DC Extended Universe THREAD

[verslibre]

Love that shot. That's really Gal, too.

That shot is actually horrible. The shield is not large enough. It exposes her knees, which you can see sparks on her leg armor. It also exposes her mid-rift, due to how she is holding it. So, unless she has the skin of Superman, she should be ripped in half. And, towards the end, she is lifting the shield away, exposing even more of her body - WHILE SPARKS are still flying off her knees.

But, thankfully, I'm sure it is just "written that way."

The midriff is the area between the waist and chest. What's Wonder Woman's "mid-rift"? Did you just invent a word, Einstein? The millennials will love it.

Imagine that. The "shield is not large enough"...but "leg armor" protects her knees. HOW ABOUT THAT!!

Wonder Woman is one of those supernaturally-endowed characters. This film follows events in Diana's life 100 years before BvS (btw, did you ever watch it?), when she's discovering her power set. That's why she fights Doomsday and holds her own, in spite of not being a Kryptonian herself. A lot happened from 1916-2016. It's called storytelling.

And bitch all you want, but the DCEU's cinematography is clobbering the MCU's. Even some BvS haters I know have acknowledged that. I can't wait to see what Patty Jenkins has done. Marvel's loss is DC's gain. The Wonder Woman trailer's racked up over 16 million views since its debut on Saturday.

[YoungJRNYfan]

FUCK! v comes in all like "D-E-S-T-R-O-Y Monkerman!"

[verslibre]

I AM...NUKULAR* MAN!!!












*Misspelling intentional.

[RedWingFan]

So tell me...what "roads" did Marvel really pave?

Ummm. Weren't they the 1st to create a film universe that their hero's shared?

[YoungJRNYfan]

It's nothing they pioneered though and certainly not the first ever concept of doing such a thing. Marvel doesn't even have the rights to every one of their characters but we saw somewhat of a shared universe when it came to the X-Men and the multiple characters under that Sony umbrella so technically that concept with multiple characters on screen and the mythologies they share isn't new.

DC was working on a separate shared Justice League Universe with George Miller called Justice League: Mortal but with the writers strike, it fell apart mere days before filming in 2009. Nolan didn't want to do any shared universe stuff with his Dark Knight Trilogy and he was persistent with that so WB gave it a shot with Green Lantern and had to wait until Nolan was done with Batman (even Snyder had to go to Nolan to respectfully ask Nolan if it was all good to introduce Affleck's new Batman.)

Both companies were simultaneously trying to create a shared universe. One company was handcuffed and had a set-back with a failed movie and the other hit instant success. The wheel in the sky was always turning to get all these hero's together. Marvel had a much clearer path in doing it but it's not like all of a sudden WB finally opened their eyes. The Dark Knight set the market for films like Iron Man to get green lit and now, Marvel set the market with the direction of shared universe's. Nothing new how the flow in Hollywood works in cinema.

[Deb]

JL teaser just released. I'm dead.

DEB...Aquamoa is a badassmothertrucker!

That was the best possible way to introduce Arthur. That was poetry in motion. Momoa is going to shut everyone up pretty fast here.

Totally sold on Ezra as Flash. That was a great scene. Very smart of them to not show Steppenwolf. We did see Flash dodge a bolt of energy.

The Absolutely Epic Teaser Trailer For JUSTICE LEAGUE Has Arrived
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/justice_l ... ed-a143779

[RedWingFan]

One company was handcuffed and had a set-back with a failed movie and the other hit instant success.

It's kind of silly to compare an underwhelming GL movie To the position that Marvel was in which was bankruptcy. They had to sell off their 3 top properties to finance the vision they had to bring their Marvel universe to the big screen. They made a great IM film with the postcredits scene letting the audience know this is going to get much bigger.

DC failed to get into the black with GL and bailed on whatever they had planned. They failed to execute or follow through.

X-Men in no way a shared universe. All the characters are from that one book. Same with FF and Spider-Man.

[YoungJRNYfan]

To be clear, I wasn't comparing Green Lantern to Iron Man when it came to my "handcuffs" statement. WB/DC was handcuffed by Nolan's Batman closed universe when Marvel was way into their shared universe. You can't have a shared Justice League Universe without Batman, so they knew they needed to wait and then eventually introduce a new Batman to the masses.

Iron Man is still the best Marvel movie to date. After what Nolan's Batman brought to the screen as far as a grounded and darker superhero franchise rooted in realism, the timing was pitch perfect for what Marvel did with Iron Man. I applaud them for that.

I loved that first film and they didn't look back, though I would argue the movies and sequels that came after were half-assed and pro-longed set ups to the plan that became bigger with each films success.

That's not to say the movies that came forward weren't still in flux. The reemergence of Robert Downey Jr and the hit of Iron Man allowed them to swipe the mediocre Hulk franchise under the rug and start anew. A reboot inside a reboot of the same universe with one of their failed properties that nobody noticed.

Green Lantern didn't have the same fortune and the movie looked unfinished and a complete bomb to even move forward. There was nowhere for it to go, but DC didn't fold. They kept plugging, this time with Man of Steel. Though the film was divisive, it still had many plot points to the story that allowed them direction.

You blame WB/DC for not moving on with GL, but they are doing just that after MoS and BvS and not looking back. In the grand scheme of things in a post-Avengers world, that needs to be applauded because it's easier now to fold more than ever and start over. They chose not to in the face of heavy criticisms. They're only choosing to get better and make better films.

As for the X-Men, I was talking more about the concept of teammup movies within a franchise. Though the X-Men was one book, it allowed the audience to get immersed with a superhero team on the big screen teaming together. Though Marvel was the first to go through with a shared universe, the concept of a team of superhero's together on the big screen wasn't anything new and they weren't the first to think of it. DC/WB tried to resurrect a Superman vs Batman movie for years and tried to entertain a shared universe with Justice League: Mortal in 2009. Things just got in the way. Marvel had the path to do what they pleased, but that's not their fault, only their gain. Good for them and the fans. It's a business run on the market so when superhero movies are doing well, more are going to get made regardless of whether it's DC or Marvel.

[verslibre]

It's kind of silly to compare an underwhelming GL movie To the position that Marvel was in which was bankruptcy. They had to sell off their 3 top properties to finance the vision they had to bring their Marvel universe to the big screen. They made a great IM film with the postcredits scene letting the audience know this is going to get much bigger.

I don't know how many times I have to say this...the reason they sold off those film rights to Sony and Fox is BECAUSE they filed for Chapter 11. It had nothing to do with creating their film universe at the time. A simple search will remind you.

Marvel Entertainment Group said it filed the voluntary Chapter 11 petition to implement a proposed $525 million recapitalization plan to return the company to profitability.

That's from Lubbock. Here's another article at http://www.techtimes.com/articles/74172/20150805/your-guide-to-which-movie-studios-own-marvel-characters.htm —

Back in the 1990s, Marvel was not the media juggernaut we know today. Its first attempts at movie-making were over-the-top campy affairs, like 1989 TV movie The Trial of the Incredible Hulk and Roger Corman-produced 1994 feature film The Fantastic Four. With its comic book and trading card sales in decline, Marvel was on the brink of financial ruin, and the company filed for bankruptcy in late 1996.

Around this time, Marvel made a series of licensing deals that gave the movie rights for some of its most famous characters to various studios, such as Fox. Because of Marvel's financial situation, these studios kind of had the upper hand — and as a result, Marvel only received about 5 percent of the revenue from the films that featured its licensed characters, according to The Wall Street Journal.

With the success of Fox's X-Men in 2000 and Sony's Spider-Man in 2002, Marvel would soon realize that movies featuring its superheroes can be big business. In 2005, Marvel set up a credit facility for $525 million to start producing its own films.

