Cinematic Civil War:MCU vs DCCU

[KBX]

And there's the rub. I think BvS will be successful. To what level I can't say, but there's no denying the icon status of the character, and the curiosity factor to see them on the big screen together for the first time.

Going beyond that, by casting WW, Aquaman, Flash, Shazam, Cyborg, now they are banking future movies that haven't been written yet on what will undoubtedly be cameo appearances in BvS.

No doubt anything with Batman or Superman in it will make seats at the theater fill up. Especially together.

Yeah they really went with the opposite way of Marvel. Introducing your JL characters in BvS / JL first before getting their own movie treatment. By doing so I guess they had to settle a little on the quality of actor they are getting.

 

[DA_Champion]

I think it was wrong of WB to cast all those characters who are not Batman/Superman.

They are removing the freedom to cast those characters from the future directors of those movies. It's very unfair to whoever directs Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think it was wrong of WB to cast all those characters who are not Batman/Superman.

They are removing the freedom to cast those characters from the future directors of those movies. It's very unfair to whoever directs Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc.

A director will never have the normal amounts of freedom when he/she is directing a movie in a shared universe so I don't think it's very controversial. The directors jumping on for the solo movies can be seen as directing sequels and you don't get to recast then either.

I don't get the whole "fair" thing in movie discussions when it comes to directors, actors, etc either (talking in a general sense as it comes up now and then). What's fair for them is to get paid, that's what they can always expect. Other than that they are hired by a producer to do the job that is asked of them.

 

[DA_Champion]

Filmmaking is a creative job, it's not like packaging widgets or serving french fries.

You need to give your people some creative freedom, to allow them to emotionally buy into the product, otherwise they're going to be unhappy and complete lacklustre work.

 

[Mjölnir]

Filmmaking is a creative job, it's not like packaging widgets.

You need to give your people some creative freedom, to allow them to emotionally buy into the product, otherwise they're going to be unhappy and complete lacklustre work.

They have some creative freedom. Full creative freedom for a director is extremely rare so they are used to working with restrictions. If someone has to be really free to exercise his art I doubt he'll become a director, or at least last in the profession.

One example could be one of the most loved sci-fi movies of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. Kershner had so little influence most people don't even know he directed the movie. Lucas had all the control in the producer role and yet it turned out well.

 

[DA_Champion]

They have some creative freedom. Full creative freedom for a director is extremely rare so they are used to working with restrictions. If someone has to be really free to exercise his art I doubt he'll become a director, or at least last in the profession.

Yes, I understand all that.

In the case of the casting of Cyborg, Aquaman, etc. they are taking away a lot of creative freedom from future directors, for very little reason. All these characters are doing is showing up in a cameo scene at the end.

One example could be one of the most loved sci-fi movies of all time, The Empire Strikes Back. Kershner had so little influence most people don't even know he directed the movie. Lucas had all the control in the producer role and yet it turned out well.

I used to consider Empire Strikes Back a great film, but ever since I read Joss Whedon's cogent criticisms of the movie, I've come to terms with the fact that it's a creatively compromised story.

J/K ;-)

What exactly did Kershner do on the production? And if Lucas is in fact the one who did everything, shouldn't we forget about titles as he was the director in all but name, and he did have creative control?

 

[Mjölnir]

Yes, I understand all that.

In the case of the casting of Cyborg, Aquaman, etc. they are taking away a lot of creative freedom from future directors, for very little reason. All these characters are doing is showing up in a cameo scene at the end.

The directors rarely have full say in casting anyway so it's not that big of a deal. I'd say that there will be more restrictions than that coming from the shared universe thing. The directors that sign on will know what they are getting into (or at least they should).

The director of Casino Royale wanted Henry Cavill as Bond, but the studio wanted an older guy and went with Craig. Imo it's unlikely that the result became worse.

That said it does seem like the director of WW might have her hands tied a bit by the choice of actor for WW, unless Gadot surprises everyone.

I used to consider Empire Strikes Back a great film, but ever since I read Joss Whedon's cogent criticisms of the movie, I've come to terms with the fact that it's a creatively compromised story.

J/K ;-)

What exactly did Kershner do on the production? And if Lucas is in fact the one who did everything, shouldn't we forget about titles as he was the director in all but name, and he did have creative control?

