Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice THREAD

[YoungJRNYfan]

[verslibre]

Hmmm, that's interesting and impossible since I haven't been very interested in this at all. Maybe it's because they screwed up khan. If "they" (meaning JJ, the studio, and everybody involved) can't ensure on getting a Khan movie right, then I don't have much faith in them. And, it's a reboot into some weird alternate timeline...I was never too fond of that idea anyway.

Plus, there will be a new Trek series coming out soon.

It won't be on network TV.

I also didn't like STID because it was a Khan do-over. And a poor one, at that.

[Monker]

I thought ya all may find this interesting:
http://gordonnapier.com/the-dark-knight ... ey-stages/

The Dark Knight – the Hero’s Journey stages
Gordon Napier July 19, 2013 No Comments
Ordinary world

The Batman has impacted on crime in Gotham, the Mob can’t do business like they used to and they don’t like it.

Call to Adventure

The Joker arrives on the crime scene in Gotham.

Refusal of the call

Batman ignores the Joker and focuses his attention on stopping the Mob “One man or the entire Mob. He can wait.”

Supernatural Aid

Lucious Fox is his mentor and supplies him with his equipment. Alfred also serves a role as a mentor but an emotional one.

Crossing the First Threshold

Batman agrees to help Harvey Dent and sets out to capture Lau.

Belly of the whale

Sometimes the Belly of the whale is about travelling a long way away. Bruce travels to Hong Kong and retrieves Lau.

The Road of the trials

Trying to catch the Joker and always being one step behind. The Joker wants Batman to reveal himself and public opinion is turning on Batman.

Meeting with the Goddess

The Goddess is Harvey Dent, he’s a good man who inspires Batman to be true hero. Batman supports him and embraces his values to bring justice to the city.

Woman as Temptress

Rachel makes a promise to Bruce that they would be together when he hangs up the mantle of Batman. In Batman Begins she was the Goddess but in this film she is the Temptress. She offers him a better life if he gives up his quest of being Batman.

But there is also a second temptress; Joker offers temptations and choice to Batman throughout the film. He tries to get Batman to violate his code of not killing. He tries to bring Batman down to his level and instead he succeeds by doing that to Harvey Dent.

Atonement with the Father

Alfred tells Bruce some men can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. Eventually Bruce understands that this is what he’s dealing with, with the Joker.

Apotheosis

He becomes all seeing (like a God) when he harnesses the cell phone sonar technology to spy on all of Gotham

Death of the mentor

Lucious Fox wants no more part in Batman’s activities and resigns from Wayne Enterprises as he believes no one should have the power he has when he uses the surveillance equipment

Ultimate Boon

He learns where the Joker is and able to face him, armed with the knowledge he’s incredibly clever dangerous lunatic. He knows the clown guards are really the hostages so he takes out the SWAT team so they don’t fall into Joker’s trap and kill the hostages thinking they’re taking out the guards. He’s worked out how the Joker operates and isn’t at the disadvantage of being two steps behind the Joker’s plan like he has been up to this point.

The Magic flight

The final fight between Joker and Batman. Joker looks to have defeated Batman and is about to blow up the ferries but Batman nails him with a hidden weapon and saves the Joker from falling to his death. The Joker has lost but he has a victory of sorts because he proved he could corrupt Harvey Dent

Rescue from without

The passengers on both ferries don’t kill each other. This distracts Joker so Batman can fire his dart at him.

The crossing of the return Threshold

Batman goes to help save Gordon and his family from Harvey Two Face Dent having endured the trials of Joker and proved that he can live by his code. He must now break it in order to save Gordon.

Master of two worlds

Batman has defeated the Joker and sacrifices his own reputation instead of letting Dent lose his.

Freedom to live

He disappears into the night. Gotham has the hero it deserves not the hero it needs.



The Dark Knight is easily one of the best superhero movies of all time. Whilst this breakdown contains all the elements of the hero’s journey there are a number of key story beats from The Dark Knight missing from this list. Rachel’s death for example, although it does lead to the Ultimate Boon for Batman.

[verslibre]

The Dark Knight is easily one of the best superhero movies of all time.

Absolutely. In the Top 5 or Top 3, and a contender for the #1 slot.

[Monker]

And, just cuz ya all love me so much:

How the Hero's Journey COULD apply to Batman vs. Superman:

Ordinary world

Superman is the hero of Metropollis and Batman is the vigilante hero of Gotham. They are living in their own separate worlds.

Call to Adventure

The events of MoS pushes the two heroes to face the fact that they are not the only "hero"s in the world but both are on the side of good.

Refusal of the call

They are both fighting on the side of good but are polar opposites in both style and personality. Therefore, they see each other as enemies and do not want to work together.

Supernatural Aid

Alfred serves as Bruce's conscience and warns him he is fighting a battle he can't win. Marha Kent serves a similar role for Clark Kent, ensuring he stands on the highest moral ground possible.

Crossing the First Threshold

Batman and Superman are faced with fighting Doomsday and therefore put their differences aside to work together and fight a common enemy.

Belly of the whale

The two try but can not seem to defeat Doomsday on their own Lex's design was specific to defeating them both and it appears to have worked.

The Road of the trials

This is sketchy because we do not know what type's of schemes Lex has planned. But, I assume Lex will try various schemes to defeat Batman and Superman before Doomsday appears......including antagonizing the two against each other.

Meeting with the Goddess

Duh, Wonder Woman shows up and tells them to stop acting like children and start working together...they are all on the same side.

Woman as Temptress

Good question...probably an unknown character. This is where someone like Cat Woman shows up to tempt them away from the "Call to Adventure". I would guess the Temptress is actually Lex antagonizing them to fight each other rather than uniting to fight him and his like.

