Are you more critical of DC or Marvel films?

[Starter Set]

Your talking point is out of date, people love Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam and those films reflect their source material.

Aquaman is a good movie but Arthur is hardly anything similar to his comic book version in it.

[Username taken]

I’m agnostic on the two.I criticize them both equally.

However, the one superhero movie I went in hard was BvS simply because of how Snyder and co completely butchered the characters and just how silly the entire plot was. Just a complete turkey all round which pretty much killed Justice League on release. All this wasn’t helped by some fans complete lack of decorum at the time (seriously, I don’t know when victimhood became something to take pride in). I’m glad that WB/DC has gotten their act together because despite the online rivalry, most people just want to go the theatre and see a good movie whether it’s from Marvel or DC.

Marvel IMO have had some very average movies (Ant-man and the Wasp, Thor 2) but no complete turkey yet, that’s why they appear to get less criticism. That being said, I’m a bit worried about what comes next because Infinity War seemed to end a lot of storylines and characters. There’s the possibility of a cop-out return or two in the future.

[skyvolt2000]

Your talking point is out of date, people love Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam and those films reflect their source material.

They are also folks who did not have a bunch of previous films to be judged by.

Folks keep screaming about respect the source material. Show me these movies that followed the source 100%?

Nobody got introduced the same way they did in comics.

Spider-Man Homecoming was Peter pretending to be Miles Morales.

Falcon met Cap America on an island with Red Skull.

The issue with MOST of DC film is studio interference and trying to fit everyone in a depressed Batman universe. Funny the 3 times they did NOT do that those films overachieved.

People put a billion dollars into watching Aquaman, which is shocking considering just how awful everything preceding that movie was.

Aquaman has a lot more fans than you think.

General audiences UNLIKE comic folks don't hold one movie against another one.

So you can make a bad Batman movie and it will not be used as an excuse to NOT support Shazam or WW 1984.

Like you saw with Steel, Supergirl & Catwoman being reasons why Black heroes & women should NOT have a film. They finally got ignored and we saw WW, Panther & Cap Marvel.

Or the mess you saw with Solo-a movie NOT linked to Last Jedi yet was made to suffer because certain factions were mad. Meanwhile the next film will still be a hit.

[numberthirty]

I guess it depends on what "Critical..." is.

Having a specific issue with Peter/Quicksilver's costume feels like it would constitute being "Critical..."

Just being realistic about that X-Men/Fantastic Four/The DC IP deserves better(with a couple of exceptions) than they have wound up with so far?

That doesn't really feel like being critical.

[Theleviathan]

Aquaman has a lot more fans than you think.

General audiences UNLIKE comic folks don't hold one movie against another one.

So you can make a bad Batman movie and it will not be used as an excuse to NOT support Shazam or WW 1984.

Like you saw with Steel, Supergirl & Catwoman being reasons why Black heroes & women should NOT have a film. They finally got ignored and we saw WW, Panther & Cap Marvel.

Or the mess you saw with Solo-a movie NOT linked to Last Jedi yet was made to suffer because certain factions were mad. Meanwhile the next film will still be a hit.

I think what separated those movies was that they were clearly distinct from the failures. There is a link on the Box Office Bust thread that talks about this with Divergent as well.

Audiences do hold past failures against a studio unless given a reason not to. I think that the three movies being talked about were given such a visually distinct difference from the ****-fest of BvS and Justice League that people were willing to give them a shot. Good reviews only helped.

[Pinsir]

Aquaman is a good movie but Arthur is hardly anything similar to his comic book version in it.

I mean anyone who's read the Guardian of the Galaxy comic book will tell you most of those characters were drastically altered, the creator of Mantis even said he didn't recognize his character. Thor is the only Marvel character I've read beyond a single author's run and they turned him into a walking meme by the end of the franchise. There are also characters like Ultron, and the Skrulls that are completely different, the later I believe also had a creator speak out against their depiction.

[Pinsir]

I think what separated those movies was that they were clearly distinct from the failures. There is a link on the Box Office Bust thread that talks about this with Divergent as well.

Audiences do hold past failures against a studio unless given a reason not to. I think that the three movies being talked about were given such a visually distinct difference from the ****-fest of BvS and Justice League that people were willing to give them a shot. Good reviews only helped.

I know this might come as a shock to you, but people do actually like BvS. I don't obviously like MCU, but I don't go around pretending people don't like those films (I will however argue, they don't love them).

[DrNewGod]

... characters like Ultron, and the Skrulls that are completely different[from the source material], the later I believe also had a creator speak out against their depiction.

