Superman in JL movie (contains SPOILERS)

[GreatKungLao]

[Powerboy]

In my biased opinion the main reason for all of that is the fact that Warner Brothers decided to alienate the entire core fanbase that Zack Snyder's movies builded for the sake of Marvelizing Justice League movie to please critics and GA. MoS and BvS actually made a lot of people to fall in love with these characters in the first place, especially with Superman, just look around Tumblr or YouTube for "DCEU positivity", read comments and stuff. WB thought that Zack Snyder/DCEU core fans are in minority and they thought that alienating us wouldn't harm JL box office THAT much. They were wrong. I liked JL movie in general if I turn my brain off, but it was in no way a 100% Zack Snyder movie and this is what made his fans to skip additional vieweings of the movie. I honestly wanted to stop going in theatres after second vieweing, but I went 3rd time for the sake of company with friends. I watched MoS and BvS 4 times each and I wanted more, but the circumstances did not allowed to go more times, even though I would have done it without a question. While with JL I had all opportunities to watch it 10 times at cinema, but I decided not to, WB doesn't deserve my support, especially after I read and saw what was cut and changed by Joss Whedon for the sake of being "just like Marvel with FUN FUN FUN ABOVE ALL FUNS OF FUN" with The Flash falling into Diana's boobs while Iris West scene got cut (ARE YOU FCKING SERIOUS?!).

I have no quarrel with people who genuenly loved Justice League movie the way it was released. But I feel that 100% Zack Snyder's Justice League would have made more sense about what it was pushing forward with posters saying "You can't save the world alone", but when Superman comes back in theatrical release, it was shot that way that he can do EVERYTHING alone, beat the main villain while carrying an entire building (that should have been destroyed in such process by the laws of physics) and at the end of the movie you wonder "Why the hell does the world even need Justice League then?". And thanks to that horrendous CGI face on Superman we can be sure that Zack Snyder's Superman didn't made it into the final cut for the most of its part, 90% of Superman are reshoots. So whatever was in Chris Terrio's original script, I would take better than Joss Whedon's blasphemy writing like "Thirsty" Lois Lane", "I'm also a big fan of justice" or Superman and Cyborg laughing when world almost ended, that was ultimate cringe level of cringe.

In the end I hope WB gets the right message, that if you went with one direction, keep it till the end, at least if its a series of movies intendent to be done by one director. They shouldn't have done ANY reshoots, push all of their recources into post production of Zack Snyder's principal photography, keep Junkie XL as a composer and release the movie the way it was meant to be from the start. And only then do whatever you want with Superman's character to please critics and general audience. MoS, BvS and JL were meant to be a world building trilogy for everything that will come after, with characters only emerging as super heroes in this DCEU world.

A lot of good points here although I tend to watch the reactions of other people in the theater when I see a movie and I could not help but notice that many of the most positive responses were to the very things you didn't like. You can say that what people were responding to was superficial stuff such as Superman uttering his own catch phrases. But when he said, "I'm a big believer in truth" or whatever the exact line was, the positive response from the audience was huge and it was almost like they were waiting for the next remark about justice and almost hoping the third comment about the American Way would be in there based on the rapt attention I saw people in front of me suddenly having. When he said there were civilians in danger and left the fight to save them, I thought there was almost a sigh of relief from the audience as if they no longer expected something like this from the Superman of this setting and a generally positive murmur from the audience.

I'm not arguing with you over whether the audience reaction is an accurate assessment of the Superman of this movie series. I think he was mostly always this Superman (minus uttering his own catch phrases and without the arguably misplaced sense of humor that was simply the Joss Whedon school of padding the story and getting a more positive response by having two one-liners per minute and probably more). But when it seems like the majority of people on-line are responding with an attitude of "This is my Superman", It's not a few people parroting "Not Muh Superman" but a vast majority that JL is their Superman.

