f13.net

f13.net General Forums => Movies => Topic started by: Venkman on July 21, 2013, 10:03:47 AM



Title: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on July 21, 2013, 10:03:47 AM
Is coming (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/20/showbiz/comic-con-superman-batman/index.html?sr=sharebar_facebook).

- Zack Snyder directs
- Henry Cavill
- Haven't cast Batman
- They read one of the seminal quotes from The Dark Knight Returns, to set the vibe of the movie

I'm conflicted whether I want Bale for Batman in this. On the one hand, a new Batman kinda requires the movie spend a chunk of wasteful time establishing the actor as Wayne and Batman. But on the other, I don't feel Bale can convey a cynical enough old guy if they're doing Dark Knight Returns like conflict. I'd almost want a 1980s-era Clint Eastwood for that  :grin:

On the Superman side though, that seems perfect.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on July 21, 2013, 02:42:13 PM
I don't want to see Bale in this, I want to Dark Knight Trilogy to remain complete and brilliant, and completely untarnished by the stupidity that is superman.

This sort of stuff gets too much into comic book wankery which has no appeal to me at all.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 21, 2013, 02:44:33 PM
Bale said he ain't doing it tho.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: schild on July 21, 2013, 02:54:39 PM
ugh


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2013, 02:58:23 PM
I don't think the Nolan Batman would fit into the new Superman world.  I mean he got his ass beat by Bane who was just a normal muscle bound dude.  What's he gonna do against anyone with superpowers.  He's never made to out to be super smart like Batman is in the comics, they pretty much had Luscious Fox give him most of the tech he used in the movies.  Although he was able to modify some of the stuff, the base for everything was already laid out for him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on July 21, 2013, 03:12:58 PM
Luscious Fox

Why yes, he really is  :grin:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2013, 03:18:34 PM
Luscious Fox

Why yes, he really is  :grin:

Hah doh!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on July 21, 2013, 04:18:10 PM
Batman & Robin for the Avengers generation.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on July 21, 2013, 04:23:48 PM
They really can't do it as pure Miller--that only works if you've got characters with tons of history with each other. Skipping ahead to the future of Man of Steel and making the Cavill Superman a flunky for the US government doesn't have any bite or wit to it. I'm guessing they're going to go with "Batman needs to take down Superman for some good reason, once he's taken down they team up against a common enemy [likely Luthor]" where all they're going to rip off from Miller is the way that the battle in DKR goes down.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on July 21, 2013, 07:59:37 PM
- Zack Snyder directs

Spoiler: The movie is bad.

Quote
They read one of the seminal quotes from The Dark Knight Returns, to set the vibe of the movie

What Khaldun said. There's no way this can be at all related to the DKR. Batman and Superman fight due to a contrived misunderstanding, then put aside their differences to beat Lex Luthor's giant robot or some shit.

The vibe of the movie is going to be the same as in all of Snyder's other movies.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 21, 2013, 08:43:17 PM
This is going to be terrible and cost a fortune.  Right now I'd put it at a toss-up between this and Guardians as the movies that burst the superhero bubble.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pennilenko on July 21, 2013, 09:28:35 PM
This is going to be terrible and cost a fortune.  Right now I'd put it at a toss-up between this and Guardians as the movies that burst the superhero bubble.

This could be true, but its going to make a bajillion (that's right, I said bajillion with a J) dollars.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on July 21, 2013, 10:23:05 PM
I'm actually kinda psyched about Guardians of the Galaxy.  They have a pretty good cast, plus I have more faith in Marvel when it comes to movies then I do DC.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Reg on July 21, 2013, 10:34:15 PM
Given F13's amazing ability to be entirely wrong about movies I'm expecting this to be the best movie of the year.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 22, 2013, 12:57:50 AM
Okay, but here is a question nobody on the intertubes has ever thought of before:  Who would actually win in a fight between Batman and Superman?  I say Supes would win, because just one grazing punch would turn Batman into blood pudding.