Weren't both Lee and Kirby dead by the time Captain Marvel came out?

[Theleviathan]

I know this might come as a shock to you, but people do actually like BvS. I don't obviously like MCU, but I don't go around pretending people don't like those films (I will however argue, they don't love them).

I'm sure some people liked Battlefield Earth too. Or fill in your own choice for a terrible movie. There are always people that like things the vast majority of the population thinks are trash, that doesn't make for much of a point.

[Theleviathan]

I mean anyone who's read the Guardian of the Galaxy comic book will tell you most of those characters were drastically altered, the creator of Mantis even said he didn't recognize his character. Thor is the only Marvel character I've read beyond a single author's run and they turned him into a walking meme by the end of the franchise. There are also characters like Ultron, and the Skrulls that are completely different, the later I believe also had a creator speak out against their depiction.

Is anyone arguing they reflect their source material? Cuz you argued Aquaman was a reflection of his source material. I'm no Aquaman expert, but that seems like a claim with no basis in reality.

Likewise, the first person who comes in here and says Endgame Thor was a reflection of source material should also get called out. Just haven't seen that person yet. Your claim deserved to be called out.

And, to the broader point, who cares how close they are to source material? Be true to what resonates with fans. Canon is simply not possible on screen and shouldn't be tried.

[Pinsir]

I'm sure some people liked Battlefield Earth too. Or fill in your own choice for a terrible movie. There are always people that like things the vast majority of the population thinks are trash, that doesn't make for much of a point.

Except BvS actually has features in it that fans of the film can admire, like the cinematography. Big theatrical movies aren't suppose to look like they were made for tv.

Is anyone arguing they reflect their source material? Cuz you argued Aquaman was a reflection of his source material. I'm no Aquaman expert, but that seems like a claim with no basis in reality.

Likewise, the first person who comes in here and says Endgame Thor was a reflection of source material should also get called out. Just haven't seen that person yet. Your claim deserved to be called out.

And, to the broader point, who cares how close they are to source material? Be true to what resonates with fans. Canon is simply not possible on screen and shouldn't be tried.

Aquaman is a reflection of the source material though, anyone whose read Geoff John's run knows this. I didn't say that they were one to one renditions, just that it strongly reflects the original work. Keep in mind, I didn't say that MCU films are bad because they weren't perfect recreations, just that those movies deviated from the comics as well. Comics and film are different mediums, you have to take some creative liberties even for a faithful retelling.

The issue with Thor though isn't that the film is true to the source material, but that they disparaged his character, his world and nearly every author that wrote the character. Audiences love fantasy stories, but Marvel doesn't know how to write one so they just produced GotG 2.5.

[Immortal Weapon]

GotG 2.5 is the best film of Thor series. They found something that worked for MCU Thor and sticking with it. It wiped the bad taste that the Dark World left in my mouth.

[Alan2099]

Spider-Man Homecoming was Peter pretending to be Miles Morales.

Yeah, but Miles is just slightly off brand Peter Parker anyway, so he's really just copying himself.

[Surf]

GotG 2.5 is the best film of Thor series. They found something that worked for MCU Thor and sticking with it. It wiped the bad taste that the Dark World left in my mouth.

Movie source material is its own source material at this point. A strong reasonable argument is there, that many fans refuse to acknowledge, is that it always has been. Going all the way back to the 40's Captain Marvel serial days.

I agree about GotG 2.5, can't see a situation where I'd ever sit through Dark World again. The batting average humor is pretty high btw, sure there are several foul balls but there are several doubles and triples in terms of jokes too.

[Theleviathan]

Except BvS actually has features in it that fans of the film can admire, like the cinematography. Big theatrical movies aren't suppose to look like they were made for tv.



Aquaman is a reflection of the source material though, anyone whose read Geoff John's run knows this. I didn't say that they were one to one renditions, just that it strongly reflects the original work. Keep in mind, I didn't say that MCU films are bad because they weren't perfect recreations, just that those movies deviated from the comics as well. Comics and film are different mediums, you have to take some creative liberties even for a faithful retelling.

A brief stint by Johns doesn't change decades of characterization very different from that movie. I enjoyed Aquaman, but it was not the same kind of reflection as Wonder Woman or Shazam.

As for BvS? The cinematography was great you say? Wow! Guess I didn't notice that as they disparaged Batman, Superman, Lex Luthor, Common Sense, Logic, Movie Plotting, Story Building, Hero murder rampages, conflicts being settled by their mom's name, and the host of other things that were flying at me in a **** storm of nonsense.

Wow! Great cinematography! How did I miss it!