Got it? Look, we're all fans here. I grew up reading both publishers. I've seen all these movies in the theater. But you don't get to move the goalposts. Iron Man came out in 2008, which is 30 years after Superman. That's just a fact. Batman was a smash success in 1989. That's just a fact. Sony's Spider-Man was huge. That's just a fact. Iron Man — and hence, the MCU — is a natural reaction, and it was a total gamble . Remember, they didn't even want Downey to play Stark. Favreau fought to get him the role. Downey was not A-list at the time. That's just a fact.

DC failed to get into the black with GL and bailed on whatever they had planned. They failed to execute or follow through.

Thanks for informing us Green Lantern did not set the world on fire. We really had no idea...said no one ever.

X-Men in no way a shared universe. All the characters are from that one book. Same with FF and Spider-Man.

The characters in the various X-films have appeared in a range of titles that include Uncanny X-Men, X-Men (the 1990 reboot), X-Force, and New Mutants. Warpath, who you saw in Days of Future Past, first appeared in New Mutants #16 in 1984. He's the younger brother of Thunderbird, who first appeared in Giant-Size X-Men #1 in 1975.

[verslibre]

That's not to say the movies that came forward weren't still in flux. The reemergence of Robert Downey Jr and the hit of Iron Man allowed them to swipe the mediocre Hulk franchise under the rug and start anew. A reboot inside a reboot of the same universe with one of their failed properties that nobody noticed.

Ang Lee's Hulk is such a horrifically bad movie, I can't even sit through it. Incredible Hulk's an improvement, but Marvel still won't do another standalone Hulk film because they'd have to share a percentage with Universal. Hence, Thor: Ragnarok is going to partly be a Planet Hulk film, and I'm not sure how well that's going to work out. But it's bound to be better than that piece of shit Dark World, right?

As for the X-Men, I was talking more about the concept of teammup movies within a franchise. Though the X-Men was one book, it allowed the audience to get immersed with a superhero team on the big screen teaming together. Though Marvel was the first to go through with a shared universe, the concept of a team of superhero's together on the big screen wasn't anything new and they weren't the first to think of it. DC/WB tried to resurrect a Superman vs Batman movie for years and tried to entertain a shared universe with Justice League: Mortal in 2009. Things just got in the way. Marvel had the path to do what they pleased, but that's not their fault, only their gain. Good for them and the fans. It's a business run on the market so when superhero movies are doing well, more are going to get made regardless of whether it's DC or Marvel.

Nonsense! Marvel invented the CBM in 2008. Nothing existed before that!

Seriously, everything you say is gospel, Brother Travis. The X-Men was a team from the get-go, as it should be, and nobody had a problem with that. Not every character's origin was automatically put out there at the beginning, and nobody had a problem with that. Those movies became "Wolverine and the Mutants!" and most people didn't seem to have a problem with it.

Batman AND Superman AND Wonder Woman, in ONE movie??!! Overstuffed!!

[RedWingFan]

...

[RedWingFan]

Nonsense! Marvel invented the CBM in 2008. Nothing existed before that!

Look Dickhead, you asked Monker what new ground Marvel broke and I stated that they were first to successfully execute a shared universe of their heros. Which is a fact. The fact that X-Men originated in different titled X-Men books doesn't matter. By that logic, you could say the same about the first Spider-Man flick. It's a shared universe because Spidey appeared in Amazing, Spectacular, and Web of... titles. That's retarded.

[RedWingFan]

As for the X-Men, I was talking more about the concept of teammup movies within a franchise. Though the X-Men was one book, it allowed the audience to get immersed with a superhero team on the big screen teaming together. Though Marvel was the first to go through with a shared universe, the concept of a team of superhero's together on the big screen wasn't anything new and they weren't the first to think of it. DC/WB tried to resurrect a Superman vs Batman movie for years and tried to entertain a shared universe with Justice League: Mortal in 2009. Things just got in the way. Marvel had the path to do what they pleased, but that's not their fault, only their gain. Good for them and the fans. It's a business run on the market so when superhero movies are doing well, more are going to get made regardless of whether it's DC or Marvel.

Gotcha. I really liked the JL trailer. Just not letting them get my hopes up again. Superman Returns had probably my favorite teaser trailer ever and sucked, MOS and BvS also got me psyched. They all failed to deliver big time. I'm not even going to see SS in theaters. I'm sure I'll be there for JL eventually though.

[verslibre]

Nonsense! Marvel invented the CBM in 2008. Nothing existed before that!

Look Dickhead, you asked Monker what new ground Marvel broke and I stated that they were first to successfully execute a shared universe of their heros. Which is a fact. The fact that X-Men originated in different titled X-Men books doesn't matter. By that logic, you could say the same about the first Spider-Man flick. It's a shared universe because Spidey appeared in Amazing, Spectacular, and Web of... titles. That's retarded.

No, MacSharty, the titles I referenced all focused on DIFFERENT characters. Hence the examples.

Amazing/Spectacular/Sensational/Web of... (etc.) all focused on ONE character.

You must be pissed off about that bankruptcy stuff. Marvel got over it. LOL.

[verslibre]

Now this is something.

Batman: The Killing Joke played on 1325 screens on Monday. A one-night event. It comes out on video next.

It came in #3 with $3.175 million, right behind Star Trek Beyond and The Secret Life of Pets!

[YoungJRNYfan]

Gotcha. I really liked the JL trailer.

I was shocked Snyder showed footage. I would have been happily content with the official photo of the Justice League assembled. They've only been shooting for 2 months on Justice League and they even showed unfinished Cyborg CGI. That right there tells us they are listening and trying to please all types of fans, even the ones who have a sour taste in their mouth thus far. It takes humbleness to show something this early (let alone something FUN.)

I'm not even going to see SS in theaters. I'm sure I'll be there for JL eventually though.

BvS had bad press from the start and the majority of the hype was never contained so it's interesting to me that a movie goer such as yourself who has a bad taste with the DCEU would get hyped for BvS when it wasn't going to be that much different than what Snyder pulled off with Man of Steel. If anything, Suicide Squad is the Joker card (pun-intended) with the DCEU because this is the first time we are seeing a DCEU film not directed by Zack Snyder and the aesthetic he brings to the movies. SSQuad has a fun premise attached to it and is different judging by a team of villains as leads. If I had to guess, SSquad would be more to your liking than Batman V Superman ever would have been. Hope you change your mind. It could surprise you this time.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Now this is something.

Batman: The Killing Joke played on 1325 screens on Monday. A one-night event. It comes out on video next.

It came in #3 with $3.175 million, right behind Star Trek Beyond and The Secret Life of Pets!

Saw this headline in the morning. It's just insane! DC has an unbelievable stable of Animated films that are highly successful. The Killing Joke though takes it up a notch. I'm not usually one to run out and get Animated films the first day of release, but the Killing Joke automatically calls for it.

[Monker]

Imagine that. The "shield is not large enough"...but "leg armor" protects her knees. HOW ABOUT THAT!!

My point is that you can see sparks from shots hitting her leg armor, because he shield is not protecting her fully. She holds it high to protect her head and upper chest. But, everything lower is exposed - especially towards the end of the shot where she is moving the shield away - and as it is away you can still see sparks on her leg armor. So, she should be ripped in half by all of that fire power - unless her skin is bullet proof.

It's a BADLY FILMED SHOT.

Wonder Woman is one of those supernaturally-endowed characters.

Unless one of her superpowers is bullet proof skin, she should be ripped in half.

This film follows events in Diana's life 100 years before BvS

Yep, and the preview has scenes that look very much like the first CA movie.

And bitch all you want, but the DCEU's cinematography is clobbering the MCU's.

That's just bullshit. MoS had old-school shaky camera bullshit that was started on TV with the BSG remake, and continued in JJ's Star Trek reboot. It was nothing special...and in fact was less than average to me. BvS had more up to date SFX but the cinematography was not all that special...it is definitely not clobbering anything, including things like X-Men or even Deadpool, if I had seen it I would probably say it didn't even "clobber" the last Fantastic Four movie. It's good but not THAT good.

I can't wait to see what Patty Jenkins has done. Marvel's loss is DC's gain.

I don't think Marvel really lost anything....and I think it is a long way away from proving DC gained anything. Some of the bits in the trailer have the 300 style slow motion fight scenes, which is also old school and annoying.

This is also a typical hero origin story....So, you all should be barfing that it is formulistic and following the Hero's Journey, just as the Phase 1 Marvel films did. But, you two have proven to be so hypocritical, that you won't even mention how predictable will be.

The Wonder Woman trailer's racked up over 16 million views since its debut on Saturday.

And, BvS had a lot more and that movie sucked. Hits on trailers mean absolutely nothing.

[Monker]

Lets not go that far. You don't cast Jason Momoa to go into a camp-like Avengers direction. It's just not going to happen.

Oh, please...you don't think his time in SG:A has enough clips of Momoa's attempts of humor? Also, the funniest humor is from a character believing he is serious but sounding like an idiot...IE: Drax in GotG. Did that go over your head, or did you catch it?

DC is staying true to their tone

No, they are not. I think they started making that change from being dark and serious before BvS was even released. The second trailer lightened it up. SS went from dark and serious to being almost as comedic as Deadpool. Now Justice League shows us that they have mimic'd Marvel's style.

Baha! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. You can't be that Marvel-braindead. Oh wait, yes you can. If you want to start that, then credit Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy for the success's of Marvel bringing us their version of Batman to Marvel Studio's.

Only when you credit Tim Burton for his work on the first two Batman movies for paving the way for Nolan to make an even more serious version.

If Nolan didn't want a closed Bat-universe, DC would of been well ahead.

If this and that...blah, blah, blah. DC didn't do it. Marvel did.

And Marvel didn't invent comedy in superhero movies. In fact, they were only piggy-backing off of Sony's Spider-Man movies that were already well established.

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't say they did. Go rent Megamind.

Lets not get it twisted. They aren't pioneers. They just set a new market and had the time to build it.

Like I said, they created a path on how to do it. They paved it and added road signs to DC now knows what to do. Going off the road and trying to reinvent story telling DOES NOT WORK. I have said that forever. Marvel doesn't do try to reinvent story telling. Neither does Disney. So, now you have DC following the same path - because it is what works.

And, yes, they are the first studio to successfully invent an entire universe for their characters to play in.

BvS failed to meet expectation.

Atleast it had expectation. So does Wonder Woman, SSquad and Justice League.

Oh, please...so does every single movie that is released. In your arrogance you really do believe in some superior plane that exists specifically for DC. It's doesn't. They are no different than Marvel or Fox or anybody else.

About 95% of Marvel films outside the Avengers franchise have very low to moderate expectations. People know what they're getting and are in and out of the theater with pop-corn smeared all over their face. The expectation is lowered so much that the GA is content with watching the same movie over and over, as long as it has humor and fast paced action. That's it. The expectation for the DCEU is to create something we haven't already seen. Big difference.

And, indications are that Wonder Woman is going to follow that same story telling formula...of a hero's journey. It was already said in another post that the movie is all about her discovering her superdom 100yrs ago. That is what ALL of these origin films are about...average dude/girl or god loses his powers...make them relatable because they are like you. Put forth a reason to for them to leave their 'safe' world. Give said hero a gift, like a sword or a shield or a hammer or a lasso or an iron suit, send the hero on an adventure to battle bad things, hero meets friends to help him, hero finds he is better with friends, the 'gift' become extremely important to defeat the bad. Blah, blah, blah. That is what Wonder Woman is going to be about. It will follow the VERY SAME FORMULA that Iron Man 1, CA1, and Thor 1 did - exactly the same. Because that forumula is what works. It entertains. It gets repeat sales and DVD sales. It is what WB wants....not an arrogant Snyder thinking he can reinvent 10,000yrs of storytelling and releasing a crappy movie.

[Monker]

BvS failed to meet expectation. It should be expected that WB *REQUIRES* more of a pivot towards what Marvel has successfully done. Whether that be Suicide Squad being reshot to be less dark, or Justic Legaue starting out being just as full of humor as the Avengers, DC is following in Marvel's path. A path that Marvel not only founded, but paved and added road signs to...road signs that point the way to $'s.

I. Warner Bros. made Superman and Batman films for 20 years before a quality film (not a TV throwaway) featuring a Marvel character appeared, that being Blade, produced by Fox.

Ia. Blade appeared as the first major Marvel Comics film property (unless you want to count Howard the Duck) after the publisher sold off film rights to a number of characters in order to weather a major bankruptcy. That's why you see no "Marvel Studios" film until 2008.

II. There were only Superman and Batman films made by WB, along with Supergirl, Steel, and a pair of Swamp Thing films — from 1978-1998 because the head honchos in charge didn't want to bother with any other characters. However, the Supergirl movie's set in the same "universe" as the Superman films, but they removed a photographic reference to Superman/Clark in the film.

III. In the 2000s, Warner Brothers, Sony, and to a lesser extent, Fox, enjoyed box office success with the Nolan Batman films, the Raimi Spider-Man films, and a few films set within the X-Men universe (some of them don't set the box office on fire). A Superman quasi-reboot takes up space till Zack Snyder's reboot. Sony reboots Spider-Man five years after SM3. Green Lantern bombs in 2010.

IV. Marvel Studios finally follows suit with Iron Man in 2008, because they're tired of Sony/Columbia and Fox making money off their properties (LOL). They rush an admittedly inferior sequel, but it still made plenty of money to keep the proverbial ball rolling.

So tell me...what "roads" did Marvel really pave?

Hardly anything you wrote has anything to do with what you highlighted in my post.

BTW, you forgot to mention the Daredevil and Elektra movies. May as well throw them in too, since you are all about throwing everything into Marvel's kitchen sink.

The bottom line is that Marvel Studios is now a major film maker that successfully created a cinema universe for all of their characters to play in. They did it. Not just for a few characters. Not even just for the Avengers....but all of their characters. Even reaching to other media, like Agents of SHIELD. No other studio has done this to the extent of what Marvel has. That is a simply fact.

It's also obvious that DC and WB WANT THE SAME THING. But, they are NOT going to get there by the original "dark and serious" tone that BvS was to pioneer for the DCEU. It is just not profitable enough. That is the bottom line. So, now DC has sold out and are now doing things very much like Marvel has for years.

SS is proof enough for me. Of all of the movies on DC's schedule, this should have been the darkest and most serious. Instead, it has been turned into a comedy. It looks more like Guardians of the Galaxy than BvS. But, of course, you hypocrites will say it's by design...that the humor is fine in this, and blah, blah, blah.

Just as you will excuse Wonder Woman for being a cookie cutter super hero origin film, just like so many of Marvel's. You'll make up excuses about why it's better and why Marvel is worse....when WW is essentially the EXACT SAME STORY as CA, IM, and Thor.

And, then Justice League looks just like a DC version of Avengers. It's not this different thing as you guys were promoting it a while back.

There is no "DC way" vs "Marvel way" that movie goers have a choice over....DC is doing exactly the same thing. The only difference is, Marvel showed DC they way.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Oh, please...you don't think his time in SG:A has enough clips of Momoa's attempts of humor?

You're really saying the casting of Jason Momoa is to bring a shits and giggles laugh fest to the character of Aquaman when it is a proven fact WB/DC is going out of their way to change the perception of said character? Like, I don't know, hiring a famed horror director at the top of his game (James Waan) who said he's bringing his horror element to Aquaman? Watch the Justice League trailer. If you can show me one inkling of Momoa attempting humor in any of his clips, I'll never post here again. As always, you don't have a clue

Also, the funniest humor is from a character believing he is serious but sounding like an idiot...IE: Drax in GotG. Did that go over your head, or did you catch it?

