Marvel V. DC
With the 10 year anniversary of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's debut film, Iron Man (2008), coming up this year... celebrated in no small fashion by the first of two mega-crossover Avengers films, Avengers: Infinity War (2018)... I thought it would be a good time to examine just what it is that has made the unprecedented franchise so successful. Especially in contrast to it's main competitor (if you can even really call it that...), the DC Cinematic Universe ("DC Extended Universe" or DCEU). Which has, sadly, not seen the same level of success. Perhaps some of the reasons are quite obvious... from the overwrought stylism of Zack Snyder to the mess of an editing job in Suicide Squad (2016) to the uncanny valley of obvious CGI moustache removal... but the real reason, for me, is the failure of any of the DCEU movies... Wonder Woman (2017) aside... to really mean anything. Without meaning, a movie has no cohesion of story. And while they certainly tried (too hard) to make Batman V Superman mean something by forcing an overly dark-dramatic tone and pretentious literary and biblical references (not to mention Granny's Peach Tea!), they didn't succeed in the way that Iron Man, Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014) or Black Panther (2018) succeeded by imbuing meaning within the story in a natural, believable way.
IRON MAN - It Begins
When Iron Man was released in 2008, it was the start of something big. But we didn't really know that at the time. At the time, it was just a damn good superhero movie that took what was a B-List superhero (probably known better by that Black Sabbath song than by the actual superhero) and made him into an A-List box office smash. Iron Man now ranks up there with Superman and Batman and Spider-Man on the household-name superheroes list. (They seem to have done it again with Black Panther!)
So how'd they do this? Well, casting Robert Downey Jr. was a bit of stroke of genius. One that we have Jon Favreau specifically to thank for. RDJ wasn't anybody else's first choice. Word has it that the producers wanted someone younger to pull in the young demographic, and didn't think RDJ had that appeal. It was a bit of a risky decision to cast him. But Favreau got his way, and the rest is history. RDJ's performance as the lovably arrogant, yet nervously introspective "genius, playboy, billionaire, philanthropist" really hit the mark. It almost can't be overstated how much his personality in the film made it work.
But what is the "it" that RDJ made work? Well... a story about the morality of weapons dealing in the Middle-East... in a mainstream studio blockbuster film... a comic-book film, no less.
This is what really surprised me about this movie. It's one of the few movies that I misjudged based on the trailers (I fancy myself as being an excellent judge of whether I'll enjoy a movie based on its trailers... I'm rarely wrong). Seeing the trailers, I thought it was gonna be just a run-of-the-mill superhero movie. I didn't know much about Iron Man or the character of Tony Stark. The movie didn't look particularly great based on images of a man in a metal suit flying around and blowing things up. It seemed like it was just gonna be a dumb action movie. I actually didn't even want to go see it, but one of my friends at the time was really jazzed about it, and that kinda motivated me to give it a shot. Thank god for that.
Iron Man really succeeds in telling the story of a man who "had [his] eyes opened" by a traumatic event. Not just any traumatic event... one he himself was partially responsible for. Tony doesn't just have any old typical character arc in this movie... it's an arc that represents something majorly important in both the world in the film... and the real world we live in. The United States being responsible for arming radicals and terrorists in the Middle-East is a real issue. And here we are, exploring that issue in a comic-book movie. And not in any vague, metaphorical sense, the way the X-Men movies were really about the gay community or Spider-Man is really about puberty. This was upfront, explicit subject matter that was central to the story of the film. There's a completely earnest scene in the film, where Tony sits down with a bunch of news reporters and tells them, "I saw young Americans killed by the very weapons I created to defend them and protect them. And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero accountability."
That was the moment I knew I had been wrong. This movie was by no means dumb. It may have been the smartest, most bold comic-book movie to date. And it didn't even seem like it was trying that hard. It felt like the substance was just flowing from the characters and story in a perfectly realistic, natural way. At least as realistic as a film about the origin of a comic book superhero can be. It's natural because the political commentary here isn't being hamfisted into the movie... it's rising out of the situation that gives birth to what we're here for: Iron Man. This is why Tony Stark becomes Iron Man.
