The Superhero Thread

[Sparty 110]

 

*Didn't Read The Spoiler Part Of Your Post*

 

 

This is ALL I was saying the entire time. Again....people taking my words and making it more than what it is. I gladly admit certain parts were executed 10x better in Civil War than in BvS.

 

 

However, fans acting as if it is completely out of left field to say that the two movies are very similar in the concepts and teams (which I've said the whole time) is annoying. Also, fans playing double standards...calling story parts weak in BvS and Civil War did THE SAME STUFF and are slurping it up.

 

 

No where did I say the quality is the same as each other. I think the movies have very different holes and different strengths in the details. But the concept is beat by beat the same as I been saying for years.

 

But really butta, you have to ask yourself this question: Who. the. Fuck. Cares. Concepts are the same.. Your point is what? They're making 2 jungle books. They made 2 terrorist movies a couple years ago. Stop acting like its new, lol. Pointless point is pointless.

[butta54 371]

 

But really butta, you have to ask yourself this question: Who. the. Fuck. Cares. Concepts are the same.. Your point is what? They're making 2 jungle books. They made 2 terrorist movies a couple years ago. Stop acting like its new, lol. Pointless point is pointless.

 

 

The point is there is a double standard that is annoying with you fanboys. Crying about the "issues" with one movie then turn around and praise a movie for the same thing. Simply because of your fanboy bias with one company. It's annoying to listen to the complaints for over a month just to see it turned around...even if it was expected.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Still waiting for your post detailing that stuff.

[butta54 371]

I got you after work, practice, and the gym.

 

Don't worry. There will be plenty of reviews in the coming weeks

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Can't wait ! Milla and Sparty have their write ups still too. I will gladly destroy everyone Sorry if I missed them on a previous page, been on my phone all morning and afternoon and I hate navigating on here, ha. Lol

[butta54 371]

Civil War Spoiler Talk & Stuff:

 

 

By far the top complaint of Batman v Superman was that "Superman and Batman didn't want to fight each other...they had to be manipulated" And if that is your opinion fine, but now I would love someone to sit here and defend that story element when the ENTIRE Civil War movie was a set-up by a puppet master making Cap and Iron Man go at it. I liked Lex pulling strings so naturally I like the twist in Civil War that it was all a scheme by one guy.

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by butta54

[butta54 371]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNz0LMrux6U

[Thanatos 2,847]

I agree with Sparty's rating on this one. 8/10. It was a great movie, but it wasn't the best Avengers, or Captain America.

 

Spiderman was absolutely fantastic. I was not expecting to like him at all and he ended up easily being my favorite character. And then the after-credits scene?

I find myself actually excited for another Spiderman reboot.

 

[butta54 371]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVp-8tlMus0

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Civil War Spoiler Talk & Stuff:

 

 

By far the top complaint of Batman v Superman was that "Superman and Batman didn't want to fight each other...they had to be manipulated" And if that is your opinion fine, but now I would love someone to sit here and defend that story element when the ENTIRE Civil War movie was a set-up by a puppet master making Cap and Iron Man go at it. I liked Lex pulling strings so naturally I like the twist in Civil War that it was all a scheme by one guy.

 

 

Hmm, I never really heard that about BvS. Most of what I heard was that it all happened too fast, felt rushed, overall that we weren't really expected to care about the characters at all. None of which really applies to Civil War.

 

Also to Thanatos / Sparty -- Definitely the best Captain America movie. It isn't really an Avengers movie (kind of, I guess?) so I don't necessarily want to compare those but I still prefer this one.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Winter Soldier was better IMO.

 

It kinda felt like an Avengers movie to me. I mean it was Cap-centered, but still felt Avengery. Not saying its not great, because it was, just had a friend tell me it was the best superhero movie he's ever seen and I just don't see that.

[Sparty 110]

 

Hmm, I never really heard that about BvS. Most of what I heard was that it all happened too fast, felt rushed, overall that we weren't really expected to care about the characters at all. None of which really applies to Civil War.

 

Also to Thanatos / Sparty -- Definitely the best Captain America movie. It isn't really an Avengers movie (kind of, I guess?) so I don't necessarily want to compare those but I still prefer this one.

I still think TWS was better.

 

I'm going to watch Civil War again on Wednesday.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Sparty

[seanbrock 1,684]

Before I watch Deadpool, is it as annoying as it looks?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Winter Soldier was better IMO.

 

It kinda felt like an Avengers movie to me. I mean it was Cap-centered, but still felt Avengery. Not saying its not great, because it was, just had a friend tell me it was the best superhero movie he's ever seen and I just don't see that.

 

I don't think so. Although, I have always been kind of Anti-Winter Soldier (not saying it was bad, but I was never on the hype train everyone else was). This felt like Winter Soldier in the good ways, but took it a step beyond because of all the added awesomeness and characters. I would feel relatively comfortable saying it's the best ever only because no others really stick out to me as better off the top of my head. The Avengers movies are up there, Guardians maybe, a couple of the Nolan Batmans (I didn't like Begins very much), Days of Future Past... Still think Civil War ranks above those (for me at least).