It's been a while since I read up on ESB but from what I remember Kershner was the scene director but Lucas was the one calling the shots on what they movie was supposed to be. The same with the script. Lucas didn't write it but he definitely decided what was going to be in it. I wish he would have kept that thing going in the prequels since Lucas is a good idea guy but not a good director or script writer (especially not after spending a decade with his yes men).

While the directors generally get the credit, and that's not wrong, a movie is ultimately the producer's movie when it comes to calling the shots.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

I think it was wrong of WB to cast all those characters who are not Batman/Superman.

They are removing the freedom to cast those characters from the future directors of those movies. It's very unfair to whoever directs Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc.

Do you feel the same way about the MCU or any sequel with a new director?

It would only be unfair to the director if they didnt know that they had to stick with the same actors when they signed on.

 

[Marvin]

I think it was wrong of WB to cast all those characters who are not Batman/Superman.

They are removing the freedom to cast those characters from the future directors of those movies. It's very unfair to whoever directs Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Flash, etc.

A shared universe comes with it's downsides. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons such as this as to why studios have avoided it for so long. But if it's what's in with the GA right now, such as touch screen are in, it's poor business to not jump in. It clearly has it's upsides.

As for your second point, I agree with the others. Any director jumping into a sequel has to face this exact predicament. Things like TWS and Avengers and Xmen and many many others...I can see how it may be seen as a big deal but really it's not. What's more, often times you have big vehicles such a Will Smith or Tom Cruise movie looking for a director to sign.
Having the freedom to cast the suicide squad from scratch is definitely a benefit but this other thing isn't as bad as you may think.

 

[DA_Champion]

I watched Daredevil episode 1. It might be Marvel's best work so far. It's the first time a Marvel product has good cinematography and a good musical score. There are not a million redundant characters who only showed up to sell action figures or be plot devices, like Falcon and Coulson. There's very little exposition, and the story is based on logical coherence and causality rather than mcguffins.

For example (on the lack of exposition), notice when Daredevil is saving those women from prostitution at the start. If this were a movie a character would tell us that these women are going to be sold into sex slavery. However the TV show is respecting the audience to be able to connect the horrifying dots themselves. The scenes ends up feeling more gripping, since it's handled in a more authentic manner, it's more gripping.

Interestingly, Marvel is doing with the Battle of New York what thousands of fans on this board and others thought DC was going to with the Battle of Metropolis. Everything going on in Episode 1 of Daredevil and elsewhere are just consequences of what happened in The Avengers, well done. The Battle of New York is rapidly turning into a mythological event in the Marvel universe.

 

[DA_Champion]

Do you feel the same way about the MCU or any sequel with a new director?

It would only be unfair to the director if they didnt know that they had to stick with the same actors when they signed on.

A shared universe comes with it's downsides. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons such as this as to why studios have avoided it for so long. But if it's what's in with the GA right now, such as touch screen are in, it's poor business to not jump in. It clearly has it's upsides.

As for your second point, I agree with the others. Any director jumping into a sequel has to face this exact predicament. Things like TWS and Avengers and Xmen and many many others...I can see how it may be seen as a big deal but really it's not. What's more, often times you have big vehicles such a Will Smith or Tom Cruise movie looking for a director to sign.
Having the freedom to cast the suicide squad from scratch is definitely a benefit but this other thing isn't as bad as you may think.

The thing about a sequel is that the product is already very well defined. In contrast, when you're setting up a new franchise and you only have a rough draft of the script or not even that, your product is not well-defined and thus you don't even know what kind of actor you need.

Whedon didn't get to cast anybody important in The Avengers. For the sequel, he probably had a say in the twins. Gunn probably had a say in who the Guardians and Nebula would be.

In contrast, WB is taking away the casting freedom for Aquaman, Cyborg, and Flash for the meager investment of a cameo scene at the end of BvS. That's a very high cost-to-value ratio. It means that they're stuck with those actors and future directors are stuck with those actors even as the future scripts are not yet written.

 

[WilliamK99]

"Hey, you're a woman, come direct this movie about a woman!"

You'd be amazed, did you notice the public outcry because Netflix didn't have special captioning for blind people? They gave in after the media ran with the story about how blind people couldn't enjoy a show about a blind superhero. If DC had cast a male director I am sure feminist groups would have come out in force and acted stupid...

