Do you think it would be a good idea for Disney to buy DC?

[Coin Biter]

Believe it or not, Days of Future Past is not a huge creative achievement and its approach is not radically different from Marvel movies - if Marvel movies are synonymous with "Avengers". Some of the most interesting points in First Class (as it always happens, when a franchise is dying the directors have a bit more creative freedom than usual, and in fact FC is more interesting than most superhero movies nowadays) are watered down in DOFP (and at least one of the most interesting character in FC - The Beast - is pretty useless in DOFP).

The Nolan trilogy was, in fact, a well-deserved success even from a creative standpoint. But this happened mainly because Nolan is a very talented director and when he made his movies the superhero genre wasn't as strongly codified as it is now. This allowed him to make a movie like the Dark Knight (which was screened just some time after Iron Man 1 if I remember it well, that is a long time ago), which is probably a once in a lifetime achievement, since it is basically a relatively sober noir movie where the main character is the villain and it incidentally includes superheroes, too.

Deadpool is the exception that proves the rule; in a market which is entirely dominated by a certain type of movies, when a film attempts some politically uncorrect moves (and satirizes superheroes, too), it stands out. Hopefully the same will happen with Suicide Squad - which is not a strictly superhero movie, by the way.

Batman v Superman has several issues - mainly concerning the editing and the pacing - but a lot of criticism comes from the fact that adding dark overtones to a movie which includes Superman is prejudicially considered wrong. If I remember it well, Leonard Maltin's review is rather revelatory in this concern. As for the future movies, we'll see - maybe WB will be able to propose an alternative way to create superhero movies and Disney films will lose influence, but I personally think that at one point both the companies will make movies focused on stronger and stronger artistic compromises and the tones will become almost indistinguishable (the same thing happened in the comic books, by the way - more or less).

IMHO We will have a Nolan-level director on a superhero movie only when the genre will begin to fade. I don't think that it will happen for the next 5-6 years (at the least), and in the meanwhile franchises based on brand new mythologies will be harder and harder to find. Personally speaking, the only high-budget movie which I have some hope in is the next Blade Runner because the director is an extremely talented guy... And that's a sequel, too.

It's well argued, but you haven't provided any examples except the Snyder films.

It's true that WB/DC may be less inclined to give a director as much creative control in the future as Snyder has had, but that's down to the disappointing critical reception to what were, most critics agree, flawed films. It is also true that criticism was made of the dark tone - but as you yourself have remarked, the films included Superman. Rightly or wrongly, many Superman fans do not feel a film with Superman should have those overtones - not all, but many. I entirely accept this - but it's little to do with Disney, and everything to do with Superman. The kind of impassioned debate that we used to see about Man of Steel on these boards tended to range everywhere from pre-crisis Superman, to the Byrne reinvention, to All-Star Superman, and rarely if ever referenced Disney films. "Dark" X-Men films do not receive that kind of criticism, because it's a different kind of franchise.

DoFP wasn't a particularly innovative film, I agree. It proceeded in the template of X-Men 1 and 2 - which were made years before the current tranche of Disney and Marvel films. They were made by Bryan Singer, who had plenty of creative control and was an acclaimed director in his own right, and those films were groundbreaking when made.

As far as the future films are concerned, we'll see. WB may make some conservative choices - or they may not. Tim Burton wasn't a conservative choice in 1989. Nolan wasn't a conservative choice when he was appointed. Nor was Snyder.

In short, you're building a lot of assumptions on the fact that a negative reaction was given to M of Steel and Batman vs Superman.

Back on topic, I think everyone would agree that Disney taking over DC is an impossibility and would be undesirable even if it were possible

[Coin Biter]

By the way, now that I think about it: if Disney really bought WB, there would be a way to strongly differentiate DC movies from Marvel movies. That is, if DC adaptations became animated feature films.

Personally speaking, I'd surely give a chance to such approach - with some notable exceptions, in the US market there aren't notable animated movies these days (at least, from a creative standpoint) and I am cautiously optimistic about the animated Spider-man movie which will come out in 2018.

It's an interesting idea. Watchmen should have been an animated movie, for example - although I'd rather have had it as an animated series (both of these are commercial impossibilities I suppose but I don't know anything about the animated film market ).

