NUKE IT FROM ORBIT - The Marvel/DC Kobayashi Maru Thread - BVS vs CIVIL WAR (for masochists only) | SPOILERS ALLOWED

[MaxRoad]

26 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

 

Prepare for 90% of all the questions to be: is it better than BvS??!?

I think CW will be much better than BvS...Because boz gives CA2 A-,and BvS B+

 

Now many people say CW is the best MCU film,So...

 

Edited March 12, 2016 by MaxRoad

[Kalo]

8 hours ago, The Panda said:

 

I hate 'em both because I just like to watch the world burn.

 

 

Hidden Content

 

 

Yeah I don't Like Synder or MoS either, but I am going to torture myself and see BvS with high hopes to probably be crushed again. but I love the original Superman and Superman II, and I even like Superman Returns way better than most people. and I love GOTG and Cap 2. so I get the best of both worlds, and comics both sides have amazing comics. although I think DC might have the edge there, where Marvel has a huge edge when it comes to quality movies, granted they have made a lot more though.

[Kalo]

13 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

This is largely speculation on my part, but I suspect it's a result of MoS's mixed reception. If MoS had received, say, Dark Knight or even Iron Man level acclaim, I doubt the DCCU's plans would be as divisive. There's nothing inherently wrong about doing things differently from the MCU, but when you do do things different and all you have to show for it is one divisively received film, that tends to put a lot of controversy on your methods. DC tried something different than Marvel. The result didn't work as well as Marvel's films. Thus you get people mistaking correlation and causation and assuming that doing stuff different is the reason DC failed, rather than MoS just being a divisive movie. It doesn't help that DC's method can easily be seen as a quick rush to get Justice League out as fast as possible. Is that a viewpoint I agree with? Kinda? I'm on the fence, but I don't blame other people for being more convinced about it.

 

For what it's worth though, despite my disdain for MoS, I actually like some of the ideas DC have been using. I like the idea of using a Batman v Superman movie to introduce Batman rather than another tired origin. I like the idea of the superpowered community already being somewhat established and us being dropped in the middle, as Suicide Squad and this 'experienced Batman' stuff seems to indicate. Hell, if MoS hadn't so colossally shat the bed, I might even have liked the idea of telling more 'serious' stories than Marvel's.

 

You make some excellent points rukaio. The problem isn't that they choose to be more serious. it's that they are tying to ground it way too much and just diluting the characters.  Superman is a fantastical character with extreme fantasy/sci-fi elements to his character, he is also completely different than Batman character wise Superman is supposed to be a unmovable beacon of morality and Justice, and I feel they failed to portrayals that in MoS. and also his Clark Kent portrayal has always been humorous. also Captain America is just as unmovable and moral as superman, and marvel went with it. and it worked. not only that they gave us Winter Soldier. with cap the most moral and "unrelatable character" so called. and gave us the darkest story so far in the MCU and it still worked, because they let Captain America be Captain America. 

 

What WB fails to see (so far, maybe they fixed it with BvS for all I know) is that you can tell a darker story and still have moments of comic relief. Like, laugh out loud comic relief. All Star Superman for example, has a pretty dark story. but it has scenes that are absolutely hilarious. now you could abandon most of that, if you wanna go ultra dark but you would need extremely good writing to get away with that and MoS had way too many cheesy things going on and had poor dialogue, so it was hard (for me at least) to take it seriously. I feel like it did have some good concepts, but it felt really rushed almost like they started filming when it only had a first or second draft to work with. from what I've seen of BvS. it does look like they at least put a little more work into writing it. I agree with you about their plans to, they didn't have to take the "marvel" route setting up. it's just that MoS didn't work as well as they hoped. 

[Kalo]

6 hours ago, James said:

Why? They are far and away the best studio out there. They brought a lot of great franchises to the screen and they actually spend the big bucks on original SF movies, which makes them awesome.

 

As for this thread: as much as most Marvel movies are boring to me, the latest trailer for CW was amazing! It made me excited for that movie. And it wasn't Spidey (the costume looks bloody awful compared to the previous ones), but Iron-Man. I doubt I will watch any Marvel movie after he is out and I hope he whoops Cap's ass in this.

 

BvS though is much more interesting to me thematically because the book I'm writing right now is concentrated more or less on the same themes: the appeal of absolute power, the corruption, people's tendency to associate a religious aura to beings of great power etc (that is why I hoped after the first teaser that Supes would turn dark, but oh well).     

