Why Do Disney Parents Always Die?

In almost every Disney animated film (referring to the traditional musicals), the parents of the main male and female leads are either dead or only one of the parents is alive. A good question is why Disney does this. When I think about it, the reasoning behind it is well intentioned.

Parents are the main source of guidance for their child. They are supposed to lead their child down the right path by teaching them valuable lessons. However, the main character in the beginning of the movie does not get these lessons. In The Pricess and the Frog, Tiana's dad tells her that love and happiness is more important than working 24/7. However, Tiana does not get this until the end of the movie. Simba in The Lion King does not have his dad around to teach him how to become a strong leader and free him from his guilt. In Frozen, the death of the parents scars Elsa and is what makes her constantly afraid of her powers because she has no one to help her control them. She also does not want to risk killing her sister Anna, the only family member she has left. By having the main characters struggle with the absence of their parents it tells the children in the audience that they should listen to what their parents say, but more importantly love them because their parents will not be around forever.

In cases of single parents like King Neptune from The Little Mermaid, it teaches that there should be a compromise between parents and children. Children should listen to their parents, but the parents should also listen to their children. They should not shelter their child from the real world and prevent them from trying new things. Children can teach their parents lessons of acceptance to change.

The Disney story element of the lack of parents or a parent is an effective tool to teach life lessons to the audience.

Top 13 Disney Princesses

Currently the Disney princess line up consists of eleven princesses plus Anna and Elsa who will be added next year. I decided to rank them based on their personalities and their actions in their movies. I will list them from bottom to top.

13. Aurora

She is asleep for half of her movie and is the definition of the princess stereotype.

12. Snow White

She is dead for half of her movie. The reason I ranked her above Aurora is because of her kindness towards the dwarves. She is a nice motherly figure.

11. Pocahontas

 I give her credit that she does do things in her movie, but I just do not find her interesting.

10. Cinderella

It is true that in her movie all the good things come to her. However, I do find myself satisfied that she is rewarded for her suffering. I like the way she does pull through the torment brought onto her by her evil stepmother.

9. Ariel

Ariel is adventurous and does what ever it takes to get what she wants, but her decisions are pretty stupid. To risk your life for a guy, who does not even know you exist is not worth it. Also she does not really learn anything. Eric is the one that solves her problems by killing Ursula.

8, Merida 

I give Pixar credit for making an independent princess, but she could have been a lot better. My main problem with her is that she comes off as whiny and unnecessarily mean to her mother. She also does not use her bow and arrow skills that much. However, she does become a better person at the end of her movie by learning to appreciate her mother. 

7. Jasmine

She is probably the most down to Earth princess out of all the princesses. She has a great chemistry with the male lead. I like how in the beginning she is rebellious and does not fall for Prince Ali at first sight. However, she does have to be saved at the end like any stereotypical princess.

6. Rapunzel

She is Ariel done right. She is adventurous, funny, and likable. She also has good chemistry with the male lead.

5. Tiana

It is nice to see a princess who works 24/7. She teaches girls that they have to work hard in order to make their dreams come true. She also is one of the very few princesses who actually defeat the villain at the end.

4. Elsa

Actually she is a queen, but Disney put her in the princess line up anyway. She is the most complex and has the darkest past. She does play an antihero role for a bit, which is unique to her. In the beginning of the movie she is repressed by society and then is finally free, so she does not want to come back. Her song, “Let It Go” is one of the best Disney songs. I also like the relationship between her and her sister, Anna because she loves her sister.

3. Anna

While she is not as complex as her sister, Elsa she has more likable character traits. The relationship between her and Elsa is done really well. Especially when she sacrifices herself to save Elsa at the end of the film as an act of true love. In the beginning of the movie she is more like a parody of a Disney princess, which makes her funny. As the movie goes on her character becomes more defined. I like how in the end she is the one that solves the problems, not the male lead.