There's another scene that also grabbed me the first time I saw it. Pepper Potts, Tony's assistant and (kind-of?) love interest, isn't comfortable with Tony risking his life as Iron Man and instead of sticking around, decides to quit. In response, Tony says to her, again with that notable earnestness in RDJ's performance and the writing of the dialogue: "You stood by my side as I reaped the benefits of destruction... and now that I want to protect the people that I put in harm's way, you're gonna walk out?" Ugh... I almost don't even know why, but that really struck me. It was so real. Not just for a comic-book movie... I think I would have been struck by it in any film. I remember feeling like I was watching my parents argue. It felt that true to how people speak to each other about serious matters. Tony and Pepper's relationship is so humor-ridden for the most part, very flirtatious and relatively light. They're actually the main comic relief of the movie. Which is why I think it's so impactful when we see them get serious like this. Favreau and the screenwriters seemed to really be dedicated to making us take this seriously, but not in a way that felt forced or out of balance with the more fun aspects of the movie. It was perfectly balanced.
And as for those fun aspects? They were pretty excellently delivered as well. For one thing... the effects in this movie really hold up. Even watching it today, the CGI looks great. I remember not even being sure what was real and what wasn't when it came to the Iron Man suit. I knew there was CGI involved, but I thought, surely there had to be a real suit at times. Nope. The Iron Man suit was, and is in every MCU movie he appears in... 100% CGI. Totally believable. And I think it works precisely because they went 100% with it. If they had cut between a CGI suit and a real suit, it would have made the CGI one stand out, I think. But in giving us no reference for what a real suit looks like on-camera (other than the first suit Tony builds in the cave, but we end up pretty removed from that by the time we see the full-on Iron Man suit), the CGI becomes our only reference for what the Iron Man suit looks like in the MCU. We've been convinced ever since.
But perhaps more importantly than just being fun... the movie was charming. Scenes like when Pepper helps remove the old arc reactor from Tony's chest. Then later she frames it for him, with the inscription "Proof That Tony Stark Has A Heart" I remember people in the theater when I saw it genuinely going "Aww." The movie knew how to hit all those emotional beats so well.
Where Do We Go From Here?
Well.. geez... if I talk about all the MCU movies at the length I just went into the first one with, this article will end up being five miles long (it will be, anyway). I mean, there are bloody 18 of them already... I best be brief.
"Phase One" of the MCU consists of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), culminating with The Avengers (2012).
That's six movies all working towards a common climax. Marvel Studios took their time here. While Iron Man 2 is kind of a lark and I have to admit that Thor and Captain America didn't really grab me at the time (I still don't care much for the Thor movies... and yes, that includes Ragnarok), they played their roles in setting things up. It payed off really well in The Avengers, which was no small feat. And again, just like with Iron Man... the key was earnestness well-balanced with fun.
The Avengers may not have the real-world subject matter of Iron Man, but it still manages to bring some substance to things. Joss Whedon's script includes a lot of dialogue that brings meaning to the film. Early in the story, Loki commits his first public shenanigans, in which he forces a crowd of people to kneel before him. This could have been a rather shallow scene of a typical megalomaniac villain asserting his dominance in a superficial way ("KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!"), before the heroes quickly come to the rescue. But Whedon chose to have one man stand up and defy Loki. This is before any of the Avengers arrive to the save the day. This man risks his life just to make a stand against tyranny. Whedon ties this into real-world tyranny by writing an exchange between Loki and the man, "You will always kneel." Man responds, "Not to men like you." Loki smiles, "There are no men like me." The man stares earnestly and says "There are always men like you." This line implies so much that grounds this in reality. This man isn't a superhero. He's an old man who we can assume has lived a long life, where god-like beings and superheroes were never common before Tony Stark suited up or Thor came to town. When he says that there are always men like Loki, he isn't talking about super-powered beings... he's talking about tyrants. Normal, human tyrants, just like we see all too often in the real world. His earnestness in what he says let's us know that we need to care about it just as much as he does. It's moments like this that really make the best of the MCU movies work. These substantive moments that feel relevant to our lives, which helps us stay invested and take the world of the MCU seriously enough to keep believing in it. And it doesn't always have to be a big thing. This is a quick little moment in the film, but it adds so much. It helps us relate to the everyday citizens that we later see in peril when New York is under attack, because we know that even just some random man who we'll never see again in the film... has his own thoughts and feelings about what's happening. Thoughts that feel relevent and feelings that are relatable.