Atonement with the Father

Alfred tells Batman that he is fighting a war he can't win. Martha Kent reminds Superman of his high morals.

Apotheosis

When they join forces they have god-like powers in Superman, the experience and technology of Batman, and the wisdom of Wonder Woman...a combination that Lex finds impossible to defeat - at least for now.

Death of the mentor

Another good question....does Martha Kent or Alred die? I would say Martha Kent is more likely.

Ultimate Boon

The group learns that Doomsday was only a tool for their real enemy, Lex Luthor...and possibly that there are larger evil conspiracies being planned for the future.

The Magic flight

This would be the trek to "get" Lex...successful or not.

Rescue from without

I don't see this applying in this movie.

The crossing of the return Threshold

Both Superman and Batman learn there are other ways to be a hero then how they have been acting thus far. They now have the wisdom of their experiences with each other, and the ability consult each other when they are faced with things larger than saving cats in trees.

Master of two worlds

Superman has proven his worth to Batman in Batman's territory, and Batman has seen an entire new world of heroes that he can call on for help or advice.

Freedom to live
Batman goes back to his cave to keep an eye on Lex and Superman goes back to Metropolis to save more cats in trees. Wonder Woman goes back wot Wonder Womaning...maybe she goes to have a chat with Aquaman about Justice League.

[Monker]

Hmmm, that's interesting and impossible since I haven't been very interested in this at all. Maybe it's because they screwed up khan. If "they" (meaning JJ, the studio, and everybody involved) can't ensure on getting a Khan movie right, then I don't have much faith in them. And, it's a reboot into some weird alternate timeline...I was never too fond of that idea anyway.

Plus, there will be a new Trek series coming out soon.

It won't be on network TV.

I also didn't like STID because it was a Khan do-over. And a poor one, at that.

Oh, come on. I know that it won't be on CBS...at least for now. There are ways around that.

[Monker]

Deeply, deeply, deeply emotionally invested.

YES...when compared to BvS. We have two entire movies where CA's and TWS's relationship is prominent. We have two more where CA's and Iron Man's is detailed. We KNOW where they all stand without any effort needed in Civil War to tell or show us anything.

You're just throwing common sense stuff together and passing it off as groundbreaking knowledge.

It's not "groundbreaking" knowledge. It's been around for thousands of years...and detailed over the last 50 or so.

Read this link: http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero's_journey.htm

Read his book, it's probably easier than Campbell's:
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywor ... 4x0i7_b_p1

This stuff is fundamental.

[verslibre]

Hmmm, that's interesting and impossible since I haven't been very interested in this at all. Maybe it's because they screwed up khan. If "they" (meaning JJ, the studio, and everybody involved) can't ensure on getting a Khan movie right, then I don't have much faith in them. And, it's a reboot into some weird alternate timeline...I was never too fond of that idea anyway.

Plus, there will be a new Trek series coming out soon.

It won't be on network TV.

I also didn't like STID because it was a Khan do-over. And a poor one, at that.

Oh, come on. I know that it won't be on CBS...at least for now. There are ways around that.

Like that's a bad thing? How many networks are there now that could possibly air it? More than enough.

[Monker]

Like that's a bad thing? How many networks are there now that could possibly air it? More than enough.

The last I read was the new Star Trek series is supposedly going to be on CBS's new digital subscriber service. So, to be able to watch it, you would have to pay a monthly subscriber fee to CBS to be a part of their version of Netflix/Hulu+. So, whatever, I'm not going to do that...and like I said, there are ways around it.

[verslibre]

Like that's a bad thing? How many networks are there now that could possibly air it? More than enough.

The last I read was the new Star Trek series is supposedly going to be on CBS's new digital subscriber service. So, to be able to watch it, you would have to pay a monthly subscriber fee to CBS to be a part of their version of Netflix/Hulu+. So, whatever, I'm not going to do that...and like I said, there are ways around it.

Oh, I see what you mean. And yes, there are.

[verslibre]

Crossing the First Threshold

Batman and Superman are faced with fighting Doomsday and therefore put their differences aside to work together and fight a common enemy.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Biz'Zodsday doesn't show up in the first third of the film. My guess:

FIRST ACT reprises the climax of Man of Steel, shows Clark working for the Daily Planet, introduces us to Lex, and finds Batman getting back into things via present-day action and flashback exposition. Diana may first show up here or in the second act.

SECOND ACT is when our titular heroes do the Batusi. Lex does naughty things.

THIRD ACT is when Lex's Frankenstein antics go awry OR as planned. Wonder Woman appears to kick Clark and Bruce in the taint. Portions of Gotham/Metropolis get leveled. If other JL'ers appear, it will be here. Or not.

DENOUEMENT is not so much that but a transition/bridge piece to Justice League.

That's assuming it follows a three-act structure. There will be loads of other seasonings. I just pointed out the appetizers and main dishes.

[YoungJRNYfan]

[YoungJRNYfan]

[YoungJRNYfan]

Benoist maniped into a Man of Steel version suit:

[Monker]

Crossing the First Threshold

Batman and Superman are faced with fighting Doomsday and therefore put their differences aside to work together and fight a common enemy.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain Biz'Zodsday doesn't show up in the first third of the film. My guess:

"Crossing the Threshold" means they have their "call to adventure" (being a team), and went through "refusing the call" (hating each other and fighting). It means "something happens" that pushes them so they have no choice but to accept the "call to adventure". That something, IMO, is Doomsday.

It is also the end of the first act. The first act is 45min long. Second act is 60 minutes long. Third act is 45mins long. If the movie as a whole is longer/shorter then those times are adjusted proportionally.

FIRST ACT reprises the climax of Man of Steel, shows Clark working for the Daily Planet, introduces us to Lex, and finds Batman getting back into things via present-day action and flashback exposition. Diana may first show up here or in the second act.

