Can we address the elephant in the room? Comic books and by relation, comic book movies, are not for children

Can we address the elephant in the room? Comic books and by relation, comic book movies, are not for children.

Maybe at one point in time they were for children. But they definitely aren't anymore. You can't give a kid King's new Batman and how can anyone say that you can't give a kid a Batman comic if it wasn't true that comics aren't for them anymore? Marvel's shitty new comics aren't even for kids. They are for millennials and people who already identify with politics and those types of people definitely aren't children.

So why do the MCU films get away here with being so childish while the DCEU gets shit on for approaching more mature topics? A being like superman wouldn't be happy-go-lucky all the time in the real world. Meanwhile, the new spiderman doesn't even punch anyone. Batman kills people, big woop, policemen do that all the time. Less than a dozen fatalities during The Battle of New York? Give me a break. Goofy costumes and bad jokes do not a good movie make.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QnVl_TXhoZs
youtube.com/watch?v=bnV7sMK3Dyc
counter-currents.com/2012/06/batman-returns-an-anti-semitic-allegory/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The truth is that most kids love darkness and violence. God knows I did. The "kiddie tone" of the Marvel movies is actually catering to millennials in their 20s and 30s.

The actual truth is that kids are not a monolithic group, some mature faster than others, some have different tastes, some kids like Marvel and others like DC, and so on. To say that something is "not for kids" or that "all kids must love this" just seems silly.

i always thought MCU was more for general audiences, adults take their kids to watch it

and i really love those movies, since i can freely watch them with my nephew and laugh and enjoy it together

and really kids love to have fun, so movies for kids generally need tighter pacing, and when kids have fun so do i

>Goofy costumes and bad jokes do not a good movie make.
maybe, but in the MCU i find it really charming, i find that the comedy is really spot on, when cap says a joke it feels inspiring instead of misplaced, and their universe just feels like the palce where goofy costumes are entirely natural things to wear

I knew that I would get some use out of this one.

The Marvel movies are fun, but that's all they are and all they want to be. They don't stand up to repeat viewings and most have an assembly line feel to them. I'd rather watch a movie that tries to do something more at the risk of falling on its face than a safe carnival ride.

>i always thought MCU was more for general audiences, adults take their kids to watch it
So was the DCU. Don't kid yourself.
The amount of money of BvS that was put into the movie and marketing was meant so as many people as possible are going to watch it.

I was born in 1996 and some of the first things I can remember reading were Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, The Claremont/Cockrum/Byrne X-men run, Bendis's Ultimate Spider-man, etc.

>A being like superman wouldn't be happy-go-lucky all the time in the real world
Man, fuck off.

> Children need to be pandered to with dumbed down fluff, otherwise they might not grow up to be people I approve of!

Hail Hydra to you too, Steve.

This

It's the same mentality that redditors have when talking about fine dining. They would rather eat a burger than something they don't understand on the worry that they might not like it.

I'd rather occasionally eat something disgusting than eat burgers every day.

Good post OP you got serious answers

Greeaat argument, normie.

>Sup Forums is going to rip apart this scene if they adapt it 1:1 for Cap's quip

>Can we address the elephant in the room?
You have my complete attention.

.I'd rather watch a movie that tries to do something more at the risk of falling on its face than a safe carnival ride.

I can see this point, but I can't understand the love for BvS. There has to be a practical point where a movie so utterly fails at its ambitions that even the hardcore auteur cultists stop trying to argue that its somehow good despite its failures.

Like, even the prequel defenders I can sort of get, if only because of how mad some people got at TFA. But Zack Snyder, Genius of Hollywood? I can't buy it.

Yeah. It's not even that I dislike Marvel or the new Star Wars movies; it's that feeling of knowing before you go in that it'll be "good enough" that's just deadening somehow.

Yep, there is no excitement. It's just "I expect a decent movie and I get a decent movie." I don't even get enough of a feeling to argue with my friends that it was a bad movie. Everyone just unanimously agrees it was fun.

At the very least a bad movie generates discussion.

I really liked BvS. To me, visuals are what make or break a movie. It's a visual art form. That said, I didn't feel like there were any problems in the writing or performances. If Zack Snyder has a weakness it's that he doesn't always get a great performance out of his actors. Like, I just rewatched Watchmen and while parts of it are transcendent, hoo boy is there some bad acting in that.

>>So why do the MCU films get away here with being so childish while the DCEU gets shit on for approaching more mature topics?
Because pic related is the one handling "mature topics". There is nothing deep about any DCEU movie. They have the depth of a student film.

These movies are executed poorly by hacks. You know it. We all know it.

You just wanted a company wars thread, so here's your (You).

This is a picture from Stan Lee’s "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way". Look at it and ask yourself how would the equivalent "How To Makes Movies the Marvel Way" could look like.

Then ask yourself where the current Kevin Feige-produced MCU titles would be, on the left or on the right? Do they offer visual dynamism, creative and exciting use of the medium's possibilities in order to heighten the experience? Personally, when I look at this picture, I can see exciting formalists and pop artists like Orson Welles, Seijun Suzuki or Sergio Leone belonging on the right, or even to stay strictly in the field of current blockbuster filmmakers, people like George Miller, the Wachowski Sisters or Brad Bird but certainly not Peyton Reed or Josh Whedon or Gunn, with their flat, uninspired televisual (lack of) style.

> It's not even that I dislike Marvel or the new Star Wars movies; it's that feeling of knowing before you go in that it'll be "good enough" that's just deadening somehow.

TFA certainly ignited strong passions in people one way or the other after its release.

The "DisneyWars is just as bland s the MCU!" is the worst self-fulfilling argument I'v seen on the Internet. People shrieked that it'd be just like the MCU films for so long that there would be no practical way the actual movie would change their minds regardless of the quality.

>I really liked BvS. To me, visuals are what make or break a movie. It's a visual art form

BvS cribs so much from other, better works that I can't agree about the quality of the visuals. And I hate the way he films conversations, he always slams the camera right up in the actors' faces for no discernible reason.

If a movie is going to live or die by its visuals, ti needs to give me something actually interesting to watch like A Cure For Wellness. BvS was dull, stately cinematography that wasted Fong's talents. That dipshit Kong movie used his talented better.

Gunn's movie (haven't seen Guardians 2 yet) being so visually flat (it took me some time to admit it, but it is) is really disappointing because the guy made Super, one of my favorite movies ever. Admittedly that's on the writing and that's really Gunn's forte.

Do you remember the music of the last Marvel movie you watched?

No you didn't. Because their goal isn't to make it memorable. It's to make it bland and forgettable and as inoffensive as possible. These people aren't artists. They're businessmen. And businessmen only see numbers. The music actually reflects the entirety of MCU films. Because the music is just one example of just how forgettable and boring these Marvel movies are.

They are focus-tested. They are reshot. They are studied and tweaked over and over and over again so that it has exactly filled all the boxes of its checklist. The director doesn't direct. He does what he's told from his corporate bosses that see him as a tool, a puppet, more than an artist. This isn't film. This is just mindless trash for the brain to passively consume for an hour and half.

But this doesn't really read like a quip, just banter. They aren't stopping the action or flow of the scene like the MCU loves to do with their jokes. It's just a casual exchange as the tension continues to build.

Even the great Elfman is wasted on the MCU. The man who fucking invented so many classic superhero themes, making absolutely nothing of worth for the MCU. Surely, it must a challenge to compose a decent score for something as soulless and empty as the MCU.

I can remember all the ones from the Netflix shows if that counts.

>Do you remember the music of the last Marvel movie you watched?

Actually yeah, because the last one I watched was Strange and that had a pretty decent score.

1. The people who were really angry about Star Wars 7 weren't really talking about it as a movie from what I saw.
2. Good artists borrow...
But yeah, BvS has great composition, surprisingly clear storytelling and visual motifs (water, winged demons, light) that gives it a real tone.

I'm glad you liked A Cure For Wellness though, that movie was also gorgeous.