Edited May 7, 2016 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Before I watch Deadpool, is it as annoying as it looks?

 

Deadpool is awesome. How on earth does it look annoying? I mean if you don't like profanity, crude humor, and gore, it's not for you, but the movie is more than just those things too.

[butta54 371]

 

Hmm, I never really heard that about BvS. Most of what I heard was that it all happened too fast, felt rushed, overall that we weren't really expected to care about the characters at all. None of which really applies to Civil War.

 

 

 

Soooo if watching Bruce see his building destroyed, and employees killed....or Superman having his mom about to be killed....is not enough to care about a character....then please explain to me how Stark losing his parents....or Cap trying to protect his old friend any better?

 

 

 

Talking about you care about a character based on previous movies or lack of previous movies is not a legit reason to judge a movie.

 

 

-----------

 

Also Civil War is def an Avengers 2.5 movie.

Edited May 7, 2016 by butta54

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

Soooo if watching Bruce see his building destroyed, and employees killed....or Superman having his mom about to be killed....is not enough to care about a character....then please explain to me how Stark losing his parents....or Cap trying to protect his old friend any better?

 

 

 

Talking about you care about a character based on previous movies or lack of previous movies is not a legit reason to judge a movie.

 

It most definitely is... lmao. Story telling and development of characters is a huge part of the game. That's why Civil War soared while BvS bombed. They rushed BvS to try to catch up with Marvel and it backfired which is really all the proof that I need.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

 

The issue I have with Batman and Superman's motivations for fighting each other isn't really that Luthor had to scheme to get them to do it. That makes sense. What didn't make sense to me was why Batman was so blood thirsty over someone he didn't even meet until about an hour into the movie. Or why Superman seemed to have something against Batman to begin with. The stuff about him going up against the Bat as Clark Kent for the Daily Planet didn't make sense to me. There hasn't been enough shown to illustrate to the audience why Superman has an issue with a masked vigilante beating up criminals in another city when he just blew his own halfway to hell.

In Civil War, the character's motivations are fleshed out way better and the fact that they've been building up to this since The Avengers didn't hurt either. After the events of The Winter Soldier, you can see why Cap would be reluctant to trust the government with so much power and seeing first hand how horribly corrupt SHIELD truly was. We know that Stark is absolutely terrified of what is out there in the universe and not being able to protect the Earth. It's why he created Ultron. He's obviously going nuts and taking it too far at times. Like locking up Scarlet Witch at Avengers HQ to "protect" her. Steve and Tony have been arguing over their different ideologies from day one as well. It makes sense to why they would fight. Because Marvel has been planning it and planting the seeds for it. DC/WB rushed out BvS for a cash grab and attempt to speed up the process of their cinematic universe. Patience paid off for Marvel in this one.

 

[butta54 371]

The idea that WB tried to "catch up" to Marvel is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There is 0 possible way to catch up to years of movies in one movie. It told its story for its universe and that is it.

 

Also saying that means that any movie that doesn't have a movie before it can't make you invested in the character. That is a dumb way of thinking IMO. It adds something, but because you don't have a movie preceding the current movie doesn't mean you can't care. You didn't care cause you came in ready to not care just like the rest of the fanboy walking around with the double standard. The motives in BvS were just as compelling (if not more) than Civil War.

[butta54 371]

 

 

The issue I have with Batman and Superman's motivations for fighting each other isn't really that Luthor had to scheme to get them to do it. That makes sense. What didn't make sense to me was why Batman was so blood thirsty over someone he didn't even meet until about an hour into the movie. Or why Superman seemed to have something against Batman to begin with. The stuff about him going up against the Bat as Clark Kent for the Daily Planet didn't make sense to me. There hasn't been enough shown to illustrate to the audience why Superman has an issue with a masked vigilante beating up criminals in another city when he just blew his own halfway to hell.

 

In Civil War, the character's motivations are fleshed out way better and the fact that they've been building up to this since The Avengers didn't hurt either. After the events of The Winter Soldier, you can see why Cap would be reluctant to trust the government with so much power and seeing first hand how horribly corrupt SHIELD truly was. We know that Stark is absolutely terrified of what is out there in the universe and not being able to protect the Earth. It's why he created Ultron. He's obviously going nuts and taking it too far at times. Like locking up Scarlet Witch at Avengers HQ to "protect" her. Steve and Tony have been arguing over their different ideologies from day one as well. It makes sense to why they would fight. Because Marvel has been planning it and planting the seeds for it. DC/WB rushed out BvS for a cash grab and attempt to speed up the process of their cinematic universe. Patience paid off for Marvel in this one.

