this movie is gonna age terribly
People will realize they don't want to buy a comedy
sharejust like the nolan films?
sharetrue.
shareThe Nolan films have "aged terribly"?
shareto me they must certainly have. They are ugly films. Very ugly and banal looking, as a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why Marvel has outshone DC, DC are stuck in a worthless, hideous Chicago aesthetic. It's not artistic or groundbreaking at all, when you look at it from the distance of time, and see how Nolan interjects some dumb joke every two lines you realize these films are not great at all, they never were.
shareMuch to my surprise, I totally agree with you! Spot-on about the Nolan films,
And I don't think the first half of "Thor: Rangnarok" will age well, lightweight stuff rarely does, but IMHO when I'm old and gray I'll still enjoy watching Cate Blanchette bring Ragnarok down.
The Nolan films haven't aged badly. They were ugly when were first released, and they are just as ugly now.
But guess what, Gotham is *supposed* to be an ugly place where nobody would want to live!
pretty much like the Matrix wardrobe.
shareYou are saying people prefer the dreadful Emo dark lens of "seriousness" and pseudo-intellectual depth they see on movies of a guy dressed as a fetishist bat, probably straight out a gay night cub with a sore throat?
now now, Batman is the greatest superhero that is a fact.
sharenuh-uh.
shareI don’t think there’s such a thing as facts when discussing super hero merit
sharewhy not?
shareSeriously? Because the word fact has do so with things that are objectively true.
By definition, there are no facts regarding ones subjective opinions on fictional super heroes.
not true, we can quantify publication history, what the character represents, etc. Many things.
shareSure, you can use facts to support an opinion.
That’s not the same thing as stating a subjective opinion as fact.
You said “Batman is the greatest superhero that is a fact”
By what metric are you measuring greatness? Can you even define what “great” or “greatest” means in this context?
We’re discussing fictional characters who have been interpreted countless ways by hundreds of writers for decades.
So while you can absolutely use facts to make your case, stating that one character is the greatest as a fact is absurd.
As far as movies go, I would say Batman is definitely better than Thor just because his character development through the years has been far more compelling. I think that part is a fact.
I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/9qSxC3AVAvA
Then you don’t understand the meaning of the word fact.
It’s certainly a valid and well presented opinion, but no, it’s not a fact.
it's success is like no other, the character and story are so incredibly rich, it is so iconic it doesn't even need a logo or title, as clearly evidenced by the intro to Batman the animated series, so.
shareI don’t know what you mean by like no other. You could say all the same things of Superman.
You make good points, I wouldn’t claim that there isn’t an argument to be made, but you’re still arguing an opinion. Not a fact.
Not true, it is a fact he is the greatest comic book character of all. I'm done.
shareThen be done. All you’ve successfully proven is that you don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion.
shareExcept I do. I'm just not going to write a dissertation on it. No other character has such an extensive publication history, adaptation history into several media, merchandising, quality of artists or cachet. So, be done with it.
shareEvery thing you said could be said about Superman.
Witch predates Batman and has greater sales overall.
I know it is an exercise in futility to respond, but here goes.
You make some valid points. Batman is certainly a great character. It could be argued one of the greatest (if not the greatest), depending on how you define greatness.
But your above statement is just incorrect.
"No other character has such an extensive publication history, adaptation history into several media, merchandising, quality of artists or cachet."
If that is your definition of "greatness" then not only does Superman rival Batman in that regard, but both fall to Tarzan.
Yes, Tarzan. He has been around longer, has a more books, more movies, more newspaper comic strips, more radio adaptations, more TV adaptations, and has been the subject of several very long running comic book series. In fact there is not a single media type that has not been conquered by Tarzan.
At the height of his popularity Tarzan was more popular in the US that Batman has ever been.
Tarzan was created in 1912 and his height of popularity probably in the 1920 through the 1960's. It has tapered off since then, but he remains popular enough that all his books are still in print, and they are still making Tarzan movies.