The whole idea of this is retarded.

 :uhrr:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on July 22, 2013, 01:12:29 AM
Okay, but here is a question nobody on the intertubes has ever thought of before:  Who would actually win in a fight between Batman and Superman?  I say Supes would win, because just one grazing punch would turn Batman into blood pudding.

The whole idea of this is retarded.

 :uhrr:

Obviously Batman is going to find out how to recreate Kryptonite air and use it to defeat Supes.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 04:09:53 AM
Okay, but here is a question nobody on the intertubes has ever thought of before:  Who would actually win in a fight between Batman and Superman?  I say Supes would win, because just one grazing punch would turn Batman into blood pudding.

The whole idea of this is retarded.

 :uhrr:

Not sure if Serious.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 22, 2013, 04:27:21 AM
Both serious and not serious at the same time, I guess.  The whole idea is silly.  I have never taken part of a Batman vs. Superman debate, because it is pants on head territory.  As is the idea for this movie.

Okay, but here is a question nobody on the intertubes has ever thought of before:  Who would actually win in a fight between Batman and Superman?  I say Supes would win, because just one grazing punch would turn Batman into blood pudding.

The whole idea of this is retarded.

 :uhrr:

Obviously Batman is going to find out how to recreate Kryptonite air and use it to defeat Supes.

Yeah, see, that's the whole problem right there.  Because that is his only chance.  Coincidentally, it would also be my only chance against Superman as well.  Might as well make a movie about me fighting Superman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 04:34:55 AM
I'd watch that.

"SEE THE SON OF KRYPTON PUNCHING THE HEADS OFF MEMBERS OF F13 ONE AT A TIME!"

Fucking Be There.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 22, 2013, 04:56:14 AM
I was more thinking he could melt my face off with his laser vision, but I like the way you think.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 04:57:16 AM
As to your actual point :  Yeah, pretty much the problem I've always had with Supes is it's Kryptonite or nuthin'.

Though in Red Son, the lamps trick by Soviet Bat was rather cool.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 22, 2013, 05:49:30 AM
Exactly.  Minus the kryptonite, there isn't really much you can do.  He could literally beat Batman by just standing there and letting Bats punch him all day.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on July 22, 2013, 06:57:38 AM
It isn't nearly as difficult as you make out. Superman's real weakness is that he isn't very smart.

You just give them a conflicting goal that doesn't involve punching each other.

Find the widget before the other guy.
Save the redhead vs save the blonde whoops they are mutually exclusive because.
Publish and be damned vs prevent a riot.
Rob from the rich vs don't rob from the rich.

Clearly they have to work together in act 3 anyway.

This film will still be terrible. It has superman in it for one thing.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 22, 2013, 07:15:35 AM
It isn't nearly as difficult as you make out. Superman's real weakness is that he isn't very smart.
Well, he was.  Evidently the new story is, "Oh all People from Krypton are geniuses (in the same way you're a genius to someone from 12bc) and the yellow sun power has made him able to think faster than anyone!"

Much like super-speed to rival the flash (rather than 'faster than a speeding bullet) and his ridiculous power creep in the 40's some writers thought would be a good idea to heap on him for whatever storyline they wanted to sell to the comics crowd in the 70's.  Oh he's also got an eidetic memory now.

Go back to the 30's and he's a mook who acts without thinking and relies on his strength to carry-through.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on July 22, 2013, 07:20:36 AM
Never mind the 30s, I once again submit Lois and Clark as the benchmark for all things Superman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 07:22:45 AM
I wish you'd stop it.

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 22, 2013, 07:32:35 AM
It isn't nearly as difficult as you make out. Superman's real weakness is that he isn't very smart.

You just give them a conflicting goal that doesn't involve punching each other.

Find the widget before the other guy.
Save the redhead vs save the blonde whoops they are mutually exclusive because.
Publish and be damned vs prevent a riot.
Rob from the rich vs don't rob from the rich.

Clearly they have to work together in act 3 anyway.