 

 

Completely disagree

 

 

BvS as a crash grab is a ridiculous statement to me first off.

 

You sit here criticize Superman for blowing his city to hell when first off he didn't even live there yet, and secondly he didn't blow anything. The world creator did 90% of the damage and Zod fighting him did the rest. But then you say he destroyed his city to hell then say you don't get why Batman wants to kill him? Last time I checked Tony never met Bucky? But killing his parents made him blood thirsty. Batman wasn't just beating people up. He was killing them, or branding them which led to them dying. Batman was scared of what Superman could become, on top of what he seen him do. Just as Tony was scared of what the world could be vulnerable to he did some DRASTIC things. So Batman going after Superman isn't that far-fetched...not to mention he had to hype himself up to do it by thinking about his family legacy. He wasn't just geared to fight, he had to get in the mindset that he was doing something for the greater good. Just as Tony was.

 

Now in Civil War I agree it helps to have the background, except the ideologies that Cap and Tony argued over were the OPPOSITE in the movies previously, so seeing them still fighting with Tony being pro-gov and rules and Cap being anti-rules was a little weird. Either way yes it was set up as a scheme by Zemo...and then the fight wasn't AT ALL about ideologies....at the end of the day it was about Bucky killing Tony's mom. The airport scene was a half-effort fight. When it was a real fight it had nothing to do about government or non-government...or even Captain America....it was all about Tony trying to kill Bucky.

 

 

 

Again I love both movies, but please stop sitting here giving one a pass because you are a fan of that comic

[Milla4Prez63 678]

I don't think DC is trying to catch up to Marvel, but they are obviously trying to emulate their success for themselves.

Let me ask a serious question. Without the success of The Avengers, does Warner Bros. make BvS?

[butta54 371]

So everyone making supehero movies are copying Marvel?

 

Cause if I'm correct, X-Men from FOX and Spider-Man from Sony were huge successes before Marvel started it's MCU.

 

WB had Superman Returns before Iron Man even came out, had that made the money they wanted then WB would have been ahead of Marvel in number of movies.

 

So yes...I think BvS would have happened without Avengers....PLEASE let's stop acting like Marvel is some great innovator.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

No, not everyone making superhero movies is copying Marvel. You can't be serious right now. You're really just arguing against points I'm not even trying to make.

The idea of a shared expanded universe like this in film with superheroes WAS something that started with Marvel Studios. Nothing of this scale had been done before. Warner Bros. has had complete creative control to do whatever they want with DC Comics characters on the big screen yet they've done close to nothing with this vast amount of source material outside of Batman and Superman. Warner Bros. seemed in no hurry to make a Justice League movie or even a Wonder Woman or Flash movie....until Marvel and Disney started swimming in money Scrooge McDuck style.

If you truly believe this movie and the whole DCEU isn't Warner Bros.' attempt to emulate the success of the MCU you're just being delusional. There is nothing wrong with that, it's smart business and everyone wants to see the Justice League on the big screen. But they rushed out BvS and crammed too much into it in an attempt to get this kick started now. It clearly didn't work for them, 28% on RT and going to fall short of 900 million at the box office globally.

[butta54 371]

If you are asking me is WB trying to make money? Well that isn't even a question. Of course they will use there source material to make money.

 

 

Shared universe is the same thing as prequels, sequels, and spin-offs. Yes Marvel was the first to tell one single story through everything, but they didn't create the idea of movies that happen within the same "universe" Not to mention who cares? The team up movies are the money cow, the stand alones are all crappy outside of the first Iron Man and Winter Solider.....those are the real cash grabs.

 

Wonder Woman and Justice League both had movies on the table at multiple times that were pulled last minute or didn't work out. Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins replaced a Justice League movie actually. WB didn't sit there and see Marvel making money and say "OH YEAH FORGOT WE HAVE COMIC MATERIAL TOO" they were trying before. The superhero genre having success gave it more priority of course, but Nolan's Batman movies were out even before Avengers made it's money.

 

 

I'm not adding points to your argument...you said they aren't copying...but saying they are trying to emulate their success...sounds like the exact same thing to me.

 

Batman v Superman was pushed back a year and a half...they didn't rush anything....they didn't cram too much into the movie, your opinion of course....but as far as the story telling no...it was just fine how they gave most the screen time to the main characters and their motives.

 

$800 plus million is NEVER a failure. Who cares that everyone wants a Billion dollars....that doesn't mean missing that mark is a failure, most movies would NEVER dream of making that. And TO HELL with a RT score....that means about nothing to a studio...ask the Transformers franchise. BvS had divided reactions, but make no mistake the DCU is started and in full gear. Every major piece needed to be introduced or teased was done and that is the only important part in starting it off.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

If Batman V Superman wasn't a failure, why has the DC universe begun busting at the seems. We are looking at a full blown collapse and it will probably only get worse before it gets better. Didn't you even make a video about that?