I constantly have Vulture's booming theme playing in my head since seeing it in the theatre.

Honestly can't remember a single thing about that forgettable ass "film" (TV show episode is more appropriate description) except the lame ass music quips about Beyonce and Bono.

Leave it to Disney to completely waste a film about exploring the wonders of magic.

>I watched the Every Frame A Painting video and now im an expert

>Do you remember the music of the last Marvel movie you watched?
Yeah, I watched that video too.

No one in this thread has yet to address OP's only point

Why do Marvel's movies appeal to all ages and DCEU's movies don't and why does Sup Forums accept this?

It doesn't take an expert to call out Disney's huge oversights in basic filmmaking, from lightning to angles to costumes to music to action choreography.

I can't for the life of me comprehend how a comic book audience is ok with seeing their visual material reduced to TV show-calibre garbage that doesn't even have proper color correction.

>2. Good artists borrow...

I have no issue with pastiche artists if they take those elements and do something interesting with them, like Tarantino or De Palma.

But Snyder finds the least interesting way to explore his influences. All I got out of BvS was a desire to rewatch Excalibur. He feels like every asshole who tried to copy Fincher's visual aesthetic after Se7en but with nerd-bait cult properties instead.

>I'm glad you liked A Cure For Wellness though, that movie was also gorgeous.

Word. That's something I would classify as artistically interesting despite its flaws, because that movie was so gorgeous I didn't mind that the psychological themes were thin and it semed to have nine endings.

>why do the MCU films get away here with being so childish while the DCEU gets shit on for approaching more mature topics? A being like superman wouldn't be happy-go-lucky all the time in the real world
Aah I see it's one of those threads.
And here I thought we'd talk about something different for a change.

Allright everyone, you can pack up your things and leave, it's just another "MUH KINO IS TOO DEEP FOR MARVELFAGS" thread, you've seen dozens or hundreds of those by now.

You can have a balance of mature and for all ages stories. It's good for the medium as a whole.

I don't remember any DCEU music except for the WW theme either. It's all indistinguishible BOOM BOOM BOOM with soft piano mixed here and there. Pure lazy Zimmershit.

youtube.com/watch?v=QnVl_TXhoZs

Just look at this scene. Look how Burton effectively combines music, lightning and Batman's lack of words to convey this feeling of dread and mystery.

The MCU simply has nothing to match this calibre of filmmaking. Not a single scene in the whole MCU, 15 films now is worth remembering. Nobody will look back at this universe 20 years from now and study its filmmaking techniques. Well, maybe as a cautionary tale. Truth is that Disney and Feige has reduced a genre that is supposed to be expressionist and bold into something dull, colorless and routine, the exact opposite of what CBM should be.

youtube.com/watch?v=bnV7sMK3Dyc

Post something from the MCU that reflects their superheroes as well as the Superman theme does to Superman. I'm not asking to shit on you. I'm asking in geniune wonder because I haven't found any myself.

Is Batman Returns our meme movie now?

>So why do the MCU films get away here with being so childish while the DCEU gets shit on for approaching more mature topics?
They don't. What mature topics did the first 3 DC movies touch on? They are just big dumb action movies with poorly developed characters and bad plots. Wonder Woman touched on some big issues like human nature being violent, but ironically it was the one non-edgy, heroic-for-the-sake-of-heroism DC movie. You seem to confuse edginess with maturity when edginess appeals mainly to rebellious Hot Topic tweens.
>A being like superman wouldn't be happy-go-lucky all the time in the real world. Meanwhile, the new spiderman doesn't even punch anyone. Batman kills people, big woop, policemen do that all the time.
Superheroes are supposed to be better than us. They are an ideal to aspire to. Batman is supposed to be humanity at it's peak. They shouldn't need to kill anyone the way ordinary civilians and cops do. They have had codes against killing for most of their written histories, in spite of a handful of exceptions. If Batman is gonna kill he might as well pick up a gun already. But he's Batman, not Punisher.

Logan and Deadpool have done "comic shit for mature adults like myself" better than Snyder's pretentious shit. Or Suicide Squad.