 

I feel like WB has gone downhill in recent years, they still make some great smaller films, but for the most part their blockbusters have not been the greatest. Mad Max was fantastic. but George Miller a high level of creative control for that film so I don't really know how much you can acredit that to the studio. the problem is they keep copying catcat-ing themselves. Because TDK movies were so successful, they keep trying to put that dark tone on their big budget movies, without the best writers or work put into them. Godzilla is a good example of that. I didn't hate it. but it took itself so seriously and some stuff was so cheesy it was hard to take it seriously, also they just literally have made the movies dark and put less color into them. MoS was very grey, his suite was duller, Krypton was duller the visuals were less colored. like how does making everything grey make a movie darker in tone?

[James]

40 minutes ago, Kalo said:

 

I feel like WB has gone downhill in recent years, they still make some great smaller films, but for the most part their blockbusters have not been the greatest. Mad Max was fantastic. but George Miller a high level of creative control for that film so I don't really know how much you can acredit that to the studio. the problem is they keep copying catcat-ing themselves. Because TDK movies were so successful, they keep trying to put that dark tone on their big budget movies, without the best writers or work put into them. Godzilla is a good example of that. I didn't hate it. but it took itself so seriously and some stuff was so cheesy it was hard to take it seriously, also they just literally have made the movies dark and put less color into them. MoS was very grey, his suite was duller, Krypton was duller the visuals were less colored. like how does making everything grey make a movie darker in tone?

It doesn't per se. But it is hard to imagine a very colorful movie that manages to retain a dark atmosphere. What Warner is excelling at is pushing the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. If you ask me that rating is a pain in the ass. It costs companies money and creative choices. DCU as a whole and it's dark themes should be associated with a hell lot of violence that can't be put on screen. The movies are as dark as they can be without being rated R. And of course they are taking themselves seriously. I just don't understand how, as a writer or moviemaker you could use serious themes but sweeten things up in a very unrealistic manner. The real world is the real world. Those fantasy elements need to be introduced as realistically as they can. How would society react to a being like Supes? Religions would form around him, violent cults. Riots in the streets, wars and all. I feel like, except for X-Men, where the problem of mutant acceptance is pushed forward in a realistic way, none of the other SH movies do what they have to. 

As for Godzilla, I felt that it wasn't dark enough.  

[baumer]

How did the lawyer from Usual Suspects get involved in the thread and his name in the title?

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, Baumer said:

How did the lawyer from Usual Suspects get involved in the thread and his name in the title?

 

Through a timewarp courtesy of the United Federation of Planets.

[BadAtGender]

It seems strange to me to unilaterally hate or love an entire studio. 

[Kalo]

23 minutes ago, James said:

It doesn't per se. But it is hard to imagine a very colorful movie that manages to retain a dark atmosphere. What Warner is excelling at is pushing the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. If you ask me that rating is a pain in the ass. It costs companies money and creative choices. DCU as a whole and it's dark themes should be associated with a hell lot of violence that can't be put on screen. The movies are as dark as they can be without being rated R. And of course they are taking themselves seriously. I just don't understand how, as a writer or moviemaker you could use serious themes but sweeten things up in a very unrealistic manner. The real world is the real world. Those fantasy elements need to be introduced as realistically as they can. How would society react to a being like Supes? Religions would form around him, violent cults. Riots in the streets, wars and all. I feel like, except for X-Men, where the problem of mutant acceptance is pushed forward in a realistic way, none of the other SH movies do what they have to. 

As for Godzilla, I felt that it wasn't dark enough.  

 

Yeah I felt that Godzilla was trying to be dark, but it wasn't really. Part of that might have to do with the PG-13 rating. but rating a film R doesn't automatically mean it will make it better and I've seen some pretty dark PG13s. but there are limits to what you can do with it. I think blood is way to censored in PG13s. when people get hurt they bleed. I can understand why they don't show extreme gore. but the little drops of blood they are allowed in that rating is kind of pathetic. I don't have a problem with the way people reacted to supes in MoS. it was probably one of the better elements in the film and superman has always been associated with religion so that part makes perfect sense. 

 

But all the DC characters are different. and it's fine to try and show the realistic reaction. but people in reality are quite humorous beings we take very little seriously and we use humor to lighten the tension so that we can deal with it better. not everybody but most people are that way.  

