Superman in JL movie (contains SPOILERS)

[Powerboy]

As people probably know, "Thor: Ragnorak" came out on DVD today. Interesting little admittedly anecdotal discussions I had today. First, I don't mind letting it be known I work in a department store and I was cashiering. The first guy that bought the movie, I admitted I have not seen it yet but I did see "Justice League". His response was: "I almost didn't go see that but I decided to and I wasn't nearly as disappointed as I thought I was going to be. It was fun. They seem to have learned that people go see movies like that to escape from reality, not be slapped in the face by it every minute." He was quite surprised that it flopped but it was clear he decided to go see it but fully expected to be disappointed and implied it was because of the previous track record.

I only brought up JL once but I did mention "Thor" whenever someone bought it and the standard comment was, "Best of the three. Fantastic movie".

Mind you, I haven't seen it yet.

Well, I've seen Thor Ragnarok now. It had it's moments of real drama, say, 10% of the movie at the absolute most. I even laughed once at the stuff that was meant to be funny. It was potentially a story of real substance drowned in a sea of making sure almost everything was played for laughs. At least there are other Marvel movies (Black Panther most recently) that show us this is not all that Marvel will give us.

I guess the thing that boggles me is that, going to RottenTomatoes, this seems to be what the overwhelming majority of the reviewers want from a superhero movie too. It surprises me that almost none of the critics would say that the movie undermines its own concept by feeling the need to play it almost campy as if it couldn't work if it boldly embraced it's genre and concept.

[GreatKungLao]

Well, I've seen Thor Ragnarok now. It had it's moments of real drama, say, 10% of the movie at the absolute most. I even laughed once at the stuff that was meant to be funny. It was potentially a story of real substance drowned in a sea of making sure almost everything was played for laughs. At least there are other Marvel movies (Black Panther most recently) that show us this is not all that Marvel will give us.

I guess the thing that boggles me is that, going to RottenTomatoes, this seems to be what the overwhelming majority of the reviewers want from a superhero movie too. It surprises me that almost none of the critics would say that the movie undermines its own concept by feeling the need to play it almost campy as if it couldn't work if it boldly embraced it's genre and concept.

Thor - an introduction to a whole new world in MCU where sci-fi meets dark fantasy.



The Dark World - a movie that follows in predecessor's footsteps, keeping style, sci-fi + dark fantasy. Both unique MCU movies.



Ragnarok - MY EYES!!! WTF HAPPENED?! Definition of inconsistency.

[GreatKungLao]

Well, I've seen Thor Ragnarok now. It had it's moments of real drama, say, 10% of the movie at the absolute most. I even laughed once at the stuff that was meant to be funny. It was potentially a story of real substance drowned in a sea of making sure almost everything was played for laughs. At least there are other Marvel movies (Black Panther most recently) that show us this is not all that Marvel will give us.

I guess the thing that boggles me is that, going to RottenTomatoes, this seems to be what the overwhelming majority of the reviewers want from a superhero movie too. It surprises me that almost none of the critics would say that the movie undermines its own concept by feeling the need to play it almost campy as if it couldn't work if it boldly embraced it's genre and concept.

My major problem with Ragnarok is that they didn't made it as Thor movie. They made it a successful movie, which means pandering with everything you can towards critics and general audience, sacrificing style, tone and characterization in the process. As a result Ragnarok is Guardians of the Galaxy 2.5. It's really sad that for general auidence comic book movies is all about sunshine rainbows with comedy most of the time, instead of Logan, MoS and such.

[manofsteel1979]

My major problem with Ragnarok is that they didn't made it as Thor movie. They made it a successful movie, which means pandering with everything you can towards critics and general audience, sacrificing style, tone and characterization in the process. As a result Ragnarok is Guardians of the Galaxy 2.5. It's really sad that for general auidence comic book movies is all about sunshine rainbows with comedy most of the time, instead of Logan, MoS and such.