Comics are a medium, more than a genre. Even capeshit comics have a wide variety of tones and genres and audiences. There's space for all of that in film too.

I really, really do hate seeing the same images and charts from Sup Forums being posted on every thread.
But this is the only one I can tolerate because I adore Batman Returns and I consider it, next to Spider-Man 2, the pinnacle of cinema regarding capes.
I could talk about that movie and all the influences that shape it all day.

Is that your final defense of the MCU? If you want, I can use Spider-Man, Hellboy, Iron Man (pre-Disney era), Watchmen and so on.

The result will all be the same. MCU is film garbage. It is the equivalent of McDonald's in films. Even Michael Bay, known to insult his audiences, atleast respects the basics and actually shoots his films in a visually striking manner. The MCU doesn't even have that. It has nothing but brand recognition going for it. There is nothing of quality to extract from these films. There is nothing new. No innovations. No risks. It's routine.

Keep moving your goalposts, buddy. This theme is as forgettable as anything from the Marvel movies. It's just yet another Zimmerman theme using the same fucking beat, and the same piano breakdowns he used so fucking many times before. It's just a shit forgettable theme, without a memorable melody or hook, which he kinda accomplished with WW's theme by doing something different to all the soundtracks he's done since TDKR.
I can't mention anything from the MCU because those are shit too. It's a problem with pretty much all modern movies, not just superhero ones.

...

I'll take that as a no then. You are unable to provide an MCU theme on par with the ones in the DCEU. Maybe if you stopped being so defensive about the MCU and actually admitted its flaws, Feige would be forced to actually improve on his shit but that's too much to ask for I guess.

>Comic books are not for anyone with a sense of decency

fixed

Honestly ? It very well could be, if more people cared to watch it and it came out today. Just look at some of the controversy it raised and what some have said about it.

>counter-currents.com/2012/06/batman-returns-an-anti-semitic-allegory/
>Using “images and cultural stereotypes,” director Tim Burton “depicts the Penguin as one of the oldest cultural clichés: the Jew who is bitter, bent over and out for revenge, the Jew who is unathletic and seemingly unthreatening but who, in fact, wants to murder every firstborn child of the gentile community.”
>The Penguin feigns assimilation into society and gains the citizens’ trust for a time. But eventually even the ignorant masses understand this false prophet for what he is, a primordial beast who seeks retribution, ‘an eye for an eye.'”
>The evil, wealthy capitalist who allies himself with the Penguin against the citizens of Gotham is named “Max Shreck” after German actor Max Schreck, who portrayed Nosferatu. Metaphorically, Shreck is a blood-sucking vampire. Shreck “wants only power, but the Jew who has suffered wants to punish others for the crime that was committed against him.”
>“The Penguin’s evil plan is the enactment of a paranoid notion that Jews’ effort to preserve their heritage and culture is a guise for elitist and hostile intentions.”
>“Batman Returns takes place at Christmas time. The Christmas tree, the lights and the mistletoe serve a thematic purpose. They represent the Christian ethic, which will save Gotham City from the false ideology of the Penguin. In the final scene Batman articulates the distinctly Christian moral of this film: ‘Merry Christmas and good will toward men . . . and women.'”

Spider-Man had the Spider-Man theme. I remember that pretty clearly.

The suit up and first flight from Ironman is pretty memorable.

>But he's Batman, not Punisher.
Not to mention he's a hypocritical coward that marks people so the inmates do "justice" for him.
It's like they went out of their way to ruin something that was a sure hit. Not surprising coming from someone who thought a mature take on supeheroes would be Batman getting raped in prison.

>comic book movies should be dark and not appeal to children
wow those are some hot hot opinions

The whole film is literally about saving Batman from his brutal methods by him coming to terms with his childhood trauma.

You can't complain about one thing while ignoring the context. That is you being ignorant on purpose to make an argument about NOT MUH BATMAN when the film explicitly portrays him as lost.

How am I being defensife of the MCU when I'm saying their music is garbage?
I'm just not trying to deny DC's is too.
Thanks to your shitty company wars mentality, mediocrity runs rampant because each side is willing to defend their company's shitty products.

Focusing too much on the parts has you missing the whole.

Disney isnt interested in pushing the envelope or being "art" - its making entertainment.

Its made a rollercoaster that everyone wants to ride again and again, and you're complaining about the visuals and music involved.

Its not "high art". Its not trying to be. Its trying to be entertainment.

You know, like most comics.

pls respond

Art is also entertainment.

Its not going to change the ride until people stop coming back.

And even then, I promise its not going to be mass defections because of "muh cinematography" or "muh memorable score". Those problems will remain as they shift around the structure of the ride to try to catch people's attention again.

Wonder Woman is much closer to an art film than it is to any MCU schlock

I doubt OP actually wanted an answer to this question but it's not complicated.

Marvel movies play it as safe and predictably as possible with just enough fun and quips and light-hearted product placements to win everyone over. Kids wants to see heroes on the screen. Teenagers are part of the "geek culture" that has allowed these films to grow as much as they did. Adults can watch dumb action movies. It's like Overwatch or McDonalds, it's for everyone first and foremost.

The DCEU has gone in the opposite direction by hiring a man who's exceptionally notable for excess and grimdark idiocy, a director who loves Excalibur so much he tries to make every movie he directs just like it in terms of scope. DC jumped late on the cinematic universe train and then they really tried to catch up and rush everything, which made the films bloated. The DCEU doesn't really appeal to anyone but edgelords, die-hard slaves to anything with the DC brand on it, and people who just want to watch a loud action movie with special effects and people fighting. These movies still make a shitton of money, they are just not all-appealing like Marvel is because the DCEU doesn't have their priorities straight. They don't dominate the cultural landscape like Marvel does, and it's not because of "paid critics". They just jumped on the train too late and then tripped over themselves trying to catch up.

And Sup Forums doesn't accept this. Every single day there's at least one thread complaining about it, let alone the dozens of threads on Sup Forums about how DC makes underappreciated 2deep4u kino and Marvel is the cancer killing cinema forever and ever.

The whole film is about Batman not being anything like Batman, just like MoS was about Superman not being anything like Superman.
It's not a "NOT MUH" thing, these characters have their own characteristics. There are common traits to all portrayals that keep them recognizable and people can relate to them thanks to that. It's not simply that it killed, it's how he was a totally hypocritical shit about it, like in the example that I mentioned, and also how it doesn't make sense in the extended universe that a ruthless Batman didn't already kill big threats like Joker and Deadshot but didn't have any issues murdering some nameless goons, or sending them branded to prison so someone else would kill them for him.
Burton's Batman was more pragmatic than comic book Batman, but still felt like Batman because it was still a guy trying to do his best to improve his city. BvS Batman comes off as a scared and resentful asshole that is simply focused on killing Superman.

Just stop. Don't waste your time. It's not worth it. You'll get nothing out of this.

>Batman not being anything like Batman
the whole movie is about exactly that and how Superman turns him back into Batman

Only fans of the comics would know this

"Dominate the cultural landscape." Jesus.

Don't play retarded, you know what I'm talking about.

It's the same in other mediums.

Comics, books, television, music, videogames. Style and design and "the art" can be huge aspects of any of these things, and can make them interesting and memorable and "important".

But so can just being entertaining. Being enjoyable. Being something that people enjoy.

Wonder Woman was predictable, unfunny, unmotivated, and just as cookie cutter plot-wise as any MCU movie. Not sure why it receives the praise it does.

That's just a fancy way to put how Marvel and the MCU dominate pop culture in a way that DC doesn't.
You get the point.

