Before I go further, let me just say that I am not a comic book person. I do know a lot of stuff relating to the DC universe only because I spent a lot of time on wikipedia and I grew up with Burton’s batman movies and fell in love with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight series. Perhaps it is because I grew up with Batman and know more about DC than Marvel that I have a biased opinion. I’d like to think that I’m a better person than that, though, so bear with me until the end of this article and hopefully I’ll make some sense and I won’t come off as a pretentious edgemister.
Some movies are made for the sole purpose to make money. Both the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the new DC Cinematic Universe were conceptualized to make a ton of money. Disney bought Marvel, saw the potential in creating a massive movie brand and did it. Warner Bros, who had owned DC for quite some time, realized that they could do the same thing and decided to go for it. Any argument about which came first is immature. DC created the superhero and Marvel saw it and redefined it, then Marvel made a ton of money in movies so DC wanted to get in on the action. Warner Bros. and Disney are just two companies taking advantage of something that’s shown to be profitable. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just what big business does. It’s capitalism. People who obsess over Marvel of DC to the extent of mindlessly criticising others who disagree with them are as bad as those scene kids in high school that ‘have’ to wear Nikes and Obey shirts to be cool.They’re both doing fine, they’re both successful companies owned by even more successful companies, stop fighting over which is better.
I’m also not going to say that films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are bad. I quite like Iron Man and The Avengers. I really like Guardians of the Galaxy and it is perhaps my favorite so far. It’s hard to watch the Marvel movies and not find some enjoyment in them. And there’s a reason for that; they’re designed that way.
I get a feeling sometimes when I watch a big budget movie. It’s hard to describe, but the best way to put it is that the entire movie feels devoid of any atmosphere and that every inch of the movie is artificial. Not because it’s poorly done, but because it hits all the right notes to be considered ‘good.’ It’s as if a group of studio executives came together and made a checklist and a guideline on how to make a movie that will get the widest audience possible, which in turn means the most profit. I get this the most with James Cameron movies, Titanic and Avatar especially. I like both movies, and sure Titanic came out of Cameron’s passion for the real life event and the sea in general, but they both feel like they were created a by a committee of non-artists.
Every Marvel movie makes me feel this way. This is in contrast to The Dark Knight trilogy. I can’t say the trilogy is perfect, but the movie came out of a vision Christopher Nolan and others had. There’s style and substance. In the Marvel films, there’s no substance and very little style (I think style and substance are the same thing though, and I never liked the saying the phrase ‘style over substance’, but that’s a whole other story). It feels like art. Now, The Dark Knight series isn’t part of the DC Cinematic Universe, but it did help inspire Man of Steel.
So that leads into what I have to say about Man of Steel. So far, we only have one movie to judge the entire DC Cinematic Universe off of, and I’m not sure if it’s a good example yet. It seems that Snyder made a few mistakes that he’s trying to correct with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. There’s a lot I could say about the movie, but this isn’t a Man of Steel review so I’ll keep it short; I don’t think it’s a good movie but I do appreciate it and I think it’s underrated.
I think Snyder has a very distinct visual style. I personally disliked the way 300 looked but quited enjoyed the visuals in Watchmen and Man of Steel. And at least he has a sense of visuals even if you don’t like it. With his style alone sets it apart from other superhero movies. The entire look of the film is memorable. Not tremendously memorable, but much more memorable than anything Marvel has produced. There are levels of artistic talent in it, even if it’s not by much (the scene where Clark Kent is in the church or the dream sequence, for example). There are things in the movie that you just don’t normally see in big budget movies.
The same goes for the tone. I don’t think the tone of the film is ‘dark and gritty’ like what many people say. It’s serious and slightly more realistic than the Marvel films, but it’s in no way outrageous. It doesn’t transform Superman beyond recognition. I think people watched Richard Donner’s Superman and believed what Superman has to be. I’m not even a comic book fan and even I know that’s untrue. A quick look at comic book history shows that Man of Steel could have been ripped straight out of the pages. People enjoy the X-Men films, they enjoy Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit series. Those are pretty much the same tone and yet they only complain about Man of Steel. I personally was completely fine with it and I just don’t understand the complaints. Man of Steel had a lot of flaws but tone wasn’t one of them. But it’s interesting that they chose such a tone despite early criticism. Even more interesting that they chose to keep it after the film’s bad critical consensus.
These two things are small though, but to me that makes all the difference. Suicide Squad looks fantastic and has an original take on The Joker. Making a movie about super villains before the main Justice League heroes get their movies? It’s interesting. Batman Vs. Superman leaves me skeptical but Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor and Ben Affleck as Batman? It’s interesting. Why are they interesting? Because they’re taking risks.
Would you rather watch a movie that took a risk and fail than a movie you knew would be good but was also generic and uninteresting? That’s what it all comes down to. Personally, watching something interesting and different beats watching a good movie. That’s why right now I’m more interested in seeing Batman Vs. Superman and Suicide Squad than whatever is coming out of Marvel’s assembly line.My opinion may change overtime as the DC movies shape up, but as of now DC is what I’m interested in. I think other people are on the same boat but they can’t pinpoint why.
There are some counterarguments to my point of view, of course. Many people believed Guardians of the Galaxy was a risk because of it’s genre and it was based on a more obscure comic book series. But honestly, Most people who see Marvel movies don’t recognise most of the superheroes anyway, all they need to know is that it’s a new Marvel film and people will go see it. Being a space fantasy didn’t raise the stakes very much. Adding to the fact that the plot went the safest route possible, I really think Marvel and Disney knew exactly how well it was going to do. The only real risk they took was with their first film Iron Man and The Avengers, because they still weren’t sure the whole cinematic angle would be profitable. But that was in the early stages. They marketed all their movies enough to guarantee success.
The other counterargument is that the new DCCU is not risk taking at all. In a way, taking the cinematic universe route isn’t that risky, but look at how it failed for Sony. They were attempting to build a cinematic universe of Spider-Man, and that just wasn’t going to work. They feel they’re rushing it because Justice League is coming before individual movies for the main heroes haven’t been made it. Ignoring the fact that just because Marvel made individual films doesn’t mean that that’s the only way it can be done, I’d argue that doing it sort of out of order is risky. Other people have complained that they’re too Batman-centric, and that’s actually a valid argument. But continuing this Snyder-vision even after Man of Steel was panned is risky enough.
Feel free to disagree, DC Vs. Marvel talk is always a hot topic...for some reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment