The first Xmen is 2000, Bryan Singer, and inaugurates the obsession of the new Millennium Hollywood cinema: how to run to the supermarket, how to adapt their stories to the big screen, how much epic interactions can tolerate without losing interest,
keeping the commitment with our characters?
And perhaps the word character isthe key, much more than plot, much more than the beleaguered "adaptation of...".
2016 wanted to bring the issue of the good against the good guys in the supercineand in almost all fronts that "break" was a disappointment. The characters faltered.There was no substance. But Batman v Superman was the demonstration
that cannot sell us smoke and that is not enough to ask "Does Superman = God?" to create conflict.
On the other hand, Captain America: Civil War showed that tension will always feelmanipulated. Always will be the fruit of a plot device: an estrategema of how information
is presented. And that between the super, nothing is so serious.
Since the firstXmen we had seen equipment, clashes and the seed of the logical
"policy" that would apply to the heroes and the powerful. What changed?
1-The Conflict
One of the most interesting aspects between BvS and Civil War is the root / the nature of the conflict between the superheroes. Civil War wants to go through an internal
schism in a group already established, a dynamic that we know and that was always
out of balance and tense.
VHL is "no I like well" input. Very angry Batman. Superman with a face that want youto kill. Batman accusing Superman being a homicidal alien (would a terrorist, perhaps?) without any basis. And the reiteration of the epic, epic faces, Tomás (should say,planes) epic, not "epic" but flat epic. The reduction to the aesthetics.
2- Promises the Film vs The Reality in its 190 minutes
VHL reiterates and assumes that "there is a problem" in the same way that Clark
tells Lois the same phrase at least 3 times (Word-to-Word) in the film.
"You're my everything". What does that mean? What is the problem... Apart from the paranoia of Batman?
And suddenly, a monstrous creature (Doomsday) begets a Luthor blood jester and
threatens everyone. Is that had to justify at least one fight in the film: the de destruction
massive and ahistorical. The other conflict, "historical", is resolved when Superman tells
Batman "Hey, our mothers are called equal!".
3-The Background--An emerging universe
versus a "saga" chapters
The MCU took the trouble to introduce us to superheroes who are not so mainstream (the Cap, Iron Man, Thor - that is not in Civil War). This is one of the fundamentaldifferences
between the MCU and the DC characters: MCU - except for the recent inclusion of Spider-Man - started from scratch.
Zack Snyder simply ruined and abused the man of steel and the best detective in the world.
4-The Political Issues. The real issues, (human?), (meta-humans?) (beings from other worlds?)
Civil War is more clever: knows that not can polarize us both
#TeamCap and #TeamIronMan so it uses to revenge, the defense of the friends
to motivate them. They, in fact, not hate is at all. They are emotional. They are respected.
However, VHL is much more irrational and aims to let us enter a world that
makes very little sense (example: Superman is a criminal because 'could' hurt?
from when what we could do we sentence to death, as Batman tries to?) Superman chooses defend the Earth but that doesn't mean that it is infallible).
5-Entertain Us and Tell us a Story vs. "dazzle" us with tones are epic? empty
Do not misunderstand me: Civil War is not good cinema. It's decent entertainment.
There are nuances and surprises. It is the harvest of what the
MCU has been growing for nearly a decade. Fans who want to know and now what happens to these super? What trouble do they got?
BvS is an attempt to fierce, pretentious and poorly guided simply
alienating us as public and put us on the side of paranoia post September 11.
And all this, the first trilogy of the Xmen seems the best that this film gave us: howgrew the misfits of the ' 90s?
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario