Why is DC sucking so much?

[Cikomyr]

I think it’s kind of funny that a thread about DC movies basically evolved (devolved?) into a debate about the Sokovia Accords.

Because compare the underlying conflicts of Civil War vs. BvS

Tell me which one is more interesting to argue. Tell me which one is stupid.

[Rater202]

Tell me which one is stupid.

Both.

Hero vs Hero conflicts are usually stupid.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think it’s kind of funny that a thread about DC movies basically evolved (devolved?) into a debate about the Sokovia Accords.

Yeah, I'll admit it's partially my fault, sorry.

Both.

Hero vs Hero conflicts are usually stupid.

I'd disagree with you in any other genre. But I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise when it comes to superheroes.

[theNater]

It works so long as the people follow it.

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of the Avengers are not following the law. And no, being punished for not following it is not the same as following it. Oversight is reasonable idea, but at the end of the day, these Accords don't provide that.

The UN could have put together some version of the Accords that might work. We can absolutely talk about that, if anybody wants, but this version dies when the rubber hits the road.

In a way, the Accords are a lot like Pratchett's Things That Dont Exist Except When We Believe in Them.

Ready to have your mind blown? All laws are like that.

I am generally in favor of some sort of oversigt, but kinda confused about comments like this, or the ones calling those who sign attack dogs.
As far as i can see there are nothing that turns members of the accord into any sort of soldier. They say what the Avengers cant do, and where they should ask for permission before entering another soverign state.

When discussing the Accords, Cap says "What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?" It's pretty strongly implied that the Accords require the Avengers to obey orders from the UN panel.

[Cikomyr]

Ready to have your mind blown? All laws are like that.

All societal constructs when it comes down to it.

Which was Pratchett's point, methink. The difference between a mere rising ape and Humans are the capacity to lie to ourselves, and imbue that lie with Truth so our better nature comes out.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's exactly my point: the vast majority of the Avengers are not following the law.

I'm not arguing against that point. I've made that point myself now numerous times delineating where each person is by the end of the movie. But I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. By imprisoning the majority of Avengers that aren't following it, the Accords are working to keep private citizens from rampaging across the world and leaving death and destruction in their wake.

And no, being punished for not following it is not the same as following it. Oversight is reasonable idea, but at the end of the day, these Accords don't provide that.

They do provide that. They provide oversight to Rhodes and Vision and probably Tony to some degree. They don't provide oversight to the others because the others are now in prison or fugitives.

Ready to have your mind blown? All laws are like that.

Right. So I'm not sure what the point is in emphasizing that it's an illusion. Yes, it requires people to cooperate. That's no different than anything else.

The UN could have put together some version of the Accords that might work. We can absolutely talk about that, if anybody wants, but this version dies when the rubber hits the road.

I'm not sure why you say that. It has changed the game. It now exists. Anything going forward has to contend with the Accords. Cap has released everyone from prison, but now they are fugitives. The next movie will have to address this. Either the Accords will be modified and they'll come to an agreement, or the threat will be so imminent that the UN will not even try to tie their hands. Whatever it is, the Accords are anything but dead. The heroes weren't released at the end of the movie. They escaped.

When discussing the Accords, Cap says "What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?" It's pretty strongly implied that the Accords require the Avengers to obey orders from the UN panel.

Agreed. I got the impression that they would follow the UN's orders.

[Forum Explorer]

Marvel just can't do Hero versus Hero storylines effectively. Characterizations will be bent and exaggerated.



To be fair though, I don't think there's such a thing as a good Hero vs Hero storyline unless one o the heroes was written rom the begining to be going of the deep end into villainy.

Marvel's inability to do so doesn't mean there aren't good Hero vs Hero storylines out there.

but it is harder. And it's not as 'clean', since no matter what, a good guy is going to lose.

Agreed and agreed. Maybe I'm unclear on what we're arguing. I originally brought Civil War up to contrast a concept done well with DC's attempt at superhero conflict. My impression has been that people are arguing it wasn't done well because it didn't work... exactly as intended or not everyone signed on or the characters have moral failings, etc. So yes, Cap frees them, but now they are all fugitives. The Accords are still in play. So long as they have someone to enforce them (Rhodes will as soon as he is healed, and my money is on Vision as well).


