Thread:Bratpack/@comment-25692211-20150719125302/@comment-25692211-20150804063417

Well, it's pretty ironic that AOU cut out so many scenes yet somehow still makes a more coherant and sensical story than MOS. Another reason MOS falls in comparison is it's style. Every superhero movie has another genre to it. The Avengers is an ensemble movie, Captain America is a war/spy movie, Ant Man is a heist movie, Thor is Game of Thrones in space, Dark Knight is a crime thriller, X-Men is a sort of anti-racism movie and Guardians of the Galaxy is a sci-fi movie. MOS is just a generic superhero movie that seems tonally confused. It's like most animated non-Disney films in the 1990s. It wasn't made because the director wanted to tell a good story. It was just made because they noticed that some other studio was being successful with this formula and thought that doing the same thing would make them more successful, and like most of those animated movies, it didn't work, and the box office was the only reason it's even getting a sequel. But I will admit, it had potential. It was a good Superman movie that tried too hard to be a good Dark Knight movie, and that ended up being a bad Superman movie. Marvel's characters are so popular because the studio wasn't afraid to show us that they're not perfect, but when DC tried doing the same thing, they overdid it and that ended up with Superman coming off as unlikeable. I mean, if DC can't make as good a movie with Superman than Marvel can with a team that nobody has even heard of, who's better in the movie department live-action wise?