MovieChat Forums > Justice League (2017) Discussion > It's all because of Nolan and WB being i...

It's all because of Nolan and WB being impatient


No doubt that Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy are awesome. He distanced the movies from Raimi's Spider-man by turning Batman into serious superhero set in the "real" world. And WB think it's still a good formula to make DCEU as dark and serious as possible. While at the same time Marvel especially under Disney making MCU super fun and enjoyable. And then WB wanted to jump-start to chase MCU with BvS and JL, that should have been the ultimate movies equal to Marvel's The Avenger. That is why the results are horrible.

Why didn't WB start DCEU by making individual movie one hero at the time? Like that Wonder Woman movie which is good. And reintroduce Batman just like what Marvel-Sony did with Spider-Man in Homecoming, we don't have to see Bruce parents's death again like we don't have to see Uncle Ben's death again.


---
Sorry English is my 3rd language

reply

I agree with all of that. I think they should have started with more solo movies. If we don't know Flash, Cyborg and Aquaman, then make us learn to like them with a good trilogy for each of them. Marvel was able to make Iron Man, Thor, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man and Guardians household names. They even saved Hulk and made him likeable again. I have no doubt Black Panther and Captain Marvel will get trilogies, and still be critically and commercially successful. I can't say the same for DCEU - they can't even do one trilogy.

DCEU was doing okay with Man of Steel but then they just stopped there and did the weird BvS mashup. The other problem was that Man of Steel cost way too much and the profits for WB weren't what they wanted, which probably made them introduce Batman too soon.

reply

>>> DCEU was doing okay with Man of Steel <<<

No they weren't. Man of Rehash was DOA the moment Nolan and Goyer got lazy and decided their "reboot" would actually be a pathetic REMAKE of Superman 2 INSTEAD of a storyline for Superman we HADN'T seen on the big screen before.

Then Snyder directed Man of Rehash as a "Transformers type" movie and it was downhill from there. The "DCEU" was stillborn when their crappy "Reboot" got WORSE reviews than the "failed" film they were SUPPOSED to be "improving' on.

reply

Nolan's trilogy isn't awesome. It has aged terribly, with its mediocre Chicago Batman and cheesy jokes. Aesthetically, he ruined everything.

reply

It has aged terribly, with its mediocre Chicago Batman and cheesy jokes.


And yet you praise the Schumacher ones in the other thread....

reply

The Schumacher films weren't pretending to be Igmar Bergman's Shadows or whatever. Nolan's Batman is supposed to be "serious" and "dramatic" yet they can't get through a scene without some dumbass Christian Bale smirk and a joke that is even dumber than "chicks love the car". Add to that the fact that visually it looks like shit and they are several levels below Schumacher's Batmen.

reply

In the words of John McEnroe, you can not be serious! Shoe makers batman films were terrible. In every way imaginable they were terrible.

I’m sorry I can’t even take you seriously. Shoe makers batman better than Nolan’s lololololololololololololololoolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

Key to good trolling is being subtle, you can’t just say any ol shit and expect to get a good bite lol.

reply

to be frank, Batman has always been a corny character. Nolan version of Batman gave him a different spin, but the character itself is corny as all fucks.

reply

I always thought "Batman & Robin" was the best of the tetralogy from 1989-97. Here's why (cut & pasted from my review):

- It has the best Batman/Bruce Wayne in George Clooney. Although Val Kilmer has the better Bruce Wayne demeanor (i.e. grimmer), Clooney just LOOKS like Wayne. In addition, he's charismatic and entertaining in the role from beginning to end.

- It has the best sense of family between the inhabitants of Wayne Manor. The love and camaraderie of Bruce, Dick/Robin (Chris O'Donnell), Alfred and Barbara/Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) is a pleasure to behold.

- It has Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. Nuff said.

- It has Uma Thurman shining in the role of Poison Ivy. I usually don't find tall, thin women appealing (I'm more attracted to women akin to Silverstone), but I have to admit that Uma completely owns the over-the-top role of Poison Ivy and is truly alluring.

- Arnold Schwarzenegger is great as Mr. Freeze. Yes, every time he merely opens his mouth you know it's Schwarzenegger, but he's amusing and he has a great look and costume.

- The film has heart. Although Poison Ivy is truly ee-vil and gets her comeuppance, you can't help but sympathize with Freeze's love for his wife and desire to resurrect her. Batman is able to see under his icy veneer and see a warm heart that's willing to accept redemption and make restitution. Furthermore, as noted above, you really feel the love of Bruce and Alfred and the others at Wayne Manor.

- Lastly, the film is full of vibrant colors and goofy over-the-top thrills. It's just a fun movie, if you're in the mood for a half-serious/half-campfest superhero flick.