Rhodes is not an illusion. That's the point. It works if they buy into it. That's the trick; to give them a reason to buy into. I understand that if Rhodes turns around and says "You know what, screw the Accords, I'm doing what I want" it will be a difficult problem for the UN. But Rhodes isn't saying that. So for all intents and purposes the illusion is very real and fully weaponized.

Most of the Avengers that participated in Civil War can be killed by a bullet, let alone a drone strike. Rhodes is aware of this reality when he appeals to the team to be serious, that it's a handful of them versus over one hundred *nations*. Part of the reason Cap was charging forward through the movie is because there was a kill-on-sight order on Bucky. And he can be killed, easily, if multiple nations are hunting him down. They are vulnerable. This isn't Thor and Banner we're talking about here.

I'm not convinced Tony has given up completely on the Accords. Out of everyone on the team, he has the most to lose. Tony has... ridiculous assets. For him, becoming a fugitive is probably not an option. I'm assuming these things can be taken away from him legally. The others are soldiers and already lay low. Tony is a billionaire playboy. He can still work within the Accords to handle problems they point him at, but he might just be "busy" every time it's a matter of tracking down the former Avengers and bringing them in.

It does if they want it to. The Accords have Rhodes. He is a match for Tony, and realistically a match for any of the other "soldiers" (Black Widow, Clint, Cap, Bucky).

When *some* people realize, they'll start ignoring the law entirely. Not all. That is what created the conflict in the first place.

Some people do things because they believe it to be the right thing to do, not simply because they would be punished otherwise.

Rhodes will be out of commission for a while, maybe forever. That depends how realistic they want to go with the whole rehabilitation thing. Vision I'm 50-50 on. I could see him deciding against the Accords just as easily as him continuing to support them.

That doesn't change the illusionary nature of the Accords, by which I mean, that they only have power if they are believed in. Right now, yeah, they have power. Less then they did at the start of Civil War, but some.

Sure, one vs the world might go poorly for the one. But working as a team, well like I've said, they've beaten armies before. They could tear through whatever the US sends to try and confiscate Tony's stuff. If the US would even dare to try, if the Avengers just refused to sign and continued on work as always.

Or if they refused to sign, and then 'retired'. Kinda like a strike, let the world see the devastation that would occur if the Avengers weren't protecting people. Of course, either action is very cold and cruel. It's likely not in their natures to elevate themselves so far above normal people, as true as that may be.

I think Tony has realized just how valuable he is. What are they going to do? Fire him? Rhodes is out of commission, and Vision is having doubts. Doubts that Tony could likely use to get Vision to follow him. Spider-Man effectively followed him into battle not the Accords. Who does that leave? So Tony can pretty much make whatever demands he wants, or at least, refuse to work when he doesn't like what they are asking.

If they all realize, then it's the same thing. The world needs heroes, but heroes don't need the world, not nearly as much of it anyways.

True. And when the right thing requires them to break a law with no consequences, they'll do so immediately. Take Black Panther protecting the Winter Soldier. Or Tony breaking the rules to talk to Team Cap.

[Legato Endless]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea of Accords, but the movie went out of its way to set them up as a strawman, by making them as oppressive and useless as possible.

This is the general problem. Oversight is better than no oversight for a wealth of reasons, not the least of which is in the real world, absolutely everyone who does anything vaguely similar to what Superheroes do is subject to it. Because the alternative is silly. To counteract this, oversight has to be cartoonish and Tony hypocritical otherwise Cap has absolutely no point. Unless you support the idea of a Wild West ideal of every man accountable unto himself 'civilization'. That and ironically Cap comes across vaguely fascist in this regard, because that's what the ideal of a man unaccountable to any state or institution driven by his inherent moral superiority is.

That's ultimately the problem with superheroes in general. Superheroes are great! Right up until they disagree with you. By their nature, it's almost impossible to actually put a meaningful control on them. As soon as they decide they don't want to follow a particular rule, then whatever 'system' to control them goes out the window, and the only people who can meaningfully counter them are more supers. Who have the same problem.

It's notable that the real world already has something which fits all of Forum Explorer's criteria minus the fictional exaggeration of scale. The real issue isn't power, it's that the MCU is pretty nihilistic in it's assessment that basically no group can be trusted long term with anything. Because eventually they'll be infiltrated by Nazis, have their latest experiment go rogue or get torn apart through the manipulations of a Bond villain with a grudge.

[lord_khaine]

When discussing the Accords, Cap says "What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?" It's pretty strongly implied that the Accords require the Avengers to obey orders from the UN panel.