2. Belle

She is perfect; the girl that every guy wishes to have. While she does not have any faults, she does have several character traits that prevent her from being boring. She is an example of how strong female characters do not have to be physically strong. They just have to be well written.

1. Mulan

Mulan has all the qualities of a good character and she kicks ass. She controls her destiny through out the entire movie. She does not have to rely on a man at any point. As the movie progresses she becomes a stronger character. She teaches us that society cannot tell people where their place is. You can do anything if you work hard enough.

Will The New RoboCop Movie Fail?

Recently I watched the original RoboCop movie. It was great. Naturally, I watched the trailers for the upcoming 2014 movie to see how it compared to the original. In the trailers I definitely noticed some changes they have made from the original story.

First of all I have no problem with a RoboCop remake. RoboCop is a superhero like Batman, so it makes sense for Hollywood to create another movie. I do like the updated effects and how they will connect the movie to current issues such as drones and terrorists.

The first significant change people have noticed is RoboCop's new appearance. He is now black instead of the classic silver color. I do not hate the new look, but I question the change. The new look does not make RoboCop look better. I would have preferred him to look more like he originally did.

The second significant change is how Alex Murphy gets injured. In the original Murphy is brutally shot multiple times by the villains, but in the new movie he is it by a car bomb. The change probably has to due with the fact they were going for a PG-13 rating, which I will discuss later. The new scene definitely is weak compared to the original scene, but the movie is not ruined because of it.

The third significant change is that Murphy's family is still around. In the original his family leaves after the funeral. I will not say it was a terrible decision to keep the family around, but I would prefer if his family was not. In the original when Murphy finds out about his past and that his wife has moved on is a powerful scene. You feel sorry for the guy. To have the family around could work for the man vs machine internal struggle the new movie is going for. Or it could make it cliched.

The fourth significant change is the rating. The original movie was rated R and this movie is rated PG-13. To me this means the actions scenes will be unimaginative. Just explosions and gun shots. The action in the original movie was awesome. I thought the blood and gore added to the movie's comic book feel. An R rating also allows for more gruesome and creative ways for the villains to die.

Overall I am looking forward to this movie despite the changes that have been made so far. I like how they are not just remaking the original, but adding a modern spin to it. I appreciate that they are going a different direction. However, I do question some of the changes. If they made the changes they made because they thought it would make a better movie then that is fine, but if they made those changes to make RoboCop look like other movies then that is not okay. RoboCop was its own thing and it should stay that way. Some people are already saying this movie sucks, but they should give it a chance.

Why Chinatown's Ending is Brilliant

"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." That's the famous closing line of the movie, Chinatown. As I watched the ending I felt empty inside. The movie just ends. There is no satisfying resolution. The bad guy wins, the end. The ending is especially disturbing because earlier in the movie you find out the villain raped his daughter. His daughter had a baby as a result. In the end the bad guy steals away the child (possibly planning to rape her) and the daughter he raped is shot as she tries to escape.

As the credits rolled I thought about what I had just seen. Then I realized why the ending was so brilliant. It was because it made me think about the its themes. Chinatown is based around the corruption of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, so some of the characters are based on actual people. The bad guy is based on a real person, however he is fictionalized heavily. Point being that in real life the bad guys won. Why have a happy ending in the movie if the bad guys won in real life?  The sad ending is necessary because it raises awareness.

Corruption from government and corporations happens daily and they win. Most movies have them lose, so in a way it ignores those issues. Almost to say corruption does not exist anymore. However, Chinatown is brutally honest and says in real life the bad guys win. That's why the line, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown", is so effective. It provokes an emotion out of you. You do not want to forget about it. You care about the two leads and you want them to succeed. You want the bad guy to be punished. However, the movie does not satisfy you with that. Which is why it has the perfect ending.

Is Die Hard the Best Christmas Movie Ever?