Pretty close. But, Wonder Woman will probably not show up until the second act...probably at least midway through it...maybe closer to the end of it. IE: the duo put up a good fight but Doomsday/Lex are winning. She tips the odds completely into their favor. That can't happen until the heroes suffer, a lot...by beating each other up, Doomsday, and probably other things we don't know about.

If she does show up earlier in the second act, it may be to give a one on one talk to Batman or Superman to try to convince them the other is not such a bad guy after all. That could also explain the "I thought she was with you..." comments a bit more. I have my doubts this movie has time to do such things though.

SECOND ACT is when our titular heroes do the Batusi. Lex does naughty things.

See, here is where there are problems. The second act CAN'T be where they "start" fighting each other...that has to happen in the first act...because that is the entire "refusal of the call". That makes the first act very crowded. The second act starts at "crossing the threshold"...which means they have been forced to work together. There may be some unresolved issues between the two, but when Doomsday shows up they start to realize they are not each other's enemy. So, in the first act, Lex will probably manipulate and antagonize them against each other so they fight. The second is fighting Doomsday...which Lex has designed to defeat BOTH of them.

THIRD ACT is when Lex's Frankenstein antics go awry OR as planned. Wonder Woman appears to kick Clark and Bruce in the taint. Portions of Gotham/Metropolis get leveled. If other JL'ers appear, it will be here. Or not.

The second act ends with things like Zod's neck getting snapped or the Joker being defeated....in this case, Doomsday being defeated...possibly Lex, but I'm guessing they keep him out of jail or death for later movies.

The third act is where things start winding down and it is where stray plot lines are resolved...and the "ordinary world" can be returned to...but it is changed and the heroes are changed (ie: "resurrected"). Showing this change is very important, and that is where Justice League comes into play. Think the Thor movie where he dies and comes back alive a changed leader and receives his hammer, armor and title back. Both Bruce and Clark will have a fundamental change inside of them that allows them to not just put up with each other, but embrace each other.

This is how the Hero's Journey fits into a three act structure:



I know you seem to not believe me....but almost every single movie Hollywood releases follows this formula. And, when they don't follow it, they suck.

I'll make another guess here, too. Judging by the pilot and what I've written above, I think Superman/Clark sees a potential ally in Batman/Bruce. But, Batman/Bruce only sees an enemy who wronged him somehow and would rather throw down with him then work together. That is what defines the "Call to Adventure" and the "Refusal of the Call".

[verslibre]

"Crossing the Threshold" means they have their "call to adventure" (being a team), and went through "refusing the call" (hating each other and fighting). It means "something happens" that pushes them so they have no choice but to accept the "call to adventure". That something, IMO, is Doomsday.

It is also the end of the first act. The first act is 45min long. Second act is 60 minutes long. Third act is 45mins long. If the movie as a whole is longer/shorter then those times are adjusted proportionally.

I repeat: there's no way "BiZoddo" shows up in Act One. He doesn't show up until Batman and Superman have gone a few rounds like Rocky and Apollo. You know, "Ding, ding." And a bunch of stuff occurs before that (like Lex doing naughty things).

FIRST ACT reprises the climax of Man of Steel, shows Clark working for the Daily Planet, introduces us to Lex, and finds Batman getting back into things via present-day action and flashback exposition. Diana may first show up here or in the second act.

Pretty close. But, Wonder Woman will probably not show up until the second act...probably at least midway through it...maybe closer to the end of it. IE: the duo put up a good fight but Doomsday/Lex are winning. She tips the odds completely into their favor. That can't happen until the heroes suffer, a lot...by beating each other up, Doomsday, and probably other things we don't know about.

That's what I said. And yes, we all seem to agree she'll do exactly that.

SECOND ACT is when our titular heroes do the Batusi. Lex does naughty things.

See, here is where there are problems. The second act CAN'T be where they "start" fighting each other...that has to happen in the first act...because that is the entire "refusal of the call". That makes the first act very crowded. The second act starts at "crossing the threshold"...which means they have been forced to work together. There may be some unresolved issues between the two, but when Doomsday shows up they start to realize they are not each other's enemy. So, in the first act, Lex will probably manipulate and antagonize them against each other so they fight. The second is fighting Doomsday...which Lex has designed to defeat BOTH of them.

The only way they'll fight in Act One and work everything out in Act Two is if Zack rushes everything in Act One. Now that would make a very crowded first act, don't you think? Don't forget the courtroom scene, too.

THIRD ACT is when Lex's Frankenstein antics go awry OR as planned. Wonder Woman appears to kick Clark and Bruce in the taint. Portions of Gotham/Metropolis get leveled. If other JL'ers appear, it will be here. Or not.

The second act ends with things like Zod's neck getting snapped or the Joker being defeated....in this case, Doomsday being defeated...possibly Lex, but I'm guessing they keep him out of jail or death for later movies.

Somehow, I don't think so.

The third act is where things start winding down and it is where stray plot lines are resolved...and the "ordinary world" can be returned to...

Not in this movie. I don't think it's going to follow such a rigid, traditional structure. Things will get ramped up in the third act because this movie is supposed to end on a cliffhanger and connect directly into Justice League: Part One, if the old rumors are true. Even if they knock NuZod down, they're not going to rock-paper-scissors who gets to "ask Diana out" after the battle, and go out for shawarma.

I know you seem to not believe me....but almost every single movie Hollywood releases follows this formula. And, when they don't follow it, they suck.

Don't get the wrong impression. Yes, everyone likes to do things in "three's," whether it be films (trilogies), books (ditto), songs (three verses or movements), works of art (triptychs), and so on. I'm just not sold on prefiguring what Zack's did with this particular film because I know they cut those trailers to mislead us.

I'll make another guess here, too. Judging by the pilot and what I've written above, I think Superman/Clark sees a potential ally in Batman/Bruce.

There's nothing to guess. That's how the Justice League begins.

[Monker]

The only way they'll fight in Act One and work everything out in Act Two is if Zack rushes everything in Act One. Now that would make a very crowded first act, don't you think? Don't forget the courtroom scene, too.

EXACTLY. That is what I have been saying for months now. But, if he doesn't do that then he is not following the Hero's Journey and he is not following the three act structure...and the whole movie falls apart. People will feel there was too much stuff going on and it just didn't make any sense. Or, if he moves the action to act 2, the first act was slow, boring, and the action that they were promised started far too late. Then he moves Doomsday to Act 3 which means the "Call to Adventure" starts FAR too late and nothing is really resolved at the end of Act 3, which means the entire movie was pointless...and I think that will piss a lot of people off. The biggest negative, IMO, of Age of Ultron is it spent a lot of time setting up future movies...but if that was the point of the ENTIRE MOVIE, well, I would absolutely be saying that movie sucked.

The second act ends with things like Zod's neck getting snapped or the Joker being defeated....in this case, Doomsday being defeated...possibly Lex, but I'm guessing they keep him out of jail or death for later movies.

Somehow, I don't think so. [/quote]

That is the entire point of an "Act" ending. Even if you forget about the Hero's Journey, an "Act" ends when the plot takes a large turn. So, by definition, a very fundamental plot shift has to happen at the end of "Act 2". In almost every case in these "hero" type movies, it is the defeat of the main villain. So, what are you saying? It's the INTRODUCTION of Doomsday that ends act 2?

Not in this movie. I don't think it's going to follow such a rigid, traditional structure. Things will get ramped up in the third act because this movie is supposed to end on a cliffhanger and connect directly into Justice League: Part One, if the old rumors are true. Even if they knock NuZod down, they're not going to rock-paper-scissors who gets to "ask Diana out" after the battle, and go out for shawarma.

That is exactly why I don't think LEX LUTHOR is defeated in this movie. If they want a cliffhanger, they have a villain to hang the cliff.

It's not about everything being mellow and tame at the end of the movie. It is about showing a fundamental change in the two heroes. If they do not do that, then EVERYTHING prior had no point. If they do it well, then everything prior had its meaning elevated. I mean, dissect the TDK movies - it is what they did in all three of them. They did it in MoS, too.

Don't get the wrong impression. Yes, everyone likes to do things in "three's," whether it be films (trilogies), books (ditto), songs (three verses or movements), works of art (triptychs), and so on. I'm just not sold on prefiguring what Zack's did with this particular film because I know they cut those trailers to mislead us.

It's not about being in threes. It's a about plot beats and psychology. We subconsciously have certain needs when we watch these movies or digest stories in other ways. If we do not get those needs met on those plot beats, then we are disappointed. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a proven fact. EVERY successful writer knows this. An unsuccessful writer probably either hasn't learned it, or believes they do not have to apply what they learned, or their writing sucks in general...or is writing good stuff but hasn't had the luck of finding the right publisher.

I don't know, whatever. No matter how I look at it, this movie has a structural challenge...and I see no way out of it.

[YoungJRNYfan]

That is exactly why I don't think LEX LUTHOR is defeated in this movie.

[YoungJRNYfan]

I don't know, whatever. No matter how I look at it, this movie has a structural challenge...and I see no way out of it.

Dude, this structural bullshit is tiring and borderline spamming. No one cares or looks that deeply into something they want to be entertained by unless they are your type where everything is micro-picked to death. There's a ton more variables that go into whether something "sucks" and either way, liking something or disliking something all comes down to a matter of opinion and taste, not by the way things are professionally structured. Nobody gives a shit about that.

Chances are, if a movie has an interesting plot point that grabs their attention and especially if these parts are well ACTED, people are going to enjoy it and overlook any inevitable holes the films is destined to fail at. I bet there's ton of pitch-perfect "structuring" you keep regurgitating back at us that that wasn't so good because other factors and intangibles come into play that cross-cancel all the structuring methods put in place. It truly doesn't matter if you follow the "Hero's Journey" or this or that if a director doesn't know what to do with it. That's the point of creativity and freedom you have as a team and with the actor's. Shit is changing all the time but when it comes down to it, whether you think BvS has a structural problem or not, that won't matter as long as they find a balance of good acting and find ways connect with the audience and tell a good story. Execution far outweighs logical "structuring."

[verslibre]

The only way they'll fight in Act One and work everything out in Act Two is if Zack rushes everything in Act One. Now that would make a very crowded first act, don't you think? Don't forget the courtroom scene, too.

EXACTLY. That is what I have been saying for months now. But, if he doesn't do that then he is not following the Hero's Journey and he is not following the three act structure...and the whole movie falls apart. People will feel there was too much stuff going on and it just didn't make any sense.

Don't be hellbent on prefiguring Zack's outline for the movie per the Hero's Journey. Honestly, I think you're off on more than a few things.

Or, if he moves the action to act 2, the first act was slow, boring, and the action that they were promised started far too late. Then he moves Doomsday to Act 3 which means the "Call to Adventure" starts FAR too late and nothing is really resolved at the end of Act 3, which means the entire movie was pointless...and I think that will piss a lot of people off. The biggest negative, IMO, of Age of Ultron is it spent a lot of time setting up future movies...but if that was the point of the ENTIRE MOVIE, well, I would absolutely be saying that movie sucked.

This whole "the movie sucks if they don't do it this way" business is beyond presumptuous. Iron Man 3 sucked and it did everything the way you're insisting it should happen. The biggest negative of Age of Ultron wasn't that it "spent time setting up future movies," it's that Ultron was reduced to another forgettable MCU knock-'im-and-drop-'im villain.

That is the entire point of an "Act" ending. Even if you forget about the Hero's Journey, an "Act" ends when the plot takes a large turn. So, by definition, a very fundamental plot shift has to happen at the end of "Act 2". In almost every case in these "hero" type movies, it is the defeat of the main villain. So, what are you saying? It's the INTRODUCTION of Doomsday that ends act 2?

An "Act" ends when it ends. It is most simply defined as "a division." That's all. You're getting far too beefed up over this. I said Act Two will likely revolve around what's implied by, oh, the mere title of the film. (I figure that would be something you'd agree with if you go with the old notion that the second "Act" is usually the best one.) Act Two can also be twice as long as either the first and/or second, something you've overlooked by assuming a 45-60-45 timetable. (Also, don't forget that there can be more than three acts.) Don't just try to cut up the film into plot beats. Yes, plot is important, but so are character and, especially where this film is concerned, tone.

That is exactly why I don't think LEX LUTHOR is defeated in this movie. If they want a cliffhanger, they have a villain to hang the cliff.

Luthor doesn't have to be defeated, but he's not rumored to be the big bad of Justice League.

It's not about everything being mellow and tame at the end of the movie. It is about showing a fundamental change in the two heroes.

Again, the title of the film.

It's not about being in threes. It's a about plot beats and psychology. We subconsciously have certain needs when we watch these movies or digest stories in other ways. If we do not get those needs met on those plot beats, then we are disappointed. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a proven fact. EVERY successful writer knows this. An unsuccessful writer probably either hasn't learned it, or believes they do not have to apply what they learned, or their writing sucks in general...or is writing good stuff but hasn't had the luck of finding the right publisher.

This paragraph does little more than reinforce the notion that you have already condemned this film.

I don't know, whatever. No matter how I look at it, this movie has a structural challenge...and I see no way out of it.

You're going to find out, aren't you?

[verslibre]

I don't know, whatever. No matter how I look at it, this movie has a structural challenge...and I see no way out of it.

Dude, this structural bullshit is tiring and borderline spamming. No one cares or looks that deeply into something they want to be entertained by unless they are your type where everything is micro-picked to death. There's a ton more variables that go into whether something "sucks" and either way, liking something or disliking something all comes down to a matter of opinion and taste, not by the way things are professionally structured. Nobody gives a shit about that.

I guarantee you everyone going to see The Force Awakens certainly doesn't care. And it's pretty obvious that film follows a very similar structure to the '77 movie (probably "clones" it). I don't see anyone attempting to pick it apart the way Monker is BvS.

Chances are, if a movie has an interesting plot point that grabs their attention and especially if these parts are well ACTED, people are going to enjoy it and overlook any inevitable holes the films is destined to fail at. I bet there's ton of pitch-perfect "structuring" you keep regurgitating back at us that that wasn't so good because other factors and intangibles come into play that cross-cancel all the structuring methods put in place. It truly doesn't matter if you follow the "Hero's Journey" or this or that if a director doesn't know what to do with it. That's the point of creativity and freedom you have as a team and with the actor's. Shit is changing all the time but when it comes down to it, whether you think BvS has a structural problem or not, that won't matter as long as they find a balance of good acting and find ways connect with the audience and tell a good story. Execution far outweighs logical "structuring."

What's funny is how Disney-Marvel's bait-and-switch tactics go unnoticed except by a few, a strange luxury not afforded to other studios and films. I liked last year's Godzilla (I've always been a fan, except for that '98 movie), and I really dug how he was the unexpected "good guy" of the movie and battled two other kaiju. (Like how could one not like that, right?) Tons of people across a few forums bitched about that, how it was bait-and-switch when they were expecting a monster-stomps-the-city movie. They did that with many other movies, like the '98 movie, and Cloverfield. So they did something different and people bitched about it. I guess no matter how BvS turns out, people will gripe. No matter how Civil War turns out, people will say it's the cinematic equivalent of Keurig or Coffee Ninja.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Don't be hellbent on prefiguring Zack's outline for the movie per the Hero's Journey. Honestly, I think you're off on more than a few things

Monker is using nothing but fan-fic and plunging that down our throats as if he was behind the scenes on this film and was there at the Warner Brothers board meeting's with Zack Snyder and the team himself.

This whole "the movie sucks if they don't do it this way" business is beyond presumptuous. Iron Man 3 sucked and it did everything the way you're insisting it should happen. The biggest negative of Age of Ultron wasn't that it "spent time setting up future movies," it's that Ultron was reduced to another forgettable MCU knock-'im-and-drop-'im villain.

Long-winded rant on why this ISN'T the case in 5...4...3...2...

(Also, don't forget that there can be more than three acts.) Don't just try to cut up the film into plot beats. Yes, plot is important, but so are character and, especially where this film is concerned, tone.

Yep. These are just a minute of different ways and intangibles I was talking about that make up what is good or bad in a person's head.

Luthor doesn't have to be defeated, but he's not rumored to be the big bad of Justice League.

Not sure how true the rumor was, but Eisenberg was rumored to make an appearance in Suicide Squad and the first released photo of a bald Lex posted above looks to be in prison-garb...perhaps Arkham. The possibilities are endless in this DCEU.

This paragraph does little more than reinforce the notion that you have already condemned this film.

Realistically, Monker is nothing but a shill and Marvelite

You're going to find out, aren't you?

No matter what happens in BvS, he won't allow himself to like it. His mind is made up. Bias against this movie is evident and laughable.

[YoungJRNYfan]

Per Zack Snyder, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice's run-time is going to be 3 hrs and 10 min. A TON of time to put "care" into character development. BRING IT ON.

