Justice League Movie (Nov 17th, 2017)

[crows]

Interesting video "explaining" why the audience isn't connecting to the DCEU.

I agree with some of it.




Here's the video he mentioned about MCU films looking like crap.

That was an excellent analysis of batman v superman and suicide squad.

I loved his points. He is right about everything

 

[GasparZizou]

I don't like SS but even that one has defined characters and character arcs, it's you can't describe the characters from the prequel trilogy all over again.

What is it about the DCEU that makes its critics so hopelessly myopic? Even some of the sensible people I know turn into troglodytes.

 

[crows]

I don't like SS but even that one has defined characters and character arcs, it's you can't describe the characters from the prequel trilogy all over again.

What is it about the DCEU that makes its critics so hopelessly myopic? Even some of the sensible people I know turn into troglodytes.

 

[GasparZizou]

Ora ora ora!

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

I don't like SS but even that one has defined characters and character arcs, it's you can't describe the characters from the prequel trilogy all over again.

What is it about the DCEU that makes its critics so hopelessly myopic? Even some of the sensible people I know turn into troglodytes.

So you don't agree that Superman in MOS is the same guy by the end of the film and there's no real growth, other than changing his look and learning about his origin?

I think the guy kind of makes a good point regarding MOS Sups. Clark was saving people from the very beginning of the film and it wasn't the first time, because he'd been doing it for a while like a "guardian angel." I never thought about that. It's not like he was wasting his time and not using his talents and not living up to his potential, and then he becomes Sups and there's a change.

If I ask someone, why does Tony Stark become IM or why does Bruce Wayne become Batman? I'm pretty sure they can answer the question easily. However, if I ask someone why Clark Kent becomes Superman in MOS? I don't think there's a clear answer....besides saving people is a good thing, which is as generic as you can get, and he was technically doing it before even wearing a costume.



Also, you don't agree that the MCU films are ugly looking?

 

[Khev]

He was pretty spot on with regard to the MCU's scores and cinematography but his commentary on character arcs was too generalized.

BvS Clark and Bruce absolutely had visible arcs. He dismissed Bruce's turning point because it came late in the film but that is often the most dramatic moment for such an event to occur. Thor's moment came at the end of his first movie when he finally acted selflessly by stepping out in front of Destroyer. Same with Rey in The Force Awakens when she embraced her destiny and reached for the saber that she had previously vowed to never touch again. Just because it worked great for Peter Parker to have his turning point early in the film doesn't automatically mean that other movies are doing it wrong if they don't follow suit.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

He was pretty spot on with regard to the MCU's scores and cinematography but his commentary on character arcs was too generalized.

BvS Clark and Bruce absolutely had visible arcs. He dismissed Bruce's turning point because it came late in the film but that is often the most dramatic moment for such an event to occur. Thor's moment came at the end of his first movie when he finally acted selflessly by stepping out in front of Destroyer. Same with Rey in The Force Awakens when she embraced her destiny and reached for the saber that she had previously vowed to never touch again. Just because it worked great for Peter Parker to have his turning point early in the film doesn't automatically mean that other movies are doing it wrong if they don't follow suit.

Sneaky.

 

[Khev]

It's true though. There's nothing wrong with placing a hero's most defining character moment at the end of the film. Hell Frodo's moment came in the last *five minutes* of the 3 hour FOTR when he was standing on the riverbank holding the Ring.

I'm not saying that BvS was above reproach or anything but it's biggest shortcomings were not its lack of character arcs (especially in the case of Batman.)

And he completely misunderstood the ending of Suicide Squad. Deadshot's daughter didn't "want" him to put down his gun, that was a planted vision by Enchantress to try and prevent him from killing her! In the context of the film it was actually a pretty well done arc that played out organically based on what happened before and what Enchantress was capable of.

 

[Wor-Gar]

It's generally more dramatic to have a character's 'change' (or new defining choice) to come later in the story -- if its a story about someone's revelation. But structurally I can see why it often works better for heroes to have their 'come to heroism' moment earlier in the film so that they can actually be the hero throughout the majority of the movie. This works best when the hero needs a defining costume especially. But even then there's supposed to be that little bit of the 'old guard' (or whatever his problem is) left in the hero that creates challenges for him right up to very end, and that's where the hero ultimately redeems himself by making the right choice when it matters most (believing in himself, trusting his feelings, following a mentor's advice, doing the right thing, etc).

My problem with Batman's change in BvS is not when it happens but how -- it happens so damn fast for a complete turn around of his belief system. It's like Anakin's in ROTS. That, plus its motivated by his mom having the same name, which is just lazy convenience.

 

[Khev]

It's generally more dramatic to have a character's 'change' (or new defining choice) to come later in the story -- if its a story about someone's revelation. But structurally I can see why it often works better for heroes to have their 'come to heroism' moment earlier in the film so that they can actually be the hero throughout the majority of the movie. This works best when the hero needs a defining costume especially. But even then there's supposed to be that little bit of the 'old guard' (or whatever his problem is) left in the hero that creates challenges for him right up to very end, and that's where the hero ultimately redeems himself by making the right choice when it matters most (believing in himself, trusting his feelings, following a mentor's advice, doing the right thing, etc).

Agreed. It varies from film to film and character to character. There's no one "right" way to do it for everyone. Case in point the original Star Wars. Luke's moment came pretty early on when his aunt and uncle died while Han's didn't occur until the very end when he turned the Falcon around.

My problem with Batman's change in BvS is not when it happens but how -- it happens so damn fast for a complete turn around of his belief system. It's like Anakin's in ROTS. That, plus its motivated by his mom having the same name, which is just lazy convenience.

That would have been a much better criticism for him to make but for as much as it gets made fun of I actually did think the "Martha" moment was pretty well played. Superman following his dad's advice to make a woman his focal point by needlessly sacrificing himself when WW could have just used the spear was silly though.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

It's true though. There's nothing wrong with placing a hero's most defining character moment at the end of the film. Hell Frodo's moment came in the last *five minutes* of the 3 hour FOTR when he was standing on the riverbank holding the Ring.

I'm not saying that BvS was above reproach or anything but it's biggest shortcomings were not its lack of character arcs (especially in the case of Batman.)

And he completely misunderstood the ending of Suicide Squad. Deadshot's daughter didn't "want" him to put down his gun, that was a planted vision by Enchantress to try and prevent him from killing her! In the context of the film it was actually a pretty well done arc that played out organically based on what happened before and what Enchantress was capable of.

I think you're misunderstanding some things. In MOS Superman had some defining moments, such as putting on the suit for the first time, turning himself in TWICE to the humans and Kryptonians, destroying Zod's kryptonian baby tank or whatever that was, and ultimately killing Zod to save a family. He probably has more "defining" moments than anyone....but why does he do it? Furthermore, since he was a child he's shown saving people...and of course Pa Kent is always there to tell him not to do it, but ultimately he chooses to go against it. Other than learning about his origin and putting on a suit, he's ultimately behaving like he always did, so there's no real growth, imo.

As far as Deadshot's vision. I think the guy in the video knows it was a vision created by the Enchantress....it's obvious, since there's nothing subtle about the film.

The point he's making is that the writer or filmmaker chose to put his daughter in that moment to give the character some sort of arc...and he's completely right about Flagg being the one to take the last shot...although he got a moment later when he destroyed the heart, so maybe that makes up for it.

 

[Khev]

I think you're misunderstanding some things. In MOS Superman had some defining moments, such as putting on the suit for the first time, turning himself in TWICE to the humans and Kryptonians, destroying Zod's kryptonian baby tank or whatever that was, and ultimately killing Zod to save a family. He probably has more "defining" moments than anyone....but why does he do it? Furthermore, since he was a child he's shown saving people...and of course Pa Kent is always there to tell him not to do it, but ultimately he chooses to go against it. Other than learning about his origin and putting on a suit, he's ultimately behaving like he always did, so there's no real growth, imo.

I actually didn't refer to MOS in my post at all so I'm not sure what you're countering.

As far as Deadshot's vision. I think the guy in the video knows it was a vision created by the Enchantress....it's obvious, since there's nothing subtle about the film.

It might be obvious but the guy clearly didn't get it. He literally asked "But why would Deadshot's daughter not want him to take the shot if he's trying to save the world?" The answer: Because it's not really Deadshot's daughter! Duh.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

I actually didn't refer to MOS in my post at all so I'm not sure what you're countering.

I'm not correcting anything. I was never talking about BVS, just MOS. I'm just using MOS as an example to show that a defining moment doesn't necessarily mean that a character is different in any way and that it signifies some kind of growth, especially when there might be a lack of motivation for the character to make that defining choice in that "defining" moment.

