Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Premium George]

2 hours ago, Clyde Donovan said:

I find it hilarious that people shit on the DCEU for being to dark, grim and humorless then go and praise Daredevil and Logan, the fuck? Yeah, yeah I know "but those were good!" Still doesn't change the fact that they are just as grim as the DCEU. Logan was depressing as shit but I rarely see anyone bitch about that. Yet people complained about TDK trilogy being too dark, cause we all Batman is such a lighthearted jovial figure who needs MCUesque quips in his movies. And when they do put humor in their movies (SS and the JL trailer) people complain it's not funy. As if every one liner in the MCU has been hilarious, how about humor isn't the problem but quality is?

 

I know people want to act like there's no bias against DC at all but I'm not sure I buy it.

Nobody says TDK trilogy was dark in a bad way. "but those were good" is a legit reason. There is a bias against DCEU but your reasoning is flawed.

[Clyde Donovan]

13 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

 

 

13 minutes ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Nobody says TDK trilogy was dark in a bad way. "but those were good" is a legit reason. There is a bias against DCEU but your reasoning is flawed.

 

I hear people say that about TDK trilogy a lot, how they're too dark, not enough "fun", not real comic book movies, depressing etc. Those same people will praise Logan which was probably darker than any TDK trilogy film. Despite them going on about how superheroes are supposed to be lighthearted and not take themselves too seriously. Logan and Daredevil take themselves VERY seriously so regardless of quality I don't see why they can get away with being dark superhero stories but DC movies can't. Especially Batman movies.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Clyde Donovan

[aabattery]

Just now, Clyde Donovan said:

 

 

I hear people say that about TDK trilogy a lot, how they're too dark, not enough "fun", not real comic book movies, depressing etc. Those same people will praise Logan which was probably darker than any TDK trilogy film. Despite them going on about how superheroes are supposed to be lighthearted and not take themselves too seriously. Logan and Daredevil take themselves VERY seriously so regardless of quality I don't see why they can get away with being dark superhero stories but DC movies can't. Especially Batman movies.

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that people don't like The Dark Knight trilogy?

[Premium George]

5 minutes ago, Clyde Donovan said:

 

 

I hear people say that about TDK trilogy a lot, how they're too dark, not enough "fun", not real comic book movies, depressing etc. Those same people will praise Logan which was probably darker than any TDK trilogy film. Despite them going on about how superheroes are supposed to be lighthearted and not take themselves too seriously. Logan and Daredevil take themselves VERY seriously so regardless of quality I don't see why they can get away with being dark superhero stories but DC movies can't. Especially Batman movies.

Again TDK is a universally beloved trilogy, logan and daredevil are not. You are looking at needles in hay

[Clyde Donovan]

17 minutes ago, aabattery said:

 

Are you seriously trying to argue that people don't like The Dark Knight trilogy?

 

No...?

 

When did I ever say that? I said people complained that they were too dark which they do, not that anyone says they were bad movies. You act like universally liked movies don't ever get criticized. As popular as the MCU is for example a lot of people still complain about things about it. Like the humor and weak villains, doesn't mean the movies aren't beloved though.

[rukaio101]

6 hours ago, Sam said:

Y'all who using words like "too dark" to describe DC movies are talking in literal sense, right? Like no sunlight, blue sky ever seen, and shit like that? 

 

Cause otherwise, I'm at a loss at what else that are "dark" about those movies. It's exactly the same things I've seen presented and dealt with in other SH movies. 

Buh... Buh... Buh... The characters are brooding! That instantly makes them dark and mature, right?! 

 

 

[Ozymandias]

4 hours ago, Clyde Donovan said:

I find it hilarious that people shit on the DCEU for being to dark, grim and humorless then go and praise Daredevil and Logan, the fuck? Yeah, yeah I know "but those were good!" Still doesn't change the fact that they are just as grim as the DCEU. Logan was depressing as shit but I rarely see anyone bitch about that. Yet people complained about TDK trilogy being too dark, cause we all Batman is such a lighthearted jovial figure who needs MCUesque quips in his movies. And when they do put humor in their movies (SS and the JL trailer) people complain it's not funy. As if every one liner in the MCU has been hilarious, how about humor isn't the problem but quality is?

 

I know people want to act like there's no bias against DC at all but I'm not sure I buy it.