[Monker]

There's a ton more variables that go into whether something "sucks" and either way, liking something or disliking something all comes down to a matter of opinion and taste, not by the way things are professionally structured. Nobody gives a shit about that.

That is simply NOT TRUE. I know you don't believe it, but if a story does not follow basic story structure, then the story falls short in various ways depending on what beats the story missed. You simply do not want to admit that and are in denial that BvS has fundamental problems that will limit its success.

Chances are, if a movie has an interesting plot point that grabs their attention and especially if these parts are well ACTED, people are going to enjoy it and overlook any inevitable holes the films is destined to fail at.

Again, that is simply not true. In fact, I will say bad acting is easier overlooked if the story is well thought out.

I bet there's ton of pitch-perfect "structuring" you keep regurgitating back at us that that wasn't so good because other factors and intangibles come into play that cross-cancel all the structuring methods put in place.

I have no idea what you are talking about...show me an axample.

It truly doesn't matter if you follow the "Hero's Journey" or this or that if a director doesn't know what to do with it.

If a director does not know what to do with basic story structure that is in ever ysingle Hollywood film released, then that story should either not be filmed, or the director should find a different career...and whoever hired him should be fired.

That's the point of creativity and freedom you have as a team and with the actor's.

You are falling into the trap that untrained writers fall into when they believe they have an idea that is so good that it is above all of the stuff currently released and some publisher just has to buy it because, well, it's the best thing ever.

There is a reason why every single film released follows this type of story structure....because when they don't, the movies suck and fail.

Shit is changing all the time

The Hero's Journey has been around for thousands of years. The story of Jesus follows it in the gospels, Beowulf follows it. The stories of ancient Greece follow it, Odysseus and Perseus and the like. And, modern iconic stories follow it. Lord of the Rings follows it...both the books and the movies. Lucas studied and followed Campbell's thoughts prior to creating Star Wars. In fact, some people in Hollywood will not green light a project unless they can see the Hero's Journey in the story. How can you say it is "changing" when it has stayed the same for 10,000 years or more?

but when it comes down to it, whether you think BvS has a structural problem or not, that won't matter as long as they find a balance of good acting and find ways connect with the audience and tell a good story. Execution far outweighs logical "structuring."

Dude, "telling a good story" IS following the Hero's Journey. YOU pick out your most favorite movie ever and do a search on the 'net and see if it follows the Hero's Journey.......I can GUARANTEE you that it does. It is very basic, fundamental, stuff.

[Monker]

I liked last year's Godzilla (I've always been a fan, except for that '98 movie), and I really dug how he was the unexpected "good guy" of the movie and battled two other kaiju. (Like how could one not like that, right?) Tons of people across a few forums bitched about that, how it was bait-and-switch when they were expecting a monster-stomps-the-city movie. They did that with many other movies, like the '98 movie, and Cloverfield. So they did something different and people bitched about it. I guess no matter how BvS turns out, people will gripe. No matter how Civil War turns out, people will say it's the cinematic equivalent of Keurig or Coffee Ninja.

And, Godzilla follows the Hero's Journey exactly. In fact, it could be a template on how BvS could use it.

[Monker]

Per Zack Snyder, Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice's run-time is going to be 3 hrs and 10 min. A TON of time to put "care" into character development. BRING IT ON.

So, they have just shy of 1hr to finish act 1...

We'll see how that all works out.

[verslibre]

In this case, it's not because they "make a lot of money". It's because you are saying they are "guilty" of something where you are playing judge and jury...and what they are really "guilty" of is your negative opinion.

You may or may not realize you're doing it, but you're opining that I'm somehow in error because I elect to criticize (dumb) things the MCU films indulge — deliberately — in order to appeal to the LCD. Those aspects I choose to criticize, I do so because I believe a better service could have been rendered, i.e. where changes could have and should have been made for the better.

Not the point. The point is Star Wars is generally given credit for reinvigorating the entire scifi genre...and Lucas was at the helm of that. In that way, Nolan is not George Lucas.

Yet Batman Begins is credited with earning Batman back a bit of respect after the BatClooney debacle. No, it's not on the same level, but I do think Star Wars is significantly overrated, especially because Jedi isn't as good as everyone says it is, and the prequels are godawful.

The thing is, Lucas got lucky. Very, very lucky. And he got some help, too. The final theatrical cut is famously the result of an 11th hour edit. The previous cut was reportedly not that hot.

There is no danger of Nolan presenting his equivalent of The Phantom Menace.

There you go again making definitive statements of fact, which are nothing but your opinion.

So which is it: you think Nolan can make a movie that's just as bad, or (God forbid) you honestly think TPM is something that passes for what's considered "good'? Either way, I'll make sure to set my coffee down because I can't afford to replace my monitor right this sec.

10yrs ago, people would have said the same thing about Peter Jackson and LotR. Now some people critique the Hobbit in the same way as many people critique the SW prequels.

The Hobbit trilogy drew some ire, but I've not seen it cut down like those horrid prequels. No way. Those prequels stunk and they deserved what they got. They still have umpteen supporters, because, you know, [BillMurray] "Staaaaar Waaaaars!" [/BillMurray]

There is always a potential to fall from perceived greatness.

More so for those who really don't give a shit about what they're doing and aren't willing to accept some third-party input. See: Lucas.

The bottom line is I don't believe Nolan has much influence at all over the Russo's. [...]

Okay. You don't believe it, that's cool. I do. You must be cool with that.

Iron Man by his very nature is a sarcastic ass. That is part of who he is. So, I believe it would be totally against his character to be serious all the time, or even most of the time. I have already written here that Ant-Man is a stupid idea for a movie. I don't see how they could have made it any other way then to fill it with jokes and not take itself seriously at all. I would have preferred they had skipped Ant-Man and made some other movie instead.