The answer is yes! There is no Christmas movie like Die Hard out there. The hero, John McClane risks his life to save his wife and other people from terrorists. Is Christmas not about putting others before yourself? Hans Gruber, the villain of the film represents greed. His death in the end symbolizes that those who are greedy will be punished. Die Hard is one of the best action movies of all time and the best Christmas action movie of all time. How many Christmas movies have this much ass kicking in them? "Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker" should become the common holiday saying instead of "happy holidays".

So, Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers! I hope you have had a merry Christmas and will have a happy New Year!

Top 10 Male Disney Songs

Disney has so many great songs. The most famous ones are from the females or duets, but I decided to focus on the songs sung by the males. Here is my list of the top ten Disney songs sung by males.

10. In Summer from Frozen

This song is funny. It is sung by a snowman named Olaf, who wants to experience summer. I cannot help, but giggle every time I hear the lyrics; I’ll finally see a summer breeze, blow away a winter storm. And find out what happens to solid water when it gets warm! The melody is also very nice and Josh Gad's delivery is perfect.

9. Out There from The Hunchback of Notredame

I like the dynamics of this song. The song starts off with Frollo's cruel, soothing voice. He tells Quasimodo to stay inside because the outside world will never accept him. However, the second half of the song that is sung by Quasimodo is completely opposite in tone and style. Quasimodo's booming voice of hope creates a cheery and upbeat mood. I actually like how the appealing aspect of the song is not Quasimodo's singing ability, but the emotion behind it.

8. Gaston from Beauty and the Beast

I wish the people in my town sung about me like this. What better way to cheer up a man than to tell him he is the best thing ever?

7. Be Prepared from The Lion King

A great villain song. A song sung by a jealous and enraged villain named Scar. The song has a tango like beat to it, which makes it upbeat. I like how the song builds up and intensifies into a great war chant.

6. Prince Ali from Aladdin

Robin Williams is awesome. This is an upbeat party song. Williams can flawlessly weave in several impressions so fluently. He also has a nice, booming voice.

5. Under the Sea from The Little Mermaid

It was a tough choice between this one and the last song. However, I chose this song over Prince Ali because it is more upbeat overall and catchy. I always get this song stuck in my head all day even if I just listen to part of it.

4. Friend Like Me from Aladdin

All I can say is this song is Robin Williams at his best.

3. Friends on the Other Side from The Princess and the Frog

Keith David has one of the most bad ass voices ever. This villain song is dark, groovy, and catchy. The ending gives me goose bumps.

2. Why Should I Worry from Oliver and Company

Many people probably do not know this song. It is from one of Disney's least known films. However, it is very memorable. The song is sung by Billy Joel. When ever I play this song when I walk through town I feel like a boss. My favorite part of the song is when Joel sings, The rhythm of the city. Boy, once you get it down. Then you can own this town. You can wear the crown.

1. I'll Make a Man Out of You from Mulan

No one should be surprised this is the number one song. What else could it be? This is the manliest song on Earth. Nothing beats the chorus. (Be a man) We must be swift as the coursing river.
(Be a man) With all the force of a great typhoon. (Be a man)
With all the strength of a raging fire. Mysterious as the dark side of the moon!

Percy Jackson Needs A Reboot. Now!

Why did Hollywood have to kill Percy Jackson? They took this book series that was fresh and turned it into mediocrity. The films are trying to be Harry Potter with Greek mythology. I admit the series does have similarities to Harry Potter. The main trio in both series is filled with one boy who has to fulfill a prophecy, a smart girl, and a doofus. However, Rick Riordan told the story in a unique and funny way that made it different from Harry Potter.

The movies do not try to utilize the creativity of the series at all. Looking at the trailers the movies do not feel special. They look generic. I cannot believe how badly Hollywood messed up the basics. I understand that movies will be different from the books they are based on. Directors need to make cuts and changes. What makes a good book, does not necessarily make a good movie. They are too different forms of entertainment. Changes are expected, but I also expect that the basic concepts will be there.