I have about as much trust in Cap's ability to read though the fine print of an FN deal as i have in his ability to chew though his own shield. Patience and analytical thinking has newer been his strong side.
And the answer that should have been given there were "we take the day off/report sick/resign" Unfortunately Cap was not clear enough in his head to do any sort of negotiation.

[Lethologica]

Agreed and agreed. Maybe I'm unclear on what we're arguing. I originally brought Civil War up to contrast a concept done well with DC's attempt at superhero conflict. My impression has been that people are arguing it wasn't done well because it didn't work... exactly as intended or not everyone signed on or the characters have moral failings, etc. So yes, Cap frees them, but now they are all fugitives. The Accords are still in play. So long as they have someone to enforce them (Rhodes will as soon as he is healed, and my money is on Vision as well).

First, I think most of the people arguing about the Accords are past the point of arguing about whether the Accords were a good narrative tool and are deep into arguing about whether the Accords were (a) moral or (b) effective. To some extent, this already demonstrates that the Accords were a good narrative tool.

To the extent that your comments relate to the effectiveness of the Accords, I don't wholly disagree, but...Cap freeing the prisoners demonstrates the weakness of the imprisonment mechanism, Wakanda's disregard for whatever extradition clause the Accords presumably has renders the fugitive status designation rather toothless, and the resulting dependence on supers to enforce the Accords calls into question how different it is from supers self-policing in practice.

I have about as much trust in Cap's ability to read though the fine print of an FN deal as i have in his ability to chew though his own shield. Patience and analytical thinking has newer been his strong side.
And the answer that should have been given there were "we take the day off/report sick/resign" Unfortunately Cap was not clear enough in his head to do any sort of negotiation.

Tony has his opportunity to object to that characterization and doesn't. (Then again, given he basically says he doesn't care what enforcement mechanism is in place as long as there is one, I don't necessarily trust that he read the Accords either.)

[Keltest]

I have about as much trust in Cap's ability to read though the fine print of an FN deal as i have in his ability to chew though his own shield. Patience and analytical thinking has newer been his strong side.
And the answer that should have been given there were "we take the day off/report sick/resign" Unfortunately Cap was not clear enough in his head to do any sort of negotiation.

For that matter, that would be a very good question to ask, say, the people who wrote the accords, instead of Tony, who has access to the same information Steve does.

[Sapphire Guard]

When discussing the Accords, Cap says "What if this panel sends us somewhere we don't think we should go?" It's pretty strongly implied that the Accords require the Avengers to obey orders from the UN panel.

Well, Stark appears to get away with putting his orders on hold at the movie's end and/or wriggling out of them.

Because compare the underlying conflicts of Civil War vs. BvS

Tell me which one is more interesting to argue. Tell me which one is stupid.

Neither of them are true underlying conflicts that were handled evenly. Both narratives very clearly pick a side of the debate, (they made General Ross the face of the Accords most likely to remove their legitimacy. And BVS doesn't expect its audience to support the idea that killing Superman is desirable.

The Accords were not done well if you mean being at all plausible as something that countries would agree to or believe would work (the US controlling and organising the police response of European countries to terrorist attacks on their own territory? Not a chance)

One of my major sticking points with Civil War is how the film that's premise is built on the principle of non US nations asserting their sovereignty is shown to have Americans organising everything, including the police responses of other countries!


Re the DCEU, The thing about 'Darker' Batman was that he had been driven to his lowest point by what happened in Metropolis. He's not meant to be right, and giving him a solo movie undermines that arc and wastes time when your audience already knows Batman. Why spend a movie establishing what everyone knows already?

Wonder Woman was extremely effectively sold to the audience by her extended cameo in BVS, which contributed significantly to the subsequent success of her solo movie. Civil War did the same with Spiderman and probably BP. It's not that there's something fundamentally wrong with the approach, it's just that JL was cut so badly for time that the characters' full introductions were cut out. All three of our new characters had large sections of their stories cut in the final product, thanks to an executive mandate to limit the huge team up film's runtime to two hours.

[VelociRapture12]

I've always thought they are trying to hard to catch up with Marvel making their stories feel rushed and incoherent.

[Tyndmyr]

If you're making a point about how a movie can introduce an ensemble in a reasonable amount of time, a three and a half hour and then a three hour movie are possibly not your optimal examples :P


That said, sure, Justice League could have introduced all its characters in a proper well structured two hour movie if it hadn't started out as a three hour movie and been cut down for time.