Nobody cares.

No, they are not.

Yes, they are. You can still be dark and serious in tone (like Nolan's TDKTrilogy) while lightening things up with levity and balance. Though director's David Ayer and Patty Jenkins bring their directing aesthetic to their respective films, it's quite clear the darker tones and color pallet of the movie are in place. Afterall, Zack Snyder is still in collaboration on all those movies and the stories has his fingerprints on them, so the tone is going to match up with Ayer's Suicide Squad and Jenkin's Wonder Woman. That's just a fact.

The second trailer lightened it up.

Lightened what up? BvS? There you go again not knowing what you're talking about a movie you haven't seen (or did you?) And what is the excuse for BvS's third trailer which reverted back to dark tones? Give it up.

SS went from dark and serious to being almost as comedic as Deadpool.

Did it? How was it? Arrogant statement coming from somebody who has seen the movie 8 days before its actual release. The hell are you talking about man? Suicide Squad Trailer #1 (our VERY first look at the film) and the last SSquad trailer has absolutely NO shift in difference when it comes to the films tone whatsoever. Time to hit Wikipedia again. You have absolutely no clue about Suicide Squad.

By the way, though Deadpool had comedic moments, it had some dark and serious grit all throughout the entire film. Don't compare a comedic character like Deadpool in personality to prove how wrong you are about a dark and serious aesthetic to another film you have no clue about.

Now Justice League shows us that they have mimic'd Marvel's style.

What did they mimic? Jokes? Lmao. Zack Snyder changed nothing. The world he created is the exact same and you immediately get the sense of a Snyder-driven film the moment the trailer begins. Though there is fun in the JL trailer, nothing will compare to the corniness of any Marvel films. Humor will be used (like MoS and BvS did--subtly) but not Marvel humor. Way two difference things. In fact, I don't think Snyder has it in him to direct humor in such a cheesy, Marvel-formulaic way. The wires in his brain just don't connect that way. Sorry.

Only when you credit Tim Burton for his work on the first two Batman movies for paving the way for Nolan to make an even more serious version.

Huh? So in your thickheaded skull, the Batman franchise went from Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises? Joel Schumacher paved those ways. Burton's films had absolutely NO influence on Christopher Nolan whatsoever. In fact, he did everything to the Batman character that was never done before. Watch Batman and Batman Returns again. You'd be surprised how much camp is enthralled in those films. I mean, come on. Gotham City was nothing but a mural painting and all of the Penguin's dialogue in Returns was about horny cat-jokes to Catwoman.

If this and that...blah, blah, blah. DC didn't do it. Marvel did.

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't say they did. Go rent Megamind.

Why are you arguing like your hero Donald Trump? Yes, that's what you sound like. Be proud.

I have said that forever.

You have said a lot of things...and that's dangerous.

Marvel doesn't do try to reinvent story telling.

That explains why critics give Marvel an 80% of above on most of their films. They are simply getting confused because Marvel makes the same movie over and over again. Thanks for clearing that up. Makes sense now.

So, now you have DC following the same path - because it is what works.

No they aren't. DC's path is proven to be backwards in comparison to Marvel. Didn't your dad always tell you to keep your eyes on the ball? You're whiffing tremendously now.

And, yes, they are the first studio to successfully invent an entire universe for their characters to play in.

In your arrogance you really do believe in some superior plane that exists specifically for DC.

Completely the other way around.

It gets repeat sales and DVD sales. It is what WB wants.

Like Man of Steel's whopping $105+ million in DVD sells, leaving even Iron Man 3 in the dust; head to head?

...not an arrogant Snyder thinking he can reinvent 10,000yrs of storytelling and releasing a crappy movie.

You obviously have no clue (see a trend here?) about what WB wants. The same WB that gave Zack Snyder beloved properties like 300, Watchmen, Superman, Batman and Justice League? Say what you want, but WB is THAT type of studio that respects and appreciates a director's sense of style and visual architecture residing in their films. They may not be critical darlings, but they certainly are different than what others put out. If there's any conclusion, it's that Snyder is one of WB's most appreciated work horses.

[Monker]

Iron Man is still the best Marvel movie to date.

That's a matter of pure opinion. You can't make a blanket statement like. I like Civil War and GotG much more than the first Iron Man movie.

That's not to say the movies that came forward weren't still in flux. The reemergence of Robert Downey Jr and the hit of Iron Man allowed them to swipe the mediocre Hulk franchise under the rug and start anew. A reboot inside a reboot of the same universe with one of their failed properties that nobody noticed.

At the start of all of this, I remember talk with an invested (literally) Marvel fan who argued they were going to work towards an Avengers movie WITHOUT Hulk and replace him with somebody else, Ant-Man maybe. IMO, whoever made the decision to both take a chance with Hulk, and cast Ruffalo is who deserves the credit for bringing Hulk back.

Green Lantern didn't have the same fortune and the movie looked unfinished and

...and blah, blah, blah. How many movies in did Marvel bring in Hulk? DC could have done the same thing with GL to bring him back. Instead they decided to rush into JL and give GL this stupid cop buddy film in space. That sounds so stupid that it seems DC WANTS it to fail to keep GL out of their universe.

a complete bomb to even move forward. There was nowhere for it to go, but DC didn't fold. They kept plugging, this time with Man of Steel. Though the film was divisive, it still had many plot points to the story that allowed them direction.

What the fuck! DC didn't start down this road that Marvel paved until after MoS had mediocre success. It is so obvious that WB wanted to use their DC characters to get a piece of the pie that Marvel was feasting on. DC gave up after GL and MARVEL getting fat is what convinced them to try again. It is no different than Marvel wanting to use their characters the way FOX was...except Marvel proved that they could have all of their characters in one single universe and have one movie feed the next virtually guaranteeing a certain level of success. THAT is what WB and DC wants, desperately - it seems.

You blame WB/DC for not moving on with GL, but they are doing just that after MoS and BvS and not looking back

Yes, they are looking back. They are looking back to the late 80's and Miami Vice, or maybe the 70's with Starsky and Hutch....or maybe they'll continue the comedy and go more of a Stutsky and Hatch direction.

Though Marvel was the first to go through with a shared universe

And, that is what I was saying.

the concept of a team of superhero's together on the big screen wasn't anything new

[/quote]DC/WB tried to resurrect a Superman vs Batman movie for years and tried to entertain a shared universe with Justice League: Mortal in 2009.[/quote]

And, Thor and Bill Bixby's Hulk shared the screen back in the late 80's on TV. So what? Marvel is the first studio to do it to such an extent...and they paved the way on how to do it. Now DC is following their lead. DC tried to shortcut their way to catch up - and it didn't work.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Not just for a few characters. Not even just for the Avengers....but all of their characters.

We all know the only character that gets to play everywhere is Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man. In a nutshell, nobody gives two shits about characters like Vision, but that's what happens when you can't have Wolverine or the X-Men in his place. You know, the rights that Fox clearly owns so you might want to refrain from your over-use of the word "all" in this circumstance.

SS is proof enough for me. Of all of the movies on DC's schedule, this should have been the darkest and most serious. Instead, it has been turned into a comedy.

We'll see how big of a comedy it is when we'll see the Joker slapping around Harley Quinn all over the place.

It looks more like Guardians of the Galaxy than BvS.

Looks nothing like Guardians of the Galaxy.

But, of course, you hypocrites will say it's by design...that the humor is fine in this, and blah, blah, blah.

As Will Smith said "We're still villains. Don't you forget that." Humor or not, it's going to be pretty dark. There seems to be a disconnect in your brain in comparing the two as if one can't have one or the other without being one thing. A Nightmare on Elm Street had its fair share of humor. Is that a comedy?