How did an armadillo get to Paradise Island. I will NOT accept it as "just because" or "suspend my disbelief" they are a NEW WORLD species how did one get to a magical island in the Agean I WANT ANSWERS

>normie
>implying normies wouldnt be the ones constantly complaining about how superman wouldnt work in the real world and batman is more relatable because he's such a human just like me

>how Superman turns him back into Batman
Which comes completely out of nowhere and it's not in character with who Batman is in the movie.
I'm a fan of the comics, but if you do a movie that only fans of the comics can "understand", you're failing miserably at what you're supposed to do. A 250 million dollar film isn't aimed at comic fans, it's aimed at a general audience. An audience that doesn't even know what the fuck was that Knightmare scene supposed to be all about, and who was that Mexican looking dude that came out of Bruce's screen.
But even if we ignore that, the movie has to make sense and be coherent in itself. How does the 180 flip Batman does in just a couple of minutes is justified at all simply by realizing Superman's got a mom? He goes from killing the guy being his main goal in life to crying about him dying in a matter of minutes? That's just fucking shitty writing, and you know it.
And I can understand Batman being against Superman, but you don't need to make him a hypocritical asshole to do it. Most of Batman's shitty actions are completely unjustified within the movie itself. The fact that he's afraid and hates Superman so much doesn't mean he should be killing hired goons, while leaving much more dangerous criminals alive.

>Not sure why it receives the praise it does.

Because it leaves time for genuine emotional beats like the dance in the town square or Steve and Diana talking on the boat or Diana talking with the other members of the team.

The romance is what saves that movie. The rest of it is good, but if it didn't forge a genuine emotional connection between the lead characters it would be "that movie with the No Man's Land sequence' and nothing else.

>the whole movie is about exactly that and how Superman turns him back into Batman

And it fails to provide both a compelling reason for why Batman became this way and why he changed back.

"It's the point" is not a defense.

The armadillo and that goat-like animal that showed up when Diana was about to make her big leap of faith were probably Zeus, who like Ares he's likely not dead but weakened. He usually turned into animals to get closer to humans in Greek mythology. I don't think those animals were the focus of attention on their respective scenes just because "lol random armadillo".
Might be complete fanfic, but that's how I saw it.

It isn't that he realized for the first time Batman had parents ("I bet your parents told you that you were special...") it's that he realized that he had human parents--that this was a human being he was about to murder, not a monster from outer space.

Unlike those other humans he murdered during the rest of the movie?

Human traffickers have a much more questionable claim to be "people" but I thought your complaint was his whole attitude does a 180 after that one moment? It doesn't, hence he wastes that fool in the technical.

i like to see marvel a lot like a modern star wars

it takes tropes and stories we have seen a hundred times and puts it together in a single well-executed package
it isnt "predictable" or "safe", meaningless buzzwords, but more like "tried and true", it focuses on a tight telling of the heroes journey, we may be familiar with it, but we all love it whether the first or thousandth time
heck i just love seeing the heroes journey in superheroes as i do with hobbits, and i find less enjoyment in subversions of the heroes journey

and people like to throw family friendly as a bad term, but i see it as a good thing, since most family films ends up in the garbage but MCU is doing just fine, regardless of 4chans opinion
i feel like making it rely on a simple plot and simple morals and being able to talk to kids and adults makes it a lot more accessible, the kind of thing you watch as a kid then watch years later as an adult still having so much fun
it doesnt rely on shock or intrigue, just good jokes, good action, and good characters
you may disagree, but 4chans opinion is always to be taken with a grain of salt

i also find more rewatch value in a light hearted film, when youre having a bad day just pop in one of those films and you can just forget about your worries for a while, just have a great time
i love more dark films as well, but when i feel like crap Avengers 1, iron man, and cany of the captain americas really makes me feel like everything will be ok
i may know how it ends, but i still feel invested in what they're doing

I didn't notice a goat in that scene but that sounds plausible... I'll have to watch it again with an eye for any goats.

Well I'm sure they didn't have moms.
And most of them weren't deadly gods from outer space who could snap and destroy humanity on a whim, regardless of whether or not they had a human mother.

You don't need heat vision to be a monster!

Also Batman really only kills like two guys in the whole movie. The rest die by their own hand.

