Normally I'm not one to keep chatting on and on about a movie once I've seen it, since this is usually already quite exhaustively done by my boyfriend...but I couldn't help wondering how there hasn't already been a thread here about this movie!

I've already read a few too many fan theories and predictions about what is going to happen next, as well as had plenty of my own conversations with friends about the way Marvel has set this movie up so skillfully and intelligently...anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'm so addicted to hearing more! >w<;

For example: what's the deal with Banner and Hulk? The trailer showed Hulk in a running sequence with the Avengers but he showed up for all of 90 seconds at the beginning of the movie, then refused to surface again for the rest of the movie!

I also found it interesting that most of the original Avengers didn't end up fading away at the end. We've still got Ironman, Cap. America, Hulk, Thor...I feel like that wasn't really an accident.

Not to mention Stark is still suuuuper alive, and that whole scene with Dr. Strange practically sacrificing himself and giving up the stone means the only winning strategy involved keeping Stark alive. But he's still stuck on Titan, so there's that.

And...Loki and Gamora? Didn't we get enough with their deaths to have to live through half the planet too?

So. Many. QUESTIONS. @.@"

Seeing as like four-fifths of the characters that died in the snap have movies in production, its pretty clear that the snap will be undone.

But with stormbreaker being able to summon the bifrost, it feels a bit like they were setting it up so that Heimdall and Loki could really be dead.  But that leaves Gamora.

Unless gotg 3 will be focused entirely on finding a way to bring her back, I feel like they couldn't have killed her off permanently. They really need her for gotg3.

Combined with the fact that allowing the deaths of the Asgardians to be permanent would pretty much retroactively ruin Thor ragnarok, I lean toward them finding a way to use the infinity stones to manipulate time and space to undo everything that happened.

I think they left the original avengers alive because avengers 4 is their swan song.  The movie can focus on them much more.

One of the leaked on set photos showed captain America in New York, with hulk.  He's in his original costume from the first avenger movie, and ant man is there.  It makes me wonder if they are going to go back in time and relive or change events from earlier movies.

Captain marvel is also going to be a major part of it, so perhaps her power will be the catalyst to getting the infinity stones.

I guess the question will be who among those that survived the snap will survive to the end.  But I have a feeling avengers 4 will end with Tony and Peppers wedding, attended by the survivors. And wong. Just my feeling.
This message was last edited by the user at 23:48, Tue 08 May 2018.

Right!? The only solution to this would be to reverse the snap as far back as that, although one of my friends predicted that Gamora is actually trapped in the Soul Stone and somehow she's set to bring down Thanos in the end somehow. Because well, who better to handle teh big purple lug than her, right?



I wondered a bit about this too. Thor is by far one of my favorite characters, and it seems a bit early to cut him off from any more movies.



OOOOOOOOh. I hadn't thought about that. That's good.

From what I understand about the Soul Gem; Gamora's soul is inside the Soul Gem.  Whether that means she can be brought back or not is highly up for debate.  The Guardians of the Galaxy 3 could go on without Gamora or as you suggested that could be the focus of the movie, finding a way to get her back.  Could it be that Adam Warlock is involved in doing so?  In the comics he's the one who had the Soul Gem after all.

They have said that half the Asgardians managed to escape before the movie began.   As for Loki, he's dead but that doesn't mean he can't come back (he's reincarnated in the comics before).

My question for you is: Who do you think they'll sacrifice to the Soul Gem?  And Who will be the one to wield the Gauntlet to fix things?

That's a question I had.  What happened to the glove and the stones?  It was all sizzles just before he stepped back into the portal, but he isn't wearing it when it shows him enjoying the sunset.  So is it on his kitchen table at home or something?  Will the avengers have to steal it from him?

And I truly doubt, after the confession of love, that Gamora will not be in gotg3. The guardians would be a much less entertaining group with no straight man.  It just wouldn't work.
This message was last edited by the user at 00:02, Wed 09 May 2018.

  One of the things that truly irked me about the movie was how the first fifteen minutes of the movie was completely devoted to un-doing everything that Thor:Ragnorok accomplished.

Every. Single. Thing.  It felt like erasure.

Yeah, that's why I am hoping and thinking it may end with the stones being used to make a new asgard, with Thor on the throne.

the gems looked fine after the snap but the gauntlet was wrecked for sure.  So Thor has to go back to the dwarf to get a new gauntlet forged while the others go about trying to find Thanos and get the stones from him?

No clue.  I guess the scope of captain marvel's powers may also play a factor.  Maybe she'll provide the opening for them.

I've heard on good terms that Avengers 4 is actually going to reveal that the entire MCU has been nothing more than a fever dream of Tony Stark as he recovers from the surgery that attaches the electromagnet to his heart to prevent the shrapnel from killing him in the very first Iron Man. A very ironic twist, but a complete reboot so they can take all of our money again...:-D

And when he comes out of the coma, he's in bed next to Suzanne pleshette as his wife, right?

I am trying to figure out how Tony is going to get back to Earth.  As for the half the populations being gone?  Well I know in the books they come back.  I have a feeling that GOTG 3 will have something to do with Xandar being destroyed.  Capt. Marvel is supposed to have gained her powers from the Kree Mar-Vell.  He was an enemy of Thanos, So possible he'll be in the movie.  Also Kree have shown up already in Agents of SHIELD.

In the books one thing I am glad is they brought the original Wolverine back.  Sorry some liked her, but I hated X-23.

Aw - I like Laura X-23.  Check out the arc where she's on a road trip with Gambit.  That was a pretty cool 3-4 issue run.

Jude law is playing Mar-vell, so he's in captain marvel. He'll probably be dead at the end of it, that's how most superhero movies work.

Captain marvell will probably get tony and nebula to earth.

As someone who doesn't really read comics I am glad this thread exists.  I was mad at the end of the movie, not because characters died, but because they kept the old guard around and killed off all the new interesting characters.  I figured they were going to bring everyone back and the movie was awesome other than that.  I just wanted to see the "new" guys do something awesome.

The theories here at least make me a bit less irritated with those deaths.

Most of the newer characters, Spider-Man, black panther, Dr strange, they all have movies planned or already in production.  Think that's why they felt comfortable making them a smaller part of this avenger's arc.
This message was last edited by the user at 03:44, Tue 15 May 2018.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 16):

True, I see this as the Original Avengers need to work to save the new ones in the next Avengers.

I think to stay true to the books Nebula will be the one to wield the infinity gauntlet next. She will probably do a quick heel turn because hey, she's got it and wipe out thanos with it but without her sis gamora  she'll feel guilty and turn back time to save her.

THEN comes the second heel turn because Nebula can never stay face and original avengers will get the gang fully together one more time to beat her one more time.

I think Thanos is done. He had his arc and he is just going to be sitting peacefully when Nebula come and kills him. Probably repeatedly using the time gem.

That is my best guess based

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

they're not sticking to the comics at all, so I wouldn't look there for answers as to what will happen next.

True but given her character arc it makes sense to make Nebula the one to avenge Gamora and kill Thanos and the easiest way for her to do that would be to have the gauntlet for herself.

While there are some big deviations to the cast they are still hitting the high notes of the comic. Thanos has the gauntlet, he trashes the avengers with it and snaps his finger...

I guess I don't agree, but it's possible.  I get the feeling if anyone is actually going to kill thanks in the next movie it will be one of the core avengers, unless it's a situation where thanos doesn't bother to fight back.

I guess I have a hard time seeing the final avengers movie ending with a guardians of the galaxy support character killing the main villain.

I also don't think nebula is anywhere near powerful enough to wield the gauntlet in the movies.  One stone nearly killed the entire gotg team by itself.

So it depends, right? If it's Thanos post snap I don't see him fighting back and while the audience might not know who Nebula is they did a good job building her up in the first movie as someone who has suffered under his hand and I think it is fitting with her overall arc given that since her first introduction she's been saying "I'm going to kill Thanos..." that she gets to do it.

THAT BEING SAID you are probably right about her being too weak to wield the gauntlet but I feel like the core avengers are gonna go back in time to resolve the threat. How far...I mean people have speculated they might go all the way back to the first Avengers movie based on leaks of Captain America's old costume. Then confront Thanos in his prime basically pre-Snap to undo everything.

The leak picture actually showed cap in his original costume in New York, with hulk and ant-man.  That makes me think some of them will end up reliving the battle of New York.
This message was lightly edited by the user at 21:36, Wed 16 May 2018.

Drax said it first.

