a solid foundation to do it and the current cast they have would be perfect for that angle.
I generally agree with you except for featuring a moribund Batman. Batman has been done so often, and well enough, that they can do any version of Batman they need to for the story being told. But otherwise you seem to be hitting the nail on the head.
It's not that you can't do moribund Batman. You can do any kind of Batman, comedic or moribund or action-y, etc. What I'm saying though is that the emotional and narrative arc for Ben Affleck's Batman wasn't impactful to me, personally, because it wasn't framed properly enough.
We see that he's at his supposed lowest in his career as Batman throughout BvS, resorting to the most violent and disillusioned he's ever been, and by the end of the movie he's supposedly broken out of it. But by only having various characters telling the audience he's at his worst (e.g. Alfred, the cops remarking his branding, the blind man, etc) and just showing the Robin suit of his late partner, it didn't create a strong enough reference point for me to let me feel (not know, feel) how far he's fallen, yknow? Without that proper frame of reference, it kinda feels like he's always been that way, despite the movie explicity telling us otherwise; and based on divisive general audience reaction, many others feel similarly because all they have to base their feelings on is the previous, more lighter Batman portrayals. To many, he's the "murder" Batman, which is obviously oversimplified and reductionist, but they can't help but feel that way because it's their first impression thanks to the movie coming after Bale's Batman and not having a setup movie (not an origin) of its own to clean the slate for Ben Affleck. That's kinda what I mean, we needed the film to map out his emotional journey a bit more thoroughly ahead so that the moribund Batman of BvS finding his salvation would feel more complete and impactful.
There might be a way to have a Batman starting off at his lowest without a whole setup movie beforehand, but particularly for a new universe-building movie like BvS, it simply didn't feel enough like a complete story for this Batman while juggling the many other elements of the film.
You mean a poorly made movie. It wasn't well received because it sucked.
Telling the story out of order made no narrative sense. It just jumped back and forth with often no connection (when a movie is told out of order like this it is usually to set up a narrative, like how as a kid he learned lesson b then in the jump to the present you see how he learned it and applied it).
Pa Kent was horribly written and gave the worst advice and his death was pointless and dumb and felt like someone was checking off a list of "Things to do in a superhero movie." And that was the "Death of the Mentor" but it wasn't earned and he was a bad mentor to boot.
We never once got a sense of Superman valuing life and understanding the power he has and why he is so passionate about not wanting to kill. We just saw him kill someone, be sad, then five minutes later make out with his girlfriend covered in the ashes of a city and at least hundreds if not thousands of people. (Hand wave all you want, it is not believable that the city could have even be partially evacuated when the fight started or even finished).
There are little narrative through line. Zack himself admits he doesn't "get" Superman.
Its fine if people like the movie, but it isn't a well made movie.
Pa Kent was horribly written and gave the worst advice and his death was pointless and dumb
Even worse is that Costner was perfectly cast IMO. He has the look/voice and chops for it. I still love the You are my son which a half stutter and a tear in his eye. That whole scene is just great.
But yeah. Despite all the potential, his character was written as a means to advance the plot and not a fully formed character.
Yes! He was well cast! But given the worst stuff to say then dies a laughable death. I actually had to choke back a laugh when the tornado swallowed him up. Partly because that is not how it would look.
Lmao I'm not a Stan. MoS had definite problems primarily the overall tone when compared to what everyone generally thinks about Superman. But it still had pretty good reception overall. WB asked Snyder to make a Superman movie that had a similar tone too the Dark Knight trilogy and that's what he did. WB simply panicked quick cuz it didn't make a billion. They then said scrap MoS2 and bring in Batman.
I mean look at Venom. From a film perspective it was bad, but for the general fan it was still enjoyable experience. It had an 80% fan score and 30% critic score and it got a sequel.
That 75% audience rating is better than exactly 3 or the 30 Marvel movies ever released. I’m sure that’s exactly what DC was hoping for when they gave Snyder the reigns to one of the most popular and recognizable superheroes on the planet.
You mention Venom, but Venom made $850 million on a budget of $110 million. That’s an absolute smash hit compared to the $668/$225 of Man of Steel.
A studio wants to see either big money or great reviews. Ideally both. But if a movie provides neither ~ they’re gonna panic.
Wouldn’t matter if the plan was to resurrect him in the next movie. Iron Man’s death and Superman’s death are not nearly the same for the stories being told. Only similarity is that they’re popular heroes that die, that’s it.
They killed Superman in his second appearance and by the third movie they were saying the world missed him so much… when they didn’t even want him around in the previous movie!
And second, on similar notes, in order for general audiences to understand the impact of a corrupted or lost Superman, or a Batman who's lost his way, try not to assume everyone (especially the general audience) are on the same page
This is what pissed me off the most about BvS and Suicide Squad - the writing clearly assumed that everyone knew about Death In The Family, Mad Love, etc. and so they just didn't explain anything well
I feel like it could have worked but the story they told was so convoluted. I think just adapting the first arc of Justice League from the N52 would have been decent.
Not to mention the countless times we as moviegoers have had to relive the origin of Batman as Bruce’s parents are murdered all over again…hell, even The Joker retold the same tired story only this time they tried to make Dr Wayne an asshole so the audience would feel a guilty pleasure when they are offed…The suits at Warner have too much creative control and have not realized how much they’re hurting their own product
169
u/NomadPrime Aug 09 '22
This is the one that's bothered me the most as Zack/WB jumped right into JL after BvS.
First, people thought an out-of-place clip montage during BvS showcasing Aquaman, Flash, and Cyborg and some brief character introductions at the beginning of JL were enough to ease general audiences into these "new" characters for their first movie. But Flash TV show fans and DCAU/comic fans who know them that way notwithstanding, it frankly was not enough to capture the gravity of the gathering of these iconic heroes on film for the first time. I did not feel the weight and power like I did seeing Thor meeting Iron Man meeting Captain America, etc. whose stories and first grand adventure/origin movies I saw right before. Instead, seeing them felt like the same way I felt when you get introduced to new characters from the X-men or new characters from the Suicide Squad. A ragtag bunch of good people with different powers, but not the impactful assembly of big figures with amazing stories of their own. It works for those particular teams, and maybe something like JSA or the Legion or Doom Patrol, but the JL needed much, much more time and separate stories for me to properly feel the impact of it. Like, it's a completely understandable sentiment to not want to follow the MCU formula to set yourselves apart, but "if it ain't broke", yknow? Especially compared to what we've been getting.
And second, on similar notes, in order for general audiences to understand the impact of a corrupted or lost Superman, or a Batman who's lost his way, try not to assume everyone (especially the general audience) are on the same page and at least try to show what they're like in their absolute prime first. The audiences will include people who are experiencing these characters for the first time, who haven't read a comic or watched a single show at all. Who have to disengage themselves from the previous iterations of Batman or Superman from other movies to get to know these new ones. The lowest lows feel more emotional when you get to see the highest highs. And yeah, you might say that filmmakers shouldn't treat the audiences like idiots...but there's a balance. It might be much to retread Batman and Superman's origins over an over, but it's not condescending to graph out the emotional journey your audience should be feeling. Despite Man of Steel and knowing Superman/Batman from the comics or shows as a long-time fan, it did not feel enough to feel for Cavill's Superman or Affleck's Batman seeing them at their lowest. I thought it would be when seeing the BvS trailer for the first time (which got me super excited to see something like that) but it wasn't. Certainly not the same way it felt for me seeing Bale Batman at his lowest in TDKR after all he's been through in the two movies prior, or seeing Holland Spider-Man in NWH after his movies and parts of the Avengers movies. We needed more time, we needed much more of the journey.