I'm glad Black Panther brought the MCU back to a balance of drama, action and comedy,and the next two Avengers movies will probably not be Uber comedic, but post Avengers 4 I do worry Marvel/Disney will look at Ragnarok's incredible box office compared to the previous Thor films and will start going Uber comedic on all of their movies thereafter to put more people in seats, and they may do as such to counter the likely loss of Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Jackson etc after Avengers 4. I love the Guardians movies because they had a different tone from the earlier Marvel movies, but after doing a rewatch of them all the last month, there is a trend in these movies skewing towards flat out comedy or a more Guardians lite tone , Black Panther generally being the exception. I just hope the Marvel films post Avengers 4 skew more towards Black Panther and less towards Raganarok.

Of course, I have the same worry for the DCEU post JL, even though it flopped, but the general audience seem to have liked the Jokes and things based on some feedback I've seen.I would not doubt that WB will try even harder to capture a more Marvel tone with future movies, Which is missing the point IMO.

[Dolores - The Worst Poster Ever]

What has to be understood about Ragnarok is that it's the Thor movie where the director had the most freedom. Waititi's the only director of the Thor franchise that I've heard saying he actually made his own additions to the script, even if not enough to warrant a credit.

Branagh was only allowed so much freedom since Thor was a phase 1 movie and had to introduce and establish the Thor corner of the MCU as per Feige's vision. Taylor had such a bad experience with The Dark World, that he said he would never work with Marvel again and this was after Jenkins had left the project, the reason Portman agreed to the project in the first place.

Marvel even sent Whedon to rewrite scenes for The Dark World. Even though Taylor was given absolute freedom during filming, the movie was taken away from him in post.

With Ragnarok, not only was Waititi given more freedom, but the main writer of the Thor franchise was told he didn't have to be limited by the previous Thor movies. Ragnarok is second only to the GOTG movies as far creative freedom in the MCU goes.

For me this is my ‘Thor One’” he stated, “I’ve seen the other films and I respect them, but I can’t spend too much time thinking about this as a three-quel because then I’ll get tied up too much in respecting what went before and respecting what’s to come after. [Thor: Ragnarok] has to be a standalone film because this could be the only time I do this. I just want to make it [my] version of a Marvel film in the best way possible.

[AquaLantern]

Of course, I have the same worry for the DCEU post JL, even though it flopped, but the general audience seem to have liked the Jokes and things based on some feedback I've seen.I would not doubt that WB will try even harder to capture a more Marvel tone with future movies, Which is missing the point IMO.

But they admitted that trying to be like Marvel isn’t the best for them. Also did Marvel get a copyright on a fun tone? Because everytime I see the words “Marvel tone” it gives the impression that if you’re a light hearted superhero flick it’s automatically a Marvel movie. Which is crap because not all heroes should be constricted into one style.

[GreatKungLao]

[DochaDocha]

There's a big reason why I generally more eagerly anticipate animated DC movies than the live action ones: the animated ones are more likely to be good.

There's a second big reason why I generally more eagerly anticipate animated DC movies than the live action ones: these animated ones are generally directed for people who are already comic book superhero fans. I don't mean to say all the live action films are formulaic, or that animated ones are not at all, but I always feel like there's a bunch of boxes that Hollywood producers want to see checked off before they clear a superhero film to be released to theatres. Examples may include the following:

1) We have to tell X number of jokes throughout the movie
2) The hero has to kiss the leading lady some point in act 3, because, you know, we'll get more money if we can sell this as a romance tale, too.
3) We have to make this appealing to Chinese audiences because we plan to make $100 million there. Hey you, you ate at Panda Express last night... how are we going to accomplish this goal?
4) Can this sell a toy? Add more opportunities for vehicles and playsets.
5) We don't want to pay the local tariffs to shoot on location, so let's shoot in front of a green screen for another 3 weeks.
6) I don't like this superhero, but it's going to make us a lot of money, so here's OUR idea on how to do this right...
7) Don't forget to leave room for the sequels!

Etc.

Anyway, there's just so much studio interference focusing on external factors that we as comic fans often don't get the experience we want, or we do through the perspective of getting someone and his friends to plop down $18 to watch it in a theatre regardless of past or future emotional investment in the characters. Fortunately, there've been a lot of good movies and good ideas in the live action scene, but I feel they generally fall a little short of their potential because this is Commercial art with a capital "C." These things may also affect the animated line, but not anywhere close to the same scale.

[manofsteel1979]

But they admitted that trying to be like Marvel isn’t the best for them. Also did Marvel get a copyright on a fun tone? Because everytime I see the words “Marvel tone” it gives the impression that if you’re a light hearted superhero flick it’s automatically a Marvel movie. Which is crap because not all heroes should be constricted into one style.

No, Marvel does not have a monopoly on " fun" comic book movies,and no, There doesn't have to be one way to do these movies, which is why I'd wish the DCEU would be allowed to have it's own identity and Marvel to have it's own, with wiggle room for Marvel to go darker or DC to go lighter based on a film by film basis. I liked the DCEU as it was prior to JL, and I liked and still like the MCU after Ragnarok. I'm just fearful that within a few years these movies will all have the same tone because it seems there is a formula that puts butts in seats, and both franchises will go for that formula.

[Powerboy]

I'm glad Black Panther brought the MCU back to a balance of drama, action and comedy,and the next two Avengers movies will probably not be Uber comedic, but post Avengers 4 I do worry Marvel/Disney will look at Ragnarok's incredible box office compared to the previous Thor films and will start going Uber comedic on all of their movies thereafter to put more people in seats, and they may do as such to counter the likely loss of Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Jackson etc after Avengers 4. I love the Guardians movies because they had a different tone from the earlier Marvel movies, but after doing a rewatch of them all the last month, there is a trend in these movies skewing towards flat out comedy or a more Guardians lite tone , Black Panther generally being the exception. I just hope the Marvel films post Avengers 4 skew more towards Black Panther and less towards Raganarok.

Of course, I have the same worry for the DCEU post JL, even though it flopped, but the general audience seem to have liked the Jokes and things based on some feedback I've seen.I would not doubt that WB will try even harder to capture a more Marvel tone with future movies, Which is missing the point IMO.

I know it's anecdotal but, based upon the conversation I had with a man who was buying Thor: Ragnarok, that seems to be the trend. Again, what he said was basically that he almost didn't go see "Justice League" because he assumed he'd be disappointed again but, at the last minute, he decided to go anyway and wasn't nearly as disappointed as he thought he would be because it was actually kind of fun.

I translate that to mean he assumed it would be like MoS and B v S, a dramatic study of a character (two characters in the second movie) finding his place in the world while also exploring the nature of society, our bigotries, etc. In other words, boring. Just bring on the fun and laughs. Not that there's anything wrong with a comedy and I think comedies get underestimated and shorted at the Oscars and elsewhere. But there's also context. Thor: Ragnarok had the potential to be the most dramatic of all the Thor movies and yet the drama is undermined at every opportunity. And it worked. This is what people want for the most part and the sad thing is that, in spite of the failure of JL, this will probably be the direction DC goes because JL very likely failed simply because people assumed they would be disappointed because they assumed it would be like MoS and B v S instead of being yuck a second fluff. It wasn't the fluff that caused it to fail but that most people didn't go because they didn't expect it to be fluff.

The same man said Thor: Ragnarok was the best of all three Thor movies? Really? In other words, fun, fun, fun meaning laughs and more laughs.

I hope Black Panther changes the trend and isn't considered an anomaly.

[adkal]

Re jokes:

I, honestly, chuckled a few times during Man of Steel, and I know the audience(s) around me did, too. The snort when Ludlow(?) shoved him travelled across the cinema. The 'heh' when he broke the handcuffs was shared by many, ditto when he gave Lois the look when he told her he can do things other people can't (cauterise her wound).

There were moments and they worked.

[Atlas]

Thor - an introduction to a whole new world in MCU where sci-fi meets dark fantasy.



The Dark World - a movie that follows in predecessor's footsteps, keeping style, sci-fi + dark fantasy. Both unique MCU movies.



Ragnarok - MY EYES!!! WTF HAPPENED?! Definition of inconsistency.

Thank you for saying this. Asgardians of The Galaxy was my first massive disappointment with the MCU as I'm a huge fan of the comic version of Thor. I never thought they'd make that work and yet the first two films and his appearances in the other movies were spot-on. Then comes whatever Ragnarok is supposed to be and it's all wiped away so they can cater to small attention-spans and kids. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Why should a movie called "Ragnarok" not be a rollicking comedy with non-stop gags?