I thought it was Ronan the Accuser. Didn't Ronan even give a "But for me, that was Tuesday" moment when Drax confronted him?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...ButForMeItWasTuesday

What is Captain Marvel's powerset?

Apparently nearly godlike according to Kevin Feige.  He said she is the most powerfulc character they've had in the movies so far.

Which is...a little annoying from a comic canon point of view, since that isn't the case in the comics, and their decision is being influenced by current social views.

But she has powers somewhat similar to silver surfer, doesn't she?  Energy powers, flight, near invulnerability.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 27):

Captain Marvel can fire energy beams, fly, and wields super strength, speed, and endurance. In the comics she's at least as powerful as the MCU iteration of Vision on a bad day, combined with military discipline, intelligence, and combat training.

Captain Marvel is a cosmic-level superhero. She led arguably the most powerful super hero team in recent Marvel history (the 2015 Ultimates) and regularly faced-off with powers that went even beyond what Thanos could bring to the table.

Saying that her power-level is being dictated by current social views and isn't comic canon is not accurate.

Assuming her presentation as a character is good in her stand-alone film, she's the perfect person to lead the next wave of heroes after this phase of the MCU is over. She's something like Captain America, but with a smattering of Superman's powers.

I meant it because they nerfed odin, Loki, Dr strange, and Thor considerably to fit them into the avengers.  All of whom would have been roughly comparable to captain marvel.  Then they went on social media and trumpeted how cool it was that the most powerful avenger would be a woman.

I don't really care, it just seemed like an odd way to shape the avengers.

Its also probably bias from me, since Thor and Dr strange are two of my favorite comic book characters, and I was disappointed with how weak they were portrayed until the most recent versions.

Thor's also my favorite character, hands down. My favorite version of him though is the old Ultimate Thor from fifteen years ago. That version was about as under-powered as the current MCU Thor is, so the relative power levels don't both me so much.

I just wish they would get away from the 'magic is technology' version of Asgard in the films and get back to the magic and myth that permeates the best Thor comics.

my favorites were the old pre-ragnarok versions, where his hammer could bash through a freight train from engine to tail or blow a hole in the midgard serpent.  That thor would have made fairly short work of Hulk, and probably taken out the entire Chitari army alone.  And Odin has usually been viewed as on par with the greatest celestials.

that's part of the reason why I loved Ragnarok.  it finally began to show him the way he was in the comics I loved.

I'm just a little worried that Captain marvel will have too big of a part in Avengers 4.  the audience hasn't even met her yet, so I really don't want her to overshadow the  other avengers on their last hurrah.

My guess is that the next Avengers movie will be a torch-passing for the main cast, especially given the disposition of the actors who play them. From a character development standpoint, I think it makes sense to introduce a powerful character who can demonstrate that the world is in good hands, allowing narrative room for others to step down. If I had to guess, Steve and Tony will be removed from the picture, either through death or retirement/injury, while Thor moves on to become the next All-father, with Stormbringer or a new Mjonr being passed to another worthy character of some sort. Possibly Valkyrie or a someone new.

I feel like the smart money will be for Marvel to experiment with investing in a new cast of mainline characters. Not replacing ALL of the old Avengers all at once, but testing the waters to see what they can get away with so that they don't have to spend so much money attempting keep an aging RDJ and a disinterested Chris Evans around.

I really, really doubt they will pass mjolnir on to anyone.  The whole multiple versions of thor thing is part of the reason why marvel comics are doing so much worse than their movies right now.


I honestly think avengers 4 will be the big last stand for the core avengers, not a pass off.  It's the last movie for Iron man, captain america, thor, and hulk, unless they change their contracts.  That also sort of pulls winter soldier, war machine, and falcon out of the movies too.

I think they're going to build movies around black panther, dr strange, spiderman, captain marvel, and then probably start introducing new movies with fantastic four and xmen properties.

I have really enjoyed the marvel movies so far, but I genuinely don't see a future avengers movie working at all without robert downy junior, chris evans, chris hemsworth, or Mark ruffalo.

I think they'll need to take a break from the avengers for a while after 4.

Oh, I agree.

But at the end of the day, Marvel is in the business to make money, and ditching the entire original cast outright would be a major risk. I definitely think a version of what you describe is in the cards, but I would be shocked if they did it all-at-once.

I think they'll just pull a Dr Who. The contact with the primary actors is running out, and they're about to reset everything. This is a great time to canonically let those roles lay fallow for a time while they focus on other roles, then bring in some new actors.