 

and not all the DC comics are dark. one of my favorite DC comics ever is Superman for All Seasons, and while it's actually a pretty serious story. there is very little graphic content in it. but the story is so sweeping and such a steady character study of superman that it works brilliantly. and you could probably do it with a PG rating. also Wonder Woman's world is really colorful if you made it all gray and dull I feel like it would not have the right feel of wonder woman. however Wonder Woman also has some of the bloodiest and violent comics as well so I can see where an PG13 rating could be a bit restrictive. 

 

anyways this is just my opinion, I don't claim to know everything. and I actually agree with most of what you are saying.

[rukaio101]

1 hour ago, Kalo said:

 

You make some excellent points rukaio. The problem isn't that they choose to be more serious. it's that they are tying to ground it way too much and just diluting the characters.  Superman is a fantastical character with extreme fantasy/sci-fi elements to his character, he is also completely different than Batman character wise Superman is supposed to be a unmovable beacon of morality and Justice, and I feel they failed to portrayals that in MoS. and also his Clark Kent portrayal has always been humorous. also Captain America is just as unmovable and moral as superman, and marvel went with it. and it worked. not only that they gave us Winter Soldier. with cap the most moral and "unrelatable character" so called. and gave us the darkest story so far in the MCU and it still worked, because they let Captain America be Captain America. 

 

What WB fails to see (so far, maybe they fixed it with BvS for all I know) is that you can tell a darker story and still have moments of comic relief. Like, laugh out loud comic relief. All Star Superman for example, has a pretty dark story. but it has scenes that are absolutely hilarious. now you could abandon most of that, if you wanna go ultra dark but you would need extremely good writing to get away with that and MoS had way too many cheesy things going on and had poor dialogue, so it was hard (for me at least) to take it seriously. I feel like it did have some good concepts, but it felt really rushed almost like they started filming when it only had a first or second draft to work with. from what I've seen of BvS. it does look like they at least put a little more work into writing it. I agree with you about their plans to, they didn't have to take the "marvel" route setting up. it's just that MoS didn't work as well as they hoped. 

I agree with your argument that being 'realistic' and 'devoid of humour' doesn't necessarily make your movie better (although it doesn't necessarily make it worse either, it's just how you use it) but, despite how much the filmmakers harped on about it, I don't even really see MoS as being that realistic. I'd call the Iron Man and Captain America movies more 'realistic' than MoS. Even Thor feels more realistic in some ways. And a large part of that is due to the characters. Strange and bizarre situations can seem more 'realistic' if you have 3-dimensional characters reacting to them in a way that makes sense. But for a movie that was seemingly prided on being a 'realistic depiction of how the world would react to Superman', MoS's characterization is terrible. And I'm not just even talking about Clark and his pathetic excuse for a character arc. I'm talking about Lois, the hardbitten reporter who tracks across the entire country searching down leads for a story that can/will change the world only to change her mind immediately after hearing a mildly sob story. (Way to go with that journalistic integrity, Lois). I'm talking about Perry White who is sitting on a story that could easily change the world but tells Lois to drop it because... the world isn't ready? (Screw the public's right to know or the real possibility that another paper might uncover the story instead.) I'm talking about Pa Kent who spends 95% of his screentime babbling pseudophilosophy rather than acting at all like a father or even a genuine human being. None of these characters feel like real people, so how can you claim your movie is 'more realistic' for having them?

 

And, to be perfectly honest, characterisation I think is largely the reason Marvel is doing so much better at this point. Whatever you may think about Marvel characters (and I'll be the first to admit their villains are largely weak) at least most of them feel like rounded human beings with their own goals and motivations rather than puppets whose sole purpose is to advance the plot/push the pseudophilosophical crap the writers are pushing. I've already mentioned this in another thread but I think the main reason Avengers succeeded is because they did such a good job showing these established characters bounce off each other. Some people may complain about the 'quips' but they miss that the quips work because they're part of the exploration of the dynamic between these characters, from Tony's natural wise-cracking, to Cap's more straight-laced demeanour, to Bruce's constant caution, to Thor's larger-than-life/fish-out-of-water...ness. It's the characters that make the movie and it's no coincidence that one of the best moments was the big circle shot where they finally overcome their differences and become a team (which I'd argue was the main conflict of the movie the entire time). Justice League is going to have significantly more difficult time with that because most of the cast haven't had the opportunity to become established characters yet. Thus they're going to have to dedicate time to establishing most of them in turn while still keeping the main conflict of the movie. Not to say that's not possible, GOTG did a fairly good job with it. Just that it's going to be signficantly harder to make it as satisfying as Avengers.