[mace11]

Let's be honest, Disney has been known to buy whatever franchise we like. First Marvel and then Star Wars. In both cases there were pros and cons to them buying them. First they bought Marvel which did wonders for the movie's but ruined their TV shows quality and even force them to have the comics represent the movies. Then Disney bought Star Wars and again, it did wonders for the movies, but they canceled the Clone Wars show and even worse, they ret coned the Expanded Universe. However it would be cool to have Marvel and DC merge.

Do you think it would be a good idea?

Well for live marvel tv shows or shows like netflix etc..,nothing was ruined,in fact the quality is better now.The shows you talking about has to be the cartoons.Now that's true,the quality has gone down on average,but they are still good shows and i like them.

[Carabas]

I don't think Disney would actually be interested in buying DC, if it actually were for sale.

They spent 8 billion on Star Wars and Marvel Studios, and I think they're stretched pretty thin. There's only so much movies you can make in a year, and they have the demographic DC appeals to pretty much nailed down with Star Wars and Marvel anyway.

[mace11]

Here something i was reading that's interesting.

Marvel vs DC: Adaptation vs Reinterpretation


byDennisReynolds
I briefly touched on this in another thread, but I thought it deserved it's own discussion. Now, what I am about to lay out shouldn't be taken as 100% gospel, but I do think it highlights a general difference between how Marvel approaches things and how DC approaches things. First, let's define our terms.

Adaptation: Tweaking the source material to make it work in a cinematic context.
Reinterpretation: Taking the idea behind someone or something and introducing it in a cinematic context as if it was a new concept.

I'll provide some examples. With someone like Captain America, Marvel basically just tweaked the source material to make him work in a modern cinematic context. With Superman, DC took the idea of an alien who was sent to Earth to be a symbol of hope for humanity and presented that story in a more realistic cinematic context. The former is interested in staying "true" to the comics.

The latter is interested in trying something new. And I'm not saying one is better than the other. Just two different approaches.

We can say the same thing about Lex Luthor (regardless of whether you liked the interpretation or not -- it's beside the point). Jesse's version of Lex CLEARLY has some major differences with his comic book counterpart. But the idea behind the character is the same. "What would Lex Luthor be if he was introduced in today's world?" That's what they were trying to answer. He's a young tech genius who has problems with those who have power.

Devin Faraci says that MoS is a "good movie," but a "bad Superman movie." How can this be? This is true for him because he's contrasting the source material with the movie instead of contrasting the idea behind the character with the movie. Another poster here said something along the same lines.

To appreciate what DC is doing, you kinda have to "forget" that these characters originate in a comic book. Some people are more willing to do that than others. While they do things that are VERY different from how they were done in the comics, I think they succeed in capturing the IDEAS behind these characters.


They're just putting them in brand new contexts as if they didn't originate in a more lighthearted comic book context. They're trying something new. And I won't fault them for that.

All that said, I understand why Marvel's approach is more popular. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There's something to be said for that. And in fact, I do think DC needs to take a page out of their book. They should start appreciating the source material more and start incorporating it into their movies. They need more crowd-pleasers if they want this universe to survive.



Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) : Marvel vs DC: Adaptation vs Reinterpret...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/...&p=1#256168794

[mace11]

And this-

by Furious_Styles77
Marvel and DC target the exact same audience, although lately im doubting that with DC, they seem to be targeting an audience of deluded angry 13 year old children that want to be adult




by dteam6
Reality check: a story about people who dress up in costumes and fight crime is not "mature, adult" fare. You can keep lying to yourself with your "DC films are for mature adults" rhetoric all you'd like but, at the end of the day, they are movies (just like Marvel) about a bunch of grown men and women putting on ridiculous-looking costumes and fighting bad guys. There is nothing artful, intelligent or "deep" about any of it.

The only difference between MCU films and DCCU films is that, unlike DCCU, MCU is fully aware of that fact and just rides with it. The result? A far less pretentious product that is self aware of what it is and doesn't live under the pretense that superheroes are "deep and intelligent".
And box office, critical/audience reception has more than backed that fact up.