It will have to be a long time before they bring in new actors as the avengers.  And they've already stretched some of their contracts a lot longer than they initially planned.

Like 20 or so, so there is a whole new generation in their target audience.

but they're not going to reset everything.  Just conclude it.

I really think after avengers 4 we'll just get solo movies for a while, then maybe something like x-men or fantastic 4.

unless Taika manages to convince them to let him make another thor movie.  Which I'd love, but it probably doesn't fit into how they plan on ending avengers 4.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:10, Fri 18 May 2018.

Then again the original cast has become huge and is being paid mucho dinero. Can reset with new cast members at a fraction of the costs.

From an ROI perspective, Black Panther beats out Avengers 1 which was an ensemble cast, Spiderman: Homecoming beat out Guardians of the Galaxy 1...

I guess my point is that each new movie, for the most part, is doing better then the last. Marvel is establishing themselves as a consistent treat for moviegoers so as they expand to the unknown and especially as they start cracking open the movie demographics beyond the coveted "white male 18-35" bracket it is easy to consider the the future wave as Spiderman, Black Panther, Captain Marvel and Doctor Strange.


On a side note...it's crazy the longevity actors and actresses are having in these roles.
Sean connery was really only Bond for 5 years with a couple call backs. Roger Moore was Bond for 12 years but arguably was over a low period of the series.

Batmans were rotated out every couple of years. It was almost a tradition for a new batman every movie.

Christopher Reeves was Superman for 9 years...


Anyway, now look at what we have:
HJ Wolverine - 17 years!
RDJ Iron Man - 10+ years
SJ Black Widow - 8+ years
CH Thor - 7+ years
CE Captain America - 7+ years
TH Loki - 7+ years

I mean...especially for one franchise to keep a main case around is incredible...
CE Captain America - 7+ years
SJ Nick Fury - 10+ years

you're right, but the downside is the new cast members will have a hard time matching the charisma of the original cast.

I liked black panther, but Chadwick Boseman can't carry a movie like Robert Downey jr or Chris Evans, or Chris Hemsworth.  or Chris Pratt.  I actually thought Okoye was a more engaging presence on screen than he was.  or Killmonger, to me at least.

Cumberbatch was pretty good at carrying a movie, and Tom Holland can.  Time will tell for Captain Marvel.  But once you lose the avengers and then the gotg, marvel is definitely lacking in the leading character department compared to right now.

They'll need to find some good new actors to play new characters.   The funny thing is, they've fit so many big names in the marvel movies so far, they might actually have a hard time finding actors for the new roles.

There are so many 'franchises' and 'alternate avenger' teams that can be utilized...

The Fantastic Four could easily be developed with the cosmic direction marvel is going.

The New Warriors

How about The Defenders...Dr Strange, Hulk, Valkyrie? Plus a few new heroes.

How about Young Avengers?

Then if you went with the Avengers...
Hercules, Wasp, She-Hulk, Capt Marvel,

They have to balance them with characters people can get excited about.  A lot of those ideas don't have them.  And characters like one-time will just come across as repeats of earlier characters.  That won't sell as well in a movie as it has in the comics.

Think that's why fantastic 4 has never done well.  The characters just don't translate well to a real world movie,  particularly Mr fantastic.

See I disagree with that one. Personally I lived both the first two movies except for Dr Doom. That's where they dropped the ball. (And how Galactus was portrayed)

I think the FF translates well...and with Marvel at the helm will be done right.

And yes ..a young avengers movie with hulkling, Patriot, stature, a new Hawkeye, iron lad, Vision......a nod to the past would draw folks in.

It's the script that would make or break it

I guess we can agree to disagree.  I don't think a revamp of the avengers would sell well as a movie at all.


F4 may work if they combine them with other characters, so the focus isn't an origin story once again.

Its going to be interesting to see how they handle owning the xmen copyright now.  Whether they'd try to reboot it all, or go in a different direction.  Especially since dark phoenix is still   coming out.

Remember...Chris Evans was also Johnny Storm in the Fantastic 4 and Fantastic 4: Silver Surfer.

But they made a movie between those and now with Erik killmonger (Michael b Jordan) as torch.

They'll definitely distance themselves from those previous movies.