Especially because all it really needed to introduce were Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg (and Cyborg has never really been an individually interesting character in the comics, even in the Teen Titans cartoon he was clearly the one they never had a handle on and episodes that focused on him tended to be the weakest).

GotG introduces quite a number in a reasonable amount of time. Technically, it introduces seven members of the team, even if one of them isn't well fleshed out yet. Even without her, we're even up with Justice League.

I dare say that Justice League had it even easier, given the widespread knowledge/previous movies three of it's characters featured heavily in.

Oh yeah, that's definitely going to stick. Definitely not going to have a ton of unsupervised heroes running around by the very next movie. Also, what good does fleeing the country do? It's an international treaty.

As mentioned before, this doesn't work very well for Thor, Hulk, or Strange. Of course, none of them were in this movie for that exact reason, =) Or, as mentioned, Black Panther. Or anyone with skills at being undercover. So, maybe half of the superheroes depicted. Hell, if Vision decides not to follow the Accords, who will stop him?

Doesn't seem like locking up a bunch of superheroes would set them up well for the next alien invasion, either. Seriously, even viewing asguardians as threats(which is fair), you've got them AND the Chitarui as credible threats which ought to concern anyone with even slight knowledge of...the news. I mean, it's in character for governments to wrest control over supers, particularly in the Marvel world, but we pretty consistently see that this ends up being a bad thing.

I agree that Cap gets shown as fallible, and he acknowledges that, but his side ends up being right despite human flaws.

Because compare the underlying conflicts of Civil War vs. BvS

Tell me which one is more interesting to argue. Tell me which one is stupid.

Well, this is pretty open and shut. Most folks only agree with one side of Civil War, but the conflict is inherently interesting, and people feel strongly about both sides. The conflict feels as if it has weight.

On the other hand, Justice League 2'll probably be resolved by revealing that Hippolyta is greek for Martha.

[Lleban]

On the other hand, Justice League 2'll probably be resolved by revealing that Hippolyta is greek for Martha.

Given the first films box office bomb, I doubt we'll ever get a justice league sequel. Good riddance all things considered.

[Dr.Samurai]

Marvel's inability to do so doesn't mean there aren't good Hero vs Hero storylines out there.

but it is harder. And it's not as 'clean', since no matter what, a good guy is going to lose.

I'm typically not a fan of these premises because they usually seem pretty contrived.

Rhodes will be out of commission for a while, maybe forever. That depends how realistic they want to go with the whole rehabilitation thing. Vision I'm 50-50 on. I could see him deciding against the Accords just as easily as him continuing to support them.

But Rhodes' injuries are not relevant in determining whether the Accords can work. He believes in the Accords. If he was fully able-bodied then that's one superhero ready to do the will of the UN. If Vision takes the events at the airfield as confirmation of his predictions, that's another superhero ready to do the bidding of the Accords. You just need people that agree with or believe in the Accords for it to work.

My argument is hypothetical, obviously, since as of now there is no one definitely for sure enforcing the Accords. But the end result is not an argument that it would have never worked or should not have been tried.

That doesn't change the illusionary nature of the Accords, by which I mean, that they only have power if they are believed in.

But what is the point of this remark? Are you saying it should not have been attempted because of this? Or it would never have worked? I don't think anyone believes the Accords actually grant physical power. So what is the point of harping on it's "illusionary" power?

Sure, one vs the world might go poorly for the one. But working as a team, well like I've said, they've beaten armies before. They could tear through whatever the US sends to try and confiscate Tony's stuff. If the US would even dare to try, if the Avengers just refused to sign and continued on work as always.

Let's say Sam, Bucky, Natasha, and Steve are together ready to take down an entire army. There is nothing they can do against a drone strike. Or carpet bombs. Or a MOAB. No one can help Sam in the sky fighting off more drones than he even knew existed. He's on his own up there. Cap's shield won't save him from multiple missile strikes.

Tony might try to help them but he'd have to contend with Rhodes. It's not just confiscating Tony's stuff either. It's freezing his assets.

Or if they refused to sign, and then 'retired'. Kinda like a strike, let the world see the devastation that would occur if the Avengers weren't protecting people. Of course, either action is very cold and cruel. It's likely not in their natures to elevate themselves so far above normal people, as true as that may be.