Why did they not put Ares in the first movie? Why did they not hire a younger actor to play Percy so the prophecy could stay at sixteen? Why do the campers use technology? Hollywood messed up the plot to both movies so bad. I just do not get why they made these awful changes. Imagine if I made my own version of The Lord of the Rings that did not have Saruman, Legolas, Gollum, none of the major battles, and the ring gave Frodo the ability to breath fire.

I cannot express how important it is for a movie based on a book to be good. Americans are reading less and less, so they are not going to take the time to read something like Percy Jackson. They will most likely be introduced to the series through the movie. If the movie is bad and not true to the book, then the viewer will have a false conception of the original source material and judge that the books must be bad since the movie is bad. It is no wonder why the second movie did so poorly. Not only did the fans of the series did not want to see it, but people who saw and heard about the first movie lost interest as well.

I do not think there is anyone out there that wants the current movie series to continue. The Percy Jackson series needs a complete reboot like what Sony did to Spider-Man.

Why I Hate Hercules and Frankenstein

                

I hate Hercules and Frankenstein. Not the characters, but the movies that will be released next year under the title of those names. There will actually be two Hercules movies in 2014. Both of these movies will not even follow the original myth. Hollywood made up a story and slapped Hercules' name on to it. The Legend of Hercules movie should actually be called the The Legend of Heracles because they are basing it (very loosely) of the Greek story. It looks like the Disney movie will remain as the most accurate film adaption of Hercules. Why does Hollywood not make a movie based on the actual story? Why completely make one up? I think a movie based on the actual myth would be really good. The Frankenstein movie has nothing to do with the book at all. Frankenstein is not even the actual name of the monster. Hollywood is going to have him fight these gargoyle creatures.

Why did Hollywood have to use the names of Frankenstein and Hercules for their movies? I realize it is to attract audiences, but in reality it makes audiences not want to see the movie. The movie becomes a box office bomb before it is released. Why not create a new character? The character could be inspired by Frankenstein or Hercules, but are given traits that make them unique. It would actually benefit the movie more. The movies look generic enough already. Now they look stupid because they stole the name of a famous character. The fact they were too lazy to come up with an original name for their character is a bad sign.

I understand Hollywood wanting to adapt timeless characters. That practice has been around since the beginning of the movie industry. The original Frankenstein movie was different from the book. However, the difference is that the original movie had the basic concept of the book and told it in a new way. Yes, the story is not the same, but the main themes are there and explored. Disney does the same in their movies. However, these new Hollywood movies do not give a crap about the original source material at all. They just want money.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review/Rant

This is a review/rant of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug. I will review the movie in its entirety. I will tell you when I am about to discuss spoilers, so I will not spoil the ending for you.

I will start off with what I liked about the movie. Watching these movies I do feel like I am in the world of Tolkien. The sets and environments are beautiful. The acting is also good. In this movie Thorin's character gets more development as he become more greedy. Gandalf is bad ass as always, but he does not appear that much in this movie. Bilbo Baggins is great. He is my favorite character in these movies because I have always seen a bit of myself in him. I think any person that was thrown into Bilbo's position would have the same reactions and character evolution. A lot of the fight scenes are awesome too. The fight when the group is fighting the orcs down the river is the best because they do a lot of creative sequences.

Smaug is the best part of the movie. He is the most bad ass dragon in not just movie, but fantasy history as well. They captured his character perfectly. I need to give credit to the animation department. The details on Smaug are wonderful and they made him appear arrogant, old, and fierce. He also moves like how a ginormous dragon would move. It must have been a nightmare to animate him. Smaug's voice is like a threatening version of Mufassa's voice from The Lion King. It is intimidating. The interaction between him an Bilbo was the high light of the movie.