I also like that Smashing Pumpkins song that plays over the end credits.

reply

The trilogy is not perfect but it is a nice revival of Batman after Schumacher ruined its image, but I see that you liked Schumacher's version better.

reply

Haven't seen the 2nd Nolan bat-flick but the 1st and 3rd were always awful. Whenever a filmmaker tries for artistic pretension but proves not to have the chops for it, it always just makes a mess. Nolan's entire approach was misguided, a product of a complete lack of understanding of the character and his world, and Nolan simply can't direct action.

reply

I know, he's gross but he bamboozled 2 billion people into it, including myself. I guess all it takes is a ridiculous suit and a stern expression.

reply

"And WB think it's still a good formula to make DCEU as dark and serious as possible. "

really? i find most of the DC films to be flawed, but where do you see dark and serious? superman was a serious attempt at the subject matter, but dark? suicide squad was neither. bvs was like a bubblegum version of nolan's vision.

everywhere i read "oh, but dc is dark and gritty". where? if we were talking dark horse or image i would agree, but dc? if they had balls, they would turn "dark nights: metal" into a movie. it's time for a "judge death" movie anyway. ;) (i hope someone gets that last part)

"Why didn't WB start DCEU by making individual movie one hero at the time? Like that Wonder Woman movie which is good. And reintroduce Batman just like what Marvel-Sony did with Spider-Man in Homecoming, we don't have to see Bruce parents's death again like we don't have to see Uncle Ben's death again."

greed. they somehow think that this is a race and with that attitude they can only lose.

remember, we are talking about the studio that just released a "superman and doctor manhattan" issue.

reply

you forgot Vertigo.

reply

true. ket's not forget: slave labor graphics, fantagraphics and top cow.

reply

You ever read Blood: a tale? Quite unique.

reply

unfortunately not, but it looks intriguing. will check it out.

not sure if that's your piece of cake, but one of my favorite "series" of all time was the UK magazine "deadline". it was like 95% comics and like 5% music and culture. tank girl originated there, as well as some other cult classics. extremely weird and dark stuff for the most part.

apart from that, "dystopik snomen" (SLG) is one of my all time faves and of course "the maxx".

since we are at it. did you see dark nights: metal? what do you think, judge death rip off or coincidence? ^^

reply

Blood: a tale was the very last comic book [if we can even call it that] I read.

Sadly, not many UK series are broadcasted here, I'll have to look it up.

reply

i can relate. haven't found the time to check out comic books in ages.

oh, deadline is a magazine. most likely not many comic book stores in the US will have it, but you find them on ebay for a reasonable price. there was an US version for a couple of issues, but it does not live up to the original. it's kind of a "reader's digest" version of deadline UK.

reply

looky here:

https://duckingproxy.eu/torrent/10529123/Deadline_017_(1990_April)_(UK).cbr

:) there's still hope in THE DARK SIDE

reply

thanks. :D

reply

WB is indeed trying to be serious. Just look at MoS, their first DCEU movie. It's not fun (not as movie), I mean Clark Kent himself is not having fun for having his super power. WB or Snyder(?) making him into tragic hero who contantly in desperation mode. There is absolute attempt to make him gritty with his beard of sorrow and his wandering jouney. Having already set the tone, it's too late for them now. They are confused, they are in between serious and fun, dark and colorful.

reply

Can't really blame them though. The last time they made a light hearted Superman movie they got Superman Returns.

At the time of Man of Steel conception, the most logical way was to make Nolan's Batman but with Superman instead of Batman.

That's pretty much their only choice. And in retrospective, it actually was not a bad one.

However, they somehow failed.

Maybe it's because Nolan didn't direct. I can imagine how reception may sway into the more positive side if it's Nolan's baby. Just look at Interstellar, a really well made but highly flawed Nolan movie. It was recieved quite well. Just because it's Nolan's I guess. He has the Midas touch as a director.

Why Nolan didn't want to direct I don't know. But sure the decission saved his reputation a lot.

reply

sorry man, but seems like me and the DC fans have different definition of gritty. if that counts as gritty, then in comparison what are "legion", "the gifted", "wolverine" ...etc?

superman itself is a pretty absurd character. i found MoS to be quite enjoyable and by far the best release DC has had in quite a while. that counts in movies and tv series alike.

"They are confused, they are in between serious and fun, dark and colorful."

i agree on confused, but i see the problems rather that they have no clue what to do in general. especially what to do with each character. bvs' lex, mostly all characters in gotham, leto's joker, JL's aquaman, JL's cyborg, basically every version of the flash in existence are for the most part either terrible or just not working as they should...etc.

reply

"i find most of the DC films to be flawed, but where do you see dark and serious?"