But I made this point earlier with Banner and Ross. These are the people we're dealing with. If they were cold and cruel they probably would have been attacked by now. But since they're not, it's reasonable to expect the world to try and establish some form of control over them.

I think Tony has realized just how valuable he is. What are they going to do? Fire him? Rhodes is out of commission, and Vision is having doubts. Doubts that Tony could likely use to get Vision to follow him. Spider-Man effectively followed him into battle not the Accords. Who does that leave? So Tony can pretty much make whatever demands he wants, or at least, refuse to work when he doesn't like what they are asking.

This may very well be the resolution that we see in the next movie. But I don't think Tony has changed his mind on oversight. Even if he doesn't like seeing Wanda in a straight-jacket.

If they all realize, then it's the same thing. The world needs heroes, but heroes don't need the world, not nearly as much of it anyways.

I just don't see how this is true. What infrastructure will they be using to learn of threats and save the world if they are fugitives on the run from half the nations in the world?

I get the fact that this is a movie and they will likely write some way out of this. But realistically, I don't think it's reasonable that the Avengers would simply shrug and say "come at me bro" to the entire world and not be worried about consequences.

True. And when the right thing requires them to break a law with no consequences, they'll do so immediately. Take Black Panther protecting the Winter Soldier. Or Tony breaking the rules to talk to Team Cap.

But notice they are doing these things in secret. As opposed to recognizing their god-like power and showing off how easily they ignore the Accords when it suits them.

Let me pose this question: Suppose Tony goes to speak to Sam, and gets the coordinates. And when Ross asks him if he got any info, Stark says "Yeah, I did. But I'm done with the Accords. The Avengers will handle this in house and afterwards you and I will talk about "ratifying" these Accords."

What do you think the consequences would have been? Would Ross have simply said "Oh, ok. Nothing I can do to stop you." or do you think he would have, at the very least, warned Stark about the line he was crossing? What if Tony hacked the containment system and released everyone and said "Sorry, but the world needs the Avengers to act right now. I can't let the Accord get in the way of that." Would Ross have simply shrugged his shoulders?

[Giggling Ghast]

because compare the underlying conflicts of civil war vs. Bvs

WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME

[Tyndmyr]

Given the first films box office bomb, I doubt we'll ever get a justice league sequel. Good riddance all things considered.

With a production budget of $300m, and a box office of 481m worldwide, it's already hit payback. It's new enough to keep getting some additional ticket sales, and then there's DVD sales and such. It'll end up being decently profitable, if not amazing.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see DC make another Justice League. A larger and larger percentage of action movie ticket sales is no longer from the picky US market, but can get by on spectacle in the Chinese market(and, to a lesser extent, South America).

[Kitten Champion]

With a production budget of $300m, and a box office of 481m worldwide, it's already hit payback. It's new enough to keep getting some additional ticket sales, and then there's DVD sales and such. It'll end up being decently profitable, if not amazing.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see DC make another Justice League. A larger and larger percentage of action movie ticket sales is no longer from the picky US market, but can get by on spectacle in the Chinese market(and, to a lesser extent, South America).

That's ignoring the marketing costs that are considerable here, the extra costs not in the initial estimate that most certainly exists here with the widely reported re-shoots and editing, the fact that they don't make the same percentage of profits from China that they do from the domestic box offices, and most of all studio expectations.

It's not a Fan4stic bomb or anything, but if you had the tent-pole of tent-poles for WB with their existing IPs, it would be the Justice League and just doing enough to make your money back is not what tent-poles exists for.

[Forum Explorer]

I'm typically not a fan of these premises because they usually seem pretty contrived.





But Rhodes' injuries are not relevant in determining whether the Accords can work. He believes in the Accords. If he was fully able-bodied then that's one superhero ready to do the will of the UN. If Vision takes the events at the airfield as confirmation of his predictions, that's another superhero ready to do the bidding of the Accords. You just need people that agree with or believe in the Accords for it to work.

My argument is hypothetical, obviously, since as of now there is no one definitely for sure enforcing the Accords. But the end result is not an argument that it would have never worked or should not have been tried.

But what is the point of this remark? Are you saying it should not have been attempted because of this? Or it would never have worked? I don't think anyone believes the Accords actually grant physical power. So what is the point of harping on it's "illusionary" power?

Let's say Sam, Bucky, Natasha, and Steve are together ready to take down an entire army. There is nothing they can do against a drone strike. Or carpet bombs. Or a MOAB. No one can help Sam in the sky fighting off more drones than he even knew existed. He's on his own up there. Cap's shield won't save him from multiple missile strikes.