Now I will go into what I hated about the movie. Three major things damaged this movie. The first is Tauriel. She has no reason to exist. I have no idea why they thought it was a good idea to put her in this story. Did feminists demand a female character? In this movie Tauriel's story is that she falls in love with Kili the dwarf, but Legolas also has a crush on her. That means they added an unnecessary love story that just wastes time and makes the movie longer than it needs to be. What makes it worse is that it is a love-triangle. Love-triangles NEVER work! Who thought of that stupid idea? I understand putting Legolas in the movie, but Tauriel was a terrible idea. Also if you have read the book and know that Tauriel was created for the film franchise then it is obvious what will happen to her in the next movie.

Secondly, the pacing gets too slow in the last act of the movie. The movie has Bilbo and the dwarves running away from Smaug for like half-an-hour. It lost all of its excitement. Other scenes could have been shorter or cut entirely.

Before I go on to what I hated about the movie the most I will warn you that this section contains spoilers because I will talk about the ending to the movie. So you should skip this next paragraph if you do not want to be spoiled.

I hated where the movie left off. It should have ended after Bard kills Smaug. The title of the movie is called, The Hobbit: The DESOLATION of Smaug, but there is NO desolation of Smaug. This movie should have been called, The Hobbit: Before The Desolation of Smaug or The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Will Take Place in the Next Film. The film ends with Smaug heading to Esgaroth. If they had cut out all that crap of Tauriel and shortened some scenes we would have had gotten to the part where Bard kills Smaug. I had the same problem in the last movie too. All the scenes that were created to connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings should have been left out and put in the extended addition. Tolkien himself once tried to connect The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings, but realized he could not because The Hobbit was not supposed to be connected to The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit is supposed to be a children's fairy tale. In the beginning of the movie Bilbo already showed signs of being obsessed with the ring, even though he does not in the book.

Overall this movie just confirmed to me that the reason they stretched the movie series into a trilogy was to make more money. The story suffers for it. The movie itself is okay. If they had cut out Tauriel and shorten some scenes, this movie could have been good. It could have ended with an action packed scene. However, those blunders almost ruined the movie for me. The last film in this trilogy will be purely action. Maybe it will make up for this.  

Disney Does Not Market To Guys

I enjoy Disney films. I think Beauty and the Beast is one of the best animated films, if not one of the best films ever. However, most guys, especially in this generation would not admit or actually say that. I cannot blame them. Disney has built its empire on the Disney Princess franchise. They just added the two new princesses from Frozen, so it is no secret they plan on expanding the Disney princess line up. The more I thought about, the more I realize how Disney does not market to guys to the same extent.

Disney's last three recent films that stuck with the traditional Disney musical were The Princess and the Frog, Tangled, and Frozen. All three of these films have a female lead. All three of these heroines are active and progress their own story. No more princesses like Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. These princess sat around and had things happen to them. Their princes came in and solved the conflicts of the movies from them. Sleeping Beauty did not kill Maleficent. Snow White did not wake up herself. Now that society has allowed women to have more active roles, Disney is creating a network of princesses around the strong, independent woman picture.

Ariel was the first "modern" Disney princess. While it is true that Eric kills Ursala and saves the day in the end, Ariel took action upon herself to make her dream come true. Yes, selling her voice to an obvious villain was stupid, but at least she brought herself there. She is adventurous to a fault. The movie does teach girls that in order to achieve their goals they cannot sit around and do nothing. They have to go out there themselves. Since The Little Mermaid we have had similar females such as Mulan, Belle, Pocahontas,  Tiana, Rapunzel, Anna, and Elsa, play similar roles in their films. Some females like Jasmine and Megara are given a personality to not make them bland, but they do not do anything in their movies to make them active. They are a damsels in distress.

The reason why I brought that background up is because we are going to look at the relationship between Disney and guys. We have already established that Disney's main market is the princess line. Now there are Disney movies with male protagonists such as Peter Pan, Hercules, Aladdin, The Lion King, Tarzan, and The Hunchback of Notredame. However, looking at the elements of some of these films, it has the same style as a Disney princess movie.

