What I mean is that you look at the trailer for something like Age of Ultron and it starts off with the characters relaxing, they're not totally obsessed with their powers and the other stuff in the story, it's just something they do when they need to. You look at this trailer and everything is REALLY IMPORTANT and SHOUTY, the world is doomed, etc. etc. right from the outset. And no, there has NEVER been ANYTHING more important than MUTANTS, they've shaped all of history, DOOMSDAY is coming, blah blah blah.
And as much as I love her, Jennifer Lawrence feels way out of place. It just sort of felt like hey look, we've got J-law in this movie! She's Katniss! Come see this movie because J-Law is in it! Katniss is cool!
So: Dawn of Justice on March 25, Apocalypse on May 6, and Civil War on May 27. Subject to international variation, of course.
Talk about "clash of titans"! These three are all occupying similar market niches: Superhero films with massive casts of characters and world-altering battles in prospect. Dawn of Justice and Civil War seem particularly close, in that both have central conflicts between two superheroes with different moral themes; they also both differ from Apocalypse, which is avowedly an ensemble movie from the outset, whereas the other two nominally have central heroes but have casts of characters of ensemble size.
I have to say that the preview for Apocalypse seems not to offer such a clearly defined promise of what we're going to get. But perhaps the lack of a central conflict has something to do with that. Except of course the conflict with Apocalypse, who's the villain of the story. In contrast, the central conflict in Civil War seems to be Steve vs. Tony, and that in Dawn of Justice seems to be Bruce vs. Clark and then Clark and Bruce vs. Lex. Though it's a little hard to take Lex seriously from the preview scenes; he doesn't have much gravitas. On the other hand, Apocalypse seems to have almost nothing but gravitas; he could use a little motivation.
Apocalypse seems a bit like Vandal Savage in the DC universe - he's supposed to have been around forever, but all that he actually appears to DO is loom ominously then fail spectacularly.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-12-11 09:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-11 10:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-12 12:13 pm (UTC)Like I said, pretentious.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-12 12:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-12 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-12-12 12:57 pm (UTC)Talk about "clash of titans"! These three are all occupying similar market niches: Superhero films with massive casts of characters and world-altering battles in prospect. Dawn of Justice and Civil War seem particularly close, in that both have central conflicts between two superheroes with different moral themes; they also both differ from Apocalypse, which is avowedly an ensemble movie from the outset, whereas the other two nominally have central heroes but have casts of characters of ensemble size.
I have to say that the preview for Apocalypse seems not to offer such a clearly defined promise of what we're going to get. But perhaps the lack of a central conflict has something to do with that. Except of course the conflict with Apocalypse, who's the villain of the story. In contrast, the central conflict in Civil War seems to be Steve vs. Tony, and that in Dawn of Justice seems to be Bruce vs. Clark and then Clark and Bruce vs. Lex. Though it's a little hard to take Lex seriously from the preview scenes; he doesn't have much gravitas. On the other hand, Apocalypse seems to have almost nothing but gravitas; he could use a little motivation.
no subject
Date: 2015-12-13 10:58 am (UTC)