This film will still be terrible. It has superman in it for one thing.


Maybe, but then that isn't really Superman VERSUS Batman.  That's more like Supes and Bats sit down for a spirited game of Parcheesi, or Chutes and Ladders.  You can't put "versus" in there unless there is some kind of fight happening.  In which case Superman could just send his blazing fast fist of steel back in time to punch Batman's mom in the uterus.

I can't believe I am doing this.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 22, 2013, 07:34:05 AM
And yet every time they've clashed in the comics, he's beaten the everliving fuck out of the alien.  And it's always been funny.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on July 22, 2013, 09:42:53 AM
The laws of narrative causality tell us Batman has to win every time. Invincible alien punching the batman is even less interesting than kryptonite. And superman outwitting batman given his physical superiority just seems unfair.

And of course the competition between these can be more interesting than a straight smack down. I concede it won't be. But there is no reason it can't be.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on July 22, 2013, 01:51:34 PM
I remember in one of the Saturday cartoons (I forget now if it was the Batman cartoon or the Superman cartoon) there was a "Superman vs Batman" episode where it's established that Superman thinks Batman is a criminal vigilante and wants to arrest him, but Batman blackmails Superman into not messing with him by telling him that he's rigged a gadget on himself that will detonate a bomb and kill an innocent person if Supes touches him or otherwise incapacitates him.  If Superman helps him catch the villain of the week, he'll remove the bomb.  Superman verifies the truth of all this with his super polygraph powers, and agrees to be Batman's sidekick for the remainder of the episode.

At the end of the episode, Batman of course reveals that the innocent person was himself.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on July 22, 2013, 09:51:54 PM
I'd watch that.

"SEE THE SON OF KRYPTON PUNCHING THE HEADS OFF MEMBERS OF F13 ONE AT A TIME!"

Fucking Be There.


I'm imagining that Supes is screaming out, "HARDCORE PVP!" with every punch.

I'd claim that Zod made me do it. Your avatar gives me plausible deniability Ironwood.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2013, 01:12:59 AM
Exactly.  Minus the kryptonite, there isn't really much you can do.  He could literally beat Batman by just standing there and letting Bats punch him all day.

Kryptonite isn't Superman's only weakness. He's always been vulnerable to magic.

(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111113714/3122142-supermanheman.jpg)

Though Batman getting some magic trinkets to beat Superman with is, of course, a silly idea for this very serious topic.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Nevermore on July 23, 2013, 01:21:31 AM
Well yes, Batman getting a magic trinket is much sillier than Skeletor magically controlling Superman to attack He-Man.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 23, 2013, 01:44:11 AM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 23, 2013, 02:06:38 AM
I shouldn't be, but I am baffled by the fact that those two universes have ever even been put together.  Superman vs He-man?  WTF?  It doesn't even look right.

Comics are strange.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 23, 2013, 02:18:48 AM
I thought He-Man Was Marvel, but there you go.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 23, 2013, 02:37:32 AM
Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about whether it was all DC or not.  They just don't fit together in any way.

While we're at it, though, were I magically controllilng Superman I would just have him fly into Castle Grayskull at supersonic speeds and blow it to smithereens.  Instant win!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on July 23, 2013, 03:51:03 AM
For better or worse, there's actually a DC/He-Man 6 issue crossover mini-series starting next month.

Edit:

Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about whether it was all DC or not.  They just don't fit together in any way.

For the record, Superman has also met or fought:


Aliens and Predators
Terminators
Muhammad Ali and various other real world people like Orson Welles, Jerry Lewis, Ann Blyth, Antonino Rocca, Ralph Edwards, Perry Como, JFK, and Pat Boone.
The Thundercats
I Love Lucy (George Reeves appearing as Superman on the show)
The KKK
Bugs Bunny
The Quik Bunny (mascot for Quik chocolate milk)



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2013, 05:20:00 AM
Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about whether it was all DC or not.  They just don't fit together in any way.

While we're at it, though, were I magically controllilng Superman I would just have him fly into Castle Grayskull at supersonic speeds and blow it to smithereens.  Instant win!

Except Skeletor wanted to control Greyskull, not destroy it.  The place turned a foppish Prince Valiant into the mightiest man in the universe, imagine what it would do for a faceless necromancer.

As for ridiculous crossovers, here's a few that are just weird

http://www.cracked.com/article_18785_6-comic-book-crossovers-you-wont-believe-actually-happened.html


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on July 23, 2013, 06:15:18 AM
Surprised there hasn't been a Superman vs Judge Dredd crossover yet.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fabricated on July 23, 2013, 11:51:02 AM
Ahahahah, I wonder if this decision was made after the critical panning of Man of Steel.

Seriously; I don't think it is possible to make a really good serious Superman movie. Don't say the 70s ones either; those are camp.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 23, 2013, 01:36:37 PM
Well, the quest for peace was quite....

Nope, couldn't manage it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Teleku on July 23, 2013, 01:47:02 PM
Batman VS. Predator would be a far more interesting movie.



 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on July 23, 2013, 01:55:39 PM
Only way this could be of any value is if Batman is going punish Superman for the events of the first movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 23, 2013, 04:10:27 PM
I don't get how this can work, honestly.  You're going to introduce a new Batman and give him sufficient power levels to go head to head with Superman?  If you introduce Batman at those power levels, how can he go on to fight the Joker, Penguin, etc... without it being a joke?  Batman is the human side of the DC universe, and you're destroying that humanity right from the start?  They could surprise me and make this work, but I just don't see it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2013, 04:13:08 PM
Yeah, I wasn't even thinking about whether it was all DC or not.  They just don't fit together in any way.

While we're at it, though, were I magically controllilng Superman I would just have him fly into Castle Grayskull at supersonic speeds and blow it to smithereens.  Instant win!

Nearly everything in Eternia is magical. Ramming Superman into Castle Greyskull would likey give supes a crushed noggin.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2013, 04:17:33 PM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?

He-Man's strength comes from a magical source, Castle Greyskull. Superman is vulnerable to magic, so yea. If He-Man punched Superman, he'd hurt him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 23, 2013, 07:07:30 PM
Ahahahah, I wonder if this decision was made after the critical panning of Man of Steel.

Seriously; I don't think it is possible to make a really good serious Superman movie. Don't say the 70s ones either; those are camp.

Because there's no conflict.  He's so grossly overpowered that the only source of conflict that can be used is the Hero's Choice. While camp, the 1st Superman showed that even THAT isn't really a problem for Mr. "I can travel through time."

He's a god. Gods are boring unless they're fighting other gods and we have no concern for their squabbles these days.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on July 23, 2013, 08:11:09 PM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?

He-Man's strength comes from a magical source, Castle Greyskull. Superman is vulnerable to magic, so yea. If He-Man punched Superman, he'd hurt him.

Yep same reason Supes has problems fighting Captain Marvel.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 23, 2013, 08:19:52 PM
Ahahahah, I wonder if this decision was made after the critical panning of Man of Steel.

Seriously; I don't think it is possible to make a really good serious Superman movie. Don't say the 70s ones either; those are camp.

Because there's no conflict.  He's so grossly overpowered that the only source of conflict that can be used is the Hero's Choice. While camp, the 1st Superman showed that even THAT isn't really a problem for Mr. "I can travel through time."

He's a god. Gods are boring unless they're fighting other gods and we have no concern for their squabbles these days.

Don't forget his Repair The Great Wall Of China vision! That's one specific superpower! I bet he was so happy to finally get to use it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on July 23, 2013, 08:35:35 PM
I don't get how this can work, honestly.  You're going to introduce a new Batman and give him sufficient power levels to go head to head with Superman?  If you introduce Batman at those power levels, how can he go on to fight the Joker, Penguin, etc... without it being a joke?  Batman is the human side of the DC universe, and you're destroying that humanity right from the start?  They could surprise me and make this work, but I just don't see it.
I am very much not a comic-book expert. However, I will say with authority you really need to go read The Dark Knight Returns (http://www.amazon.com/Batman-The-Dark-Knight-Returns/dp/1563893428). It actually works.