And that, right there, is why this DCCU is failing in every way: this pretentious notion that superheroes are deep, intelligent and "mature". The general audiences (the only ones who count at the end of the day) sure don't share that sentiment and that is more than evidence in the alarming difference of box office between many MCU films as opposed to DCCU films. Even Nolan's film managed to be just self-aware enough to understand that a certain levity is needed and that you can only take a superhero film so seriously.

So, push on with your "Marvel is for children" rhetoric--you and others have for years and all it's gotten you was two turds in the toilet and a massive, overwhelming opinion that DCCU is, so far, inferior to the MCU.

And I guarantee that, as long as DCCU maintains this idea that "Superheroes are dark, deep and mature" they will continue to flounder in the face of box office, public and critical reception. Why? Because most people don't go to see a superhero movie to satisfy their craving for a "deep, intelligent movie"--they go see superhero films to have fun. Only a small percentage of people hold your mindset and that's the mindset that is going to keep your DCCU on its knees and will, ultimately, cause it to fail. Why? Because of what I just said--most people don't go to the theaters to watch a superhero movie for its "art" and "intelligence"...they go to have fun.


And, in a fit of irony, many people find the MCU films to be far more intelligent than the DCCU films if you just listen to critical and audience reviews. The themes are readily apparent and understood.

They are, ironically, the same themes that the DCCU films have--the only difference is the MCU films present them in a practical way because they are, after all, practical and easy to understand themes.

Just because the DCCU decides to stretch these simple themes out into long character monologue scenes with dramatic music doesn't meant that they are somehow "more intelligent"...and that's why many people are thumbing their noses at the DCCU: it's insulting BS that tries to act as if it's deep and intelligent when, in reality, they're just pretentious superhero movies.

Disagree with me all you'd like--every consensus in the book would indicate that I'm 100% correct.



by terry_hurley
I enjoyed your post, but I would add a little caveat. What Marvel do so well, and, imo , Pixar, is to make the films operate on different layers. Yeah, I know it's a cliche, but it's a cliché for a reason.

So, Pixar/Marvel make their films, primarily for all ages. Kids, obviously, and adults. First of all, they try to tell a story , with engaging characters. Then, what I think that both companies do (Pixar, more succefully , ironically enough), is to put other stuff in the film, that if you miss, it doesn't really matter, but if you catch it then it's another thing to enjoy within the movie.

So, with Winter Soldier, you get great characters , and an engaging story, but, if you want to, you can also get obvious issues of trust with authority .

The nature of plain good and evil. The fact that we are, for all intense and purposes , being watched all the time. Are these themes new? No, but the fact that it is in a superhero movie, makes the film, just a bit more interesting to me.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/.../256060531?p=1

[Carabas]

Let's be honest, Disney has been known to buy whatever franchise we like. First Marvel and then Star Wars. In both cases there were pros and cons to them buying them. First they bought Marvel which did wonders for the movie's but ruined their TV shows quality and even force them to have the comics represent the movies. Then Disney bought Star Wars and again, it did wonders for the movies, but they canceled the Clone Wars show and even worse, they ret coned the Expanded Universe. However it would be cool to have Marvel and DC merge.

Do you think it would be a good idea?

Okay, ehm, what Marvel tv shows? Blade?

And yeah, they canceled Clone Wars, but started Rebels, which I think is a lot better. It's lose/win.

And lets be serious here about the Star Wars expanded universe. If Disney hadn't bought Lucasfilm, and George Lucas himself would have made Episode VII, he'd still have nuked the EU, because nobody is going to make a new multi-million dollar trilogy of movies that is beholden to 16 years of intricate continuity that the incredibly vast majority of your audience are not aware of and don't care about.

[Myskin]

"Dark" X-Men films do not receive that sort of criticism.

That's because they are not really dark. They are basically sci-fi multi-character movies which include some heroes who are 100% good and some heroes who are flawed. The most debatable moral choices which ever appeared in an X-men movies are included in just one film, and that's First Class. In X-Men 1 and 2, Magneto was a one-note villain; the reason for those movies to become groundbreaking (at the time) mainly depend on their being the first superhero movies focused on a squad of characters, and whose aesthetic approach was rather different than most comics adaptations up to that point. Aside from that, they are pretty dated (especially X-Men 1, whose script was basically a rearranging of an old F4 script).

Aside from that, what I am really interested in is creativity and how much a director is able to express his/her own vision, and from this standpoint Disney movies are simply something which I really don't want to see - and I would think the same even if Disney had bought DC or Valiant and Russo Brothers had just directed a Superman movie or a Shadowman movie with a Disney-like approach. They don't make any really daring choice, but they give to the viewers a vague impression that they, in fact, did. From this point of view, Winter Soldier is a perfect example - most of the people who saw it had the impression that the movie was about Cap America and the darkest sides of US politics, but in fact it's a Cap vs Hydra movie. At this point I think that, as long as the current Disney approach will last (that is, for several years to come) they won't do any creatively groundbreaking movie, and they will keep on monopolizing lots of cinemas without producing something which I may find really remarkable. Someone could say that it's not a major studio's duty to create something original, but I disagree: I still consider cinema a form of art and I think that a studio should even promote creativity, whenever possible. Disney simply doesn't give space to directors with an original vision. From this point of view, the sacking of Edgar Wright on Ant-Man is unforgivable as far as I am concerned; and I am fairly sure that, if George Miller had worked for Disney studios, Fury Road would have never been made.

With all its problems (but I think that they are fewer than most people seem to think, and a great deal of the original reception depended on prejudice about the place of the Superman character within the superhero lore) I think that, all in all, Man of Steel included some of the most daring choices in a recent superhero movies and it is entirely possible in some years the movie will still have something interesting to say about our perception of higher powers and our life in a 9/11 world, while I don't think that The Avengers or Age of Ultron will have much to be remembered for. Or maybe even MOS will be forgotten, who knows. At this point, however, it should be clear that I am against Disney movies more than I am favourable to DC movies.

[mace11]

Marvel - the Safe Route (to mediocrity?)


by chriskunselman
As much as I enjoy Marvel's movies and their lighter tone, I have to admit their's something a bit noble about these DC movies. Noble failures? Maybe, but it shows some courage to go against fan expectations like this. Marvel's movies are really fun (some of them at least) but they've yet to do anything really risky. "With great risk comes great reward." --T.Jefferson. Of course there's also the very real possibility you'll melt the wax and fall into the sea.




by eliduhh1
i think for me what works about marvel is their love and care for their characters. they could throw all the ridiculous and overplayed premise all they want but what keeps me and i think for everyone coming back is how emotionally invested you are in these characters and their relationships to each other.
also about risk, come visit the civil war board in 2 months and you'll have probably the biggest risk in the MCU.
(also if you want something more dark,gritty and something with different ideas, the netflix stuff is A+ and has amazing villains and deals with dark sh!t.)




by espinosaca
The very foundation of the MCU disproves your idea. When the MCU started with Iron Man, no one had done a comic book hero like that before, and it was very open to failure. The fact that it succeeded and the vast majority of their follow on work continued to succeed, showed that the risk they took gave them a great reward.

DC on the other hand is the company that is trying to play it safe. Instead of investing in something great, they've consistently done stand alone movies or single hero movies.
And now with Marvel's proven approach showing them that a fully involved universe works, DC is forced to play catch up. And unfortunately DC is trying to rush it.




by DeusExKatrina
You talk of risk? Guardians of the *beep* Galaxy was a risk. Inventing the rulebook for a cinematic universe out of a bunch of C-list characters was a risk.
Doing a TV-MA show on Netflix out of a borderline-PG franchise was a risk. Giving Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, and Luke Cage their own shows is a risk. Making Wilson Fisk a relatable villain and dialing up Kilgrave's rape factor to 11 was a risk.

Me, personally, do I like the MCU jokey style? No, I don't. They have a couple transcendental films (and an amazing universe on Netflix) but most of the films are background noise to me. Still, my personal opinion isn't going to make me overlook practical facts -- Marvel Studios earned their success through sheer gumpshun. They took a huge, huge risk and it paid off. It could have just as easily crashed and burned. It was more likely to fail than succeed.


Batman v. Superman is the least risky film of the year. They took Marvel's shared universe formula, Nolan's dark and gritty style, and mashed together three or four of the best comicbook storylines. It's the film that a bunch of clueless suits in a boardroom would have made. They literally thought just throwing Batman and Superman in a movie together guaranteed success.



I would rather watch a Batman movie than an Iron Man movie any day. I'd rather watch a Green Arrow show than a Daredevil show any day. I like Batman and Green Arrow more. DC has one of the richest rosters of characters in the history not just of comicbooks, but of fiction. And yet I can't help it that Marvel's movies are more inventive, and their shows are better wrot. I can't help it that Batman v. Superman promised depth and instead it gave us a generic action film.


I don't want that to be the way the world is. I want to dial the clock back, I want to see HBO do TV shows for The Joker and Lex Luthor circa 2010. I want to see Nolan handle the DCCU. But that's not the way the world works. I can't help the fact that BVS is a mess. A noble failure? I would love a noble failure. I dream and crave of a noble failure from DC. I would love to see DC take a single god damn risk. Because the last risk they took was giving their biggest superhero to an out of left field auteur like Chris Nolan. And it was the best decision anyone ever made in comicbook film history. It's just a shame that's the last risk WB has taken with their properties.




by chriskunselman
While I agree w/your assessment of financial risk to Marvel on the road to Avengers, it really wasn't the point i was trying to make. Using the formula they've utilized for most of the films they've produced was what decreased their 'risk' artistically. If you notice how furious the activity and debate is on these boards and how divisive this movie (B v S) is, I actually believe that's a good thing in a way. A safe movie wouldn't be this polarizing, this arguable, it's heady to me. That's artistic "risk", and as an artist myself I appreciate that.




by espinosaca
There are always going to be elements shared across all superhero movies. In terms of that particular criticism, I have to say I haven't seen it that much. I just feel like BvS is a step back in the direction of the old Daredevil movie.




by chriskunselman
I'm too tired to respond to all this tonight (it's 2am here), and that was quite a heartfelt and expressive rant, but I will just say I was definitely including the Nolan movies in my comment. You're disappointed with the movie, I get it. More later, cause some of your thoughts deserve serious attention. Cheers.

"Guardians of the *beep* Galaxy was a risk. Inventing the rulebook for a cinematic universe out of a bunch of C-list characters was a risk." This part of your rant here right in the beginning, I would love for you to expound on this in particular.


I was very surprised when I heard Marvel was doing Guardians, you're right C-list, hell some casual comic readers probably had no idea who they were. So in that respect, definitely a financial risk, as there wasn't a large built-in fanbase. What you might be neglecting to mention is the overall game plan for said "universe", the obvious set up for "Infinity Gauntlet". But that's neither here nor there, I want you to explain this "rulebook for a cinematic universe" that they "invented" in more detail, your thoughts on it.


I found the story and fleshing out of that "universe" anemic and glossed and the story formulaic (and yet having those "flaws, I still rather enjoyed it. sometimes formulas work for me).
I can't go on with this, it's late and I have to work in like 3 hours. More tomorrow. I love intelligent debate, as long as it stays classy.



quote-
Marvel's movies are really fun (some of them at least) but they've yet to do anything really risky.
by impaler69
Filming a series of superhero origin stories building up to one big movie that features all of them was a massive risk. And some of those superheroes were thought to be unfilmable. People had doubts about whether a convincing Thor movie was possible. Never mind heroes like Ant-Man or the Guardians of the Galaxy. Investing hundreds of millions of dollars to committing those to film is already a huge risk.



by chriskunselman
You're missing my point here. Marvel's taken financial risks, I'm not arguing that, but they also gave the general public (who aren't familiar w/these characters in their own element) exactly what those less demanding viewers would expect from comic book heroes. Not across the board certainly, I've heard their Netflix content is much more thematically nuanced, I haven't really checked it out yet.




by DeusExKatrina
I can see how those two things blended together there. I should have been more specific, they were intended as two separate examples. GOTG are like Z-grade characters, giving them a movie was pretty ballsy. Starting the universe around C-Listers is in reference to The Avengers themselves.


Marvel Studios didn't have Wolverine, they didn't have Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, they didn't have Magneto, Galactus, Doc Ock, basically they didn't have ANY of Marvel's most recognizable characters. The biggest name they had -- The Hulk, his movie bombed. And they had the balls to take a bunch of characters ranging from B (Cap) to C (Iron Man) to D list (Thor) and turn that into literally the biggest franchise of all-time (which is only true because they release several films a year whereas since the dawn of cinema it's taken many years for a franchise to put out films, but still technically it's the biggest franchise).


And while The Avengers isn't the first time there's ever been a shard universe in a film franchise, they inarguably not only popularized the format, but wrote the rulebook on how it's being done both by DC and by half a dozen other studios right now, with everyone racing to make their own Avengers.


I think it's utterly amazing that I grew up with Wolverine and the F4 being Marvel's biggest characters and kids today will grow up with Groot and Loki instead. But that's more of an aside than a part of my actual argument, just a curio.


For more see below
Marvel - the Safe Route (to mediocrity?)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/.../255441780?p=1

[Myskin]

Mace11, could you please make the posts shorter? It's becoming really difficult to read.

[mace11]

GRITTY AND DARK TALK BELOW.



by
Lance
+Mark Rezk Have you ever even read the comics? Because it was completely the other way around.DC had the happy bright colored heroes who were perfect and always just came to save the day, while Marvel started taking it more seriously, creating relatable characters and dealing with real world themes and issues. Spider-Man, X-Men, Daredevil etc. After they achieved more success doing that, DC followed suit. There's a reason why Batman is called a Marvel character lost in the DC universe.


by
Alexander Kieler
marvel has better character development than dc though. i mean has batman or superman really changed with all of the pointless rebtoots they have had over te last 40 years

by
ahoward69911
+Noj776 Yeah but for me I never really understood that argument. Batman wasn't always dark. Before The Dark Knight Returns Batman was kind of fun and quirky like mostly every single comic book property but when The Dark Knight Returns came out it was revolutionized the comic book industry and I feel like from that point on people took that as well DC is serious and realistic and Marvel is not. Not all of DC's properties are serious. What about the Flash, I don't want a serious gritty Flash, I want a fun Flash. This may sound weird but I believe that even the Dark Knight series had parts of levity to it. Like the scene where Bruce is gonna turn himself in and he looks at Alfred and says that he's gonna tell them that it was all Alfred's idea. I kind of chuckled because it was a very serious and realistic take on Batman but I like how it didn't take it self too seriously and still realized that it was a comic book film. I hope that makes sense. I just hope Batman V Superman is serious but has instances where there's levity to it instead of me walking out all sad and depressed because it was too serious of a movie. There's other reasons I'm worried about this film because I liked Man of Steel but didn't LOVE IT so I'm curious how there gonna introduce all these characters and what this movie is. Shockingly enough I don't want a movie where it's all about Batman fighting Superman. I actually want some plot. I hope that makes sense and you see where I'm coming from.


by
Swordswoman
Dark doesn't automatically mean better or more adult. It's just the tone of a story. And one cannot label the Marvel cinimatic universe "childish" or "inconsequential" because it is not, the actions of superheroes in those movies do affect a lot of people and ripple throughout their universe. They have shown they can get serious when they want to with stories that touch upon politics, homeland security, and government corruption (Winter Soldier), and controversial use of technology (Iron Man). Marvel just has good enough writers, directors, and actors to make it wildly entertaining and fun at the same time.

by
ahoward69911
+Swordswoman Yeah I agree completely. I think the word "dark" should be referred to the context of the movie and the character. Like the Flash or Spider Man. Those character can't be as dark as a Captain America Winter Soldier or The Dark Knight. Sure those movies had instances of levity to them but had a very serious tone because of the premise of their movies. Joker wants to destroy Gotham and bring everyone down to his level and HYDRA has infiltrated Shield and wants to kill most of the people on his the planet and turn it into their own Nazi like Utopia. Those are pretty dark premises for a movie by two respectable studios. I think both Marvel and DC can have serious and gritty movies and have also have fun light hearted movies at the same time in the context of their characters and their Universes. Look at Avengers Age of Ultron. It looks like a dark movie and the stakes looks higher but it still looks like a fun movie.

[mace11]

Mace11, could you please make the posts shorter? It's becoming really difficult to read.

I will separate the comments more,but they are a must read.So take your time.
Alot of important views there.
Look back them now because i will separate the comments, so give me some time.

[mace11]

Why Marvel films have fared better than BvS (a thematic analysis)


By saturatebb3
Why Marvel films have fared better than BvS (a thematic analysis)
While conflict in the Marvel universe is not unheard of, it never has much of a greater significance.

