Huge difference between Avengers and Justice League

[JBM150]

I agree with this. Marvel Cine is what I could call a great slow sensual HJ, the kind that builds you up with gentle 2-handed wrist twist with some saliva build up , eye gazing, and a few tounge swirls here and there to drive you over the edge. By the time Avengers was release, fans were ready to explode. The build up was that great. DC was the equivalent of a bad HJ, the ones you get from your wife after a few years. It was quick, dry, and with no passion. Hardly memorable. DC didn't "edge" it's audiences for a climax, and thus blew a small load, but for some reason still created a big mess to clean up.

Not sure what else need be said about this....

 

[blaseblah]

No one cared about the Avengers before the movies. Marvel just made better movies period and a lot more of them. DC only has 4 movies in their movie universe and only 1 of them was good.

Marvel can take obscure characters like Ant Man and GOTG and make them fan favorites. DC couldn't even make a decent Batman v. Superman movie, which should've been the most epic crossover in comic book movie history.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

THE opening scene in Infinity war is better than anything dc has turned out. Just the opening Alone is better

 

[Magooglie]

I felt Watchmen was pretty good as a film and the vast majority of what made it good came pretty directly from the comic. I mean no there not identical to the works there based on but those films I'd say draw much more directly on them that his DC EU films do which demand more input from him.

Its the same with Marvel really, there films do leave a lot of room for director input but superior directors, writters and indeed actors mean there more successful.

DC is basically stuck in the old "look its superman fighting batman! that's gotta be cool!" mode where just having the characters present is enough, Marvel on the other had are much more of a merger of the source material and creative talent.

Watchman comes off as someone that flipped through the comic, saw some cool images, wanted to recreate that, but didn't read the actual story. If you like it as its own thing that's cool, but it's not a good adaptation. And I judge the adaptation with more scrutiny because there's one 12 issue comic series and then there's a movie. There's a lot of sprawl with general marvel/dc properties with lots of comic book versions, cartoon versions, video game versions, movie versions, so the expectation for an accurate adaptation isn't there for me. Everything acts more so as inspiration.

And i'd say Marvel's superiority comes in tone and planning. Having a producer for everything, Kevin Feige, is more important than having one director who thinks his vision is the coolest. Edgar Wright didn't get to direct Ant-Man because it was either him or the plan.

 

[drstrangelov]

I don't think he even made good adaptations to 300 or Watchmen.

Watchmen wasn't a great movie, but it fixed the biggest flaw in the comic while keeping the things that made the comic interesting. Downside though, bad acting, mediocre casting and the fact that overall, it just wasn't fun enough (that's a flaw in the source though). It's better suited for tv, where you can play long, dark and brooding stories.

 

[Magooglie]

Watchmen wasn't a great movie, but it fixed the biggest flaw in the comic while keeping the things that made the comic interesting. Downside though, bad acting, mediocre casting and the fact that overall, it just wasn't fun enough (that's a flaw in the source though). It's better suited for tv, where you can play long, dark and brooding stories.

What flaw are you referring to? I thought it got a lot of themes wrong.

 

[drstrangelov]

What flaw are you referring to? I thought it got a lot of themes wrong.

The Alien creature, missing artists plot. That always felt tacked on and inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the story, to me.

 

[Magooglie]

The Alien creature, missing artists plot. That always felt tacked on and inconsistent with the tone of the rest of the story, to me.

I thought it was still better than the Dr. Manhattan blows up everything replacement. Dr. Manhattan cannot unite the world because he's still a US creation. The world needed an outside antagonist to unite against.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Watchman comes off as someone that flipped through the comic, saw some cool images, wanted to recreate that, but didn't read the actual story. If you like it as its own thing that's cool, but it's not a good adaptation. And I judge the adaptation with more scrutiny because there's one 12 issue comic series and then there's a movie. There's a lot of sprawl with general marvel/dc properties with lots of comic book versions, cartoon versions, video game versions, movie versions, so the expectation for an accurate adaptation isn't there for me. Everything acts more so as inspiration.

And i'd say Marvel's superiority comes in tone and planning. Having a producer for everything, Kevin Feige, is more important than having one director who thinks his vision is the coolest. Edgar Wright didn't get to direct Ant-Man because it was either him or the plan.