 

The problem with DC's movies is that their scripts are shit and Zack Snyder is like a frat boy director mostly concerned with how "cool" he thinks something looks and that whenever he tries to say something in his movies its really on the nose.  David Ayer has written and directed some solid stuff in the past but he is like the worst person in the world to direct a superhero movie as evident by all the reshoots they had to do because his original cut was probably a very different movie the studio didn't want(thats another problem with DC as well, WB doesn't seem to know what they want UNTIL they see what they don't want).

 

Logan and TDK aren't great because they're "dark", they're great because they were written and directed by talented people that know what they want and it execute it well.  TDK is like a crime thriller with a powerhouse performance in it and Logan is like Unforgiven with Wolverine.  What is Man of Steel? Its boring and stilted as shit whenever its not lame Michael Bay destruction porn.

[MCKillswitch123]

Dark and gritty is good as long as it's well realized.

The Dark Knight, Logan and Daredevil are all dark, gritty and very well realized.

 

Man Of Steel is a Goddamn bore of a film w/awful writing and supremely bland characters.

[cax16]

6 hours ago, chrisman0606 said:

So Marvel Movies what is your problem with them? Why single them out for flaws when DC movies have more flaws as noted by critics. Also Civil War has replay value while BVS does not.

I have no problem at all with marvel movies. As I've said many times in this thread I've seen all comic book movies opening weekend, own them all (since 89 batman)and enjoy them all. I'm just stating my opinion on what I think is better cause this thread is about franchises and I added in a comment after someone gave an opinion.

 

Also I don't care about critics. I watch movies and decide what I like for myself , I don't need someone else to pick apart movies for me. I can do that on my own if I don't like something.

 

And yes, to ME Civil war has no replay value at all and BvS does, that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy or rewatch civil war, that's just my opinion. I'm sure tons of people share your opinion. 

 

 

[RandomCat]

6 hours ago, Clyde Donovan said:

I find it hilarious that people shit on the DCEU for being to dark, grim and humorless then go and praise Daredevil and Logan, the fuck? Yeah, yeah I know "but those were good!" Still doesn't change the fact that they are just as grim as the DCEU. Logan was depressing as shit but I rarely see anyone bitch about that. Yet people complained about TDK trilogy being too dark, cause we all Batman is such a lighthearted jovial figure who needs MCUesque quips in his movies. And when they do put humor in their movies (SS and the JL trailer) people complain it's not funy. As if every one liner in the MCU has been hilarious, how about humor isn't the problem but quality is?

 

I know people want to act like there's no bias against DC at all but I'm not sure I buy it.

 

I have never seen anyone complain seriously about TDK trilogy being too dark. (Which isn't apart of the DCEU, but whatever).

 

When people complain the DCEU is too grim/dark it's not because they don't like grim/dark or don't think it's good. It's because characters like SUPERMAN aren't grim/dark. Logan is a grim/dark character. Daredevil is a grim/dark character. Superman is a man who flies around in bright blue and red who is an embodiment of hope, not an emo "woe is me, why do I have to save people" type character.

 

And I'm really hating this idea that people keep trying to push out the idea that MCU invented action movies with quips in them. But when people complain it isn't funny, that isn't a problem with the humor, it's a problem with the QUALITY. Back onto TDK trilogy, Daredevil and Logan, they weren't humorless. They were dark, they were grim, they could be depressing as all hell, but they weren't humorless. 

 

And of course you don't buy there isn't a bias against DC. No way is it possible for people to not like a movie that much. Especially people who claim to actually be fans of the comics or characters. Can't at all be people don't like Snyder just deciding to shoot Jimmy Olsen in the head because he didn't know what else to do with him. Or turning Pa Kent into the exact opposite kind of character he is. Or pissed that Batman is completely fine just mowing down badguys with guns. Totally not a bias AGAINST DC that people don't like these things.

[The Futurist]

33 minutes ago, THE PHENOMENAL BKB said:

 

I like to think of The DARK KNIGHT as a movie that's more of a Crime Drama that just happens to involve people running around in costumes more than a traditional superhero movie..

 

People have SUCH a hard time understanding that, it boggles the mind.

 

Coming from a director who can only take Batman seriously and whose main influence was obviously Michael Man 's Heat.

 

 

[Napoleon]

It wouldn't surprise me if Guardians 2 opened to disappointing numbers, people are just not talking about it like I expected them to at this point. The first movie was supposed to be the most beloved comic book movie since The Dark Knight, as least for what the media tried to push down our throats. But I don't think this is challenging Age Of Ultron's OW. 

