>Look, in the broad sense, from a long-term portfolio perspective, Warner Bros. has already won. They own this vast underexploited [intellectual property] that is DC. They're going to make all these movies regardless. Will every DC movie be great and be successful? No. Would it be good if "BvS" works for them? Yes, obviously. But if any one of the movies doesn't work, it doesn't mean it all goes away. "Green Lantern" didn't work, and Green Lantern is going to come back and work for them.
He tried to warn us.
So, basically
>We're gonna shit in your mouth and you're gonna love it
>>67388295
They ARE copying Marvel after all.
>>67388332
at least marvel tries to make fun movies
I really wish this cinematic universe thing, along with remakes and reboots, would die, though
give me original movies
Now DC is doublefucked, because they need to make the Citizen Kane of capeshit for both critics and audiences to ever trust them again.
>>67388508
Do you honestly think mainstream pleb retards care what studio produces a film? All they see is "COOL NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE WITH BATMAN, BIG EXPLOWSHUNS, MUST SEE".
They don't give a flying fuck who it was produced or directed by.
>>67388225
MAKE A STANDALONE BATMAN FILM ALREADY AFFLECK WITH YOU AS DIRECTOR!!
i wonder if green lantern had a BvS style marketing campaign it would've made 500-600m
it always felt like they realised that movie was shit and they couldnt even trick people into seeing it
>>67388463
Marvel has been making the same basic movie for eight years now. Fuck Marvel and DC. This fad is, thankfully, on it's way out.
superman is such a shitty franchise
WB should've looked at what made Iron Man 1 work and realize they could never pull off something similar with a superman flick..
>>67388714
nolan's batman trilogy would've done just okay if it wasn't for ledger. That's the reason TDK made 3x as much as Begins, even though they're very close in quality.
batman isn't an interesting or likeable enough character, and superman is worse in both aspects, and he doesn't even have interesting villains to make up for this.
>>67389022
>what made Iron Man 1 work
You mean RDJ? Go ahead, picture that movie with Tom Cruise as Tony Stark like the studio wanted. It would have been long since forgotten, mainly because it is an unremarkable movie with a charming actor.
>>67388714
Not the studio retard, the characters.
Unless WB does something drastic, Batman and Superman aren't going to sell as many tickets to theaters anymore, just like Green Lantern and Catwoman wont, or Spider-Man had they not put him in a MCU picture.
Yet another MoS/BvS like film aint going to fly with audiences (despite COOL NEW SUPERHERO MOVIE WITH BATMAN, BIG EXPLOWSHUNS, MUST SEE), and simply making it Marvel-esque won't make them anything but second or third place after Marvel and Fox.
>>67389086
Iron Man was a stone cold classic. It is largely regarded as one of the better movies ever made, honestly. It woud have suffered without Downy, but it still would have been amazing.
>>67388463
>not being hyped for the King Kong X Godzilla CU
>>67389022
they are trying to do nolan's batman with all characters. all versions dc movie superheroes are dark serious like batman was.
>>67389149
>Iron Man
>largely regarded as one of the better movies ever made
By seven year olds.
>>67388976
Well it's true.
But at least they sometimes trie to be cool and different to make fun movies, like Guardians Of The Gallaxy.
Also, they had a plan, they did set up the avenger pretty well with othe rmovies leading up to it without felling forced.
DC is not even trying.
BvS is their set up, and they already have 3 main heroes (one of those is now "dead" and the other was completely shoehorned into the movie) if you can even call them that.
All in all DC tries to much to be dark and edgy and adult, but they fail miserable, they're rushing as fast as they can to catch up to marvel whitout even thinking.
Also something i respect marvel for is the fact that they actually know what they are, comics are, generally, for kids and teenagers and marvel doesn't try to run away from that.
>>67389206
Are you fucking kidding me? It is one of the top movies of that decade. MCU is this generation's Star Wars.
>>67389233
>But at least they sometimes trie to be cool and different to make fun movies, like Guardians Of The Gallaxy
I really hate it when people talk about Guardians as if it is some crazy David Lynch film or something. It is the same kind of light hearted action comedy Marvel has ALWAYS made, only this time it happened to have a talking Raccoon.
>>67389347
COME AND GET YOR GROOT, DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA DUGGA, COME AND GET YOR GROOT
>>67389086
the key is having a flawed superhero. having RDJ play him helped a lot to sell this point for sure, but he was replaceable.
Superman doesn't have that, only his bullshit emotional internal conflict. One way to work around having an overpowered protagonist is taking away his powers, like Marvel did with Thor, and even like WB did in Rises.
>>67389413
>implying that Thor was a good movie.
>>67388463
I don't understand this fun meme at all. Marvel movies, while more playful, just end up feeling like escapism and a waste of 2 hours. I'd literally rather see Hack Snyder try to make a movie with depth and fail spectacularly than see another assembly line save-the-cat-following quip fest that doesn't do anything to stand out from the others.
>>67389459
>implying that Thor was not a good movie.
Fuck you, I can do that too. What's wrong with Thor?
>>67389459
It's the weakest of the first series yeah, but it would've been absolute shit if Thor's only conflict was his feelings.
>>67389347
You forgot to add
>Only this time it happened to be with completely unknow heroes.
>Only this time it happened to be with a talking tree.
>Only this time all it's soundtrack is completely unknow for people of this generation.
>Only this time the main character is a who both in the comics and in real life.
>Only this time it doesn't have any link to the main heroes.
>>67388463
>>67389484
Thor is a fine movie. It's the second one that's a pile of crap.
>>67389266
Jesus christ, you have to be kidding.
>>67389497
you mentioned things that have no bearing on the structure and tone of the movie.
Its structure and its tone are the same as the other movies. Yes the setting is different, but you can say that about all of those movies.
Take captain america:
>only this time it's set in ww2
>only this time it happened to be with a talking skull
>only this time the main character starts out as a loser and turns into a hero because of drugs
etc. etc.
I don't even think GotG is bad but to say that is entirely different from the other marvel movies you must have a pretty narrow view of cinema as a whole, those movies are all pretty much the same
>>67389623
well duh, they're all origin stories. Marvel sequels are notorious for not living up to the first one, the only exception being Winter Soldier.
>>67389544
>Thor is a fine movie
HOLY HELL
THOR (2011) IS A GOOD MOVIE
the things i read...
>>67388332
kek
>>67389497
>Only this time it happened to be with completely unknow heroes.
So fucking what? Believe it or not, there was a time in movies that an audience did not expect to walk in knowing every character in a film before. This should be pretty fucking easy to grasp.
>Only this time it happened to be with a talking tree.
An adorable sidekick? FUCKING CRAZY! Truly, James Gunn is a visionary mastermind.
>Only this time all it's soundtrack is completely unknow for people of this generation
Yes, because conventional movies only use recognizable music kids carry around on their iPods. That's why Danny ELfman and John Williams are such popular billboard top 40 artists.
>Only this time the main character is a who both in the comics and in real life.
This is not a coherent sentence.
>Only this time it doesn't have any link to the main heroes.
Neither do any of the stand alone films.
>>67389597
Can you think of a film franchise that has resonated more strongly with audiences and have been noted for consistent quality than Marvel in the last twenty years?
>>67389740
I guess it is when you compare it to the dark world but only because that one was possibly the worst marvel movie
>>67389853
See, this is the exact problem I have with all this capeshit. Everybody judges them in a fucking bubble.
>Thor sucked
>Well it was better than Thor 2
>That's true, I guess Thor was pretty good.
Good by comparison does not mean good. And just because the Marvel movies may be marginally better than other capeshit, that does not make them good movies. How does Thor hold up against Batman v Superman? Pretty good. How well does Thor hold up to Schindler's List? FUCKING IS BARELY A MOVIE!
>>67389995
Okay maybe not Thor, but Avengers is a classic. I truthfully feel it stands up to Schindler's List. They're two types of movies, but Avengers is just as good.
>>67390033
I legitimately want you to be dead.
>>67390085
Fuck off. Critics agree.
>>67390126
No reasonable human being thinks that.
>>67389852
Consistently entertaining but mediocre? Nope.
>>67389475
This. Man of Steel was terrible but Snyder tried to make something out of it, and for that alone it's way more interesting than the cinematic big macs Marvel shits out. It's fascinating in a way that it's fascinating to watch a jock recite poetry and there's artistic value in that, too.
>>67390154
What is mediocre about Marvel films? The plots are generally exciting, the acting s top notch, and they are hilarious. Tell me, you fucking DCuck, what is mediocre about that?
>>67390330
The plots, the movie structures, the music (with the only exception being thor), generally speaking they are forgettable movies.
You can see every "twist", every turn, every joker, from miles away, there's no innovation or message being sent. They are all braindead movies.
>>67391061
the DCuck is strong with this one.Critically speaking, Marvel has never made a bad movie. LITERALLY EVER. THey're worst movie is like a 72. Spielberg and Kubrick and PTA can't even manage that
>>67391120
Your qualifiers for "good" and "bad" are seriously fucked if you can say shit like that with a straight face.
>>67391147
I didn't said bad, I said mediocre.
>>67390257
>Man of Steel was terrible but Snyder tried to make something out of it,
do people ever read the retarded shit they write back to themselves
>>67388225
>They're going to make all these movies regardless.
Is this a threat
>>67391167
Sorry meant to reply to >>67391120
Anyway movie critics like any other reviewers have been wrong again and again.
>>67391175
I'm sorry your autistic brain can't grasp that thought.
>>67390257
>trying this hard
it doesn't matter if it's aiming to be serious, or a camp fest - if it's shit, it's shit.
>>67391237
It's too bad if that's how far your interest in films goes. There's value in bad movies too, and I think the ambition of Man of Steel was commendable even though the film was overall a failure.