Batman may have been created in the late '30s but he did not really become a cultural icon until the late '60s. The two areas that Batman beats Tarzan: Box office (but that is an unfair comparison, when Tarzan movies were most popular movies tickets were 10 cents, and there were much fewer theaters), and comic books; but Batman is obviously a comic book character while Tarzan is from a series of novels.
I am not arguing that Tarzan is a better, or more popular character. I am only trying to show you that your argument is flawed. Batman might be the greatest character, but not for the reasons you list.
Just so you know, Batman is my least favorite superhero!
He has no powers, no higher mandate, and damn few ethics. He's really nothing but a crazy rich guy who likes to beat people up and who's found a way to get away with it, and BTW that's the basis of the Nolan films that the DC fanboys love so much.
“Picture of a man-child, who’s hatred for the most successful movie franchise in history and major comic rivals to his favorite comic series, has left him a shallow of a child-man. He’ll bent, rage, and attack almost anything related to the franchise he so desperately wants to see fail. He convinces himself that his beloved DC comics, more specifically the DCEU, have continued to create movies that put Marvel, the franchise and universe he intensely hates, to shame. Laughable? Yes. Sad? Yes. Funny enough, the first critical success for the DCEU happened to be Wonder Woman; a film which clearly took notes from Marvel and went as far as to inject humor into this “joke-less +adult” apparently superior franchise. Opinions are opinions, but when this person’s beloved franchise has mostly been an amusingly critical failure, and whose overall success is a mere pimple in Marvel’s rear, you have to wonder how in the world this person and others like him can be taken seriously when they claim Marvel is less impressive and is perhaps an overrated joke. LOL. By all accounts, most of his opinions, which he disguises as facts, are the work of a trifling troll. So, why should anyone bother to acknowledge this so-called truthtalker? Simply put, if one is committed to heavily criticizing and downplay the success of an unstoppable and revered franchise daily (and often in trivial ways), then they deserve to be reminded they are the joke.
That being said, if what he claims about the latest Thor film... which is another Box Office smash for Marvel as well as one of the best-reviewed superhero/comedy/fantasy films of all time... ever does come true, the important thing is this film is right now, at this very moment in history, a mighty crowd-pleaser to people of all ages and cinema fans in general. Forget to mention it’s also a critical hit? It’s plain and clear this touches the OP in very uncomfortable ways. But if in the future... in a better world for DC fans or non-superhero-movie-fans.... when Marvel is no longer dominating the universe, if Thor Ragnarok’s clever, relatable humor and sublime effects will ever seem outdated.... it is likely said MCU film will NONETHELESS be enjoyed and talked about a lot more than any of lady truthtalker’s favorite DCEU films (perhaps the Marvel-esque Wonder Woman will be an exception), that includes ‘the holy grail’ of superhero movies: the upcoming Justice League. Mr. Shit-talker (excuse me), has found himself in the unpleasant third dimension. It is an area in which we called... The Marvel Cinematic Universe keeps smashing DC and everything else in its path Zone .”🤜👈 👀⏱
The Nolan films had lame jokes inserted in every scene.
shareI watched the Justice League trailer playing before the movie and nearly fell asleep.
This film was great fun... as was Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For me the comedy makes this genre tolerable... unless the story is amazing which usually it isn't.
This movie was fresh and funny. It was a good time. Not sure what people want. And yes, Justice League looks terrible.
share
>> People will realize they don't want to buy a comedy <<
Plenty of superhero comedy films have been made over the decades, and remain popular years later. In fact, when they remade Robocop in 2014 but LOST the comedic element that made the original film so endearing, the results didn't go well.
All comicbook movies age badly...
Look at the ones that are 15+ years old... No one cares about them apart from nostalgists who watched these movies as they were released...
Dramas age well, you can watch some from decades before you were born and they're still great. Thrillers age well... Horror movies and Sci-fi are mixed, as the CGI heavy ones age badly, but the one's that use practical effects, or limited effects tend to age better...
I'm not so sure. The first Superman and Batman movies are still considered classics. The first two Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies are also still talked about.
Sure, most superhero movies will be forgotten, but you can say that about every genre. Only a few remain famous after 15 + years.