[YM!]

6 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

It wouldn't surprise me if Guardians 2 opened to disappointing numbers, people are just not talking about it like I expected them to at this point. The first movie was supposed to be the most beloved comic book movie since The Dark Knight, as least for what the media tried to push down our throats. But I don't think this is challenging Age Of Ultron's OW. 

Who the hell said AOU numbers for GV2 OW. The majority here are thinking $120M-$160M OW. Tracking says $150M+, maybe over CW ($180M), but that's unlikely.

Edited April 18, 2017 by YourMother

[MattW]

6 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

It wouldn't surprise me if Guardians 2 opened to disappointing numbers, people are just not talking about it like I expected them to at this point. The first movie was supposed to be the most beloved comic book movie since The Dark Knight, as least for what the media tried to push down our throats. But I don't think this is challenging Age Of Ultron's OW. 

I agree, I'm thinking if it matches suicide squad and deadpool it'll be doing really well. Right now my general sense is that it'll do less than those

[Hades]

5 hours ago, JonathanLB said:

 

HAHA that's a good one! So between Avengers and Avengers 2, there's a substantial decline in interest, but magically one of the Infinity War films is going to double Avengers 2 and beat TFA? Good luck with that! I don't think either will make over $600M. They will be huge hits, no doubt about it, very big. They'll probably open enormously, maybe $200M to $220M or so, but they'll fall pretty hard and pretty fast. 

Yup, the first Avengers film was the peak of the MCU box office wise. While Avengers 4 will be the ultimate peak of the whole MCU. I expect sharp drops  all round after the fourth Avengers film. 

 

Marvel should stop wasting some of their top potential characters on TV shows. They should save some for the big screen. They are going to need new and fresh blood very soon. 

[RandomCat]

AOU was such a marked decrease it made only 1.4B WW after Avengers made a massive 1.5B WW.

[AJG]

55 minutes ago, Hades said:

Yup, the first Avengers film was the peak of the MCU box office wise. While Avengers 4 will be the ultimate peak of the whole MCU. I expect sharp drops  all round after the fourth Avengers film. 

 

Marvel should stop wasting some of their top potential characters on TV shows. They should save some for the big screen. They are going to need new and fresh blood very soon. 

 

What Marvel are doing with some characters on TV is what Disney did to their characters during the direct-to-video sequel era.

 

It is insane to me that they would waste such great characters like The Runaways on a Hulu show. Squirrel Girl is getting wasted on FreeForm. 

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

AOU was such a marked decrease it made only 1.4B WW after Avengers made a massive 1.5B WW.

 

Not bad at all it is true, around what 10-15% ?

 

 

2012 global box office: 34.7 billion

2015: 38.3 billion

 

Avengers market share: 100% * 1.518 / 34.7 = 4.37%

Ultron market share: 100% * 1.405 / 38.3 = 3.66%

 

16% decline in world market share is really good, if the Avengers can succeed at declining by just 10-15% and the market continue to growth they will continue to do ridiculous number for a long time.

 

Imagine if Avatar 2 do just a 16% decline, it will do over 3.3 billion at the box office.

 

Avatar 2.787 / 30 = 9.29%

7.8 * 44 /100 = around 3.4 billion

Edited April 18, 2017 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

Not bad at all it is true, around what 10-15% ?

 

 

2012 global box office: 34.7 billion

2015: 38.3 billion

 

Avengers market share: 100% * 1.518 / 34.7 = 4.37%

Ultron market share: 100% * 1.405 / 38.3 = 3.66%

 

16% decline in world market share is really good, if the Avengers can succeed at declining by just 10-15% and the market continue to growth they will continue to do ridiculous number for a long time.

 

Imagine if Avatar 2 do just a 16% decline, it will do over 3.3 billion at the box office.

 

Avatar 2.787 / 30 = 9.29%

7.8 * 44 /100 = around 3.4 billion

 

Doesn't all this math assume a flat exchange rate across several years?

[MrGlass2]

2 hours ago, MattW said:

I agree, I'm thinking if it matches suicide squad and deadpool it'll be doing really well. Right now my general sense is that it'll do less than those

 

GOTG2 is not going to open with less than Suicide Squad! If it did, since this April and not August, its domestic total would be much lower than both Suicide Squad and GOTG1 - which is unlikely.