Just as you will excuse Wonder Woman for being a cookie cutter super hero origin film, just like so many of Marvel's.

There's going to be nothing cookie cutter about Wonder Woman. Marvel wouldn't have a single clue what to do with a character like Wonder Woman. Probably put her in an out-of-nowhere romance with Doomsday.

The only difference is, Marvel showed DC they way.

Fanboy at his finest.

[YoungJRNYfan]

That's a matter of pure opinion.

No shit. isn't everything? There is no way to measure film as being an absolute. It's all subjective. I thought that was clear, but your condescending ways are trickling down from the Obama Thread.

I like Civil War and GotG much more than the first Iron Man movie.

That's awesome.

At the start of all of this, I remember talk with an invested (literally) Marvel fan who argued they were going to work towards an Avengers movie WITHOUT Hulk and replace him with somebody else, Ant-Man maybe.

Don't know what you're talking about.

IMO, whoever made the decision to both take a chance with Hulk, and cast Ruffalo is who deserves the credit for bringing Hulk back.

They didn't take a chance with the Hulk. They couldn't retcon Tony Snark's cameo out of the Incredible Hulk because Iron Man came first. That was moving forward. All they did was wipe Norton's Hulk under the rug while nobody even noticed.

DC could have done the same thing with GL to bring him back. Instead they decided to rush into JL

They aren't doing the same thing as Marvel because they aren't copying Marvel, something you so furiously whacked off about in just a few posts up. Walking contradiction to fit your argumentative agenda. You'd make a great politician. Trump/Monker 2016!

and give GL this stupid cop buddy film in space.

Lmao, kind of like how Thor: Ragnarok is a buddy buddy Planet Hulk movie? HAH! Green Lantern hasn't even been cast yet. There are no truths to any of those dirtsheet scoopers about the movie because there IS none.

That sounds so stupid that it seems DC WANTS it to fail to keep GL out of their universe.

DC/WB just named Geoff Johns head president of DC Entertainment. He is THEE Green Lantern guy. If anything, they are building to one massive Green Lantern Corps. Something that will be a pretty HUGE payoff to fans. Yet, if DC would have crammed Green Lantern into JL, they would be "rushing" and "cramming" him" lmao. Yet, another contradiction. There's only one hypocrite here to pump your shilling agenda.

What the fuck! DC didn't start down this road that Marvel paved until after MoS had mediocre success.

After, as in 30 days after? They announced BvS right after MoS hit theaters at Comic Con in July. Read EVERY Man of Steel article before its release and all you will see is "How Justice League hinges on Man of Steel's success."

It is so obvious that WB wanted to use their DC characters to get a piece of the pie that Marvel was feasting on.

Like they never reached those levels? DC/WB feasted on The Dark Knight Trilogy's billion dollar success's with one character that spanned all the way to 2012; 4 years into the MCU-era. DC was well fed and not starved. Not one bit.

DC gave up after GL and MARVEL getting fat is what convinced them to try again.

They didn't give up in the slightest. Green Lantern was released in 2011. Man of Steel went into production that same year and Marvel didn't start getting "fat" until its "Avengers" release in 2012. Like I said, MoS went into early production in 2011. It's not like they came up with MoS after the Avengers success. Up until Avengers, Marvel wasn't hitting ground-breaking Box Office records. Not even close. Just middle of the pact stuff (at best.)

except Marvel proved that they could have all of their characters in one single universe

Define all...

Now DC is following their lead. DC tried to shortcut their way to catch up - and it didn't work.

You make no sense. If DC's "shortcut" didn't work, then obviously they can't follow any lead since the path DC decided to take is so drastically different than Marvel's and it continues to be that way. If you want to talk about following a lead, then look no further than Civil War being an immediate response to Batman V Superman. The DCEU was one film into their universe. All it took was ONE announcement for Marvel to be inspired. Once Wonder Woman knocks everyone's socks off, we'll see how interested Marvel will be in finally giving Black Widow her solo film. Besides, we all know Captain Marvel is being sped up following you know who's lead. Marvel has been doing this for a long time. You'd think they wouldn't lose that battle to a strong female-led film so quickly!

[Monker]

Not just for a few characters. Not even just for the Avengers....but all of their characters.

We all know the only character that gets to play everywhere is Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man.

Hmm, I don't recall Iron Man in: CA:TFA, CA:TWS, Thor, Thor:TDW, GotG. I didn't see Ant-Man, but I don't think he was in there, either. I doubt he'll be in Doctor Strange or Thor:Ragnorok. For someone who gets to play "everwhere", he sure isn't in a lot of films.

In a nutshell, nobody gives two shits about characters like Vision,

LOL. The writers do...he has an Infinity Stone. That kinda makes him important.

but that's what happens when you can't have Wolverine or the X-Men in his place.

Oh, please. People are not missing Wolverine or the X-Men.

You know, the rights that Fox clearly owns so you might want to refrain from your over-use of the word "all" in this circumstance.

No, you should stop nit-picking and understand that I mean all the characters they have the rights to use, which now includes Spiderman. And, considering the current state of X-Men in Marvel's comics and what happened with the last X-Men film, it will not surprise me if another deal is made with Marvel to get them back. The goes with Fantastic 4.

SS is proof enough for me. Of all of the movies on DC's schedule, this should have been the darkest and most serious. Instead, it has been turned into a comedy.

We'll see how big of a comedy it is when we'll see the Joker slapping around Harley Quinn all over the place.

You will, I won't. It's looked like as big of a train-wreck as BvS.

It looks more like Guardians of the Galaxy than BvS.

Looks nothing like Guardians of the Galaxy.

A bunch of criminals getting out of prison who stop some bad guys. A one line description of both films.

But, of course, you hypocrites will say it's by design...that the humor is fine in this, and blah, blah, blah.

As Will Smith said "We're still villains.

Yeah, as Drax is a villain, and Quinn is a Ravanger, and Gamora is an assassin, and Rocket is villan. Blah, blah, blah...and Wil Smith is a comedian, figure that one out for yourself.

Don't you forget that." Humor or not, it's going to be pretty dark.

When the first trailer came out, I felt the same way. But, since then the trailers have become less and less serious.

There seems to be a disconnect in your brain in comparing the two as if one can't have one or the other without being one thing. A Nightmare on Elm Street had its fair share of humor. Is that a comedy?

Yes, dressing up the nerdiest looking guy in Hollywood with fingernail knives is very comedic...especially after seeing his nerdy character on "V".

There's going to be nothing cookie cutter about Wonder Woman. Marvel wouldn't have a single clue what to do with a character like Wonder Woman. Probably put her in an out-of-nowhere romance with Doomsday.

Oh, please, it is going to be a typical origin story...something like (and this is just an example, it could be different):
A guy somehow accidently finds Amazon Girly island.
Cute Amazon girl finds guy injured and washed up on shore.
Amazon girl feels sorry for guy and even though it is against their laws or whatever, brings guy to her home to "nurse him" because he will die if she doesn't...and she just can't let guy die.
Girl defends guy against her sisters and queen because well, Amazon girl fight, and all that cool stuff.
Guy and girl talk about his world and hers.
They have awkward feelings for each other.
Guy has to leave because, he's a guy...no guys allowed on Girly Island. And, he's a guy so he must do tough guy war things with other tough guys...maybe other tough guys come to 'rescue' him from Girly Island.
Guy asks girl to go with him but she refuses because Girly Island is her home. Maybe Queen of Girly Island doesn't allow her to go.
Girl wants to explore the outside world because it is like all mysterious and stuff like that. So, Girl either changes her mind and goes with guy or follows him. Perhaps bad things show up (HydraDC!) and girl decides she wants to help save the world.
Girl gets gift of something to help her on her journey in outside world...sword, shield, lasso, armor, invisible plane, light sabre, Excalibur, special power/knowledge from Queen whatever.
Girl stops being Amazon-like and dresses up as a normal lady. Ooooh, aaaah, look at Amazon girl in various normal clothes that look all sexy. Guy is impressed. She is impressed. Other guys are impressed. She makes lots of guy friends.
She fights bad guys...maybe to try to save her guy. She finds she has powers that she didn't know about and nobody else has. All of her new friends are happy and impressed by this woman and her wonderful powers.
She uses her new found powers to defeat the bad guy. She may fail at least once but she learns from her mistakes and with the encouragement and help of her friends, she defeats HydraDC. At some point, maybe guy dies, ahhh, poor guy.