The Avengers also does a great job of tying in events from previous films to help add depth to the story of this one. It's revealed about halfway through the movie that S.H.I.E.L.D is secretly developing advanced weapons using the Tesseract. When confronted about it, Nick Fury explains that it was Thor's arrival on Earth, two movies prior, that motivated them to do it. Because it proved that humanity is "hopelessly... hilariously... outgunned." Not only does this serve a great way of making the events in Thor seem more important than they previously did, but it's also a great story point in the movie that feels like a parallel of the real world. It's an arms race. But on a more serviceable level, it provides great drama for the film. The Avengers argue about the morals/ethics and effectiveness of it, which simultaneously plays as a way of displaying how Loki is manipulating them via the septor (aka. the "Loki poki stick", as Kevin Smith calls it. lol) to make them more angry and divided, which will eventually lead to unleashing the Hulk. It's just really good, clever writing in a blockbuster that most likely could have gotten away just fine without it. But Whedon, and Marvel Studios in general, seem to recognize that including this kind of depth is worth it to make these movies more than just vapid, fun superhero flicks. And more importantly... they know how to execute it!
OK... Now What About DC?
Alright... time to confess. I'm not a comic-book fan. I didn't read very many comics as a kid, but... when I did... I was always more partial to DC than Marvel. I don't know if it was really by choice... I don't even know if I was really aware of the divide between Marvel and DC. I just knew I liked Superman and Batman. They just happened to be DC. I got into them mostly because of the movies, and there were no Marvel movies when I was a kid. I certainly knew of Spider-Man, but I never watched the cartoon or read the comics. I wasn't interested in Blade (1998), which seemed too dark and adult for me at the time, so it wasn't until X-Men (2000) came out, and then Spider-Man (2002), that I ever actually started getting into Marvel superheroes. And to this day, I'm still not interested in comic books. I recognize them as a valid form of art and storytelling. All power to those who love comics... but I'm not one of you. I'm a movie guy.
That being said, I did read some comics as a kid. And they were mostly Superman comics. Superman is my favourite superhero. It's not even really a contest. If I ever get the chance to make a superhero movie, it'd be a Superman movie. I actually have an entire Superman trilogy planned out in my head, the blueprints of a pipe dream project I hope against all odds I'll one day get to make.
But until then... I have to suffer through the current DC films.
It's ironic, because DC has had films in the past that have blown Marvel out of the water. I previously said that Iron Man (2008) may have been the smartest, most bold superhero movie to date when it was released. That was short-lived, because it only came out a couple months before The Dark Knight (2008). Hands down, the best superhero movie ever made. At least, in my humble opinion. (perhaps I'll write a full review one day explaining exactly why it's so damn good... because goddamn, is it good). So DC has that under their belt. (even if not DC Studios...)
It also has Superman: The Movie (1978) and Batman (1989) to brag about. Two great films that really trail-blazed the take-it-seriously approach to adapting comic book material for the screen. Even Batman Returns has it great moments. Well... one great moment when Bruce and Selina are dancing at the ball and realize who each other really are. Seriously, that moment made me think Batman Returns was a great film for a long time. Then I re-watched it and realized it's kind of the ONLY great moment in that movie. But it's still a decent Batman flick.
Of course, DC's blunders aren't limited to the DCEU. They did almost kill Batman films all together with the one-two punch of Batman Forever (which also has its moments, but ultimately is pretty ridiculous overall) and Batman & Robin (I'm sure I need not explain). But then Nolan came along and further evolved how seriously comic book movies can be taken in the wake of Superman: The Movie and Batman 89. DC was leading the pack in that regard for decades.
So what the hell happened?
Along Came A Snyder...
I was looking forward to Man Of Steel (2013). While I admit that my desire to one day make my own Superman films kind of leads me to sort of irrationally root against any Superman movie succeeding... because I want be the first to make a truly great Superman movie! I mean, yeah, Superman: The Movie is damn good, but it's not really GREAT in the way I think a Superman movie really could be. But... I'm gonna hold my ideas for that as close to the chest, in the unlikely event that I do ever get to actually make it. In the meantime, I'm much more comfortable criticizing the almost absolute failure that is Snyder's take on the character.
Although... I'm not even really sure what his take on the character actually IS.
Before Man of Steel came out, I remember reading about how David Goyer had talked with Christopher Nolan about a potential Superman movie, saying he said "I think I know how to approach Superman." I was intrigued. I was interested to see what this approach was going to be. After seeing the film... I was at a loss. I couldn't see what this "approach" was. I still don't know. Best I can figure? It was "What if the Kents were actually shitty parents?"