Girls might dream of becoming princesses, but I have never heard a man say he wants to be a prince. When you look at how the Disney males are drawn, they are drawn in an attractive way. They appeal to girls. Look at Hercules for example. If a regular guy were to draw what he thought Hercules would look like, he would draw Hercules with huge muscles, rigid lines, a scar, hair; something like the Hulk. However, Disney draws Hercules as an attractive young teen. Point being that even in their guy movies, Disney still markets more towards the females.

Love is not what guys want to see in a movie. Yes, there are popular guy films like Iron Man, Star Wars, and Lord of the Rings, that have a love plot line in the movie, but guys do not care about that. No guy cared about Aragorn's love to Eowin or Han Solo's love to Princess Lea. Guys like action. Disney's Aladdin, is centered around love. Aladdin is trying to have Jasmine fall for him. Yes, there are elements such as the fight at the end to appeal to guys, but the romance is the main theme of the movie. For instance the most famous song in the movie, A Whole New World, is a love song. Aladdin is who girls want guys to be like, not who guys want to be like.

There are always exceptions though. Tarzan and The Hunchback of Notredame also have love as a major theme, but those movies have protagonists who are not the feminine prince. The leads are rough, and tough. Tarzan is more of the brawny figure guys look up to and The Hunchback of Notredame has a serious adult tone to it, which separates it from other Disney films.

The reason The Lion King was the highest grossing animated film at the time was because it had the right balance. The main theme of the movie was not love, but personal growth. Simba's relationship with Nala is a side thing while the movie focuses on Simba's return to become a king. It had comedy, tragedy, family morals, and an intense villain. It was not targeted towards a specific gender.

Disney has primarily marketed itself towards a female audience. This has led to the reputation of guys find it too girly. This has led guys to move away from Disney and as a result, Disney makes more movies with female protagonists. While in recent movies such as Tangled and Frozen contain a male and female protagonist, for example Rapunzel and Flynn, both figures are made to attract females. The girl is a beautiful princess and the guy is a handsome prince figure. The main theme of love in those movies does not appeal to guys. Keep in mind that I am mostly looking at the films that are the traditional Disney musical, so I excluded films like Bolt and Wreck-it Ralph.   

Did The Iron Man Series Fall Flat?

Iron Man 3 gave me mixed feelings. On the one hand I had fun watching it, but there was something about it that irritated me. After I saw the first Iron Man again I realized what about Iron Man 3 irritated me. It was too silly. After re-watching all the Iron Man movies I see a gradual decline after each installment.

The first Iron Man had funny moments. Tony Stark is supposed to be one of those funny asshole figures that is self absorbed. However, in the third movie he loses that charm. The only moments I found him funny was when he was interacting with the kid. They made Tony too paranoid. He always freaks out, remembering the events of The Avengers. However, it is forced and comes off as weird. 

The main problem of the movie was that Tony was separating himself from Iron Man, but the audience likes him because he is Iron Man. When Tony blows up his suits at the end of the movie a lot of people including myself thought it was stupid. What was the point? Especially since he is returning as Iron Man in the second Avengers movie.

The logic behind the decision was the idea that Tony could be Iron Man without the suit. However, the audience wants to see him kick ass in his suit. In the movie he barely wears the suit. The message itself is not bad, but it was handled poorly. Mainly because the second movie was not good. The second movie was just filler to introduce Nick Fury, Black Widow, and Shield. Stuff to tie the Iron Man franchise to the Avengers movie. Iron Man 2 had a good start, but after the fight with War Machine, it went downhill.

The third movie decided to make up for the lack of action in the second movie, by being over top and action packed. However, the story suffers from it. I thought the Mandarin plot twist was funny, but the movie's real Mandarin was lame and generic. The story itself was not well put together. Tony seriously did not prepare for a terrorist attack after he told the terrorists his address? Also the comedy at times was unnecessary. For example the scene where Tony is captured and counts to three several times until his glove comes to him. That disrupted the pace of the movie. This is the same problem I had with another Marvel movie; Thor: The Dark World.