I think Moore's obvious dislike of any adaptation colours things a bit here, no not everything is there but a good deal of it is for me done reasonably well, not perfectly but that film is FAR superior to any of his DC ones for me. Again though as you say its a film like 300 that's VERY closely drawing on source material to the degree actual shots are lifted. I mean his DC work is obviously adapting existing characters but its not being nearly so direct, like Marvel its drawing on the source material but also introducing quite a lot itself when it comes to story and characterisation. In that respect I think you see his weakness, his versions of Superman, Batman, etc end up pretty bland trying to fall back of being "dark" without much real weight to them.

I actually think bar Wright Marvel's biggest success is down to just having a great eye for rising talent whether ti be actors, directors or writers and working with them well. In terms of tone I think actually what works in Marvels favour is that its not fixed, I mean its close enough that characters can interact but something like Guardians of the galaxy and WInter Solider offer something different. Beyond its obvious quality I think that's a clear advantage Marvel have as viewers don't get as burnt out on one style, personally I was growing a bit tired of their films back in 2012-13 when they were more uniform but having the Russo's and James Gun come in really mixed things up.

 

[Big Al's Texas BBQ]

Another huge difference...

 

[Magooglie]

I think Moore's obvious dislike of any adaptation colours things a bit here, no not everything is there but a good deal of it is for me done reasonably well, not perfectly but that film is FAR superior to any of his DC ones for me. Again though as you say its a film like 300 that's VERY closely drawing on source material to the degree actual shots are lifted. I mean his DC work is obviously adapting existing characters but its not being nearly so direct, like Marvel its drawing on the source material but also introducing quite a lot itself when it comes to story and characterisation. In that respect I think you see his weakness, his versions of Superman, Batman, etc end up pretty bland trying to fall back of being "dark" without much real weight to them.

I actually think bar Wright Marvel's biggest success is down to just having a great eye for rising talent whether ti be actors, directors or writers and working with them well. In terms of tone I think actually what works in Marvels favour is that its not fixed, I mean its close enough that characters can interact but something like Guardians of the galaxy and WInter Solider offer something different. Beyond its obvious quality I think that's a clear advantage Marvel have as viewers don't get as burnt out on one style, personally I was growing a bit tired of their films back in 2012-13 when they were more uniform but having the Russo's and James Gun come in really mixed things up.

I think Snyder's versions of Owl Guy and Adrian Veidt are bland with no real weight behind them. And the very concise amount of source material was there for him to use. That should have been a warning sign to anybody. 300 is like what I said about Watchmen. Snyder flipped through the comic, and just wanted to recreate some images he saw. And add a lot of mutants and Spartans doing individual twirly sword fighting.

By tone I mean there's a lot of levity in Marvel movies. They use it to balance heavier dramatic parts. If you look at the marvel director lineup, a lot of them are comedic directors. Early on they tried out other types of directors but the comedy guys won out.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I think Snyder's versions of Owl Guy and Adrian Veidt are bland with no real weight behind them. That should have been a warning sign to anybody. 300 is like what I said about Watchmen. Snyder flipped through the comic, and just wanted to recreate some images he saw. And add a lot of mutants and Spartans doing individual twirly sword fighting.

By tone I mean there's a lot of levity in Marvel movies. They use it to balance heavier dramatic parts. If you look at the marvel director lineup, a lot of them are comedic directors. Early on they tried out other types of directors but the comedy guys won out.

Yeah I would agree with you those two characters are definitely less successful than some of the others but his Comedian for example does I think have a lot of the original and is just a far superior character to the clunky versions of Batman and Superman he's come up with because the latter demanded more personal input from himself.

Marvel have definitely tended to go for directors with some comic background but if you look at actual results the something like CIvil War is quite different from Guardian of the Galaxy or Ragnarok. DC thus far has I would argue actually had the more consistant tone, its just a rather childish grimdark one that people are getting tired of rather quickly. Marvel on the other hand is offering variety that I think helps prevent audiences or indeed characters from becoming burnt out.

Behind the comedy as well characters like Stark do I think have considerably more weight to them than DC's efforts.

 

[orca]

Batman > superman

 

[Magooglie]

Yeah I would agree with you those two characters are definitely less successful than some of the others but his Comedian for example does I think have a lot of the original and is just a far superior character from the clunky versions of Batman and Superman he's come up with because the latter demanded more personal input from himself.