I mean, think about how Ma and Pa Kent raise Clark in Man of Steel. He saves a school bus full of his classmates and Jonathan Kent tells Clark, "Maybe (you should have just let them die)." He repeatedly instills a sense of fear in Clark about humanity. Clark grows up to be a mostly depressed wanderer because he feels like such an outsider. All thanks to Jonathan Kent convincing him that he won't be accepted. Just compare this to Superman: The Movie, where Jonathan Kent may have discouraged Clark from showing off his powers, but did it as a way of teaching him humility and responsibility about his powers, impressing upon him that "You are here for a reason." The Jonathan Kent of Man of Steel is obviously a shitty dad by comparison.
This continues with MARTHA!... sorry, Martha Kent into Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016), where when Clark is experiencing doubt, she decides to gives him advice that amounts to "Yeah, you can save the world... or don't." She emphatically says to him, "You don't owe this world a thing." What the hell, Martha?
"WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME?"
Hold on, Bruce, I'm not there yet.
The Kents seem to actively discourage Clark from being a hero. I'm not sure exactly why Goyer or Snyder or the producers at WB decided to do this. I mean, sure... there could be some good drama and character exploration achieved with this. But they don't achieve it. They don't even really seem to be trying to. It's just there in the film. The Kents are just bad parents, but they're never actually called out for being bad parents. Clark never seems to realize they're bad parents. He just grows up to become a gloomy adult and that's kinda it.
The movie does make some token gestures to the concept of "hope". It mentions that the "S" is actually the Kyptonian symbol for hope, but there's not much beyond that in this movie to actually give us or the characters any real hope. Certainly not when buildings are crashing down on them. And it would be okay to move away from the idea of Superman being this perfect beacon of hope, truth, justice and the American wa-- er... Earthling way? But you have to replace that idea with something. I don't really know what the idea was here.
Perhaps there was a plan. We do get those dreams sequences in Batman V Superman of Batman coming face to face with a Superman who has seemingly turned bad. And then The Flash shows up and tells Bruce that "It's Lois!", as though Lois is super important for some reason. People have theorized that this was setting up a planned storyline where Superman turns bad because Lois gets killed or something and without love, Superman goes bad. So Lois needs to be saved in the future, so she can survive and love Clark and stop him from turning bad. Then they abandoned that plan when BvS (perhaps it's more aptly abbreviated as just "BS") wasn't received very well, and they decided to take Justice League in a lighter direction. But if that's true... they had already failed to take advantage of that plan in Batman V Superman. Lois already gets into a life-threatening situation during the climax of that movie... and it's not Batman who saves her. Superman does it. Was this the point when Lois was going to die if not for Flash's warning from the future? Doesn't seem like it. And if not, then were they just going to have her get into ANOTHER life-threatening situation that Batman had to save her from? If so... why not just have it be this time? Why do it twice? Why not take advantage of it now, in this movie, where we already got the warning from Flash in this movie, and have that storyline play out in this movie, making it more clear and effective? And if this wasn't even the plan... then what WAS that Flash scene about?
What the hell is going on in these movies?
It feels like DC Studios is just wildly trying to do what Marvel's doing, in trying to spin this multi-film narrative, but has no idea how it's actually done. They did one standalone movie before jumping into a crossover movie that climaxes with a team-up of the "Holy Trinity" of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. In the second movie. Wonder Woman and Batman were just introduced in this movie. We know next to nothing about Wonder Woman at this point. And we're already supposed to be excited about seeing her team up with Superman and Batman. Why? Just because it's Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman? In which case, they're relying on the external popularity of the characters in popular culture... instead of the internal storytelling and character building/world building of the films.
Why didn't they make Wonder Woman before BvS? Why didn't they make a standalone Batman movie before BvS?
I don't like Batman or Bruce Wayne in BvS. He gets one good scene at the beginning of the film where he's running into the chaos in Metropolis to save people, but then for the majority of the film, he's a brooding, angry, vindictive, toxicly-masculine jackass bent on revenge against Superman, who brands criminals with the Bat symbol, uses guns and seems to kill a lot of people (even though the deaths are never confirmed). And then we're supposed to forgive and forget about all this because he hears his mother's name and has a change of heart. Yeah, sorry... but no.