 

I will say, on the bright side of things for DC, I do think they're so far doing a good job of characterising Batman in BvS. It's only through watching the trailers, but I already have a very good grip on his motivations and characterisation and why he's doing what he's doing. Whether that will extend to Superman and Wonder Woman in the movie, I'm really not sure. I will admit to being especially worried about Wonder Woman who so far has yet to convince me she's going to be anything less than a prop piece to 'look cool and badass' without having any real interesting characterisation of her own. To compare with Black Panther or Spiderman from Civil War, I already know from behind the scenes stuff what is strongly rumoured to be the motivation for them getting involved in the conflict.

Spoiler

T'Challa is apparently trying to avenge his father who was seemingly killed by Bucky. Spidey, meanwhile, is supposedly a rookie superhero being taken under Tony's wing.

Both are clear character motivations that feel real and understandable and tell us about their characters. Now, on the other hand, I have yet to see a single piece of information explaining to me why the hell Wonder Woman is in the movie. The best I've got is that she's after Lex, but why? General do-gooding? Is that it? That tells me almost nothing about her character or motivations other than 'she likes to do good'. Which is something shared with pretty much every superhero ever. Admittedly, I may have just missed the interview explaining her motivations or maybe it will be explained significantly better in the movie (and she'll be characterised perfectly fine too), but it's easy to understand why I'm worried DC still, Batman aside, hasn't completely learnt their lesson from MoS.

 

Okay, overanalytical writer's mode off.

[4815162342]

43 minutes ago, Baumer said:

How did the lawyer from Usual Suspects get involved in the thread and his name in the title?

 

[Kalo]

5 minutes ago, rukaio101 said:

I agree with your argument that being 'realistic' and 'devoid of humour' doesn't necessarily make your movie better (although it doesn't necessarily make it worse either, it's just how you use it) but, despite how much the filmmakers harped on about it, I don't even really see MoS as being that realistic. I'd call the Iron Man and Captain America movies more 'realistic' than MoS. Even Thor feels more realistic in some ways. And a large part of that is due to the characters. Strange and bizarre situations can seem more 'realistic' if you have 3-dimensional characters reacting to them in a way that makes sense. But for a movie that was seemingly prided on being a 'realistic depiction of how the world would react to Superman', MoS's characterization is terrible. And I'm not just even talking about Clark and his pathetic excuse for a character arc. I'm talking about Lois, the hardbitten reporter who tracks across the entire country searching down leads for a story that can/will change the world only to change her mind immediately after hearing a mildly sob story. (Way to go with that journalistic integrity, Lois). I'm talking about Perry White who is sitting on a story that could easily change the world but tells Lois to drop it because... the world isn't ready? (Screw the public's right to know or the real possibility that another paper might uncover the story instead.) I'm talking about Pa Kent who spends 95% of his screentime babbling pseudophilosophy rather than acting at all like a father or even a genuine human being. None of these characters feel like real people, so how can you claim your movie is 'more realistic' for having them?

 

And, to be perfectly honest, characterisation I think is largely the reason Marvel is doing so much better at this point. Whatever you may think about Marvel characters (and I'll be the first to admit their villains are largely weak) at least most of them feel like rounded human beings with their own goals and motivations rather than puppets whose sole purpose is to advance the plot/push the pseudophilosophical crap the writers are pushing. I've already mentioned this in another thread but I think the main reason Avengers succeeded is because they did such a good job showing these established characters bounce off each other. Some people may complain about the 'quips' but they miss that the quips work because they're part of the exploration of the dynamic between these characters, from Tony's natural wise-cracking, to Cap's more straight-laced demeanour, to Bruce's constant caution, to Thor's larger-than-life/fish-out-of-water...ness. It's the characters that make the movie and it's no coincidence that one of the best moments was the big circle shot where they finally overcome their differences and become a team (which I'd argue was the main conflict of the movie the entire time). Justice League is going to have significantly more difficult time with that because most of the cast haven't had the opportunity to become established characters yet. Thus they're going to have to dedicate time to establishing most of them in turn while still keeping the main conflict of the movie. Not to say that's not possible, GOTG did a fairly good job with it. Just that it's going to be signficantly harder to make it as satisfying as Avengers.