Typical origin story...and there are several other ways to do this...but it's not going to anything other than a typical origin story - BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE....and, believe it or not, they WANT to see it, over, and over, and over again.

If they don't do it, it will be panned by critics and end up like BvS....worse than BvS because it will not have that high of instant sales.

The only difference is, Marvel showed DC they way.

Fanboy at his finest.

No, it's reality. Marvel makes a huge profit...even movies I don't really care for, like Ant-Man or Iron Man 2, or Thor:TDW, the make a lot of profit. BvS didn't You're the fanboy making excuses and not admitting reality.

How's the BvS DVD sales? The way you two were talking earlier, it should be platinum by now. I seriously do not know how well it sold.

[Monker]

That's a matter of pure opinion.

No shit. isn't everything?

No. The number of ticket sales of BvS is not opinion. Profit margins are not opinion either. Statements of expectations from studios are also not opinion.

There is no way to measure film as being an absolute. It's all subjective. I thought that was clear, but your condescending ways are trickling down from the Obama Thread.

When you say, "Iron Man is the best Marvel movie to date." It is you trying to assert a fact. If I call you on that assertion and you backtrack and say that was just your opinion. That's fine, I'm not going to argue with that.

At the start of all of this, I remember talk with an invested (literally) Marvel fan who argued they were going to work towards an Avengers movie WITHOUT Hulk and replace him with somebody else, Ant-Man maybe.

Don't know what you're talking about.

Of course you don't, you weren't there and this thread didn't exist, and I wasn't talking about it.

However, that is what I was hearing...The Hulk was not going to be a part of the Avengers movie because the Hulk movie bombed. That is just something I was hearing. At that time I didn't really care much but it is interesting to look back on.

My point is, adding Ruffalo and Hulk was perfect decisions in casting and creating the new Hulk to fit in with the Avengers. Whoever made those decisions should be commended. The easy way out would be to cut him out, as I said above, and replace him with Ant-Man or something.

They didn't take a chance with the Hulk. They couldn't retcon Tony Snark's cameo out of the Incredible Hulk because Iron Man came first. That was moving forward. All they did was wipe Norton's Hulk under the rug while nobody even noticed.

At that time, those were simply teasers for the planned Avengers movie. Marvel could have simply ignored him and cut him out of the Avengers.....just as DC ignored Green Lantern and had no reference to him in BvS.

DC could have done the same thing with GL to bring him back. Instead they decided to rush into JL

They aren't doing the same thing as Marvel because they aren't copying Marvel, something you so furiously whacked off about in just a few posts up. Walking contradiction to fit your argumentative agenda. You'd make a great politician. Trump/Monker 2016!

They were not copying Marvel in the beginning but they sure seem to be now....cookie cutter origin stories, movies full of humor and less dark.

and give GL this stupid cop buddy film in space.

Lmao, kind of like how Thor: Ragnarok is a buddy buddy Planet Hulk movie? HAH!

No....even the director, or whoever it was, back a few months ago said it was like a cop buddy film. I don't hear Marvel describing Ragnorok that way. The people creating the movie are making this sound like Miami Vice in space. STUPID. It's going to be as bad as the Green Hornet movie.

Green Lantern hasn't even been cast yet. There are no truths to any of those dirtsheet scoopers about the movie because there IS none.

Go back and read who first called the next GL movie a buddy cop movie in space.

DC/WB just named Geoff Johns head president of DC Entertainment. He is THEE Green Lantern guy. If anything, they are building to one massive Green Lantern Corps. Something that will be a pretty HUGE payoff to fans. Yet, if DC would have crammed Green Lantern into JL, they would be "rushing" and "cramming" him" lmao. Yet, another contradiction. There's only one hypocrite here to pump your shilling agenda.

If he is a Green Lantern president, then he should push for a Hal Jordan movie...because right now it sounds more like Green Hornet than Green Lantern.

What the fuck! DC didn't start down this road that Marvel paved until after MoS had mediocre success.

After, as in 30 days after? They announced BvS right after MoS hit theaters at Comic Con in July. Read EVERY Man of Steel article before its release and all you will see is "How Justice League hinges on Man of Steel's success."[/quote]

Yeah, and your point is that 30 days after isn't "after"? I mean, come on. The point is that JL was being worked towards WAY "after" Marvel had solidified their universe and showed it how successful they could be creating their universe and making films for it. THEN DC jumped in again, "after" MoS was released.

Like they never reached those levels? DC/WB feasted on The Dark Knight Trilogy's billion dollar success's with one character that spanned all the way to 2012; 4 years into the MCU-era. DC was well fed and not starved. Not one bit.

Yep...and IMO, they should have continued it. DC could have focused on one character movie series and not be seen as followers by going down this shared universe path. DC exceled at it with Batman, including Tim Burton's Batman, and Luke's Joker. They could have continued that very high level with Superman. If they kept that high level mark, they could have done the same with Wonder Woman and any other characters they chose.

Instead they chose to make a crappy BvS movie in a rush to start a shared universe, like Marvel's. Bad choice, IMO.

DC gave up after GL and MARVEL getting fat is what convinced them to try again.

They didn't give up in the slightest. Green Lantern was released in 2011. Man of Steel went into production that same year

True...but I do not believe they (Snyder/WB/DC) decided to try to create a shared universe until later. Yes, there was talk of a BvS movie...but it was more of a pipe dream for Snyder and they were not smiking anything strong enough to dream up a shared universe - at that time. They were focused on Superman's next challenge...not building a shared universe.

and Marvel didn't start getting "fat" until its "Avengers" release in 2012.

Not true. They started right away with Iron Man and all of the movies through Avengers were profitable. In fact, it is you who seems to argue that they were more profitable than they deserved.

Like I said, MoS went into early production in 2011. It's not like they came up with MoS after the Avengers success. Up until Avengers, Marvel wasn't hitting ground-breaking Box Office records. Not even close. Just middle of the pact stuff (at best.)

But, they were not Green Lantern's, or Hulk's, either. I'm not saying they were breaking records with Captain America or Thor, but they successfully using their characters to build up a film studio and a shared universe to put them in. I mean, come on...it was successful enough to Disney to buy them. Marvel did something DC was unable or unwilling to do. That is just the simple truth.

except Marvel proved that they could have all of their characters in one single universe

Define all...

Every character the studio has film rights to, or an agreement in place to use on film.

You make no sense. If DC's "shortcut" didn't work, then obviously they can't follow any lead since the path DC decided to take is so drastically different than Marvel's

You would think that. But, it is obvious to me that WB/DC have changed course to release origin stories and lighten up their movies. If BvS had sold tickets as well as CA:CW, I doubt very much that SS would be featuring so much humor in their trailers, and I doubt JL would be looking so much like a Marvel movie.

and it continues to be that way. If you want to talk about following a lead, then look no further than Civil War being an immediate response to Batman V Superman.

Yeah, funny how Marvel did it so much better than DC. They were able to make a film that made sense and was entertaining. It was everything BVS promised to be...except overly dark and serious. Thanks to DC for giving Marvel the idea to create one of their best films to date.