It might be obvious but the guy clearly didn't get it. He literally asked "But why would Deadshot's daughter not want him to take the shot if he's trying to save the world?" The answer: Because it's not really Deadshot's daughter! Duh.

He's asking that question from a writer's point of view. In other words, why did the writer of the film or filmmaker chose to put Deadshot's daughter (even if it's a vision) in that particular moment as a way to link it to the beginning of the film and as a way to give Deadshot some kind of arc?

 

[Khev]

I'm not correcting anything. I was never talking about BVS

But the reviewer was, and I responded to it. As I originally said his opening statement that DCEU = no character arcs vs. MCU = good character arcs was too sweeping and not adequately substantiated. But I agree with him about MOS. Clark was just a d-bag from beginning to end in that movie.

He's asking that question from a writer's point of view. In other words, why did the writer of the film or filmmaker chose to put Deadshot's daughter (even if it's a vision) in that particular moment as a way to link it to the beginning of the film and as a way to give Deadshot some kind of arc?

Because arcs are good, that's why.

 

[GasparZizou]

So you don't agree that Superman in MOS is the same guy by the end of the film and there's no real growth, other than changing his look and learning about his origin?

This is stupidly and obviously false.

I think the guy kind of makes a good point regarding MOS Sups. Clark was saving people from the very beginning of the film and it wasn't the first time, because he'd been doing it for a while like a "guardian angel." I never thought about that. It's not like he was wasting his time and not using his talents and not living up to his potential, and then he becomes Sups and there's a change.

He doesn't, there's a pretty big change in Superman, his points, like most criticism of MoS and BvS is so shallow it's lazy.

If I ask someone, why does Tony Stark become IM or why does Bruce Wayne become Batman? I'm pretty sure they can answer the question easily. However, if I ask someone why Clark Kent becomes Superman in MOS? I don't think there's a clear answer....besides saving people is a good thing, which is as generic as you can get, and he was technically doing it before even wearing a costume.

The change in Supes doesn't hinge on him saving people or not, that's how shortsighted the video is.

Also, you don't agree that the MCU films are ugly looking?

Yeah, why?

 

[jye4ever]

I did not buy into Rey's vision trauma.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Clark was just a d-bag from beginning to end in that movie.

Clark is a good boi despite having horrible parents.

Because arcs are good, that's why.

Arcs are good, yes. However, Deadshot's arc makes no sense, which is the guy's point. Deadshot had one...it just didn't work.

Deadshot is in prison and wants to take care of his daughter.

She doesn't like what he does for living and wants him to change.

At the very climax when Deadshot is going to take a....shot...to save the world, the filmmaker puts his daughter in that scene trying to stop him because she doesn't like what he does (killing) as a link to the beginning of the film. However, in that particular moment Deadshot is killing something to save the world, so for the writer to connect the daughter's objection to killing to that climatic moment, it doesn't work as an effective arc, according to the guy in the video.

In fact, by the end of the film he's still in prison, still a killer, but the daughter still loves him...which is exactly what she told him in the beginning.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

The change in Supes doesn't hinge on him saving people or not, that's how shortsighted the video is.

Then what? Accepting humans over Kryptonians? Finding his role/purpose in life? Feeling like he finally belongs with the humans?

 

[GasparZizou]

Then what? Accepting humans over Kryptonians? Finding his role/purpose in life? Feeling like he finally belongs with the humans?

Finding and accepting his heritage and place on earth, after a lifetime being an outcast, how hard is it to identify that?

As opposed of BvS which has an aspect of humans accepting him.

 

[The Clown Prince of Crime]

Finding and accepting his heritage and place on earth, after a lifetime being an outcast, how hard is it to identify that?

But does the film really do a good job of showing why he accepts his heritage and place on earth?

There are moments in the film where Clark is still questioning if he should trust humans and if he should turn himself in, like when he talks to the priest. Then there's his father constantly telling him no to expose himself (that sounds bad ) to the point that Pa Kent committed suicide, but at the same time he tells him that one day...not now...even with that tornado about to kill me...one day, you'll change the world. Ultimately, it's clear that he choses the humans, he accepts earth..."welcome to the planet"...but is it clear why he does it? Why he feels like he can finally accept his heritage and place on earth?