 

I will say, on the bright side of things for DC, I do think they're so far doing a good job of characterising Batman in BvS. It's only through watching the trailers, but I already have a very good grip on his motivations and characterisation and why he's doing what he's doing. Whether that will extend to Superman and Wonder Woman in the movie, I'm really not sure. I will admit to being especially worried about Wonder Woman who so far has yet to convince me she's going to be anything less than a prop piece to 'look cool and badass' without having any real interesting characterisation of her own. To compare with Black Panther or Spiderman from Civil War, I already know from behind the scenes stuff what is strongly rumoured to be the motivation for them getting involved in the conflict.

  Reveal hidden contents

T'Challa is apparently trying to avenge his father who was seemingly killed by Bucky. Spidey, meanwhile, is supposedly a rookie superhero being taken under Tony's wing.

Both are clear character motivations that feel real and understandable and tell us about their characters. Now, on the other hand, I have yet to see a single piece of information explaining to me why the hell Wonder Woman is in the movie. The best I've got is that she's after Lex, but why? General do-gooding? Is that it? That tells me almost nothing about her character or motivations other than 'she likes to do good'. Which is something shared with pretty much every superhero ever. Admittedly, I may have just missed the interview explaining her motivations or maybe it will be explained significantly better in the movie (and she'll be characterised perfectly fine too), but it's easy to understand why I'm worried DC still, Batman aside, hasn't completely learnt their lesson from MoS.

 

Okay, overanalytical writer's mode off.

 

I think you must have misunderstood my post. because I agree with you pretty much 100% . I meant that they "tried" to show it more realistic. as what they thought would be by making the characters more serious, but ended up just making them dull and one dimensional, even Superman. and I totally agree, Lois Lane in that film was really dull almost devoid of character development and Pa Kent was portrayed as paranoid and ended up being a terrible role model for Clark and Clark's motivations for letting Jonathan die were well dumb to be honest. and I would argue that CA and Iron Man were more realistic because the characters were better development and felt like real people that we actually care about. also agree that I feel from what I've seen of just the trailers that Batman has been handled much better and his motivations a clearly realised and for the most part believable. well have to wait and see I guess.     

[rukaio101]

7 minutes ago, Kalo said:

 

I think you must have misunderstood my post. because I agree with you pretty much 100% .

Oh, I know you didn't disagree. I was just using points in your post as an excuse to go off on a tirade of my own. 

[baumer]

 

 

Me looking in on this thread:

 

 

[fmpro]

Top 10 wan't to see here in Denmark

 

1. R1

2. CW

3. TA4

4. TA3

 

BvS not even in the top 10. Presales here are not good.. CW will crush it

[James]

5 hours ago, rukaio101 said:

I agree with your argument that being 'realistic' and 'devoid of humour' doesn't necessarily make your movie better (although it doesn't necessarily make it worse either, it's just how you use it) but, despite how much the filmmakers harped on about it, I don't even really see MoS as being that realistic. I'd call the Iron Man and Captain America movies more 'realistic' than MoS. Even Thor feels more realistic in some ways. And a large part of that is due to the characters. Strange and bizarre situations can seem more 'realistic' if you have 3-dimensional characters reacting to them in a way that makes sense. But for a movie that was seemingly prided on being a 'realistic depiction of how the world would react to Superman', MoS's characterization is terrible. And I'm not just even talking about Clark and his pathetic excuse for a character arc. I'm talking about Lois, the hardbitten reporter who tracks across the entire country searching down leads for a story that can/will change the world only to change her mind immediately after hearing a mildly sob story. (Way to go with that journalistic integrity, Lois). I'm talking about Perry White who is sitting on a story that could easily change the world but tells Lois to drop it because... the world isn't ready? (Screw the public's right to know or the real possibility that another paper might uncover the story instead.) I'm talking about Pa Kent who spends 95% of his screentime babbling pseudophilosophy rather than acting at all like a father or even a genuine human being. None of these characters feel like real people, so how can you claim your movie is 'more realistic' for having them?