And of course that brings us to the "Martha" debacle. I almost don't want to talk about it, because it's been discussed to death, but I do have to focus on it a bit here, because it is very indicative of the larger problem with these movies. Namely, their failed attempts to create meaning and emotion.
Yes, I know what they were going for with it. I know what it represents. Bruce didn't see Superman as any kind of real person. He was just a powerful alien who was a threat to humanity. Hearing him say "Martha" confuses him because he doesn't understand why Superman would know his mother's name. It affects him emotionally because the movie has set up that his mother was important to him, and she's dead and he visits her grave and all that... it's a soft spot for him. Then Lois reveals that Superman actually has a mother, and her name is Martha too. Suddenly, Bruce can relate to Clark. He recognizes that even though he's an alien... he's human too. It alleviates his fears about Superman being dangerous, so he no longer wants to kill him. Even feels disgust at himself for having believed what he did, and throws the kryptonite spear away.
I get it.
Here's the thing: Despite that meaning... it doesn't make any goddamn sense and it comes off as cheesy and strange. Because it wasn't executed well. Remember when I said how Marvel Studios know how to execute the meaning they put in their films? DC doesn't. Zack Snyder wouldn't know subtlety if it snuck up quietly and softly nibbled his butt. I like 300 (2007). I mostly like Watchmen (2009). But 300 was anything but subtle, and Watchmen was probably only good because he followed the graphic novel so closely (I suppose the same would also go for 300, although I haven't read that graphic novel, so I can't be sure). When he doesn't have rich source material to stick to and guide his visuals... he fumbles on bringing any kind of subtle or clever meaning to his scenes or storylines. Writers Chris Terrio and David Goyer may be more to blame for writing it the way it was written... or maybe it was a producer idea... I don't know. I suppose they're all to blame. But a good director wouldn't let a scene like that into his movie, so let's say the buck stops with Snyder.
The first problem the scene has is that the whole "Why did you say that name!" moment feels silly. Almost downright funny. This big tough guy that Bruce Wayne/Batman is, in this big imposing suit of armour, standing over this superhuman that he's brought to heel... and he suddenly starts getting all emotional about his mommy. It has the effect of undercutting the serious tone of the scene, when it was clearly intended to add more weight to it.
The second problem is that it doesn't make any sense. Why would Clark say "Martha"? Why would he expect that to mean anything to Batman and therefore think it's worth saying? He has no idea it's gonna affect Bruce the way it does. I mean, maybe if it were set up that he knows Batman is Bruce Wayne, and knows Bruce Wayne's mother was named Martha and maybe he would know/assume that Bruce is sensitive about his mom, etc... but that's not set up. Not even in the 3 hour director's cut. Clark doesn't know anything about Batman, other than that he's an apparent madman who beats/kills criminals and brands them. If he wasn't expecting anything to happen, and he was saying it because it's all he could think about as he faced death... then why would he say "Martha" and not "my mom"? Is Clark one of those weird kids that calls his parents by their names? If so... then was that ever set up? No.
Furthermore, it's also worth mentioning at this point that Superman could have, and SHOULD HAVE, told Batman about Martha being held hostage at any point before or during the fight. For no apparent reason, he decides to keep it to himself until he's literally almost dying... because fight scene. I mean, it's what we came here to see, right? It has to happen. And that's exactly what it feels like. This fight is only happening because the movie is called Batman V Superman. (although "versus/vs." being represented by just a "v" is typical to legal cases, not fights/rivalries. So I guess the movie could have just as easily been promising a scene of Batman and Superman in court. And hey, we do at least see Superman in court in this film!)
And the third and biggest problem with this scene? It's irrelevancy to what the movie really ought to have been focusing on. My biggest story issue with this movie is the whole Martha being kidnapped plot point. It was totally unnecessary. The movie was heading in the right direction for a while there. The fight between Batman and Superman should be based on a clash of ideologies about how to fight crime. They set this up. Clark takes issue with Batman branding criminals and being a generally dangerous vigilante. Bruce takes issue with Superman being an overpowered alien who doesn't seem to care about what happens to those on the ground. Their rivalry is set up to be an opposition based on who and what these characters are. Just as it should be. THEN... that gets shot completely in the foot when Luthor (I'm not even gonna get into Jesse Eisenberg's performance... I'll just sum it up by saying that the approach to making Luthor a young Zuckerberg-like tech-genius type of character could have worked... but boy, did it not.) kidnaps Martha, forces Superman to fight Batman, and then the fight is just about that. And more importantly, the resolution to their entire rivalry becomes about that. Their previous ideological differences are just forgotten. Never addressed or resolved.
