Originally posted by Lestov16And then, with the facetious tone of the MCU films, it makes the serious tone of this film seem obsolete, again based on preconceived expectations of what a comic book movie should be. So essentially what I'm saying is that audiences aren't stupid. They're just judging this film wrong.
Yeah I've heard from people they're not going to watch this because "DC films have no humour". And others have said the reviews have put them off.
@SM
If that's what you perceive me doing, then sure. Main point is that film is an art form, and like all art forms it can not be judged on preconceived expectations. You can only judge it on its intrinsic tangible qualities and the abstract meanings behind them.
Also, never said GOTG is any better or worse than this, but just because they have different tones doesn't put them on different levels of quality. As stated, MCU films have created a preconceived standard of comic book films that this film did not conform to, and I think it caught a lot of people off guard.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah I've heard from people they're not going to watch this because "DC films have no humour". And others have said the reviews have put them off.
The review in my local paper said they wanted to see a more jocular Batman film like the Burton/Schumacher films, and that the Nolan films turned Batman into a "desiccated husk" (even though TDK is the best Batman film ever).
Again, as I said, preconceived expectations of what Batman should be and bias for facetious comic book films over serious ones, undoubtedly a byproduct of the MCU wave.
So at this point we're reduced to using anecdotes to dismiss overall critical reviews of the film?
Originally posted by NemeBro
So can we assume you don't actually read comic books? Or at least know nothing about The Dark Knight Returns, which this movie fairly heavily borrowed from?
I think it's safer to assume that most audiences don't know about comics so don't know that a more grim, crazed tone is pretty much in line with the source material.
Originally posted by NephthysContext. His post is in response to other posters in this thread, many of whom are very familiar with the source material, at least in a general sense like I am.
I think it's safer to assume that most audiences don't know about comics so don't know that a more grim, crazed tone is pretty much in line with the source material.
Originally posted by Robtard
"Grim and dark" wasn't this film's problem.
I'd say this films main problem wasn't to do with character, theme, or plot, but narrative structuring/editing. Before the climatic battles of SvB and DD, there is hardly a scene that does not last anymore than 5 minutes. While I could keep up with the film, I understand why many called it incoherent. It was constant non stop jumping from scene to scene, with no scene being long enough that you could stop to immerse yourself to grasp the plot, thus disrupting the narrative flow and making plot points that were previously introduced seem random. Not to mention there were several scenes that were clearly cut for time.
I very much understand the complaints of this film feeling jumbled. It's just that what I liked about the film kept me engaged enough to ignore the structural problems.