However, I agree with the others here: this wouldn't be a good premise for a Superman/Batman crossover summer blockbuster movie. You'd need 2-3 movies to establish how much Superman got corrupted and how cynical Batman got along with the pissing matches between them that happen before the final encounter in Crime Alley. And even that fight was Batman getting his ass kicked until the trump card at the end. And even that wasn't what it was all about in the first place.

Too convoluted for the ooo-shiny crowd.

And I agree Bale wouldn't fit this kind of movie. Which is actually the thing I'm more curious about. They can slap together any ol' story and it'd be fine. But they get the wrong Bruce Wayne/Batman or don't establish him well enough, and it probabky doesn't work well.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on July 23, 2013, 09:45:43 PM
It's a strange direction to go.  What does this mean for the JLA movie?  IS there one?  Lex will probably trick Supes into trying to capture Batman and after hijinks, they team up and take Lex's new real estate plan down.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 12:13:31 AM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?

He-Man's strength comes from a magical source, Castle Greyskull. Superman is vulnerable to magic, so yea. If He-Man punched Superman, he'd hurt him.

Yep same reason Supes has problems fighting Captain Marvel.

I get the superman is weak against magical sources. I get that he-man's strength comes from magic but....what exactly about a punch is magical? Is superman reall so lame he has DR 100/magic and he-man's fists count as +1?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Kageru on July 24, 2013, 12:57:30 AM

Silly people using comic book logic.

The superman brand needs to team up with the batman franchise to make money. The content of the movie will just involve someone hitting someone, doesn't really matter who.

Though this conversation is a good example of why Superman is such a boring character and it was so easy to skip the movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 03:29:15 AM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?

He-Man's strength comes from a magical source, Castle Greyskull. Superman is vulnerable to magic, so yea. If He-Man punched Superman, he'd hurt him.

Yep same reason Supes has problems fighting Captain Marvel.

I get the superman is weak against magical sources. I get that he-man's strength comes from magic but....what exactly about a punch is magical? Is superman reall so lame he has DR 100/magic and he-man's fists count as +1?


I didn't know about the Magic (not caring at all about Superman) and I was applying this logic to it.  I feel enlightened now.

Kinda.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2013, 06:50:17 AM
I think the above is right--you'll get a Batman emerging in Gotham City, we'll see a quick sketch of what he's up to via the news reports which will be full of hysteria and fear, Lex Luthor will beg Superman to capture this sinister vigilante, Batman will prepare some kind of Superman defense (probably some kind of recreation of Krypton's atmosphere as per Man of Steel) while trying to convince Superman that Lex Luthor is the real bad guy here and he's up to something that could threaten the world etc., they'll team up after a bit more superhero-misunderstanding silliness and go after Luthor, who will have something going that needs both of them to defeat it. (Something for Supes to fight plus some sort of fortress or facility that Batman has to get into.)  I really doubt they're going to throw us anything surprising or artful here.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 24, 2013, 11:21:10 AM
I don't get how this can work, honestly.  You're going to introduce a new Batman and give him sufficient power levels to go head to head with Superman? ...
I am very much not a comic-book expert. However, I will say with authority you really need to go read The Dark Knight Returns (http://www.amazon.com/Batman-The-Dark-Knight-Returns/dp/1563893428). It actually works. ...
I have read it.  And seen the animated adaption (about a week ago).  I think we both nailed why this wouldn't work in this movie: TDKR relies upon the established characters.  It is only because we know who and what the Batman is (and in the case of TDKR, was) that we can accept his plan.

And, 1/2 the story has already been told in the recent Batman trilogy, anyways.  Batman coming out of retirement?  III.  Joker's gambit?  II.  Heck, the best argument to have Bale come back for this movie would be to complete the entire DKR storyline with the established characters.