Tony might try to help them but he'd have to contend with Rhodes. It's not just confiscating Tony's stuff either. It's freezing his assets.

But I made this point earlier with Banner and Ross. These are the people we're dealing with. If they were cold and cruel they probably would have been attacked by now. But since they're not, it's reasonable to expect the world to try and establish some form of control over them.

This may very well be the resolution that we see in the next movie. But I don't think Tony has changed his mind on oversight. Even if he doesn't like seeing Wanda in a straight-jacket.

I just don't see how this is true. What infrastructure will they be using to learn of threats and save the world if they are fugitives on the run from half the nations in the world?

I get the fact that this is a movie and they will likely write some way out of this. But realistically, I don't think it's reasonable that the Avengers would simply shrug and say "come at me bro" to the entire world and not be worried about consequences.

But notice they are doing these things in secret. As opposed to recognizing their god-like power and showing off how easily they ignore the Accords when it suits them.

Let me pose this question: Suppose Tony goes to speak to Sam, and gets the coordinates. And when Ross asks him if he got any info, Stark says "Yeah, I did. But I'm done with the Accords. The Avengers will handle this in house and afterwards you and I will talk about "ratifying" these Accords."

What do you think the consequences would have been? Would Ross have simply said "Oh, ok. Nothing I can do to stop you." or do you think he would have, at the very least, warned Stark about the line he was crossing? What if Tony hacked the containment system and released everyone and said "Sorry, but the world needs the Avengers to act right now. I can't let the Accord get in the way of that." Would Ross have simply shrugged his shoulders?

Usually because it's taking established heroes and having them fight each other. The best way to do a 'good guy vs good guy' story is to establish the conflict at the beginning and that both sides have their heroes. It's not something that's done well in superhero works because usually the heroes are established. So you know, basically Marvel and DC (plus some other things).


Well to sum up my point, the Marvel universe is deluding itself if it thinks that ordinary people and capes are essentially equal.

The heroes could turn around and conquer the world. And there really isn't a lot the normal people could do to stop them. Effectively they are a superpower (and I mean politically) in their own right. Well, so long as they are more or less united anyways. That was the whole point of what's his faces plan. Breaking up the Avengers and effectively breaking a lot of their power.

Basically the Accords don't address the fundamental problem of superheroes. They aren't human. Not really. Trying to hold them to human standards is only going to last as long as the heroes want it to. It was a good try, and certainly it would be great if there was oversight on them, but if their only form of control on heroes is other heroes, then whoever has heroes wins.

And an illusion only works if someone believes it.

Didn't Captain America and Falcon take down pretty much all of Shield (corrupted by Hydra) by themselves? It's been a while, but that was the plot of the second Captain America movie right? Yeah, they had help, but not of that many people. And they still won. And the Winter Solider was against them in that movie.

I mean for example, those 4 you mentioned are fighting against an army. They are dodging and buying time in a city, until Natasha finishes infiltrating the building where the drones are being controlled from. She kills the operator and hijacks control. Then Falcon starts smashing windows of jetplanes and pulling the pilots out. Hawkeye snipes people targeting Captain America who just pummels his way through the normal soldiers fighting them. I'm pretty sure I've seen something much like that before. Or something like that.

Yeah they'll freeze his assets. Which will work right until he frees them back up or tells Jarvis to. He can't do that? Like hell he can't. He casually hacks right through the US military's security to access their spy satellites. He does this during a meeting. He could reveal all of the states dirty little secrets, or just flat out take back what's his. We've already seen them try and fail to stop him.

Sure it's reasonable for the world to try. It's even moral for them to try. The problem is they can't.

The point is they don't need to save the world. They can just let it burn while looking out for their own interests. They could side with the villains if they wanted to. And the world would be ******. Because the only thing the worlds got going for them is the heroes.

Because they are heroes. They don't want to bully and threaten the world into doing their bidding. But it's a crucial difference between need, want, can't, have to, and want to.

Two things would've happened. Either Ross would've backed down, maybe blustering a bit, but ultimately letting Tony do what he wants. Or he would've tried to stop him, gotten his men (and maybe himself) injured, possibly killed, and Tony frees them anyways.

What would result from that? Lots of things. But the Avengers could easily reveal all the corrupt politics in the current government (for example Ross's whole career), and simply run to be elected themselves. Do you think they'd lose such an election?

