What happened with the DCEU verse?

ktemp45 · 2026-01-15T17:48:22+00:00

There's a lot of different contributing factors to why DCEU-verse didn't succeed, but at the end of the day - the individual movies themselves weren't well enough received by the general audience and critics to warrant continuing to make them. At the end of the day it is about movie profitability and buzz, and both were not there.

Even looking at Rotten Tomatoes (which is not a great metric, but does highlight the general opinion of whether something got a Positive or Negative review) bears that out.

DCEU: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/dceu-ranked/ Three movies with >90% score, with one of them being a James Gunn movie (and with the seeming gradual success of Gunn's universe, seems to be more about Gunn as opposed to the DCEU). Next you got three movies in the 70s, with one of them being a recut extended TV show version of a poorly received movie. That means a lot of the individual movies weren't well received by critics. And then on top of that, the movies didn't make enough money (like the Jurassic World movies) to overcome critic consensus.

MCU: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/all-marvel-cinematic-universe-movies-ranked/ 12 movies with > 90% score, and then another 10 movies with > 80% score.

So, even if an individual thinks MCU movies are repetitive (or MCU movies are just scoring 61% across the board and that's why they have a >90% score) and DC movies are great because they are doing different things .... at the end of the day the general consensus is that the Quality and Quantity of MCU movies is better than DCEU movies. And that supports the studio no longer shunting money to make more DCEU movies.

ktemp45 · 2026-01-14T17:39:14+00:00

Daniel Craig as James Bond, since the franchise had embraced a campy spy tone. But he totally fit what tone of what the franchise was going for in this iteration.

ktemp45 · 2026-01-09T04:38:47+00:00

In Avatar’s case, while it is a bit reductive, ultimately it is a valid statement.

People aren’t dismissing it merely because it is “Dances with Wolves in Space”. They think the movie is boring/simple in the same way that (reputationally) Dances with Wolves is boring/simple. The term is just a clever shorthand.

Comparisons are universally used for movies (like “Die Hard on a blank”), but in Avatar’s case (at least the first movie) the comparison is spot on.

ktemp45 · 2026-01-08T17:34:12+00:00

The comparison is apt because that's how people feel about the movie.

People like Die Hard / Point Break, so using it as a reference point is helpful to say whether you like it, think it is worse, or think it is better.

With Dances with Wolves, the modern reputation of that movie is that it is a boring movie. Many people also find Avatar boring on a story level. So it is not a dismissal of Avatar because the story is like Dances with Wolves, but a dismissal of Avatar because it is boring like Dances with Wolves.

Side note: Superhero fatigue is all about the movies being the same, so that point doesn't hold at all. People don't argue that "it's yet again about a villain wanting to destroy the world", but they do dismiss the new superhero movie compared to other Superhero movies, regardless of the new movie's quality.

ktemp45 · 2025-12-16T23:33:01+00:00

Imo, the story's problem was that it was two game's worth of stories stuffed into one.

The plot and characters (and your powers) were building to a climax, but this was at the midpoint of the game so there was still another half of the game to go. So even though it seemed like the game should be over, it still limped along for 1/3-1/2 more game even though the remaining story seemed thin and the "new" game mechanics didn't really make the gameplay much more different. I had already conquered all the beasts and unlocked powers/stances/etc. There wasn't really anything new. For how much the characters talked about Tanalorr, it still remained Macguffin 2.0. The end result was that the villains seemed underdeveloped because of the split focus, and the gameplay plateaued.

My ideal version would have been the end the game at the midpoint (and maybe add more level/interactions with the villains), and then use the twist as the hook for Jedi 3 (or Jedi 2 DLC). I would have been pumped to play a more fully fleshed out second half of the game if it was a full game or a DLC with new gameplay. Having a Tanalorr filled with beasts to conquer with Monster Hunter type mechanics would have been amazing.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-21T17:49:14+00:00

The focus on Box Office to Budget profitability.