Yeah, I'm totally not thinking of a revamp of the Avengers...more a continuation. I think there's a few good avengers stories to be told yet. And we don't need all the originals to do so. Rdj could step down and maybe only have cameos fir a short time. Chris Evans could fade out Thor could still be around a couple times...Hulk could still be around...

Black widow and Hawkeye, scarlet witch, falcon, war machine, black panther, Spider-Man...all can still hold the avengers together. Add wasp taking over leadership (she did in the comics) Capt Marvel. Ant man,

I'd like to see Kree-Skrull war, Secret Invasion, Korvac Saga, Nights of Wundagore, The Kang Dynasty.


Now The Young Avengers aren't a reboot at all...but a legacy.


For the FF...we could see Annihilus introduced with a lead in to The Annihilation Wave.

All of the original actors have said this is their last movie.  So that isn't happening.

And I honestly don't see an a centers movie working with that cast,  they don't have the charisma of the original.  Or the draw.

But again, we can agree to disagree.  I think they will lose huge amounts of audience if they begin to introduce more and more obscure heroes, and variations on the originals.  They have to keep the interest of more than comic book fans to make these movies worth it.

I haven't heard that. Chris Evans yes. Helmsworth has alluded to possibly being ready for further Thor movies. Black widow has a solo movie in the works. Renner hasn't said anything that I've heard (and I subscribe to several sources) nor has Ruffalo. RDJ hasn't said one way or the other with 100% veracity just hinted.

Mackie, Cheadle, and Sebastion all still have movies in there intial contract.

I guess we've read different things.  Hemsworth said there wasn't going to be a 4th Thor, back when Taika Waiti said he was pursuing it.  Robert Downey Jr. has said several times he was done. But I guess that could change every interview.

I don't see them using falcon, war machine, or winter soldier for much once capt america and iron man are gone.  Hawkeye or black widow either, but I guess if she's getting a solo movie they must be willing to try.

I don't think any of them will draw enough to make them viable for future movies.  They need big charismatic heroes to replace the ones they're losing, and they don't have them yet.

I don't have high hopes for captain marvel because I didn't find brie larson particularly engaging in previous movies she's in.  I don't feel like she'll have as much of a draw as the others.

I think they're plan right now is to do sequels to the heroes they currently have.  That will carry them on to about 2025, which is how far out Feige said they had it planned.  Beyond that, who knows.

I'm curious to see how they'll use the X-Men property though.  Will they try to continue with what is currently being used, go in a different direction, or restart it completely?
This message was last edited by the user at 17:27, Mon 21 May 2018.

I don't know how I feel. Some I feel to redo the X-Men...but on the other hand the stories have been good in their own right and how much interest could be generated for completely refine stories.

Maybe tell different stories.

Xfactor? Giant size X-Men? Etc

Just like the avengers, I really don't see them branching off in too obscure of a direction, like x-factor, without something to anchor it to.  Kind of how they didn't do gotg until they were sure of the success of the avengers.

The other big problem is that, in an mcu already fleshed out to the point of Thanos, a lot of the classic X-Men conflicts seem really, well, silly.  Mutant registration seems like a goofy idea in a world with aliens landing routinely and attacking all over the world.  But I guess they could tie to the sekovia accords.  It just seems small potatoes.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:04, Tue 22 May 2018.

I think they'll have to go small potatoes for a few years, let things build up again.  Someone will probably lampshade it:

1: "This is terrible!"
2: "Yeah, but aren't you happy that we're only dealing with things like this instead of the literal world ending?"
1: "Yes, but if the antagonist succeeds then our world essentially ends anyway because the US will start tracking people like China is doing now!"

And maybe they'll keep going with the universe-spanning threats, because they're more apolitical.  Captain America vs Iron Man started touching on all sorts of things that maybe they'd rather not touch on.

First and foremost, I don't believe for a second when an actor says they are done with a role. Half the time it seems like a negotiation tactic for more money when you hear RDJ say he's done every single movie.

Harrison Ford said he was done with Star Wars after the 1st one and still did 3 more movies. RDJ is on his what...7th marvel movie with more in the works?

That being said GotG has spoiled me into being excited for character's I don't know. I have zero interest in seeing another Batman or Superman movie because it is going to be the same thing that's been told year after year after year. Batman is broody, superman is super perfect...