 

[Black Narcissus]

The bald man in Daredevil is already a top three marvel villain in my book. Lawd. i hope hegets some sort of role in a MCu mvie etc.

Also, Whedon just got sued. Anyone here read the book?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Given the enormous discrimination against women in Hollywood, they probably have a long list of directors that could take over. I think they should consider them for other films. Did you know that no Hollywood film with a budget exceeding 100 million has ever been directed by a woman. The closest is Frozen, which is animated and was in fact co-directed.

That means that there are 10 or 20 blockbusters a year for which Hollywood simply picks the best man for the job, and ignores the women candidates. In 2017, there will be 19/20 blockbusters for which Hollywood picks the best man for the job, and 1/20 blockbuster for which Hollywood picks the best woman ... is it really sensible that we complain about the 1?

I'm not complaining per se. Just found the situation kind of suspect. Like a PR excercise where they get props for hiring a woman when there might be someone else who's better. Clearly they did not think Jenkins was the best person for the job if she's replacing who they originally wanted. Now, that doesn't mean she won't do a good job with WW. We'll have to wait. See, I don't really care about "the best man for the job" or "the best woman for the job", I care about "the best director for the movie".

I suppose them hiring a male director now after MaClaren's departure would have been seen as "wrong" and maybe they also wanted to avoid that.

I just don't agree with this mentality where...

You're woman so you direct WW.
You're black so you direct Luke Cage.
You're in the closet so you direct Batman

It doesn't have to be like that. I understand agendas, and progress, but is that going to get in the way of the final product? It's a complex issue.

 

[Marvin]

The thing about a sequel is that the product is already very well defined. In contrast, when you're setting up a new franchise and you only have a rough draft of the script or not even that, your product is not well-defined and thus you don't even know what kind of actor you need.

Whedon didn't get to cast anybody important in The Avengers. For the sequel, he probably had a say in the twins. Gunn probably had a say in who the Guardians and Nebula would be.

In contrast, WB is taking away the casting freedom for Aquaman, Cyborg, and Flash for the meager investment of a cameo scene at the end of BvS. That's a very high cost-to-value ratio. It means that they're stuck with those actors and future directors are stuck with those actors even as the future scripts are not yet written.

Now you are talking about cost ot value ratio..
That doesn't negate that it's present in both scenarios. Simply being "worth it" in the former doesn't change the directors or lack of whatever it is..

As for something being well defined, and the director needed that. I don't think that changes much when it comes to the feeling of constraint of vision. If anything it's technically more. It's why you hear lots of people in these positions(particularly actors) talking about no watching the previous films they are remaking or reading any of the comics and such.

I just think it's a non issue for professionals. But that's me.

 

[The Shape]

The bald man in Daredevil is already a top three marvel villain in my book. Lawd. i hope hegets some sort of role in a MCu mvie etc.

Yeah, they did a fantastic job with Kingpin in Daredevil.

 

[Greens]

I'm not complaining per se. Just found the situation kind of suspect. Like a PR excercise where they get props for hiring a woman when there might be someone else who's better. Clearly they did not think Jenkins was the best person for the job if she's replacing who they originally wanted. Now, that doesn't mean she won't do a good job with WW. We'll have to wait. See, I don't really care about "the best man for the job" or "the best woman for the job", I care about "the best director for the movie".

I suppose them hiring a male director now after MaClaren's departure would have been seen as "wrong" and maybe they also wanted to avoid that.

I just don't agree with this mentality where...

You're woman so you direct WW.
You're black so you direct Luke Cage.
You're in the closet so you direct Batman

It doesn't have to be like that. I understand agendas, and progress, but is that going to get in the way of the final product? It's a complex issue.

I fully agree.

 

[DA_Champion]

Leaked Batman vs Superman trailer ... awesome.

There is simply no doubt that Zack Snyder is an elite director of trailers.

The dialogue sounds better than it did in MoS/TDKR.

Batman: "Tell me, do you bleed?"
Batman: "You will."
Sounds a lot better than:
Bane: "Have you come back to die with your city?"
Batman: "No, I'm here to stop you."
or
Superman: "You're a monster Zod and I'm going to stop you!"

Finally, I'll point out that the plot of BvS is thus far exactly consistent with what I said the natural plot for the sequel would be a full year and a half ago. The world is reacting to Superman, and Batman takes it upon himself to challenge Superman.