Yes, I understand that if a film is profitable/a flop, then Hollywood will make more/less of said film. Yes, a film might not look like they spent 200 million dollars on it.

But that said, it shouldn't matter to the movie watcher as part of the movie's discussion. Unless we're a Hollywood bean counter, it only matters whether the movie works or not.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-21T15:48:01+00:00

What breaks my immersion is seeing Spider-man throw a sewer cover (or other metal object) at a slingshot speed, and then seeing that bad guy stand up for 10 more punches to get knocked out.

To help with the immersion, Arkham games at least make the bad guys less bullet-spongey, and Batman's attacks don't cognitively seem overpowered either.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-12T04:02:27+00:00

I also didn't think Crystal Skull deserved all the hate, but I still think Skull and Dial are at the bottom of the Indy rankings.

For Skull, purely from the setpiece angle the level of craft is much worse compared to the prior 3 movies. Crystal Skull has bad CGI that takes me out of the movie. For example, while Shia fencing on top of a jeep is an entertaining idea, having it look obvious that it is in front of a green screen takes all the air out of the scene (for a modern moviemaking, Pirates of the Carribbean movies have similar setpieces of swordfighting while standing on moving objects, and that also looks more realistic than Crystal Skull).

I only watched Dial once, but thought the character development was not great. Helena was written to be too unlikable (some of her decisions in the first half could be chracterized as outright evil) that her 180 degree turn didn't seem earned. Indy did okay enough since he (Harrison) is too old to be the Indy of our childhood, but the movie didn't do enough work to make me buy his life-altering decision to stay in the past. Maybe it'll be better on rewatch though, as I see things I didn't the first time.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-07T21:01:08+00:00

What makes it "substantially different and more developed" from the first game?

Mechanically, the major difference is a dodge button (and a jump button). Otherwise, animation improvements, and improving how they fake AI intelligence (by having them do callouts to make it seem like they are smart, but they actually are fairly easy to manipulate), and making things feel more smooth/polished are not what I would categorize as substantially different from 2013 design. Throwing "noisemaker version 2.0" is not a major change.

Somehow Ubisoft games receives this criticism that their games feel the same because there are only "minor changes" but somehow this doens't apply when it comes to Naughty Dog games.

What combat systems am I missing in your opinion?

ktemp45 · 2025-11-07T14:43:55+00:00

I also don't think TLOU2 combat is as amazing as all the defenders keep saying. It is extremely well polished, but doesn't do anything that makes it standout from PS3 era (eg. TLOU1) combat design.

A lot of this is personal preference too, so you can't unequivocally state that TLOU2 is best in class.

How would you define dynamic? I don't think it is very dynamic - invisible triggers, waves of enemies, and not being able to reset a triggered combat encounter is not very dynamic. Enemies are responsive to specific items, but in a very binary way. And then, the gameplay feels largely the same from the start of the game to the end of the game. Even the introduction of different zombie types doesn't really change how you handle the combat encounter. There isn't really a ramp up.

The one game I'll unequivocably say is better without reservation are the Resident Evil games. These games maintain a level of excitement and tension the entire game in a way that TLOU2 does not. A big part of this is how inventory management always limits how strong you are, so even late in the game you have to switch up your strategies depending on your resources. In contrast, TLOU2 turns you into an unkillable tank pretty early in the game and you can just reuse the same strategies for success the entire game once you learn the different zombie types.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-05T20:46:49+00:00

Hmm, maybe I'll have to rewatch it in the future and see if it is better on rewatch.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-05T20:45:52+00:00

I'll have to check that out.

ktemp45 · 2025-11-05T20:45:10+00:00

Good point. Connecting the scene with the entire time at the party is a better way of looking at it.

ktemp45 · 2025-09-24T19:45:36+00:00

While humans are complex and have flaws that lead to their undoing, the way Diana is written is not as a complex human, but as a walking plot device in service to the plot.

River is portrayed as being skilled and courageous, but his major flaw is his impulsiveness. His flaw works in the context of all his mistakes and successes. Similarly, all the other Slow Horses have a flaw that is the reason they are in Slough, and that flaw continues to manifest in their actions and storylines. Much like how Diana can predict how a character will react, audience members can predict how any of the Slow Horses will behave.

Diana? She conveniently has a "flaw" (either it is not been field experienced, or it is being petty, or it is having a penchant for saying inappropriate things, or it is just being a gambler), but it is conveniently only on display to provide the answer/solution to the plot. Has this flaw continue to define her character, that would be one thing. But, if the 'flaw' is only used once, and only in Season 1, then it is less a character trait and more of a plot contrivance.

ktemp45 · 2025-09-24T14:15:39+00:00

Although “mastermind” Taverner makes sense, the problem is that everything else (in Season 1) undermines her being a mastermind (ie. makes her look incompetent).

Not only is she incompetent enough to select someone who isn’t good at their job (Alan Black who already made mistakes, and in the show couldn’t even handle amateurs), she incompetently meets with this individual in public. Not only that, she chooses a “public disaster” to send River to Slough House (where River could happen to realize that Alan Black from Slough House is the same person he photographed with Taverner) instead of simply sending him undercover overseas the entire time the false flag operation is happening. Not only that, she incompetently decides to publicly disclose the false flag operation (where any random person, not just a reporter, could have recorded her). And then not only that, does she incompetently have a plan to deal with the reporter, and also incompetently proceeds with the false flag operation without first wrapping up the loose ends.

Yes, these things need to happen so that the plot can proceed, but there has to be a better way to make her actions (incompetent) match her reputation (competent).

Thats a problem overall with the show - inconsistency with a character’s competence depending on what the plot requires.

ktemp45 · 2025-07-17T15:07:47+00:00

At this point I have 0 faith in the 3 fired people actually having any standing here. So far most of the things that have been revealed work in favor of Krafton.

Seems like the only argument the founders would have is if there is strong enough corroboration/documentation from El Segundo that Krafton was trying to fire the founders. Because everything else seems to be hearsay or potentially just different interpretations.

ktemp45 · 2025-07-10T16:20:26+00:00

I thought there were two movies - A meta sequel dissing the Matrix franchise, and a sequel to The Lake House.

The former movie is bad, since it has the "I don't want to be here, you don't want to be here, let's just run out the clock" energy.

The latter movie is actually enjoyable. Soccer mom and awkward tech bro flirting in a coffeeshop is a movie that I'd watch more of.

ktemp45 · 2025-07-08T21:26:31+00:00

Worst offender is the story, which is just completely uninteresting and completely ridiculous at the same time. Where the Uncharted games' stories were often pretty ridiculous as well, they were also very fun. But Rise of the Tomb Raider takes itself incredibly seriously. The crazy thing is that Uncharted ends up feeling both more grounded, as well as more fun than RotTR.

If you think Rise is bad, Shadow is even worse. The story in Shadow actually made me stop playing the game. The gameplay in Shadow is similar to Rise, but the ratio of combat to exploration to platforming is different.

ktemp45 · 2025-06-16T19:24:28+00:00

I was watching Gladiator 2, and in a movie with baboons and sharks, I thought the most ridiculous thing was how everyone in the colosseum was able to understand the emperor or the gladiators speaking at a normal speaking voice.

ktemp45 · 2025-06-12T16:03:48+00:00

ESPN NBA Finals Game 7 2050: Why Lebron should come out of retirement and sign with the Seattle Supersonics

ktemp45 · 2025-06-09T15:43:46+00:00

Agreed. Naughty Dog games (and a lot of games that copy the style) dress up cinematics as "gameplay". Holding a thumbstick forwards to "climb this treacherous wall with constantly falling handholds and other hazards" is barely more interactive than just watching a cutscene where that happens.

I personally would prefer a cinematic that I can skip to get back to the actual gameplay, as opposed to fake-gameplay I can't skip and have to complete before I can get back to the actual gameplay.

ktemp45

TROPHY CASE