That is just plain poor storytelling.
Let's compare that to what Marvel did with a very similar (and very closely released) movie.
A Division to Marvel At
Captain America: Civil War is a much, much better movie than Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. It is indeed a bit suspicious that both Marvel and DC released such similar movies in the same year. Similar to Antz and A Bug's Life or Deep Impact and Armageddon, Hollywood seems to just do this sometimes. And it's always hard to figure out which one was copying which or if it was just a coincidence. Whatever the reason for their similarities, I think it's clear that Marvel put more thought into what they were doing, while DC just slapped theirs together in a seeming rush to catch up.
Like BvS, Civil War deals with the fallout from a disaster that befell an entire city in a previous film. But unlike in Man of Steel/BvS, where Superman seemed to have no regard for the destruction he was taking part in... and the fallout and resolution to it are dealt with quite shallowly... Civil War really delves into the conflict that the disaster(s) raised. The Sokovia Accords represent the level of seriousness that the film takes in its approach. It's easily the most serious film in the franchise to date. Some critics of film were even turned off by how serious it was. After all, comic book movies should be mostly fun, right? Well, if you haven't been paying attention so far, I'll reiterate this as clearly as possible: Taking this stuff seriously is what makes it work for live-action movies.
That's not to say comic movies shouldn't or can't still be mostly fun and work. They can. I love Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), and it was a pretty light and fluffy movie that's mostly fun. But if that movie were ONLY fun, it wouldn't have been as good. That movie's best scene is the serious, tension-filled scene in the car. And it works so well specifically because it comes unexpectedly after the movie has been so fun until that point. The rest of the movie becomes stronger and more meaningful, more character driven and more compelling because of that serious element that exists between Peter and Toomes. It becomes the crux of the movie that holds all the fun together.
In Civil War, the main action set piece is the airport sequence. It's a lot of fun. I personally could have done without Spider-Man being in this movie, but I have to admit that he does bring a lot of fun to the sequence. But conversely with Spider-Man: Homecoming, where a serious scene grounded a fun movie... here, a fun scene gives some fresh air to a serious movie. It can't be overstated how important it is to handle these tonal shifts well. They can't just be there. They have to serve a purpose. The airport sequence is kind of a false climax, where it seems like this is the big battle that will either resolve the conflict or worsen it to the breaking point. Neither one happens. It's fun, it has some consequence (Roadie gets seriously injured) and it serves as a good bridge to the real climax.
The real climax comes down to a revelation involving parents. Hey! Just like BvS!
So how did Marvel handle it differently?
Well, they made it actually make sense, for one thing. But more importantly, they made it actually relevant to what the film had been about up until then. This film has a lot going on, but they manage to tie it all together quite nicely. Tony Stark is struggling with his guilt over the fallout from previous disasters, which is feeding into a desire to "be kept in check" as he puts it. It's the reason he falls on the side of accepting the Sokovia Accords. Meanwhile, Steve Rogers is dealing with the fallout of his friend Bucky who is on the run because he committed an atrocity while under mind control. This represents the kind of person Steve is. He'll fight for the little guy (he used to be a little guy, after all). He feels naturally opposed to control by powers-that-be, which is what the Sokovia Accords represent to him.
The rivalry between Tony and Steve is ideological and emotional. There's no cheap ploy brought in to get them fighting here. The elements needed to get them fighting are already there to be taken advantage of. When Zemo comes along and does so, it stays on point because it's consistent with what the characters are already in opposition over. Who they are, where they come from and what they stand for.
When the reveal comes that Bucky murdered Tony's parents... it's not an undercut to the established storyline. It's an evolution. Bucky was always important when it comes to Steve's motivations in the film, so when Bucky suddenly becomes the lynchpin for Tony's motivation to fight, it feels like a culmination. Whereas Martha being kidnapped in BvS felt like a complete left turn, because she wasn't a part of the conflict previously. She was just sitting on the sidelines of the film, waiting to become important. Bucky was always important. Him killing the Starks is teased in the very first scene of the movie, so it feels adequately set up enough for this pay off to actually work. It feels cohesive because it's all working together and simply coming into more focus as the film reaches its climax. Whereas BvS felt disjointed because it's elements are not all working together, and falls apart as it reaches its climax. I mean, I haven't even mentioned Doomsday... because he didn't belong in the movie. Nor did the entire Death of Superman story being rushed in at the end. But hey, they gotta get to Justice League ASAP, right?