 

[Johnny-Oh]

Leaked Batman vs Superman trailer ... awesome.

There is simply no doubt that Zack Snyder is an elite director of trailers.

The dialogue sounds better than it did in MoS/TDKR.

Batman: "Tell me, do you bleed?"
Batman: "You will."
Sounds a lot better than:
Bane: "Have you come back to die with your city?"
Batman: "No, I'm here to stop you."
or
Superman: "You're a monster Zod and I'm going to stop you!"

Well its not fair to compare some of the worst lines of those films with lines specifically picked for the trailer to sound awesome.

 

[DA_Champion]

Well its not fair to compare some of the worst lines of those films with lines specifically picked for the trailer to sound awesome.

Though you have a point, the lines actually play contextually similar roles. It's the dialogue preceding the great battle. It's the appetizer, the trash talk right before the big game.

 

[Pantera]

This trailer is absolutely fantastic. I have the feeling this can end up being one of the greatest super hero movies ever.

This is what i´m talking about, and this is what i want. We have Marvel, doing their thing, wich is Ok. But then we have this. A completely different product. Looks different, feels different, and offers basically the opposite of what we´re getting from Marvel. This is not WB trying to be Marvel. This is a unique product and looks fantastic.

 

[Tony Stark]

I had the opposite reaction. I was very unimpressed and as I said on the FF forums, all the problems with it, remind me of the reaction I had to the FF trailer. Overly dark, not fun, not exciting. Electronic Batman voice is stupid. I hope the movie is more upbeat than the dismal rainy dark drab trailer I just saw.

I thought BvS had a chance on being the biggest movie of 2016, but I'm more reserved now. This is not the movie I think most people wanted. I understand that they want to make Justice League stand out from Avengers, as they should, but I think people are sick to death of this overly dark and dreary crap. I know I have.

Good grief the Dark Knight was not that dreary and dismal!

 

[Infinight888]

I thought BvS had a chance on being the biggest movie of 2016, but I'm more reserved now. This is not the movie I think most people wanted. I understand that they want to make Justice League stand out from Avengers, as they should, but I think people are sick to death of this overly dark and dreary crap.

Which is why Daredevil has been so ill-received

Good grief the Dark Knight was not that dreary and dismal!

Agreed. A lot of people who praise The Dark Knight forget that it had a fair amount of levity in it as well. Particularly the banter between Bruce and Alfred, or everything with Lucius Fox. The same can be said about Daredevil with Foggy's character. That's a big thing Man of Steel was missing, that will likely be absent in BvS as well. Especially with the rumored "no jokes" policy.

This is a movie about a man dressed up as a bat fighting a solar-powered alien, don't be afraid to poke fun at yourself.


That said, I do like that they seem to be seriously addressing Superman's character and what he means for the world. I just hope for some sort of conclusion to this storyline, instead of it getting dropped and forgotten half-way through the film like the First Contact plot did in the first movie.

 

[The Joker]

Agreed. A lot of people who praise The Dark Knight forget that it had a fair amount of levity in it as well. Particularly the banter between Bruce and Alfred, or everything with Lucius Fox.

True. Even the Joker had his humorous moments.

 

[Pantera]

I had the opposite reaction. I was very unimpressed and as I said on the FF forums, all the problems with it, remind me of the reaction I had to the FF trailer. Overly dark, not fun, not exciting. Electronic Batman voice is stupid. I hope the movie is more upbeat than the dismal rainy dark drab trailer I just saw.

I thought BvS had a chance on being the biggest movie of 2016, but I'm more reserved now. This is not the movie I think most people wanted. I understand that they want to make Justice League stand out from Avengers, as they should, but I think people are sick to death of this overly dark and dreary crap. I know I have.

Good grief the Dark Knight was not that dreary and dismal!

I think it´s perfectly obvious the type of movie you appreciate, and perhaps that´s why your nickname is "Tony Stark".

We don´t all like the same stuff. I love movies who are darker and serious. You obviously prefer the more cheerful approach, wich i don´t particularly love. I have no patience for stuff that is so obviously made with kids primarly in mind.

The good thing is: Marvel will keep making those types of movies. You don´t have to watch BvS. And you don´t have to watch JL. And you probably shoudln´t, because that´s the direction WB is going to take their product, and you won´t be pleased by it. It´s gonna be more dark and more serious than Marvel.