Marvel have definitely tended to go for directors with some comic background but if you look at actual results the something like CIvil War is quite different from Guardian of the Galaxy or Ragnarok. DC thus far has I would argue actually had the more consistant tone, its just a rather childish grimdark one that people are getting tired of rather quickly. Marvel on the other hand is offering variety that I think helps prevent audiences or indeed characters from becoming burnt out.

Behind the comedy as well characters like Stark do I think have considerably more weight to them than DC's efforts.

If you can't get Owl Guy and Veidt then you have no business trying to make Superman and Batman more than charicatures. Because to understand why there's no vicious comeuppance beating of Veidt by Owl Guy at the end requires one to actually understand what they're reading. The Comedian scenes are lifted from the comic and they're fairly dramatic or enticing on face value.

That's the other point I made, planning. Marvel diligently released movies so they could have a measured and built up expansion over time. With DC it was Superman. And then the next movie is Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. And it turned out DC execs just wanted bonuses so they were rushing things. They got the tone wrong and they didn't plan right.

 

[SaiWa]

I agree with this. Marvel Cine is what I could call a great slow sensual HJ, the kind that builds you up with gentle 2-handed wrist twist with some saliva build up , eye gazing, and a few tounge swirls here and there to drive you over the edge. By the time Avengers was release, fans were ready to explode. The build up was that great. DC was the equivalent of a bad HJ, the ones you get from your wife after a few years. It was quick, dry, and with no passion. Hardly memorable. DC didn't "edge" it's audiences for a climax, and thus blew a small load, but for some reason still created a big mess to clean up.

well I for one really enjoy your wife's handjobs so you can tell her I appreciate everything she does.

wait wat?...

 

[Joe_Armstrong]

DC, do you even phase bro.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

If you can't get Owl Guy and Veidt then you have no business trying to make Superman and Batman more than charicatures. Because to understand why there's no vicious comeuppance beating of Veidt by Owl Guy at the end requires one to actually understand what they're reading. The Comedian scenes are lifted from the comic and they're fairly dramatic or enticing on face value.

That's the other point I made, planning. Marvel diligently released movies so they could have a measured and built up expansion over time. With DC it was Superman. And then the next movie is Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. And it turned out DC execs just wanted bonuses so they were rushing things. They got the tone wrong and they didn't plan right.

Which I why I think its a bit harsh to say people who liked Watchmen are somehow to blame for Snyders failures since then, there is some good stuff in that film but its good from off the page not good from Synders creativity.

Beyond buildup I actually think one big thing Marvel had in there favour taking the long approach was time to perfect their style, earlier on you had films like Ironman 2(too much crossover getting in the way of the story) for example or The Incredable Hulk(Synder like empty grimdark) that didn't really work so well but by the time everything started to come together they'd gotten past that.

 

[Magooglie]

Which I why I think its a bit harsh to say people who liked Watchmen are somehow to blame for Snyders failures since then, there is some good stuff in that film but its good from off the page not good from Synders creativity.

Beyond buildup I actually think one big thing Marvel had in there favour taking the long approach was time to perfect their style, earlier on you had films like Ironman 2(too much crossover getting in the way of the story) for example or The Incredable Hulk(Synder like empty grimdark) that didn't really work so well but by the time everything started to come together they'd gotten past that.

Of course they are. They liked what Snyder did to Watchmen, validated him, and then he did it to Superman and Batman. Nobody should be surprised about how crappy the DCCU is if they were paying attention to what was going on with Watchmen the movie.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Another huge difference...

Thanos isn't as fucking brutal as you, @Dragonlordxxxxx

 

[KnightTemplar]

I agree with this. Marvel Cine is what I could call a great slow sensual HJ, the kind that builds you up with gentle 2-handed wrist twist with some saliva build up , eye gazing, and a few tounge swirls here and there to drive you over the edge. By the time Avengers was release, fans were ready to explode. The build up was that great. DC was the equivalent of a bad HJ, the ones you get from your wife after a few years. It was quick, dry, and with no passion. Hardly memorable. DC didn't "edge" it's audiences for a climax, and thus blew a small load, but for some reason still created a big mess to clean up.

You, my friend, are a poet