GotG was amazing because it was different. Ragnarock was amazing because it was a wild 80's space adventure that just happened to star Thor and Hulk. Black Panther was very well done because it was ultimately about dynastic issues combined with racial oppression undertones...like that was interesting to me. While it was still the basic forumla it was nice to see a character start with power and then lose it rather then be a plucky downtrodden underdog who powers up and overcomes.

I really hope they take X-Men away from 'oh no oppression' because that story was told first in the original trilogy and then secondly with Days of Future Past and Logan.

I think X-Men should go the Logan route which is basically just remaking amazing but lesser known movies and slapping x-men powers on everyone. Logan was a remake of Children of Man and you know what? I'm not unhappy about that. Children of Man was a great story and it actually fit well with a mutant twist to it. Instead of trying to come up with a way to tell the same story for the umpteenth time they should just lift it from other places.

Give me The Fugitive...with x-men powers. Give me Air Force One...with x-men powers. Give me Assault on Precinct 13...with X-men powers. Give me flipping Die Hard with X-Men powers and I would be happy as a clam :)

I think he signed on for a 10-year contract when he started.
I think GotG was a great example of how superheroes in DC should have been handled.  Look at the very first movie and watch the prison break.  They're all immensely powerful characters -- other than perhaps Peter, but this ain't their first rodeo and they are not first-level characters by any means.

The problem is that Hollywood, especially DC, doesn't really know how to handle morals.  They portray "good" characters as goody-goody gumdrop characters and that's not what they should be all about.

Take the Adams Family, for instance.  They're basically cookie-cutter suburbanites with high morals who happen to also be loving sado-masochists.  The family loves each other, Gomez and Morticia would never cheat on each other, they welcome strangers in as not just honored guests but as one of the family.  Ultimately, they're good people with good morals.  They just have unusual quirks/kinks.

Rocket Racoon is an overpowered superhero, he's already basically epic level in D&D terms, yet he's still challenged, and he still has emotional heartbreak and challenges.  That's what they needed to show as far as Superman goes.  And DC kind of sucks at things like that.

DC movies, anyway.  Funny how they managed to make a long series of awesome DC animated shows that fit the comics very well, yet totally botch it on the movies do much.

Yeah, I'll go with that. :)

It's Zach Snyder. As a director he's got a great eye for set pieces and he can film some incredible "trailer material" but that's all it is. A series of action or visual set pieces with barely anything holding them together.

"We need to go here!"

"Why?"

"Because it will look cool!"

So much of Batman v Superman is just wasted nonsense and muddled storytelling. Lois Lane didn't need to spend an hour discovering what the audience already knew from the first ten minutes. Lex Luther straight up said "i'm the bad guy" like twenty times before that point.

And Martha...seriously what was anyone thinking building that up as the climactic moment that brings the two enemies around...

UGH. Anyway DCU struggles with dialogue. Marvel is able to make their characters quirky or intimidating and most importantly likeable. Marvel struggles a bit not making their villains too cartoonish but overall dialogue is pretty solid, the storytelling has a point in that each scene (mostly) pushes the plot along.


DCU is a jumbled mess and it starts with the director. MCU can put no names at the helm because they have a money making formula that works. You write dialog like THIS. THIS is how this character is portrayed. THIS is how it fits into the greater films. THIS is the basic formula for a superhero movie. Follow this, put some flair on it where you can and you're good to go.

DCU still doesn't know what the heck it's doing. It's a garbage franchise that needs to be put out of its misery. It's the "Batman and Robin" that needs to kill the DCU for 10 years until they can get their next Christopher Nolan to bring it out and do it right.

just as a counterpoint to the idea that Marvel struggles to make their villain's cartoony, I think they're getting better at it.  Vulture and Thanos were both awesome villains.  Thanos was probably my favorite part of Avengers 3, he was just so calm and cool, yet awesome.  Reminded me of the old Darth Vader.



and The older I Get, the less I like the Nolan batman movies.  They just...weren't batman.  They were cop thrillers.  And if it wasn't for Heath Ledger they would be much less warmly regarded.

In reply to praguepride (msg # 56):

Totally agree.
I love DC characters, but the movies seemed forced and rushed.   The MCU movies, even ones about well known characters, started from scratch to introduce, or reintroduce, them to the audience.   DC needs to learn this

They also picked the wrong version of them,   Batman at least.  Man it angers me they decided to use the ONE version to Batman that uses guns in these movies, seeing as those comics were intended to show Batman no longer being Batman.