And, BTW, XM:A is also a vs movie...

Once Wonder Woman knocks everyone's socks off, we'll see how interested Marvel will be in finally giving Black Widow her solo film.

Meh, I don't care if that happens. And, Marvel is already vested in Captain Marvel...and they are going to do it right.

Besides, we all know Captain Marvel is being sped up following you know who's lead. Marvel has been doing this for a long time. You'd think they wouldn't lose that battle to a strong female-led film so quickly!

They changed the release date? I doubt that very much. Captain Marvel is in the middle of the two Infinity War movies for a reason. After Infinity War, IMO Captain Marvel will be set up to take over the Avengers....or maybe lead a new team. The Avengers will be getting a bit 'old' by then...2020 or so. When Captain Marvel is released has nothing to do with what DC is doing...it has to do with the story they are telling and the future stories of their universe. IMO, they CAN'T release it any earlier.

They released the news about Brie Larson during SDCC because, well, it's SDCC and Feige promised to release the name this summer...no better time to do that then SDCC. It also allows them to use Brie in upcoming movies, if they want to. At the very least, I would expect her to be in Infinity War Pt1. I don't think Brie's announcement has anything to do with what DC is doing.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Hmm, I don't recall Iron Man in: CA:TFA, CA:TWS, Thor, Thor:TDW, GotG. I didn't see Ant-Man, but I don't think he was in there, either. I doubt he'll be in Doctor Strange or Thor:Ragnorok. For someone who gets to play "everwhere", he sure isn't in a lot of films.

RDJR's Iron Man is Marvel's most bankable star and wherever they will need him, they'll shoe-horn in while they can. He was the star in the recent Captain America/Avengers film and they are really stretching out his contract with how many times they are allowed to use him in Spider-Man: Homecoming; just because. He is THEE link to everything. Films such as The First Avenger, Thor and Winter Soldier were basically films to skip to the next Avengers outing and reap the coattails of their universe. All those films did was hurry back to the Downey JR wank fest. It's quite clear. They can make all the D list movies they want, it's all a reacharound back to RDJR's Iron Man.

LOL. The writers do...he has an Infinity Stone. That kinda makes him important.

People still actually care about Infinity Stones? I bet over 90% of the MCU audience still doesn't understand what the hell they even do. Vision is a product of writers block only to further the Infinity Stones glorified "importance" to get to the next setup. Afterall, they need D-list characters to pluck from when it comes to who they can use for an 8 man battle royal for a "VS" movie. It's all hot-air. He's about as important as Quicksilver, who they just hilariously killed. Whatever makes room for the next "Avenger".

Oh, please. People are not missing Wolverine or the X-Men.

So you're saying if the fans of the Marvel Universe had a choice, they would choose Vision and Scarlet Witch over fan favorites and possibly the most popular Marvel characters and stables of all time? Don't give Marvel Studio's too much credit. If the Wolverine or X-Men were available, you bet your ass they would of threw a character like Vision into the garbage a long time ago.

No, you should stop nit-picking and understand that I mean all the characters they have the rights to use, which now includes Spiderman. And, considering the current state of X-Men in Marvel's comics and what happened with the last X-Men film, it will not surprise me if another deal is made with Marvel to get them back. The goes with Fantastic 4.

Not nitpicking anything. Just stating a face. When you make the assumption and blank statements such as "all" then you can't backtrack your points. And why would Marvel want the X-Men or Fantastic Four? Nobody miss's them.

You will, I won't. It's looked like as big of a train-wreck as BvS.

This just explains your blowhard cluelessness on the subject. For somebody who "won't" or never did, you sure do act like a know-it-all. Your knowledge is about as authentic as a State of the Union Address. All teleprompter. I'm sure your criticisms of Suicide Squad will determine the refresh rate of Wikipedia and Youtube reviews once it hits.

A bunch of criminals getting out of prison who stop some bad guys. A one line description of both films.

Your point? Look, if you want to go ALL day long in circles about comic book characters and the vast majority of characters that sound similar, we'll be here all day. Even though comic book characters sound alike and are ripoffs of each other, it doesn't change the fact that Suicide Squad looks nothing like Guardian's of the Galaxy. Plus, they didn't have the Joker. Huge curveball in the form of storytelling and direction.

Yeah, as Drax is a villain, and Quinn is a Ravanger, and Gamora is an assassin, and Rocket is villan. Blah, blah, blah...and Wil Smith is a comedian, figure that one out for yourself.

This is comic books, dude. You'll find these comparisons everywhere. You really have no point, especially when you act like DC just made up a Suicide Squad team in response to a Guardians of the Galaxy film when their comic book existed in 1959 compared to Marvel's team in 1969. In hindsight, Guardians of the Galaxy are ripoff characters of Suicide Squad. Besides, Guadians only had 5 members in their film. Suicide Squad has 7 not including the recluse and distanced wildcard in the Joker. Huge difference.

When the first trailer came out, I felt the same way. But, since then the trailers have become less and less serious.

Huh? The first trailer tapped into Harley Quinns quak-ness almost immediately. The soundtrack to the first Suicide Squad trailer featured Bohemian Rhapsody. The tone from the first trailer 'til the last showed NO difference in tonal shift whatsoever.

Yes, dressing up the nerdiest looking guy in Hollywood with fingernail knives is very comedic...

Good to know Wes Craven was a comedy director. Maybe I'll find Nightmare on Elm Street in the comedy aisle then on my next visit to Family Video. GOALPOSTS.

Oh, please, it is going to be a typical origin story...something like (and this is just an example, it could be different):
A guy somehow accidently finds Amazon Girly island.
Cute Amazon girl finds guy injured and washed up on shore.
Amazon girl feels sorry for guy and even though it is against their laws or whatever, brings guy to her home to "nurse him" because he will die if she doesn't...and she just can't let guy die.
Girl defends guy against her sisters and queen because well, Amazon girl fight, and all that cool stuff.
Guy and girl talk about his world and hers.
They have awkward feelings for each other.
Guy has to leave because, he's a guy...no guys allowed on Girly Island. And, he's a guy so he must do tough guy war things with other tough guys...maybe other tough guys come to 'rescue' him from Girly Island.
Guy asks girl to go with him but she refuses because Girly Island is her home. Maybe Queen of Girly Island doesn't allow her to go.
Girl wants to explore the outside world because it is like all mysterious and stuff like that. So, Girl either changes her mind and goes with guy or follows him. Perhaps bad things show up (HydraDC!) and girl decides she wants to help save the world.
Girl gets gift of something to help her on her journey in outside world...sword, shield, lasso, armor, invisible plane, light sabre, Excalibur, special power/knowledge from Queen whatever.
Girl stops being Amazon-like and dresses up as a normal lady. Ooooh, aaaah, look at Amazon girl in various normal clothes that look all sexy. Guy is impressed. She is impressed. Other guys are impressed. She makes lots of guy friends.
She fights bad guys...maybe to try to save her guy. She finds she has powers that she didn't know about and nobody else has. All of her new friends are happy and impressed by this woman and her wonderful powers.
She uses her new found powers to defeat the bad guy. She may fail at least once but she learns from her mistakes and with the encouragement and help of her friends, she defeats HydraDC. At some point, maybe guy dies, ahhh, poor guy.

Did you just narrate the Wonder Woman trailer that already exists and try to pass it off as if you have some kind of brains? Teleprompter Monker at it again! Trump/Monker 2016.

No, it's reality. Marvel makes a huge profit...even movies I don't really care for, like Ant-Man or Iron Man 2, or Thor:TDW, the make a lot of profit. BvS didn't You're the fanboy making excuses and not admitting reality.

BvS made a profit. I'd say the same for you, but you're Monker. We all know you live in your own reality and that in itself isn't reality now is it? It's called head in own anal cavity reality.