But this is unprovable. Your argument is that people who liked MoS and B vs S stopped seeing this one because it wasn't true to Snyder's vision. I think a lot of people didn't go see it because they assumed it would be true to Snyder's vision like the last two. I know it's totally anecdotal but the audience reaction in the theater seemed very positive. Lots of laughter in a good way, lots of people seeming to enjoy it. I even had two discussions about it in one day, one at work and one in the parking lot after work (I work at a business in the same parking lot where there is a theater). Both reactions very positive, one saying she had seldom come out of a movie feeling so hyped and positive. At least in one case, agreement that we both liked MoS but thought B vs S went too dark even compared to MoS and tried to include too much in one movie. But just very positive reactions to JL- from people who actually saw it.

I also don't think people necessarily fail to see the flaws in a movie. It's just that, sometimes the overall tone and emotional response beats the technicalities when the tone is one people like.

[Last Son of Krypton]

From ACE Comic-Con

Zack would be proud.

[Francisco]

Superman in Justice League can leave the fight to save civilians in danger because there are other heroes that will keep fighting the bad guy while he saves the civilians. In MOS HE didnt have that "luxury". He was fighting on his own against several beings that had power equal to his own. Batman v Superman DAWN of Justice was a gigantic blunder no matter the side you look at it. Not enough contrast between both characters and they diminished Superman every way they could. If Justice League did something right was to showcase Superman as the ultimate powerhouse. Of course he could beat the entire league if he were to let go his inhibitions. The League wasnt formed to defeat Superman or because they individually are as powerful as Superman. Its very reason to be is so they all together can defeat enemies too powerful for a single hero. Yes Superman can defeat Steppenwolf (the single character not his entire army) on his own just like he beaten Zod... But millions wouldve died if the League wasnt around. Without Cyborg there was no way of sepparating the motherboxes. Hell, MOS wouldve been a totally different movie with the Leagues involvement.
After watching BvS and Justice League I feel both movies couldve benefited from sprinkling each other with their respective attributes. The Phonevideo should have been shown in BvS alongside a more relaxed Superman to make contrast with the stiff Batman they were trying to sell us.

[JAK]

I think a lot of people didn't go see it because they assumed it would be true to Snyder's vision like the last two. I know it's totally anecdotal but the audience reaction in the theater seemed very positive. Lots of laughter in a good way, lots of people seeming to enjoy it. I even had two discussions about it in one day, one at work and one in the parking lot after work (I work at a business in the same parking lot where there is a theater). Both reactions very positive, one saying she had seldom come out of a movie feeling so hyped and positive. At least in one case, agreement that we both liked MoS but thought B vs S went too dark even compared to MoS and tried to include too much in one movie. But just very positive reactions to JL- from people who actually saw it.

I also don't think people necessarily fail to see the flaws in a movie. It's just that, sometimes the overall tone and emotional response beats the technicalities when the tone is one people like.

If I hadn't been following the changes and behind-the-scenes stuff happening to JL, I would have been your exhibit A there because I wouldn't have bothered to see it. And I think I'm not alone on that, far from it. Not saying the opposite doesn't exist. But I think the darker tones for two movies in a row said to people "nope, I gave this two chances".

Honestly, I'm surprised JL hasn't done better, but I've been saying since BvS that the only thing saving the DCEU was going to be the "first time" scenarios we'd be getting. If BvS wasn't the first on-screen meet-up of the two, I bet the numbers would have been half of what they were.

As for JL, it's one of those "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" kinda deals. Yeah, it's got problems, but it's enjoyable enough on the whole that you feel good. If I want to watch something for two hours and get nothing but pissed off I'll watch cable news for free. That's not the experience I pay money for when Superman's involved. And I suspect I'm not alone in that, either.

[GreatKungLao]

A lot of good points here although I tend to watch the reactions of other people in the theater when I see a movie and I could not help but notice that many of the most positive responses were to the very things you didn't like. You can say that what people were responding to was superficial stuff such as Superman uttering his own catch phrases. But when he said, "I'm a big believer in truth" or whatever the exact line was, the positive response from the audience was huge and it was almost like they were waiting for the next remark about justice and almost hoping the third comment about the American Way would be in there based on the rapt attention I saw people in front of me suddenly having. When he said there were civilians in danger and left the fight to save them, I thought there was almost a sigh of relief from the audience as if they no longer expected something like this from the Superman of this setting and a generally positive murmur from the audience.