Re jokes:

I, honestly, chuckled a few times during Man of Steel, and I know the audience(s) around me did, too. The snort when Ludlow(?) shoved him travelled across the cinema. The 'heh' when he broke the handcuffs was shared by many, ditto when he gave Lois the look when he told her he can do things other people can't (cauterise her wound).

There were moments and they worked.

Too bad those moments were overshadowed by the shock of learning Costner's Pa Kent is a fear-mongering coward willing to commit suicide rather than deal with the son he sees as a burden, a "Superman in training" not smart enough to prevent collateral damage and save innocent lives or find a way other than killing to stop Zod. Not to mention "Superman" and his girl making out in what was a disgusting near-recreation of Ground Zero on screen. But hey, at least there were a few chuckles, amiright?

[manofsteel1979]

I know it's anecdotal but, based upon the conversation I had with a man who was buying Thor: Ragnarok, that seems to be the trend. Again, what he said was basically that he almost didn't go see "Justice League" because he assumed he'd be disappointed again but, at the last minute, he decided to go anyway and wasn't nearly as disappointed as he thought he would be because it was actually kind of fun.

I translate that to mean he assumed it would be like MoS and B v S, a dramatic study of a character (two characters in the second movie) finding his place in the world while also exploring the nature of society, our bigotries, etc. In other words, boring. Just bring on the fun and laughs. Not that there's anything wrong with a comedy and I think comedies get underestimated and shorted at the Oscars and elsewhere. But there's also context. Thor: Ragnarok had the potential to be the most dramatic of all the Thor movies and yet the drama is undermined at every opportunity. And it worked. This is what people want for the most part and the sad thing is that, in spite of the failure of JL, this will probably be the direction DC goes because JL very likely failed simply because people assumed they would be disappointed because they assumed it would be like MoS and B v S instead of being yuck a second fluff. It wasn't the fluff that caused it to fail but that most people didn't go because they didn't expect it to be fluff.

The same man said Thor: Ragnarok was the best of all three Thor movies? Really? In other words, fun, fun, fun meaning laughs and more laughs.

I hope Black Panther changes the trend and isn't considered an anomaly.

Working in retail myself, your experience is the same as mine. The audience seems to have made their choice, and it's fun above all else.

I have no doubt Ragnarok was made to be the " anti- Snyderverse" movie when it was assumed by conventional wisdom that JL was going to be
Similar in tone to MOS and BvS. Everything from the trailers to the posters was screaming "this movie is FUN! Did we mention it's fun unlike that other Superhero movie that's coming out right after ours? We know you don't want to take Superheroes seriously and yeah this movie should probably be a tad more serious given most of Thor's people will be dead and nearly most of the Asgardian characters you remember from the first two are also dead as well and Thor loses his hammer, his home ,his Dad and his eye, but we will pander to you so you won't have to think one second about the drama or tragedy! It's, FUN, FUN, FUN!".

Of course JL did itself no favors with it s frankly piss poor marketing until the 11th hour, but one marketed itself as a semi- serious and reverential movie about Superheroes, the other as the complete opposite...And people chose the latter.


I hope too that Black Panther shows the way, but I can bet you Disney is looking at the box office of Ragnarok and Black Panther and are wondering how they can somehow take the campathon that was Ragnarok and apply it to the Black Panther IP for the sequel in the hopes of maximizing the box office potential of the sequel, story integrity or logic be damned. Their way of thinking will likely be : " wow, Black Panther made a ton of money...But if it was funnier and less serious, it would made a ton more! After all, look what it did for Thor!"

[Osiris-Rex]

Of course, I have the same worry for the DCEU post JL, even though it flopped, but the general audience seem to have liked the Jokes and things based on some feedback I've seen.I would not doubt that WB will try even harder to capture a more Marvel tone with future movies, Which is missing the point IMO.

Wonder Woman had a lot of humor, wasn't all doom and gloom. And that worked out well enough for the DCEU. Shazam looks to take a light hearted approach too. I think the point WB missed with
Man of Steel and Batman v Superman was that not all movies have to be The Dark Knight, nor should they be.

[_Feely_]

Ragnarok had me in tears of laughter.

Loved it.

Couldn't do that everytime, tho.

Ironically, while watching it, I felt that it could have been a Superman film.