How's the BvS DVD sales? The way you two were talking earlier, it should be platinum by now. I seriously do not know how well it sold.

Funny you say that. The article about it's success was posted just 11 hours ago. The video sales for BvS is in AMAZING company...SW:TFA company:


Batman V Superman Tops Blu-Ray And DVD Sales Chart

It very rare for a film to gross over $870 million at the worldwide box office and be considered a disappointment, but that's the case for Zack Snyder's Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

However, strong DVD and Blu-ray sales could change that perception, and it got off to a great start, debuting at No. 1 on the NPD VideoScan First Alert sales chart, Variety reports.


Batman v Superman is seeing "70% of its copies sold coming from the Blu-ray format." That unusually large number can be attributed to the Ultimate Edition (extended cut) being available on Blu-ray, but not on the standalone DVD version.

While that 70% first-week Blu-ray percentage is incredibly high for a major theatrical release new to disc, the record is 83% and belongs to Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Go ahead and try to disapprove the numbers. It's not opinion. It's just fact.

[YoungJRNYfan]

‘Batman v Superman’ Shoots to Top of Disc Charts
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/ba ... 201825810/

The extended cut is available only on the “Ultimate Edition” Blu-ray copies of the movie, not the standalone DVD version, and the first week of release for “Batman v Superman” saw 70% of its copies sold coming from the Blu-ray format — one of the highest first-week Blu-ray percentages ever for a major theatrical release new to disc (the record is the 83% put up by “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” earlier this year).

A friendly reminder that movie critics are generally pretty useless
http://bgr.com/2016/07/29/batman-v-supe ... dvd-sales/

[verslibre]

Imagine that. The "shield is not large enough"...but "leg armor" protects her knees. HOW ABOUT THAT!!

My point is that you can see sparks from shots hitting her leg armor, because he shield is not protecting her fully. She holds it high to protect her head and upper chest. But, everything lower is exposed - especially towards the end of the shot where she is moving the shield away - and as it is away you can still see sparks on her leg armor. So, she should be ripped in half by all of that fire power - unless her skin is bullet proof.

It's a BADLY FILMED SHOT.

No, it looks great. And no, artillery rounds made by men aren't going to rip apart a warrior from mystical Themyscira.

I bet you're totally okay with Black Widow taking that grenade blast in her face in Civil War, and then jumping up and kicking Crossbones' goons' asses like nothing happened. Funny how you never talked about that.

Wonder Woman is one of those supernaturally-endowed characters.

Unless one of her superpowers is bullet proof skin, she should be ripped in half.

Wonder Woman's power set is pretty extensive, being god-derived. She possesses healing beyond that of mortals (and that includes your buddy, Cap). She's not invulnerable, per se, but her skin is much more resistant to concussive damage and piercing and and extreme heat. A powerful foe with a sword (like Ares) would be more likely to hurt Diana than a goon with a gun. She can also fend off certain magical attacks. WW's powers are pretty extensive. There's no way we'll see everything she's capable of in her origin film. She's not Superman-strong, but she could fight him. Plus, her bracelets are indestructible and do a little, ah. something-something when she slams 'em together. And if you're nice, you might even see her use that tiara as a weapon.

This film follows events in Diana's life 100 years before BvS

Yep, and the preview has scenes that look very much like the first CA movie.

Yeah, that footage of Themyscira really reminds of the Bronx, huh? And all those women warriors beating down soldier men. Right out of Captain America. And that magic lasso. And the part where Wonder Woman has her own Howlin' Commandos behind her...oh, wait. She doesn't.

And bitch all you want, but the DCEU's cinematography is clobbering the MCU's.

That's just bullshit. MoS had old-school shaky camera bullshit that was started on TV with the BSG remake, and continued in JJ's Star Trek reboot. It was nothing special...and in fact was less than average to me.

Cinematography is more than shaky cam (which I like, when it's done well, not excessively like in Civil War). Angles, panorama, good editing (which Civil War also sorely lacked in places), all of that factors in.

Also nice to know you only started watching TV in 2003, because The Shield was doing the whole shaky cam thing before Ron Moore's BSG. And Spielberg did it in Saving Private Ryan. And Abel Ferrara had a little going on in Bad Lieutenant before that. And the Coen brothers did it before that.

BvS had more up to date SFX but the cinematography was not all that special...it is definitely not clobbering anything, including things like X-Men or even Deadpool, if I had seen it I would probably say it didn't even "clobber" the last Fantastic Four movie. It's good but not THAT good.

Pbbbfffllltt. Deadpool broke no ground in front of the camera. The original X-Men trilogy doesn't look that hot. Neither do the Wolverine movies. The best and best-looking X-film is First Class, which is the only one directed by Matt Vaughn. Bryan Singer needs a permanent vacation.

BvS looks awesome because Zack knows how to do action and knows how to frame a shot. He tends to be criticized for his thematic material, not his visuals, which are universally recognized as one of his strengths. Even John Scalzi agrees!

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/03/29/my-review-of-batman-v-superman-and-its-reviews/

There’s something about Snyder’s visual aesthetic that I enjoy enough that I’m willing to deal with his films’ generally hypoxic storytelling and other flaws; I mean, Jesus, I enjoy Sucker Punch, and that film’s pretty much a shitshow from top to bottom. But it also gives me images like this:



And my brain goes coooooooooool.

I can't wait to see what Patty Jenkins has done. Marvel's loss is DC's gain.

I don't think Marvel really lost anything....and I think it is a long way away from proving DC gained anything. Some of the bits in the trailer have the 300 style slow motion fight scenes, which is also old school and annoying.

That slo-mo's for the trailer. Patty Jenkins isn't a protégé of Zack's. Marvel did lose Jenkins, and it's a loss people acknowledge. You know who also was pissed off over it? Natalie Portman. Word is she almost left the movie over that bullshit. But Feige has to have his tongue in everyone's bung because the "brand" is what has to be protected now. I'm all but convinced we're getting a watered-down Thanos.

This is also a typical hero origin story....So, you all should be barfing that it is formulistic and following the Hero's Journey, just as the Phase 1 Marvel films did. But, you two have proven to be so hypocritical, that you won't even mention how predictable will be.

You're a moron. I already proved you were the real hypocrite here many pages ago. Wonder Woman's origin is from the comics, with tweaks, just as it's so for every other character. What are you trying to prove, apart from convince us of your chronic constipation?

The Wonder Woman trailer's racked up over 16 million views since its debut on Saturday.

And, BvS had a lot more and that movie sucked. Hits on trailers mean absolutely nothing.

Tell that to the Marvelites who constantly quoted the Civil War trailer's views. Btw, WW's over 21 million views now. And we have a year to go.

[verslibre]

‘Batman v Superman’ Shoots to Top of Disc Charts
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/ba ... 201825810/

The extended cut is available only on the “Ultimate Edition” Blu-ray copies of the movie, not the standalone DVD version, and the first week of release for “Batman v Superman” saw 70% of its copies sold coming from the Blu-ray format — one of the highest first-week Blu-ray percentages ever for a major theatrical release new to disc (the record is the 83% put up by “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” earlier this year).

A friendly reminder that movie critics are generally pretty useless
http://bgr.com/2016/07/29/batman-v-supe ... dvd-sales/

7 out of every 10 copies released for retail now occupies a space in somebody's private video collection. Awesome.

Why would a film that (blah, blah, blah, blah, blah) sell that well?

Maybe now people will stop paying so much attention to "user ratings" and RT (etc.) and actually go watch the fukn movie!

Btw, this guy over on another music forum just watched BvS this week and liked it. I said yeah, the Ultimate Edition (blah, blah, blah). He said no, I goofed and watched the THEATRICAL cut first, the one everyone pissed on. But I liked it! So now I'll watch the UE.

Go figure.