[Tyndmyr]

That's ignoring the marketing costs that are considerable here, the extra costs not in the initial estimate that most certainly exists here with the widely reported re-shoots and editing, the fact that they don't make the same percentage of profits from China that they do from the domestic box offices, and most of all studio expectations.

It's not a Fan4stic bomb or anything, but if you had the tent-pole of tent-poles for WB with their existing IPs, it would be the Justice League and just doing enough to make your money back is not what tent-poles exists for.

Sure, but it won't burn them enough to keep from taking another stab at the big time.

I mean, it should certainly be a warning that they are off somewhere, but hey, if Suicide Squad didn't do that for them, I dunno what will. I'm not confident that DC really understands what they're doing wrong, or will take logical steps to fix it.

[Cikomyr]

Didn't Captain America and Falcon take down pretty much all of Shield (corrupted by Hydra) by themselves? It's been a while, but that was the plot of the second Captain America movie right? Yeah, they had help, but not of that many people. And they still won. And the Winter Solider was against them in that movie.

What?!

Did you fall asleep when they showed Hydra agents being investigated and arrested by the FBI, the CIA, and many intel agencies?

Cap and Co stopped Hydra's immediate plot. But "taking down Hydra" was a massive endeavour that literally took dozens of people.

[Keltest]

Usually because it's taking established heroes and having them fight each other. The best way to do a 'good guy vs good guy' story is to establish the conflict at the beginning and that both sides have their heroes. It's not something that's done well in superhero works because usually the heroes are established. So you know, basically Marvel and DC (plus some other things).


Well to sum up my point, the Marvel universe is deluding itself if it thinks that ordinary people and capes are essentially equal.

The heroes could turn around and conquer the world. And there really isn't a lot the normal people could do to stop them. Effectively they are a superpower (and I mean politically) in their own right. Well, so long as they are more or less united anyways. That was the whole point of what's his faces plan. Breaking up the Avengers and effectively breaking a lot of their power.

Basically the Accords don't address the fundamental problem of superheroes. They aren't human. Not really. Trying to hold them to human standards is only going to last as long as the heroes want it to. It was a good try, and certainly it would be great if there was oversight on them, but if their only form of control on heroes is other heroes, then whoever has heroes wins.

And an illusion only works if someone believes it.

Didn't Captain America and Falcon take down pretty much all of Shield (corrupted by Hydra) by themselves? It's been a while, but that was the plot of the second Captain America movie right? Yeah, they had help, but not of that many people. And they still won. And the Winter Solider was against them in that movie.

I mean for example, those 4 you mentioned are fighting against an army. They are dodging and buying time in a city, until Natasha finishes infiltrating the building where the drones are being controlled from. She kills the operator and hijacks control. Then Falcon starts smashing windows of jetplanes and pulling the pilots out. Hawkeye snipes people targeting Captain America who just pummels his way through the normal soldiers fighting them. I'm pretty sure I've seen something much like that before. Or something like that.

Yeah they'll freeze his assets. Which will work right until he frees them back up or tells Jarvis to. He can't do that? Like hell he can't. He casually hacks right through the US military's security to access their spy satellites. He does this during a meeting. He could reveal all of the states dirty little secrets, or just flat out take back what's his. We've already seen them try and fail to stop him.

Sure it's reasonable for the world to try. It's even moral for them to try. The problem is they can't.

The point is they don't need to save the world. They can just let it burn while looking out for their own interests. They could side with the villains if they wanted to. And the world would be ******. Because the only thing the worlds got going for them is the heroes.

Because they are heroes. They don't want to bully and threaten the world into doing their bidding. But it's a crucial difference between need, want, can't, have to, and want to.

Two things would've happened. Either Ross would've backed down, maybe blustering a bit, but ultimately letting Tony do what he wants. Or he would've tried to stop him, gotten his men (and maybe himself) injured, possibly killed, and Tony frees them anyways.

What would result from that? Lots of things. But the Avengers could easily reveal all the corrupt politics in the current government (for example Ross's whole career), and simply run to be elected themselves. Do you think they'd lose such an election?

I think youre missing the point of the Accords. It isn't meant to give the UN a super powered attack dog, it is meant to give individual nations the right to say "no, we don't want Iron Man shooting missiles in the middle of an urban area" even if there are terrorists with Stark guns involved. We see it in Ultron that there are large numbers of people who don't like that the avengers start fights in their homes.