My question was why he does a 180 in respect of Superman. You say it's because he realizes he was about to murder a human being, because he had human parents. Then what about those other humans he murders?
You say that it's because "human traffickers" are shit, but Batman sees Superman as a threat just as big if not much bigger than them. That's why he's obssessed with killing him. So then again, why does he change his mind simply by knowing Superman's parents are human, when he didn't care about not only those human traffickers, but all the rest of the people he branded and those Luthor goons he killed both before and after becoming BFFs with Superman? Didn't they have human parents as well, therefore being human themselves? What if he finds out one of the traffickers had a mom called Martha?

>Even after they finally get a good movie, DCEUfags are still salty as hell.

>And most of them weren't deadly gods from outer space who could snap and destroy humanity on a whim, regardless of whether or not they had a human mother.
So it makes sense to kill them, but not to kill the guy that can destroy the world?
Also, it's said that he has branded a bunch of people before, who get brutalized and murdered in jail, just as he kills at least 2 or 3 guys in the batmobile chase and then there's those guys he machine guns with his plane, not to mention the guys in the warehouse fight.

>Which comes completely out of nowhere
It literally starts with him fleeing from his childhood trauma into a bat of caves.

Don't blame the film for your own ignorance. You spend more time making these shitposts than actually watching the film.

Batman fears what Superman could do, not what he's done specifically. Realizing he was wrong about what Superman is makes him doubt himself. Then when Superman sacrifices himself, Batman realizes that not only was he wrong, Superman was right---the world isn't just an endless losing battle against evil, it has good, and it deserves heroes.

For most of the movie, including when he saves Martha, Batman doesn't see himself as a hero. He fights criminals because it's all he knows but he's on autopilot, in a sense--moving through a dreamworld, or more precisely a nightmare.

Can we talk about the fact that RDJ slams a huge alien ship into a skyscraper and does nothing but a quip followed by a Widow quip? There were probably thousands in that skyscraper, all dead because Tony wanted to show off.

Actually he only brands two guys--they mention that it's a new thing after the first time we see him do it.

>So it makes sense to kill them, but not to kill the guy that can destroy the world?
It doesn't.
Oh but I'm sure there is some Jesus symbolism and Youtube essays that can explain this.

most people in the are cordoned off by the avengers were safely evacuated to the subway

the avengers are good at their job, although people seem to be assholes never appreciate them for both saving he world and doing it in style

Also, he only directly kills two people: the guy he runs over in the Batmobile, and the guy behind the .50 cal who had a chance to run but chose to fire on the Batwing instead.

Batman doesn't murder anyone with his own hands in the movie, he allows people to die. It's an important distinction that shows his mental state.

>So why do the MCU films get away here with being so childish while the DCEU gets shit on for approaching more mature topics?

MCU is competently shallow while DCEU is incompetent in trying to be deep

Raimi, Singer, Burton and Nolan get the balance right most of the time

> A good and nuanced review of the MCU without meme buzzwords as critisism

Pretty spot on, except for the morally simple point, as 99% of the heroes in the MCU don't have any no kill rule, and they display them killing soldiers, terrorists and others without any restraint. Iron mans first outing comes to mind when he kills all the terrorists in some pretty calculated and cruel ways. The Guardians aren't really heroes, as they are more guns for hire who wouldn't say no for a dirty job if it pays enough. And Cap is a soldier far more than a traditional hero, which makes him kill Hydra soldiers in some pretty brutal ways. The only heroes so far that haven't killed anyone directly/non directly in the MCU movies are Spider-man and Ant-man.

...

>MCU is competently shallow while DCEU is incompetent in trying to be deep

damn that's a good way of putting it

Thats what the netflix shows talk about when they mention the incident, hundreds of casualities and many more hurt physically and financially. Remember Tony is still a selfish prick at this point and Natasha is just an assassin without any remorse for human life so...

...

>most people in the are cordoned off by the avengers were safely evacuated to the subway
How do you evacuate thousands of people in skyscrapers into subways in a matter of minutes? Did Cap America use a Star Trek beam?

Its an excellent way to put it.

Fair enough, I misremembered that. It still goes along with Batman not killing so much as being indifferent to the fate of the criminals he fights.