It's there in every aspect of them, from production design to characterization to theme to tone to cinematography--literally nothing wasn't heavily touched by the effort to turn them into "dark" films, entirely without regard for whether this approach suited the material. This effort to impose the juvenile '90s Dark Age comic notion of "grim n' gritty" on the films isn't their major problem (except with Superman, where it proved quite fatal) but it's where most of them begin to go seriously wrong.

reply

i agree to a point, but in every marvel vs dc discussion hardcore dc fanboys are stressing it like it is their only argument and i just don't see it in comparison. if you e.g. compare the xmen films or even more extreme logan to any of the dc films, i would even say that the marvel films are darker and grittier. sure, if one insists to compare GOTG2 to the last superman, then sure but that's a pretty desperate move. many people bring up superman vs batman, but i have a problem taking that one seriously. luther was unintentionally funny, because he was do bad and the whole "my mum is also called martha" thing and finally the kryptonite bat suit thing. yeah, i know it was like that in the comic version they have chosen, but the way they did it does look pretty shitty. not everything that works in drawn version works unmodified on film.

reply

IMHO, the problem is that they just don't get that Batman and Superman are totally different types of characters that really should never co-exist outside of comics (and even there, it's dicey). Batman should always be in the grim variation of the real world that Burton and Nolan gave us. Exaggerated but not fantastical. Superman (and Wonder Woman and Aquaman and The Flash) should ONLY exist in the fantastical version of our world where you can look at these god-like beings and not be pulled out of it. It's like our world is the center of the scale and Batman (or crimefighters) should be on one end and Superman (or superheroes) should be on the other.

To parallel this with Marvel, while I sincerely hope they get the FF back from Fox, they should never try and get the X-Men back. What makes X-Men work just doesn't make sense in a world where they co-exist with the Hulk and Thor and all that. Keep them separate.

reply

I just want Dr. Doom, Galactus and Silver Surfer on the MCU. Doom is great for Dr. Strange and the Avengers while Galactus would be a terrific sort-of-Villain. Sony can keep the Fant4stic all they want

reply

After Ant-Man and Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, I think Marvel could actually do the FF justice.


Besides who doesn't want to see a Spider-Man/Torch bromance or a Thing/Hulk fight?

reply

HA! Hulk vs Thing would be grand

reply

That is interesting because I never thought that Guardians of The Galaxy would fit into MCU, but Marvel did it perfectly. WB had no idea on what direction that should take for their DCEU. They are in between grim dark and wanted to be fun, that is why they do a lot of reshoot.

edited:
as for X-Men and FF, I believe that Marvel would be able to pull them off.

reply

I don't even think X-Men work in the comics, myself. I can't see how the Thing and the Human Torch are given parades, but Jean Grey and Angel get rocks thrown at them.....

reply

When there are a few super human, people will cheer for them like celebrities.

When there are thousands and thousands of super human, people will be afraid, panic and hate.

reply

Deadpool style X-Men I can imagine coexisting with Hulk and Thor. X-Men are basically random superheroes with random superpowers without the need to explain all the origin stories. They are just... mutants.

Just like all the characters in Guardians of the Galaxy: random superheroes with random superpowers without the need to explain all the origin stories. They are just... aliens.

But yes, the original Fox style X-Men don't fit into MCU because they are more into political drama / racism than about beating a bad guy. The main badguy Magneto himself is actually not that bad a guy. He's just a misunderstood poor bloke.

More recent cookie-cutter villains like Apocalypse is actually more fitting in an MCU style movie. Which is why it made the movie bad because he didn't fit the traditional X-Men style.

reply

Nolan had little to do with it. They are only using his name for recognition. He is like the only mainstream director I'd argue since Spielberg that has a big enough name to sell the movie without even knowing whose in them.

reply

Of course he had something to do with it. He is the producer of Mos and executive producer of BvS. Maybe not as big as the role of director, but Nolan was on the same position as Burton in Batman Forever (1995), to passed on a legacy, whether it was just the studio's strategy to ensure the audiences to watch the movie or not.

reply

Like Nolan Burton had little to do with the next installment. It's just name recognition so to bring fans of their installments along. It's meaningless. It's PR bs.

reply

Nolans batman lived in a world with out the other DC characters so its not compatible with the justice league. Nolans batman didn't involve the near supernatural world that exists with superman and wonder woman since batmans world is more realistic. :( What a hard spot for WB to be in since they wanted a justice league like the avengers.

reply

The reason they didn't go with individual films first is for multiple reasons and not just Thor, Captain America: the first avenger and Iron Man 2 felt like a slogfest at the time because we wanted the Avengers film.

But firstly JL is in effect a rehash of of the Justice league:Origin Swapping Aquaman for Shazam and Steppenwolf for Darkseid.

In that story Cyborg's origin and link to the mother boxes is covered in that story. Him having an individual film before that would be basically him and his father not getting on because he wants to play football and his father wants him to go to college and use his brain. That is a lifetime film not a superhero one.

From what we have heard Aquaman's film will be a rehash of the Justice League: Throne of Atlantis, where Arthur fights his brother for the throne. The Justice League needs to be formed for that.

And most importantly if they gave the Flash his individual film first they wouldn't have the ability to mega course correct with everything. And I'm meaning not just in tone but after that we can have a new Batman, Superman, and everyone else and DC can simply go this universe has gone through Flashpoint. Just like Marvel is going to be able to point to 'reality' stone after Avengers 4 if they decide they no longer want to pay RDJ the GDP of a small nation anymore but still have Iron man.

But having the Flash's individual film being Flashpoint means that Barry has to be immature enough to think his idea that him saving his mother is the best idea ever. Something if we have him in a couple of films before hand would he wouldn't have any excuse to be.

reply