I'm not arguing with you over whether the audience reaction is an accurate assessment of the Superman of this movie series. I think he was mostly always this Superman (minus uttering his own catch phrases and without the arguably misplaced sense of humor that was simply the Joss Whedon school of padding the story and getting a more positive response by having two one-liners per minute and probably more). But when it seems like the majority of people on-line are responding with an attitude of "This is my Superman", It's not a few people parroting "Not Muh Superman" but a vast majority that JL is their Superman.

But this is unprovable. Your argument is that people who liked MoS and B vs S stopped seeing this one because it wasn't true to Snyder's vision. I think a lot of people didn't go see it because they assumed it would be true to Snyder's vision like the last two. I know it's totally anecdotal but the audience reaction in the theater seemed very positive. Lots of laughter in a good way, lots of people seeming to enjoy it. I even had two discussions about it in one day, one at work and one in the parking lot after work (I work at a business in the same parking lot where there is a theater). Both reactions very positive, one saying she had seldom come out of a movie feeling so hyped and positive. At least in one case, agreement that we both liked MoS but thought B vs S went too dark even compared to MoS and tried to include too much in one movie. But just very positive reactions to JL- from people who actually saw it.

I also don't think people necessarily fail to see the flaws in a movie. It's just that, sometimes the overall tone and emotional response beats the technicalities when the tone is one people like.

I also have a problem with all these receptions, because most of the time they describe movie as "fun". All these positive reviews of Thor Ragnarok, people saying it is the best Thor movie - all of that causes me a heart ache. Since when a super hero movie is suppose to be a comedy first of all? Since when laughter became the only emotion that super hero movies should cause in people?

In my opinion super hero movies can aspire to be something other than what society is expecting of them. When I was watching trilogies like Star Wars, Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, all of these movies didn't think that I am a stupid person, that I can feel various kind of emotions throughout the movie, that everything doesn't need to be covered in comedy in order to feel hopeful, that movies can make you think about real life stuff, that movies can have a huge and deep lore for you to sink in, that pathos, epic and drama can be taken seriously. Man of Steel felt exactly like that, thanks to an entire Krypton prologue the movie makes you understand that this world is bigger than one Earth, that Superman comes from an entirely different place, that this world had its own history and culture, that Superman losing his birth home is a colossal tragedy, that Jor-El and Lara were actual characters who made a heart broken difficult decision to send their only son into space, Man of Steel was so rich with lore to explore and it was amazing. I want super hero movies to not be shy of being bigger, deeper and more thought provoking material. Comedy element can have a place, it exists in those trilogies I mentioned above as well, but it is never a centric element of these movies.

If Thor Ragnarok is what super hero movies are aspire to be in the future and what majority of Earth population thinks as a great super hero movie, I will abandon this genre. CBM is not a circus with clowns for kids. It can aspire to something greater. Super hero movies should be given an opportunity to drug protagonists through mud before they become butterflies, let me suffer with characters through tragedy before I can feel happy for their good ending, let me have an emotional farewell like Luke did while burning his father's body before allowing me to join their victory party.

In my humble opinion Superman's return would have felt so much more as an event of epic scale if he had an emotional coming back. If Kent farm scene happened the way it was described to be in Snyder's version, with Martha calling for her son like she did in MoS, with Clark having a closure with Jonathan's spirit, with him acknowledging his marriage to Lois that he sacrificed in BvS in order to save the world. If only Superman was allowed to collect all of his memories in a much more grandiose way, the finale would have been a lot more satisfying.

What I'm trying to say is that I wish people were more acceptive of the fact that super heroes movies can be done different, sometimes very different from the others of same genre. That it can be a father/daughter drama like Logan, that it can be political thriller like Winter Soldier, that it can be grounded sci-fi like Man of Steel, etc. You had Donner's Superman with Christopher Reeve, please allow Snyder's Superman with Cavill to be its own thing, it's just that sometimes people act as if like just because Snyder did his own Superman it is somehow means that Donner's Superman doesn't exist anymore, as if like he vanished and people can't go back and watch those movies again.