This isn't a dig -- but, rather, a compliment. Marvel has mastered escapism at its finest: go to the movies, be concerned for the hero for a brief moment, laugh it off (remembering heroes never die), and walk out of the theater a man or woman in a better mood.
Contrarily, Man of Steel and BvS in particular have taken a different approach. The themes that these films tackle (especially BvS) are nonetheless very difficult (for some) to digest.

Some of these themes I can't even have a conversation with my mother about, let alone watch a (presumably fun -- this is erroneous btw) movie on: why does everything die, for what purpose should we live, is there really a purpose?, does God exist (if he does, is he all-powerful, or is he all-good), etc. etc. etc. Also, the film doesn't explicitly answer these questions, which is another thing Marvelites don't expect nor desire from their films.


Ask these questions to anyone in your office. 98% of those people will get extremely uncomfortable, insinuate that your thinking is too far beyond their capabilities, and begrudgingly go back to work, trying to forget the fact that they are indeed humans and will die and suffer and all that jazz.

The themes are there, the writing is there -- nobody wants to acknowledge it because it is not easily digested. BvS is the cinematic equivalent of lentils -- instead of taking the time to sprout the lentils and cook them, critics and haters have decided to say "fvck lentils" and eat their delicious, bacon-wrapped, juicy burgers on white bread.


By ozbridge
I think one of the reasons why MCU movies are well-liked is because they are different. They follow a formulaic script, yeah, but their genre are widely diverse; they don't belong to super hero genre, they are war movie, high fantasy, political thriller, heist, space opera, rom-com, soon there'll be psychological thriller and horror, which is refreshing. It's like what someone at the studio said (Feige I think) "They are not super hero movies. They're movies about super heroes." Meanwhile MoS and BvS (and a few MCU movies too) are generic super hero movies.

Why Marvel films have fared better than BvS (a thematic analysis)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/...&p=1#255471093

[nightrider]

Maybe 20th Century Fox will be interested in buying dc heroes at the cheapest prices.

Fox will spend top dollars on DC. In fact, they wanted to buy over Time Warner and offered them billions, time and again.

[mace11]

I posted this info another thread.I will post these facts here again in this thread.

Here is the marvel forumla
Mcu MARVEL formula


The mcu netflix shows-

by MamaLukuBuku
The formula works, and I will tell you why they shouldn't apply it to
future films: Tiers that offer something a little different for all
kinds of fans.

Tier 1: Films- Big budget, over the top, with a target audience of
kids. This is where the money comes from that makes the other 2 tiers
possible. They can juggle lighthearted and semi-serious here without
ruining their target audience.

Tier 2: TV- Agents of Shield and Agent Carter. Dramas that cater to an
older crowd, not necessarily meant for a younger audience. Fills in
gaps here and there for the movies. Shows a much bigger world of the
MCU.

Tier 3: Netflix- This is where Marvel can let loose in a no holds
barred grimy bloodbath for the adults. This is the "graphic novel"
section of the MCU. Super focused, and as real as it gets with street
level heroes.
3 different levels of the MCU for different kinds of fans. Of course
some fans will enjoy all 3 so they have the full MCU experience, but
what they are doing is perfect and they shouldn't change it.

By the way i see the mcu movies targeted for kids and adults
and they are more serious then some
folks think,more so the captain
america movies and hulk movie.

The mcu shows have stronger stories on average then the mcu movies


Keep in mind dc shows is lighter in tone then the marvel mcu shows and about the same tone as mcu films overall.In fact the mcu tone is closer to the early dc films like superman 1 and 2 overall.Of course marvel fox movies are darker in tone then the mcu but darker does not better.
This is what some else said about mcu and current dc.

Marvel movies have a tight script, lovable and interesting characters and a very relatable world and tone - it doesn't feel as foreign as the DCEU feels - which is strictly thematic in its design. So yes, Marvel might have a formula - but it works and each film is unique in its own right.

Justice league will be lighter in tone THEN bvs anyway and some of the other upcoming dc films.
Civil war will be the darkest mcu film so far.
No mcu movie and mcu tv show has a rotten on rt.
All are considered good to really good from critics and audiences depending on the scores you look at .