I believe you can make a good Superman movie.  I don't believe they nailed the forumla, yet, but I did see some things I liked in this most recent version.  I just don't see how they'll improve the situation by introducing Batman in such an 'unBatman-like' situation.  I believe DC is so buried in trappings that take time to accept, they'd be much better off introducing the DC world slowly before doing any cross-overs. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2013, 12:03:20 PM
I'd agree that Bayle's Batman was almost there, but he's out of the game too young.  There's no way you can establish a history between him and Supes having happened to give it enough of a men-at-odds feeling.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on July 24, 2013, 12:26:22 PM
You use the first act to set up their teamwork.

The movie opens on a toy factory.  Bats is investigating and he overcomes deadly traps and confronts the Toymaker.  Toy jumps in a big robot and laughs.  Bats is overpowered.  Suddenly Supes blows in and takes out the robot and they both capture Toymaker.  Supes has heard of Bats and takes him to the FoS where Bats studies Superman carefully.  Meanwhile LL, who was bankrolling Toymaker, is disturbed by the team up.  His plan to control Metropolis and Gotham City is at risk.  He invites the press (Clark and Lois) to tour his new factory to fight other superpowered invaders like the Kryptonians.  Lots of tension.  Lex notes how strongly Lois defends Supes.  Her glowing stories in the DP make him realize that she may be a friend or even lover to Supes.  He puts her in a dangerous position and Supes promptly shows and LL watches the sexual tension.

Bats, meanwhile, is disturbed by Lexcorp moving in on Gotham City after Wayne Industries recent issues.  He fights goons and goes up the food chain by detective work.  His home life is dull as we compare it to Supes and Lois' glamorous blossoming relationship.  'Robin' is anxious to measure up to the old Bats so he is going on a tear.  Finally LL  meets him and turns him against Supes.  Look what Supes did to save Lois!  He endangered a whole city for a single life, etc.  Lex brings up the horrible damage Metropolis suffered and the death of Zod.  A couple more staged incidents make Bats decide to help LL restrain Supes.

The big 'fight'.  Supes is no match for Bats and LL's brains.  Bats goes off satisified and LL tortures Supes and plans to do a cell transfer so LL can be like Supes.  Of course he'll kill Supes after the transfer, so he won't have an equal.  Bats, who never believed LL, saves Supes and they team up to bring down a powered up LL while Supes is still weak.

Supes and Bats bond and they decide that a team of heroes can do even more.  They hint that they'll create a league that will enforce justice. 

That's what I'd do.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 24, 2013, 01:24:10 PM
We are getting into some dangerous fanfic territory here people.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 24, 2013, 02:12:40 PM
Yeah.  Let's not do this.  Like at all.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 24, 2013, 04:42:53 PM
Her glowing stories in the DP make him realize that she may be a friend or even lover to Supes. 

I read this far, far dirtier than anything BUT a fanfic, so... yeah.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on July 24, 2013, 05:01:01 PM
The movie opens on a toy factory.  Bats is investigating and he overcomes deadly traps and confronts the Toymaker.  Toy jumps in a big robot and laughs.  Bats is overpowered. 

A movie where Batman is overpowered by "the Toymaker" does not sound like a winner to me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on July 24, 2013, 05:19:22 PM
For better or worse, there's actually a DC/He-Man 6 issue crossover mini-series starting next month.

Oh I think definitely worse.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 24, 2013, 07:08:06 PM
Yeah.  Let's not do this.  Like at all.
Fine, but you're missing out on my pitch involving their adventures in Bat-bondage and Super-furry.   


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on July 24, 2013, 07:15:54 PM
I don't get how this can work, honestly.  You're going to introduce a new Batman and give him sufficient power levels to go head to head with Superman? ...
I am very much not a comic-book expert. However, I will say with authority you really need to go read The Dark Knight Returns (http://www.amazon.com/Batman-The-Dark-Knight-Returns/dp/1563893428). It actually works. ...
I have read it.  And seen the animated adaption (about a week ago). 
Was the animated movie good enough to watch? I saw it come up on netflix at some point.