There is no formula for CBM, there is only freedom of artistic expression. Unfortunately Thor Ragnarok was turned into a weird mix of Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, while completely ignoring the style, characterization and developments of the previous two movies just because people think of them as the weakest MCU movies. Dark fantasy really worked for Thor stylistically, it was such a shame that it was erased completely with Ragnarok alongside with the entire supporting cast of characters from previous movies. Why I bring Thor Ragnarok so much? Because I can't remember any other sequel to the series of movies that would be so drastically different and ignorant to everything that was before... and people loved it. It appears that public doesn't care about consistency at all.

[GreatKungLao]

More from ACE Comic-Con

[JAK]

I also have a problem with all these receptions, because most of the time they describe movie as "fun". All these positive reviews of Thor Ragnarok, people saying it is the best Thor movie - all of that causes me a heart ache. Since when a super hero movie is suppose to be a comedy first of all? Since when laughter became the only emotion that super hero movies should cause in people?

In my opinion super hero movies can aspire to be something other than what society is expecting of them. When I was watching trilogies like Star Wars, Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, all of these movies didn't think that I am a stupid person, that I can feel various kind of emotions throughout the movie, that everything doesn't need to be covered in comedy in order to feel hopeful, that movies can make you think about real life stuff, that movies can have a huge and deep lore for you to sink in, that pathos, epic and drama can be taken seriously. Man of Steel felt exactly like that, thanks to an entire Krypton prologue the movie makes you understand that this world is bigger than one Earth, that Superman comes from an entirely different place, that this world had its own history and culture, that Superman losing his birth home is a colossal tragedy, that Jor-El and Lara were actual characters who made a heart broken difficult decision to send their only son into space, Man of Steel was so rich with lore to explore and it was amazing. I want super hero movies to not be shy of being bigger, deeper and more thought provoking material. Comedy element can have a place, it exists in those trilogies I mentioned above as well, but it is never a centric element of these movies.

If Thor Ragnarok is what super hero movies are aspire to be in the future and what majority of Earth population thinks as a great super hero movie, I will abandon this genre. CBM is not a circus with clowns for kids. It can aspire to something greater. Super hero movies should be given an opportunity to drug protagonists through mud before they become butterflies, let me suffer with characters through tragedy before I can feel happy for their good ending, let me have an emotional farewell like Luke did while burning his father's body before allowing me to join their victory party.

In my humble opinion Superman's return would have felt so much more as an event of epic scale if he had an emotional coming back. If Kent farm scene happened the way it was described to be in Snyder's version, with Martha calling for her son like she did in MoS, with Clark having a closure with Jonathan's spirit, with him acknowledging his marriage to Lois that he sacrificed in BvS in order to save the world. If only Superman was allowed to collect all of his memories in a much more grandiose way, the finale would have been a lot more satisfying.

What I'm trying to say is that I wish people were more acceptive of the fact that super heroes movies can be done different, sometimes very different from the others of same genre. That it can be a father/daughter drama like Logan, that it can be political thriller like Winter Soldier, that it can be grounded sci-fi like Man of Steel, etc. You had Donner's Superman with Christopher Reeve, please allow Snyder's Superman with Cavill to be its own thing, it's just that sometimes people act as if like just because Snyder did his own Superman it is somehow means that Donner's Superman doesn't exist anymore, as if like he vanished and people can't go back and watch those movies again.

There is no formula for CBM, there is only freedom of artistic expression. Unfortunately Thor Ragnarok was turned into a weird mix of Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, while completely ignoring the style, characterization and developments of the previous two movies just because people think of them as the weakest MCU movies. Dark fantasy really worked for Thor stylistically, it was such a shame that it was erased completely with Ragnarok alongside with the entire supporting cast of characters from previous movies. Why I bring Thor Ragnarok so much? Because I can't remember any other sequel to the series of movies that would be so drastically different and ignorant to everything that was before... and people loved it. It appears that public doesn't care about consistency at all.

