Reply To: Hobby Weekender 10/05/19 A bit of gaming philosophy this time

[mageParticipant 20596xp 1]

@dawfydd

It is and it isn’t. While as a film it is a tad off in a broad sense; structure, direction, pacing. I appreciate what it tried to do and it works in some ways. A lot of the stuff we see in DC movies isnt quite as it is in the comics while with marvel it is. Zack Snyder though is not nor was not the right man for the job. I would not even say the DCEU has been bizarra on purpose, but it does show a lack of focussed leadership and a solid vision; no consistency. It seems the mission is different to the MCU in that it is reactive and not proactive.

To me it seemed Warner saw what Marvel done and thought they could recreate the formula by changing it and doing their own thing which inhibited its overall execution. It has been too grim, serious and humourless at times which has led to a lack of balance. No end credits scenes makes it seem like the production staff simply did not care. Putting Zack Snyder in charge only shows that important decision makers were blind to his weaknesses and only looked at the profit margin from Man of Steel and simply thought they could hit the repeat button. It smacks of a cash grab, a lack of artistic integrity and inconsistencies.

Despite the misfires though they are still building a universe, if not an overall plotline. However when they have listened and made course corrections, they seem to have worked. I think Zack works ok if he is given something solid to do and instructed specifically with an end result, not being a ‘show runner’. Decision making, Leadership and good judgement seem to slide with him as he opts for ideas and spectacle which lead to very flawed end results.

I would not even say Man of Steel shows he did not understand Superman. There have been dozens of plotlines, Supermans, elseworlds and what have you since the character first aired. You compare the one from the Cartoon to Smallville to Man of Steel Superman to New 52 Superman to Earth 2 Superman and Christopher Reeve and you might as well get a beautifully crafted church window and shatter it with a kick. The same with Joker. The same with Batman. Heck, while they were good movies, the Batman in the Christopher Nolan movies was a watered down Dark Knight. It was not to say he was bad, but he was far from a lot of incarnations from the comics. Christian Bale didn’t nail his character the same way Heath Ledger did. Simple as. He was wooden, 2d Bruce Wane and his Batman, while looking the part, was good but seemed better after the string of two ridiculous 90s movies. Compare him to the one in Batman the Animated series and he pales in comparison to the voice actor.

I think the DCEU was too dark to make a normal, wholesome relationship like that to seem unforced. Ben was an interesting take and had a lot more potential than that shown. I would have written and structured a BvS story completely differently. Gal and Jason were indeed perfect, and their own movies show this quite well. Shazam knocked it out of the park and I feel they have crystalised their own formula with it. They need to use this one as a template. And Shazam has its Dark moments too, its balanced.

I havent Transformed him yet! Also, the Seacon leader is a repurposed hungurr?

@limburger

Its not ‘that’ bad. What do you know of the Frank Miller Dark Knight Batman and Death of Superman arcs?

As for Lex Luthor, if you looked at it in a more objective way than simply thinking the movie is bad what they have gone for is a modern take. Lex has been criticised as a character a lot over the years as being simply a ruthless businessman and hailed as both the worst and best villain at the same time. They couldn’t do a rehash of a rehash of a rehash. While I think it was badly done, what they went for was a Silicon Valley / Zukerberg type of younger, next generation businessman with mental health problems. It is more layered than greedy for the sake of greed which could apply to a bear as much as a super villain.

However as I said above the exeuction was off. If Lex were to appear in more movies and turn into the stronger figure we are familiar with, well then it is a springboard for character development. Bare in mind that this was the first movie where they decided intentionally to start branching out and building a world.

Not being a fan of the genre are there any superhero movies you like, and would that have an influence on your judgement of said movies, ooc? Im getting into the analytical side of things here as it is a subject I like talking about.

The spoiler thing was a plot device. Its what pulls Batman back from a step he cannot undo. It grounds him back in reality. If you think its just because of that you don’t kind of, and I know it is a bad movie but this part is established; how far Batman has fallen. How almost if not already broken he is. If the death of his parents turned him into a crazed loner vigilante who spent the rest of his childhood training, than what would he do if he was a vigilante for years and saw an office buliding of his employees get torn in half like a piece of tissue by two super powered beings? It would drive him bannanas and maybe the reminder of one of his spoilers would be the only way to kind of throw a splash of cold water in the face of one of the most stubborn and wilful people on the planet.

There are a lot of good points as well as bad points to the movies and clearly it is a love letter of sorts to the fans. Sadly, it did not translate to something like Captain America Civil War.

@dawfydd <15 points>

15 points for the assembly

@sundancer Do you have burn gel?

@woldenspoons I gotta catch up…

@robert <20 points>

20 points for responses.

Good luck and enjoy re-reading it!

Okay Im off outta the house to do some errands and get good. Laters peeps. Will be more on the ball today with this.