 

And, to be perfectly honest, characterisation I think is largely the reason Marvel is doing so much better at this point. Whatever you may think about Marvel characters (and I'll be the first to admit their villains are largely weak) at least most of them feel like rounded human beings with their own goals and motivations rather than puppets whose sole purpose is to advance the plot/push the pseudophilosophical crap the writers are pushing. I've already mentioned this in another thread but I think the main reason Avengers succeeded is because they did such a good job showing these established characters bounce off each other. Some people may complain about the 'quips' but they miss that the quips work because they're part of the exploration of the dynamic between these characters, from Tony's natural wise-cracking, to Cap's more straight-laced demeanour, to Bruce's constant caution, to Thor's larger-than-life/fish-out-of-water...ness. It's the characters that make the movie and it's no coincidence that one of the best moments was the big circle shot where they finally overcome their differences and become a team (which I'd argue was the main conflict of the movie the entire time). Justice League is going to have significantly more difficult time with that because most of the cast haven't had the opportunity to become established characters yet. Thus they're going to have to dedicate time to establishing most of them in turn while still keeping the main conflict of the movie. Not to say that's not possible, GOTG did a fairly good job with it. Just that it's going to be signficantly harder to make it as satisfying as Avengers.

 

I will say, on the bright side of things for DC, I do think they're so far doing a good job of characterising Batman in BvS. It's only through watching the trailers, but I already have a very good grip on his motivations and characterisation and why he's doing what he's doing. Whether that will extend to Superman and Wonder Woman in the movie, I'm really not sure. I will admit to being especially worried about Wonder Woman who so far has yet to convince me she's going to be anything less than a prop piece to 'look cool and badass' without having any real interesting characterisation of her own. To compare with Black Panther or Spiderman from Civil War, I already know from behind the scenes stuff what is strongly rumoured to be the motivation for them getting involved in the conflict.

  Hide contents

T'Challa is apparently trying to avenge his father who was seemingly killed by Bucky. Spidey, meanwhile, is supposedly a rookie superhero being taken under Tony's wing.

Both are clear character motivations that feel real and understandable and tell us about their characters. Now, on the other hand, I have yet to see a single piece of information explaining to me why the hell Wonder Woman is in the movie. The best I've got is that she's after Lex, but why? General do-gooding? Is that it? That tells me almost nothing about her character or motivations other than 'she likes to do good'. Which is something shared with pretty much every superhero ever. Admittedly, I may have just missed the interview explaining her motivations or maybe it will be explained significantly better in the movie (and she'll be characterised perfectly fine too), but it's easy to understand why I'm worried DC still, Batman aside, hasn't completely learnt their lesson from MoS.

 

Okay, overanalytical writer's mode off.

Actually, the most unrealistic thing in MOS is that Clark didn't obliterate those morons who bothered him and lived his life like a social recluse despite being basically god. This part in the SH movies/comics always bothers me. Every SH just decides he/she wants to use his/her powers for others lol.   

[rukaio101]

21 minutes ago, James said:

Actually, the most unrealistic thing in MOS is that Clark didn't obliterate those morons who bothered him and lived his life like a social recluse despite being basically god. This part in the SH movies/comics always bothers me. Every SH just decides he/she wants to use his/her powers for others lol.   

Umm... That's only unrealistic if you believe everyone in the world is apparently a complete sociopath.

[vc2002]

6 hours ago, Baumer said:

 

 

Me looking in on this thread:

 

 

 

This thread smells fishy.

[Talkie]

9 hours ago, Baumer said:

 

 

Me looking in on this thread:

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Weird reaction considering that there's nothing beyond a civil discussion going on here. 

[The Futurist]

12 hours ago, Kalo said:

 

I think you must have misunderstood my post. because I agree with you pretty much 100% . I meant that they "tried" to show it more realistic. as what they thought would be by making the characters more serious, but ended up just making them dull and one dimensional, even Superman. and I totally agree, Lois Lane in that film was really dull almost devoid of character development and Pa Kent was portrayed as paranoid and ended up being a terrible role model for Clark and Clark's motivations for letting Jonathan die were well dumb to be honest. and I would argue that CA and Iron Man were more realistic because the characters were better development and felt like real people that we actually care about. also agree that I feel from what I've seen of just the trailers that Batman has been handled much better and his motivations a clearly realised and for the most part believable. well have to wait and see I guess.     

 

I also think Marvel s characters work because of absolutely fantastic casting.

Edited March 13, 2016 by The Futurist