I wish they showed him as what he is in the justice league comics.  The brain, the tactical mind of the group.  I think the way they showed Sherlock Holmes fight in the RDJ holmes movie fit Batman better than nearly any movie version of Batman.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 59):

I like Affleck at the older, worn out Batman, but I can definitely see what you're saying.  Because of the half dozen preceding Batman movies, we jumped into the new DCEU movies with only the briefest introduction to Batman.  We rushed to the chase scenes and the explosions, with minimal glimpses of what makes Batman truly great.

Check out an old DVD:  "An Evening with Kevin Smith."  On it, he talks about the trials and issues he had with WB while writing a Superman movie.  Very entertaining.  And whenever a WB movie goes sideways, I think back to all the weird stuff that happened to Kevin Smith.

In a nutshell Kev reports that WB has too many folks interfering with movies.  Everyone at WB wants to interject what's currently popular rather than just let a movie be made. (The issue doesn't appear to be solely DCU movies - I think it's just more highlighted there.)

The problem with both Superman and Batman in DCU is Zach Snyder. He was the kid that liked all the coolest stuff for all the wrong reasons.

Look what he did to Watchmen how he ripped out the guts of the message to give it more cinematic spectacle. He's only popular because of 300 and that was a completely shallow popcorn flick. Sure it looked cool but the story and characters were almost 2-dimensional.

Then he got his hands on Watchmen and drove that into the ground. Now DCU and like I said, the guy can make a striking image that produces amazing trailers that drives up the box office but from a rotten tomatoes perspective:


 76% Dawn of the Dead
 60% 300
 64% Watchmen
 23% Sucker Punch
 55% Man of Steel
 43% 300: Rise of an Empire
 27% Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
 40% Justice League


Compare that to Keven Feige the mastermind behind MCU. While he was a producer and not a director and he had his fair share of bumps early on once he hit Iron Man 2 no movie he's been working on has gotten less then 70% except for Thor 2 which got "only" a 66%.

His WORST movie in the past 8 years is on par with Snyder's best movie.


Anyway...

It was Zach Snyder who said that "how could superman not know if he should kill or not unless he tries it" as the reasoning behind the ending of Man of Steel.

Zach Snyder said "Batman's older now so he uses guns and kills people"... like SERIOUSLY? Next he's going to make Martian Manhunter from Venus because Venus is closer then Mars or something stupid...

Like he identifies with laser focus what people are interested in but then it gets garbled in his brain and he focuses on all the wrong things about them. People like Superman because he was an ideal version of ourselves, not because he was strong and could cut people in half with laser vision. People liked Batman because he used his BRAINS to fight crime without violence and despite being a vigilante he let the system do it's job and relied on the brave people trying to also make Gotham a better place...not because he talked in a deep voice and could kill people in a second.

Batman was more interesting then Punisher because Punisher was boring and predictable. Batman was fun because he was tough but smart and ultimately tried to stop the cycle of violence by using nonlethal takedowns.

praguepride, I wish this was Reddit so I could upvote your post. :)

In reply to Genghis the Hutt (msg # 63):

Seconded.

I agree as well.  One little nit-pick I have, though, is about how upset people got with him killing Zod.  One, he killed Zod in Superman 2, and no one cared.  Second, it actually seemed to make sense, it was either kill Zod or let him fry more people.  It didn't seem that far out of character to me.


The rest of the movie was pretty bad, and his others are horrible (It's pretty funny, really, that I really disliked the conflict in Captain America Civil War but it is perfectly written compared to Batman vs Superman).

We could get far off topic here...  Suffice to say I love the Punisher and I love Batman.  But I think the biggest mystery in the DC universe is why the Joker is still alive.  Punisher needs to visit Gotham for a night, team up with Jason Todd, and *really* clean up some of Batman's leftovers.  :)

Same reason Batman is still alive -- plot armor. :)

That can be said of nearly every hero and villain, honestly.  Why didn't a shield agent put a billet in winter soldiers skull from 100 yards while he was standing in the middle of an intersection?    You sort of have to accept plot armor like that with super heroes.

You'd probably need Incredible Hulk to put a billet in someone's head.  I mean, that's a whole heaping helping of mass that has to be moved. ;)

I hate autocorrect.