The first Iron Man movie is one of my top five favorite comic book movies of all time, but the sequels to it are lack luster. Iron Man 3 is like The Dark Knight Rises. The first time you watch it, it's entertaining, but soon after you see it, you realize how flawed it was.

What do you guys think?

The Hunger Games (1st Movie) Review

Since Catching Fire has gotten great reviews declaring the movie "outstanding" from critics, web surfers, and my piers, I figured that I would check out the first movie. When The Hunger Games came out last year it did not make a huge impact. While it was definitely popular, it was not like a Harry Potter movie where you had to see it when it came out in order to fit in. The Hunger Games was ignorable. That is why I did not see it.

However, now that the second movie has been super successful and is said to be hundreds of times better than the first movie, I decided to watch the first movie. It was good, but not great.

The set up is nice. I know a lot of people claim it rips off Battle Royal, but I have never heard off it before, so it does not effect my opinion. The movie does a good job of introducing this cruel world. I like how the rich people dress up in these ridiculous costumes. It is serial. The lady reminds me of Depp's Mad Hatter. The games themselves were done nice to. I felt the impact of the kids dying. When the Hunger Games start and it shows the older kids killing the younger children, the movie did not hold back. Granted more blood could have been shown, but the movie still gave us the sense of savageness the games represent. Rue's death was powerful in my opinion. The riot scene after it made it even better. The Hunger Games showed how humans can destroy each other and even come together in tough times. Rue helps Katniss and develops a strong bond even though they will have to kill each other and the alliance only supports one another for their own selfish gain.

I was rooting for Katniss the whole way. She is a good heroine, however she can be a little bland at times. Her boyfriend was not interesting. Also I wish they showed more of society's cruelty, but it looks like that is covered in the second movie.

If you have not seen The Hunger Games, I recommend you see it. I cannot say everybody will love it, but it is worth a watch. Especially since the fan base for it is growing exponentially.

Wonder Woman in Superman vs Batman Movie

DC needs to slow down. They are trying to cram all these super heroes into one movie. Superman and Batman already had the spot light? How will Wonder Woman fit into all of this? How are they going to explain her back story and develop her character?

It's obvious to everybody that DC is trying to repeat Marvel's success with the Avengers, but DC is not repeating how Marvel did it right. Marvel took time to develop its characters through films. That way they could focus on the story and not have to develop all these characters that are completely different from each other. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Avengers was the first film Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, and Thor were in? It would have been a mess.

One thing I liked about the Avengers was that I actually felt like all the heroes were from the same universe. When I watch the Captain America movie it feels different from an Iron Man movie, but both movies feel like Marvel movies. If the Nolan Batman movie trilogy took place in the same universe as Man of Steel I would have a hard time buying that. It's ironic because in Man of Steel, the route they took with Superman was the same route they took with Batman. They did a darker, more realistic comic book movie. However, both movies don't feel connected the same way Marvel movies were. Yes, in Man of Steel they did have a Wayne satellite, but they need to do more than that to make the franchises connected. If the Batman they are using is a new Batman and not the same Batman from the Nolan trilogy then I will be okay with it. I think they can easily reintroduce Batman into the DC universe.

Wonder Woman is a different story. The reason Batman can be easily put into the Man of Steel universe is because he is a normal guy. He is just a rich billionaire who fights crime. However, Wonder Woman is an Amazon created by Greek Gods. The concept of Wonder Woman doesn't really fit the DC universe they have created in the movies. The concept of a man fighting crime is easy for a viewer to buy, but Amazons and Greek Gods? A concept like that needs to be introduced through its own movie first, especially if it wants to connect with an already established universe. Avengers would not have worked out as well if Thor and Loki had been introduced for the first time in it.

DC needs to take its time with its franchises and create several good movies rather than just cram everything into one movie. They run the risk of alienating regular movie goers.