I'm still trying to figure out what "fun" means to DC. "Fun" automatically means light hearted, but you can have a serious movie and it still be fun. Ayers used to make serious movies that were fun - Training Day, SWAT, End of Watch, Fury (OK, that movie was a bummer, but I had fun) Serious themes are not what's causing everyone to take a dump on these movies. These movies are failing at just being movies.
The Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy was pretty dark and still considered some of the best comic adaptions around. Especially The Dark Knight.
This is the argument DC tried to make once it became obvious that BvS was terrible. We're just too smart! That's all! We're too damn smart. No. It's not about you being too smart. It's not about being fun vs being not fun (although why would anyone want an unfun summer blockbuster?). It's not about being light vs being dark. It's about making a good movie vs making a bad movie. If the implication is that superhero movie viewers only like light-hearted movies, I call BS on that. I eat up superhero **** like few others; I'm a sucker for it. But I also like other movies; yes, even slower, darker, dialogue-driven movies. So no, it's not that I dislike bad DC films because I'm too busy longing for the next explosion to pay attention to the dialogue; I dislike bad DC movies because they're bad. Be dark if you want, but do it well. I actually think DC had the right idea in being more dark than Marvel, but they couldn't have executed it worse. Arguably they were DOA once they put Snyder at the helm.
It's not about being "dark" or being "fun", the reason BvS was garbage was they didn't let the movie be as long as it should have been in order to do it justice. Honestly if they made 2 movies out of it (obviously with different names) then it would have been much better. Watching the ultimate edition, the only things REALLY wrong with the movie was the "MARTHA!" moment and the fact that they totally screwed up Lex Luthor. If they had just released the "ultimate edition" as the theatrical release it would have gotten much more positive reviews. Personally I prefer these kinds of movies being on the "dark" side....but being dark without being good is a recipe for disaster. A good "dark" series was the Dark Knight movies and they are almost universally loved. What Marvel does better than DC is that they fully set up the universe with multiple movies before trying to bring everyone together and IMO the Avengers movies are some of the worst movies Marvel has done. Those stand alone movies are the difference between Marvel and DC.
That was hilarious. "This movie will be too smart for some people" Studios are using their millions in marketing dollars to attack their critics before they review a movie.
DC has definitely become the WHINER company. I think they have set the bar against themselves to some extent Marvel Fans love to mush them in the face but that is just rivalry Now the regular fan is beginning to tire of hearing that they are too stupid to 'get' the movies. Being told the movies are great and that they are the idiots Being told 'you don't know the history', only to look it up and find out it don't have sh** to do with why the movie sucked. DC needs to make movies that make sense They are NOT good at making tight stories BvS was overly long Superman was longer and more mishmashed than it should have been (they tried all that non linear storytelling that just end up sucking . . . . Spiderman's uncle dies because he was 'sticking it' to the guy that stiffed him on his money . . . Superman's father dies because he, selfishly, didn't want to expose his secret *even if his dad told him too* . . . that is not the superman people know and love. ) DC's movie makers don't seem to get DC character Marvel's movie makers do . . . . .. . People have to understand . . . when IRON MAN came out The Avengers were Marvel's SECOND STRINGERS . . . MAYBE EVEN THIRD behind XMen and Fantastic Four which were the FLAG SHIPS of the company. In the last 10~15 yrs. . . they have taken characters no one gave a d*mn about Characters no one would have thought they would want to see a movie about and promoted them to star status while FF and XMen are on the verge of being cancelled (FF is cancelled) Rocket River
You're the biggest DC defender and Marvel critic. I don't get why you believe DC makes good movies when they're universally mixed and Marvel is praised. It's like you just want to be a contrarian.
I don't know how anyone could expect this to be anything but terrible, especially considering Will Smith is in it, an actor that almost exclusively picks horrible movies to be in.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QZ_JC-s8mqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Trigger warning for that pricks r****ded looking face please. His BvS rewrite was the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Give zero facks what he says.
I might be going out on a limb here but maybe the reason why Marvel films have "worked" is because of who they hired to direct/write the films. When you read a comic is pretty episodic and what better way to translate/adapt that onto film than hire directors who primarily came from directing TV shows? Who directed Captain America Winter Soldier and Civil War? The brothers who were previously "known" for directing episodes of Community, Arrested Development, and an Owen Wilson film no one watched. Who wrote and directed Guardians of the Galaxy? The guy who's only previous movie directing experience was Movie 43 but directed a bunch of no name TV spots. Who directed Ant Man? The guy who directed a bunch of Upright Citizens Brigade episodes, a few New Girl episodes, and a few Weird Al Show episods. Hell, even the ringleader himself, Joss Whedon, saw his success primarily from TV. So is WB/DC doing it "wrong" by getting the Snyders, Ayers, the James Wans (Aquaman director) of Hollywood to make their comic movies? I wouldn't say it was a wrong decision but I think having that TV experience, where you have to tell your story in half hour or full hour constraints, helps you pace the story...much like a comic book.
I think where WB is getting it wrong is being too hands on (Jerry Jones) and not letting the coach (DC Film people) do their work appropriately.
James Gunn directed GotG. He had a ton of experience including directing Super and writing/directing Slither. I only saw that movie in the theater because it was his. Tromeo and Juliet was epic.
There maybe some merit to your view point. Also . . . as someone else said. . . . DC Meddles . . . I think they have lost Directors who couldn't put up with it (Flash Director?) Rocket River
Come on now... Will Smith has only 2 very bad moves on his resume: Wild Wild West and After Earth. The latter of the 2 he was hardly in. You're hating just to hate.
One correction: James Gunn had directed some pretty solid movies before Guardians. Slither and Super are both quite good. They're not Guardians good, but they're very good.
Dude i'm hardly a Marvel critic, i like some Marvel movies (i was a bit fan of winter soldier, gotg was decent, and the first avengers was good. Not to mention spiderman 1&2 are my fave all time superhero movies. The rest of the marvel movies sucked). I've just been enlightened by the truth that people are easily swayed by reviews with the way people reacted to BvS.