Ant-Man had been in development since 2006. I even saw a lobby poster for it years ago, when Simon Pegg was still a part of the cast. But never mind that.

"Iron Man by his very nature is a sarcastic ass." No, RDJ is. Iron Man/Tony Stark was seldom written that way. For decades, he was written like Bruce Wayne-meets-Errol Flynn. The sarcasm began with RDJ, and I hope it ends with him. Eventually another actor will don the suit, especially if Arno Stark becomes Iron Man. But that's a long way off.

Incorrect. He has a six-film contract which includes Infinity War (which is one big movie, split into two). It doesn't count his cameo in the second Thor flick. So, no, I don't think Cap is going to eat it in Civil War.

You're right, he has this and one more film. But, I do believe he will die in Civil War...not at the end, tho...about 3/4 of the way through. Just because he has one more film does not mean it is not a long way off....like the second Infinity War movie.

I disagree.

What Marvel did was to take a HUGE portion of all that and put it in other movies so now Civil War can concentrate on, well, the Civil War. They do not have to spend so much time on backstory and character introductions and the like, it's already been done. They can spend time on the STORY...why Captain America and Iron Man's differences became so great they are now fighting each other, why the new laws for registration are happening, why each hero chose the side they chose. They may even be able to afford some time to set up the Inhumas movie, or other movies. In short, Marvel has a lot of breathing space to tell the story they want - DC does not and will probably have to crunch a lot of things.

Seriously? In Civil War, they have to explain who the eff Black Panther is and why he's on Stark's side. They also have to explain Spider-Man (finally) showing up in this film universe, and why he goes over to Stark's side. I know Ant-Man's involved, but Wasp and Strange (still up in the air) should be involved, along with others. My guess is they won't go into too much effort in those areas. They'll have them "show up" and feature some sarcasm-laden dialogues where Stark talks Spidey (who's again supposed to be a teenager in high school) into registration. Just like that. The storyline, which was a seven-episode event, has been retrofitted to focus on Cap and Bucky's friendship and how Cap will always have his back, no matter what. Many, many characters are omitted because they can't use the properties tied up over at Fox. Civil War should be an Avengers film. It'd make a better movie that way. I'm not saying it's going to suck the way they're doing it (because I'm not as close-minded as others), but major changes have been made. And no, it won't set up The Inhumans, unless they jam in another awkward post-credits scene.

[YoungJRNYfan]

That is simply NOT TRUE. I know you don't believe it, but if a story does not follow basic story structure, then the story falls short in various ways depending on what beats the story missed. You simply do not want to admit that

Dude, I already said pages back that the shit you're spewing is nothing new and is all common sense. Your long winding replys on the issue is over welcomed and not groundbreaking. Your rants still doesnt change the fact that audiences dont get into watching movies and checkmark shit off their piece of paper. Structure is always there in any forms of storytelling, but the structure doesnt single handily determine the outcome of success. Other variables do, too.

You are in denial that BvS has fundamental problems that will limit its success.

I thought you knew the difference between fact and opinion? You're full of shit. I've said numerous times that when you bring in a writer like Chris Terrio, these fundamental problems that are giving you a woody simply disappear. I'm confident BvS is going to be a good movie all around because of the talent in place. I'm in denial of nothing. We're getting Wonder Woman, Suicide Squad and Justice League very soon. What are these limitations we're talking about here? You're a hater trying to sound smart.

In fact, I will say bad acting is easier overlooked if the story is well thought out.

I beg to differ. Kind of like comics, if the story is good but if the art is flat out terrible, it sucks all the momentum the story has going for it. Actors in their own right are storytellers. If they can't act, everything becomes watered down.

I have no idea what you are talking about...show me an axample.

Whatever I pull out, it won't matter. The care about this debate has flat lined, but I can see you want to chase your own tail.

The Hero's Journey has been around for thousands of years. The story of Jesus follows it in the gospels, Beowulf follows it. The stories of ancient Greece follow it, Odysseus and Perseus and the like. And, modern iconic stories follow it. Lord of the Rings follows it...both the books and the movies. Lucas studied and followed Campbell's thoughts prior to creating Star Wars. In fact, some people in Hollywood will not green light a project unless they can see the Hero's Journey in the story. How can you say it is "changing" when it has stayed the same for 10,000 years or more?

You don't get it. Not once have I disagreed with structure of a story. It's common sense shit. I'm saying everything else around it changes at a constant. Tone, dialogue, cuts, editing. The whole shabang.

Dude, "telling a good story" IS following the Hero's Journey. YOU pick out your most favorite movie ever and do a search on the 'net and see if it follows the Hero's Journey.......I can GUARANTEE you that it does. It is very basic, fundamental, stuff.

You have to be sick of the sound of your own voice.

[Monker]

Your rants still doesnt change the fact that audiences dont get into watching movies and checkmark shit off their piece of paper. Structure is always there in any forms of storytelling, but the structure doesnt single handily determine the outcome of success. Other variables do, too.

First, I never stated nor implied that people have a checklist. What I have stated, repeatedly, is there are psychology patterns in storytelling that when they are followed make a story great. When they are not followed, there are issues.

That is not opinion. It is a fact.

People do not sit with a list and check things off. However, if the story is told in a way where those plot points are hit then the audience automagically enjoys it at a higher level. How a story is laid out is crucial in ways that these other areas just aren't.

You are in denial that BvS has fundamental problems that will limit its success.

I thought you knew the difference between fact and opinion?

That is true...the above is only my opinion.

The way you and V are acting, IMO, is that you see that there are some challenges in how this story is to be laid out but you absolutely refuse to admit it.

I've said numerous times that when you bring in a writer like Chris Terrio, these fundamental problems that are giving you a woody simply disappear.