Is There Anything Good About The DCEU?
Yeah. Wonder Woman (2017) was good. Mostly because it wasn't very connected to the rest of the MCU, was allowed to do it's own thing and had a mostly different creative team. The film was meaningful because Patty Jenkins imbued it with an actual identity that had something to say. A woman from a matriarchal culture journeys into the patriarchal culture of a world war and asserts her values in a positive way. It manages to tell that story in a way that feels natural (for the most part at least... Snyder-esque CGI-hellish-imagery climax notwithstanding). There's subtlety and quiet contemplative moments, like the boat scene between two characters getting to know each other. There's earnest scenes of dialogue, like when Diana doesn't understand why the men are still warring after she thinks she's killed Ares, and Steve Trevor has to tell her that "It's them." Violence is an inherent characteristic of humanity, whether we like it or not. This is the kind of simple yet effective substance that works well for blockbuster movies like this, and it's what's sorely missing from the rest of the DCEU. Granted... this does get contradicted by the proceeding reveal that the real Ares WAS just manipulating the men into warring, thus rendering that poignant scene kinda hollow, but... that's done to show that Diana was right to believe in the inherent goodness of people. Poetic, if rather unrealistic, but hey... it's a comic book movie.
Perhaps the biggest plus is that Diana and Steve are actually likable characters in this movie, and that does go a long way. Again, something the rest of the DCEU is sorely missing, and something that Marvel has in spades.
Aside from Wonder Woman... Batfleck has some positives. He's certainly better than we all initially expected he would be. He doesn't look as silly in the cowl as I thought he would (though he does look way too recognizable... nobody would ever not notice it's Bruce Wayne under there). And that fight scene in the warehouse. Intense, well-choreographed, well-shot (this is what Snyder's good at).
Will This Ever End?
Good question. And no, it's not just about this article.
Will the Marvel Cinematic Universe ever stop working? Will the DC Cinematic Universe ever start?
Marvel has definitely kept things going well for longer than anybody really had a right to expect. 18 movies in and they're just as popular and lucrative as ever. Black Panther is tearing up box office records, and was a damn good movie to boot. I'll be surprised if Avengers: Infinity War doesn't break even more records. And with the rumours about what it's impact may be in terms of story progression for the franchise? Well... let's just say it could either make or break the prospects for what is to come for Marvel Studios once "Phase Three" is over. We'll just have to wait and see. But they'll probably keep going for at least another 10 years.
DC may turn things around. I'm not optimistic about Aquaman (2018) because while I like Jason Momoa... I don't care for him as Aquaman. Unless they change the entire approach to his character, I don't see the movie being very appealing. I mean, an entire movie of dude-bro personality with dialogue like "Yeah!" and "My man!"... I'll pass. And I bet a lot of other people will too.
Then there's Shazam, which I'll admit to not knowing much about, other than that he yells "Shazam!" I'll reserve judgment, but I'm not optimistic about this one either.
Wonder Woman 2 might be good. Sequels to a good first comic book movie tend to be even better. The crash will probably come with the third one, whenever that will be. And who knows what state the DCEU will be in then.
Honestly... I think DC needs to start over if they want to truly start taking a better path. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, but until then... I expect it'll remain at about the same quality it is at now. Mostly terrible with a few bright spots here and there.
In closing, I'll make the concession that none of this really matters all that much. We're talking relatively superfluous entertainment here. But I do think certain gems like Iron Man, Captain Americas Winter Soldier and Civil War, Guardians of the Galaxy and Black Panther will probably be the ones to stand the test of time. Doctor Strange was pretty good too.
As Kevin Smith would say, "I'm just glad we live in a world where we're getting these movies at all." And that's certainly true. There's an embarrassment of riches when it comes to comic-book movies these days. Some are good, some are bad, some are great, some are terrible, some are just plain mediocre. I'm sure the world will get sick of them at some point, and some new trend of popular movie category will take over. Perhaps whenever Kevin Feige retires... or Stan Lee dies and there can be no more cameos!
Good old Stanley... I mean Stan Lee! (Stanley Lee?) Stay with us, Stan!