[Lethologica]

a massive endeavour that literally took dozens of people

Not the order of magnitude I was expecting tbh

[Forum Explorer]

What?!

Did you fall asleep when they showed Hydra agents being investigated and arrested by the FBI, the CIA, and many intel agencies?

Cap and Co stopped Hydra's immediate plot. But "taking down Hydra" was a massive endeavour that literally took dozens of people.

I'm more thinking of the actual fight scenes for said immediate plot. Hydra brought a lot of force to bear against Cap, and it still wasn't enough.

I think youre missing the point of the Accords. It isn't meant to give the UN a super powered attack dog, it is meant to give individual nations the right to say "no, we don't want Iron Man shooting missiles in the middle of an urban area" even if there are terrorists with Stark guns involved. We see it in Ultron that there are large numbers of people who don't like that the avengers start fights in their homes.

I thought it was more setting a system in place to control the Avengers activities. Not so much making them an attack dog, but to provide oversight and control over their actions. So the Avengers would have to justify their actions after the fact, could be punished if they acted incorrectly, could be requested to help with certain problems, and yes, to tell them to NOT interfere with some things.

[Rogar Demonblud]

With a production budget of $300m, and a box office of 481m worldwide, it's already hit payback.

No, it hasn't. Studios only get half (actually, about 48.5%) of the box office. Marketing and advertising is also a thing that isn't included in the production budget; how much it is varies with each film, but given WB's push on Justice League industry pundits are assuming it's a hefty 60% increase.

So the movie cost ballpark $480 million, which means they need the box office take to get north of $960 million before it turns a profit. Current projections are that it likely won't get much past $700 before Last Jedi shows up and eats its lunch.

edit:

I thought it was more setting a system in place to control the Avengers activities. Not so much making them an attack dog, but to provide oversight and control over their actions. So the Avengers would have to justify their actions after the fact, could be punished if they acted incorrectly, could be requested to help with certain problems, and yes, to tell them to NOT interfere with some things.

"Oversight" apparently doesn't exist, because it's just control. Ross stated outright that the Avengers and/or any other registered people will only deploy when higher authority gives them permission to. Oversight and accountability would follow more like what Cap did in his first movie, where he took off to raid the factory and free the prisoners, returns to camp and walks right up to his superior and says "I'd like to surrender myself for disciplinary action."

[Kitten Champion]

Sure, but it won't burn them enough to keep from taking another stab at the big time.

I mean, it should certainly be a warning that they are off somewhere, but hey, if Suicide Squad didn't do that for them, I dunno what will. I'm not confident that DC really understands what they're doing wrong, or will take logical steps to fix it.

I don't think they're going to just give up and sell flowers by the road-side, and who knows what things will look like in a few years. I do seriously question whether their ambitious - to put it mildly - production schedule will look anything like it does now after the studio does a post mortem on this. Which, well, most of the money has been made that will be made at this point and the hype machine has already moved on to Star Wars.

I can't see how this met their expectations, it didn't meet my expectations and I'm mostly full of cynical detachment.

I said this in one of my prior posts, but Age of Ultron disappointed Disney (or so it's said) and it made well over a billion dollars with a smaller estimated budget than Justice League. It (supposedly) led to some executive shakeup in Marvel Studios with more power given to Feige.

[Cikomyr]

Not the order of magnitude I was expecting tbh

Yhea. Its just that i got thinking... Maybe 24-36 people strong task force from the FBI, similar from the CIA.. thats dozens, and it still a lot.

Maybe similar numbers in other nations. Then we get to a few hundreds.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Age of Ultron disappointed Disney (or so it's said)

That might explain why they're being such massive ****s about the profit sharing conditions for tLJ.

I mean, it's also because they can, but the numbers internally might not look as rosy as they seem from the outside.

GW

[Kitten Champion]

That might explain why they're being such massive ****s about the profit sharing conditions for tLJ.

I mean, it's also because they can, but the numbers internally might not look as rosy as they seem from the outside.

GW

I am curious to see what they'll do if tLJ under-performs compared to TFA, which I don't think is too likely all things considered... but it's a possibility.

Though, with both Marvel or Star Wars they've got additional merchandising up the wazoo to support 'em. Something these DC movies don't really engender, which has been a curious aspect of WB/DC's direction since the Dark Knight movies and stamping "THIS IS SERIOUS ADULT STUFF" on everything.