Please pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you might be conflating "fun" with "funny". Yes, the two *can* go together, but one doesn't have to equal the other. I can have a lot of fun and not really laugh. I can also laugh, but overall not have a good time.

That said, there is a big injection of humor in JL, and sometimes it feels decidedly forced. But the jokes aren't where I had fun. Reveling in the characters' respective powers and their control of them was fun. Seeing Superman really get to let loose without the narrative compromising him or holding him down was a LOT of fun.

I get what you're saying, though - a more serious superhero movie that make the audience think should be possible. It absolutely is, I agree. But when that's the goal, it has to be just right or the desired effect won't be made: it'll either piss them off or leave them with no reason to care. For a least a portion of those who saw MoS and BvS, clearly, that was the case. And unless they really want to, it's hard to get someone to think how "you" (the "you" in this case being the studio or whoever) want them to after "you've" pissed them off.

As much as I complain about MoS and BvS, I can see a lot of what they were going for. And there are some good, even great, themes and ideas in there. But the execution leaves me cold enough that I don't get into what they want me to experience. If that makes any sense.

[Powerboy]

Superman in Justice League can leave the fight to save civilians in danger because there are other heroes that will keep fighting the bad guy while he saves the civilians. In MOS HE didnt have that "luxury". He was fighting on his own against several beings that had power equal to his own. Batman v Superman DAWN of Justice was a gigantic blunder no matter the side you look at it. Not enough contrast between both characters and they diminished Superman every way they could. If Justice League did something right was to showcase Superman as the ultimate powerhouse. Of course he could beat the entire league if he were to let go his inhibitions. The League wasnt formed to defeat Superman or because they individually are as powerful as Superman. Its very reason to be is so they all together can defeat enemies too powerful for a single hero. Yes Superman can defeat Steppenwolf (the single character not his entire army) on his own just like he beaten Zod... But millions wouldve died if the League wasnt around. Without Cyborg there was no way of sepparating the motherboxes. Hell, MOS wouldve been a totally different movie with the Leagues involvement.
After watching BvS and Justice League I feel both movies couldve benefited from sprinkling each other with their respective attributes. The Phonevideo should have been shown in BvS alongside a more relaxed Superman to make contrast with the stiff Batman they were trying to sell us.

I completely agree with the bolded but I don't think most people sitting in a theater think about or care about that. Since it's all plotted and contrived to begin with, I think most people just look at the results which is unfortunate.

[Powerboy]

I also have a problem with all these receptions, because most of the time they describe movie as "fun". All these positive reviews of Thor Ragnarok, people saying it is the best Thor movie - all of that causes me a heart ache. Since when a super hero movie is suppose to be a comedy first of all? Since when laughter became the only emotion that super hero movies should cause in people?

In my opinion super hero movies can aspire to be something other than what society is expecting of them. When I was watching trilogies like Star Wars, Star Wars prequels, Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, all of these movies didn't think that I am a stupid person, that I can feel various kind of emotions throughout the movie, that everything doesn't need to be covered in comedy in order to feel hopeful, that movies can make you think about real life stuff, that movies can have a huge and deep lore for you to sink in, that pathos, epic and drama can be taken seriously. Man of Steel felt exactly like that, thanks to an entire Krypton prologue the movie makes you understand that this world is bigger than one Earth, that Superman comes from an entirely different place, that this world had its own history and culture, that Superman losing his birth home is a colossal tragedy, that Jor-El and Lara were actual characters who made a heart broken difficult decision to send their only son into space, Man of Steel was so rich with lore to explore and it was amazing. I want super hero movies to not be shy of being bigger, deeper and more thought provoking material. Comedy element can have a place, it exists in those trilogies I mentioned above as well, but it is never a centric element of these movies.