That is just not true. That's like saying if we elect ____________ as President then ISIS will just disappear. But, problems still remain no matter who is in charge of fixing them.

[/quote]I'm confident BvS is going to be a good movie all around because of the talent in place.[/quote]

Well, at least you are no longer saying it in terms of absolute certainty.

[/quote]What are these limitations we're talking about here? You're a hater trying to sound smart. [/quote]

I'm not sure what you are talking when you ask about "limitations" because you didn't quote it.

I'm not a "hater" per se. It's just obvious to me that there are issues here.

You have to be sick of the sound of your own voice.

Not really...I find this stuff fascinating and therefore I can talk about it for a very, very, very long time.

[Monker]

In this case, it's not because they "make a lot of money". It's because you are saying they are "guilty" of something where you are playing judge and jury...and what they are really "guilty" of is your negative opinion.

You may or may not realize you're doing it, but you're opining that I'm somehow in error because I elect to criticize (dumb) things the MCU films indulge — deliberately — in order to appeal to the LCD. Those aspects I choose to criticize, I do so because I believe a better service could have been rendered, i.e. where changes could have and should have been made for the better.

What I am saying is you are acting as judge and jury over something that is really just your opinion. It would be like me saying MoS is guilty of copying scenes from Star Trek. Now in the above quote, you are saying changes could have and should have been for the better. That again is your opinion.

Yet Batman Begins is credited with earning Batman back a bit of respect after the BatClooney debacle. No, it's not on the same level, but I do think Star Wars is significantly overrated, especially because Jedi isn't as good as everyone says it is, and the prequels are godawful.

Lucas did a lot more than you are giving him credit for. He brought back modern myth to story telling. He put world creation into cinema in a way that had never been done before. He brought Buck Rodgers type characters into the modern day and revitalized the science fiction genre, which was pretty stagnant at the time.

RotJ has ALWAYS been critiqued by fans for turning to a more childish theme. We had this dark and serious tone with Empire Strike Back...and then they give us Ewoks. But, in the whole, it was still a very good movie.

I don't think the prequels were "godawful"...just very average and not too inspiring. If you want to see "godawful", go watch the Star Wars holiday special...I posted a link to it for "Happy Life Day". Five minutes in and your ears will bleed and you will turn to Jar Jar for something more bearable.

The thing is, Lucas got lucky. Very, very lucky. And he got some help, too. The final theatrical cut is famously the result of an 11th hour edit. The previous cut was reportedly not that hot.

You make your own luck. He knew what he was doing and what he wanted by studying the writings of Joseph Campbell. That's the truth.

So which is it: you think Nolan can make a movie that's just as bad, or (God forbid) you honestly think TPM is something that passes for what's considered "good'? Either way, I'll make sure to set my coffee down because I can't afford to replace my monitor right this sec.

I think *ANY* director has the potential to direct a very bad movie....and that movie can come at any time.

10yrs ago, people would have said the same thing about Peter Jackson and LotR. Now some people critique the Hobbit in the same way as many people critique the SW prequels.

The Hobbit trilogy drew some ire, but I've not seen it cut down like those horrid prequels. No way. Those prequels stunk and they deserved what they got. They still have umpteen supporters, because, you know, [BillMurray] "Staaaaar Waaaaars!" [/BillMurray]

I literally just read a conversation on a Facebook forum where someone said there was a possibility the Silmarillion may have some movies made from it. Someone replied saying that was a great...as long as someone else besides Peter Jackson directed it because of what he did to the Hobbit.

Ant-Man had been in development since 2006. I even saw a lobby poster for it years ago, when Simon Pegg was still a part of the cast. But never mind that.

That doesn't change what I think about the idea of a "super power" being a suit that shrinks you down to the size of an ant. "The incredible shrinking superhero". It just sounds so lame.

"Iron Man by his very nature is a sarcastic ass." No, RDJ is. Iron Man/Tony Stark was seldom written that way. For decades, he was written like Bruce Wayne-meets-Errol Flynn. The sarcasm began with RDJ, and I hope it ends with him. Eventually another actor will don the suit, especially if Arno Stark becomes Iron Man. But that's a long way off.

Why do I have to keep reminding you that these films are not the comics? In these films, Iron Man is a sarcastic ass.

Seriously? In Civil War, they have to explain who the eff Black Panther is and why he's on Stark's side.

Yep...isn't he king of vibranium island? Seems to me that if I were Stark, I would want to get my hands on some of that to make a new suit. Seems to me that he can easily fit into the story.

They also have to explain Spider-Man (finally) showing up in this film universe,

Maybe...it depends on how big his role is. It seems to me like he was a last minute addition so how involved he is is kind of a mystery. And, please, I don't need a write up on how he was a major player in the comic books.

The storyline, which was a seven-episode event, has been retrofitted to focus on Cap and Bucky's friendship and how Cap will always have his back, no matter what.

Yep....and I don't see that as a bad thing, at all.

Many, many characters are omitted because they can't use the properties tied up over at Fox.

Good...if they do not have a NEED to be there to tell the "CA/WS" story, then they shouldn't be there.

Civil War should be an Avengers film. It'd make a better movie that way.

I think it COULD be an Avengers title...but it doesn't have to be.

I'm not saying it's going to suck the way they're doing it (because I'm not as close-minded as others), but major changes have been made. And no, it won't set up The Inhumans, unless they jam in another awkward post-credits scene.

Well, first, I think I said they MAY have enough time set up the Inhumans. I say that because Agent of SHIELD has really ramped up the inhumans plot line, and the last two Avengers movies have had obvious ties to the series. So, I could see doing something with inhumans...especially if the point is to have them on the register. Not a major thing, just a nod to start getting them introduced on the bigger screen. Again, the movie promotes the series and the series promotes the movie...and inhumans take the place of x-men/mutants.