If Thor Ragnarok is what super hero movies are aspire to be in the future and what majority of Earth population thinks as a great super hero movie, I will abandon this genre. CBM is not a circus with clowns for kids. It can aspire to something greater. Super hero movies should be given an opportunity to drug protagonists through mud before they become butterflies, let me suffer with characters through tragedy before I can feel happy for their good ending, let me have an emotional farewell like Luke did while burning his father's body before allowing me to join their victory party.

In my humble opinion Superman's return would have felt so much more as an event of epic scale if he had an emotional coming back. If Kent farm scene happened the way it was described to be in Snyder's version, with Martha calling for her son like she did in MoS, with Clark having a closure with Jonathan's spirit, with him acknowledging his marriage to Lois that he sacrificed in BvS in order to save the world. If only Superman was allowed to collect all of his memories in a much more grandiose way, the finale would have been a lot more satisfying.

What I'm trying to say is that I wish people were more acceptive of the fact that super heroes movies can be done different, sometimes very different from the others of same genre. That it can be a father/daughter drama like Logan, that it can be political thriller like Winter Soldier, that it can be grounded sci-fi like Man of Steel, etc. You had Donner's Superman with Christopher Reeve, please allow Snyder's Superman with Cavill to be its own thing, it's just that sometimes people act as if like just because Snyder did his own Superman it is somehow means that Donner's Superman doesn't exist anymore, as if like he vanished and people can't go back and watch those movies again.

There is no formula for CBM, there is only freedom of artistic expression. Unfortunately Thor Ragnarok was turned into a weird mix of Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy, while completely ignoring the style, characterization and developments of the previous two movies just because people think of them as the weakest MCU movies. Dark fantasy really worked for Thor stylistically, it was such a shame that it was erased completely with Ragnarok alongside with the entire supporting cast of characters from previous movies. Why I bring Thor Ragnarok so much? Because I can't remember any other sequel to the series of movies that would be so drastically different and ignorant to everything that was before... and people loved it. It appears that public doesn't care about consistency at all.

I've just been rewatching the Spider-Man movies with Tobey Maguire, the first two. There is definitely a strong comedy element but it certainly does not rule the movies. In fact, Spider-Man 2, generally regarded as one of the best superhero movies ever made, has hardly any battles until the last half hour while the rest of the movie is character interaction and getting to the depth and heart of the character. Yet it is indeed one of the best ever made and, in spite of a lot of dark stuff and emotion, people mostly come out with a positive reaction, very positive.

Even most of the Marvel movies, if you toned down to one-liners a lot, there would still be a lot of depth there.

I think it's a combination of the Marvel movies generally taking the comedy to extremes and something about how the DC movies have been presented. I mean, MoS versus the first Raimi Spider-Man. Both lots of depth and characterization. Spider-Man a decent amount of comedy but not on the current MCU scale. Yet Spider-Man considered one of the best ever. MoS considered a totally depressing movie. As I said, it's got to be the tone. For most people, MoS just doesn't have them coming out of the theater with a feeling of hope or even that it gets better.

[Powerboy]

Please pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you might be conflating "fun" with "funny". Yes, the two *can* go together, but one doesn't have to equal the other. I can have a lot of fun and not really laugh. I can also laugh, but overall not have a good time.

That said, there is a big injection of humor in JL, and sometimes it feels decidedly forced. But the jokes aren't where I had fun. Reveling in the characters' respective powers and their control of them was fun. Seeing Superman really get to let loose without the narrative compromising him or holding him down was a LOT of fun.

I get what you're saying, though - a more serious superhero movie that make the audience think should be possible. It absolutely is, I agree. But when that's the goal, it has to be just right or the desired effect won't be made: it'll either piss them off or leave them with no reason to care. For a least a portion of those who saw MoS and BvS, clearly, that was the case. And unless they really want to, it's hard to get someone to think how "you" (the "you" in this case being the studio or whoever) want them to after "you've" pissed them off.

As much as I complain about MoS and BvS, I can see a lot of what they were going for. And there are some good, even great, themes and ideas in there. But the execution leaves me cold enough that I don't get into what they want me to experience. If that makes any sense.

It's not like a Marvel movie had never failed either. Though it was not part of the MCU, "Hulk" was one of the best movies they did and it gets almost nothing but ridicule. We get a story that goes deeply into the psyche of the character, that gives us an introverted Bruce Banner that really is Bruce Banner, the most true to the comic book character done in live action and people don't like it because he's not "relatable". Right, because a deeply troubled introvert is supposed to be relatable. But then we get a Bruce Banner who is a joke machine and has an extroverted wise-cracking personality that is not the least bit true to the character (Bill Bixby's version, that never claimed to be really the comic character, was closer) and "Oh, he's the best Banner eva." But Marvel sadly learned from it and added loads of fluff after that. The sad truth may be that DC is learning the same lesson. But, even with "Hulk" I think it could have worked with a somewhat different overall tone and/ or a huge, long physical battle at the end.

[GreatKungLao]

Please pardon me if I'm wrong, but I think you might be conflating "fun" with "funny".

It might be just that, but it comes from a place that everytime a comparison comes up between DCEU and MCU, most of the time people and critics mention how Marvel has a great sense of humor, that you can laugh during their movies so much and how MCU doesn't take itself that serious as DC does. So everytime somebody doesn't like DCEU movie, I instinctively assume it is because they didn't laughed their asses off throughout the entire movie, because this is exactly what people do during MCU movies and I've seen all of them at theatres so far. Of course there are exceptions like Winder Soldier and Civil War, but we are talking about 9 times out of 10 kind of thing. Should I even mention how Iron Man 3 handled Mandarin? Jesus Christ, that was embarassing.

[manofsteel1979]

It might be just that, but it comes from a place that everytime a comparison comes up between DCEU and MCU, most of the time people and critics mention how Marvel has a great sense of humor, that you can laugh during their movies so much and how MCU doesn't take itself that serious as DC does. So everytime somebody doesn't like DCEU movie, I instinctively assume it is because they didn't laughed their asses off throughout the entire movie, because this is exactly what people do during MCU movies and I've seen all of them at theatres so far. Of course there are exceptions like Winder Soldier and Civil War, but we are talking about 9 times out of 10 kind of thing. Should I even mention how Iron Man 3 handled Mandarin? Jesus Christ, that was embarassing.

I was actually one of the few people that liked the Mandarin twist at the time, but I'm not nearly as invested in Marvel's lore as I am DC's so I understand the anger.

Anyways, the only time I have really seen the " laughing their asses off" thing was Ragnarok. I've never quite agreed with a lot of the accusations that all Marvel films were the Same and had degenerated into comedies UNTIL Ragnarok. It kinda opened my eyes to the fact the overall direction of Marvel's movies have to make them more and more " crowd pleasing" rather than making each movie appropriate to the tone of the character and source material, and it really has made me look at Marvel's films in a less flattering way. Ragnarok was the moment Marvel jumped the shark with me. I'm okay with some of these movies being comedic, but my fear is that the lesson Marvel learns from Ragnarok is " Moar funny!" And we get crap like more dumb bathroom humor like we got in Ragnarok for the sake of easy yuks. I have been joking that Avengers 4 ends with Thanos and the Avengers facing off in a fart battle. At this point I'm convinced that if Disney thinks that'll make them the most money , they'll do exactly that and to hell with the dignity of those characters.

After JL and Ragnarok, I think both Marvel AND DC are in perilous waters. Marvel's doing very well financially no doubt, but if they aren't careful they will press their luck too much and start turning people off and they could bring down the genre with it. I was glad in many ways DC could provide a balance with an ultraserious tone, but JL shows that their loosening up, which on its own isn't necessarily bad, is bad for this genre with Marvel slowly going in the comedy over all direction.

It's been a great time to be a comic fan with all of these shows and movies...But I'm worried for the future.

[Last Son of Krypton]

Ready for a rematch...

[Soubhagya]

Ready for a rematch...

Well there was a rematch. It did not go down well for one of the two. This time something was definitely bleeding.