Otherwise: totally agree.

And on the fanfic: as much as I enjoy reading the ideas, all those roads lead to disappointment. It's fun, and yes, we all know this is about money and they're trying to catch up to Marvel without having nearly enough individual character successes to do it and whatnot. And I think many of us have wanted a Batman/Superman movie, and we all laughed with a bit of hope at the movie poster in NYC in I Am Legend.

But they need to pull off quite a bit, including a whole new Batman probably, so there's a lot of ways it can fail.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on July 24, 2013, 08:36:45 PM
Actually the Dini-era animated Batman/Superman World's Finest is quite great and really would not be a terrible source material for a live action flick in that it has a Batman and a Superman who don't really know each other well, and it mixes the Joker and Lex Luthor as antagonists in some clever ways. It also has a twist that nobody had thought of until then but which makes a lot of sense--Bruce Wayne quite seriously romances Lois Lane (who is at that point quite diffident about Clark Kent and a bit wary even about Superman in romantic terms). About the only disadvantage to it as a template is that both characters have their individual status quo situations pretty well established, whereas this film is going to have to tell us what kind of Batman we're dealing with and do it fairly quickly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 25, 2013, 09:46:18 AM
...Was the animated movie good enough to watch? I saw it come up on netflix at some point.
I enjoyed the book more than the movie, but it was good for DC animation.  They were very faithful, including the trappings of the 80s.  If you don't love women's shoulder pads...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 25, 2013, 10:39:03 AM
Yeah.  Let's not do this.  Like at all.
Fine, but you're missing out on my pitch involving their adventures in Bat-bondage and Super-furry.   


I think I'll survive.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on July 25, 2013, 10:54:23 AM
Batman VS. Predator would be a far more interesting movie.



 :why_so_serious:

It's been done. And very well too. Batman: Dead End (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhEcP86cGt8)

You can watch it and download it here. Batman: Dead end site (http://www.collorastudios.com/projects/bde/bdemain.htm)

The same bunch also did a mockup of a trailer for superman/ Batman crossover movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsmqc4RhSQY


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on July 25, 2013, 11:11:08 AM
I think we'd all like to see Superman team up with Burka Avenger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pdbshf4iPE) to take on the Taliban  :drillf:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on July 25, 2013, 11:43:22 AM
Wait, He-Man can beat Superman ?

How does that work ?  Eternian Sun not Yellow enough ?

He-Man's strength comes from a magical source, Castle Greyskull. Superman is vulnerable to magic, so yea. If He-Man punched Superman, he'd hurt him.

Yep same reason Supes has problems fighting Captain Marvel.

I get the superman is weak against magical sources. I get that he-man's strength comes from magic but....what exactly about a punch is magical? Is superman reall so lame he has DR 100/magic and he-man's fists count as +1?


I didn't know about the Magic (not caring at all about Superman) and I was applying this logic to it.  I feel enlightened now.

Kinda.


Earlier on in the comic Skelator swipes at Superman and cuts him, establishing that Eternian magic swords can hurt superman. Its also how Skelator gains control of Superman.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Uhdt7UHnA3w/TBb2wUiwudI/AAAAAAAABFw/sFwuWMeh93c/s320/Superman+is+a+dick.jpg)

From this review of the comic if you are that curious. With more hot Super on Heman action.

http://www.needlessthingssite.com/2010/06/he-man-versus-superman-comic-book.html


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 26, 2013, 05:24:37 AM
There are different levels of preposterous, and the further you dig into those comics, the more preposterous things get.  It is already silly to talk about who would win between the movie level versions (the A level Canon).  It is even more ridiculous to take the comic book canon and do the same thing, though I can see why some people would have fun with it.  But then to look at something like the totally pants-on-head abomination of a Superman who somehow visits Eternia and fights Skeletor and He-Man...there is no sane reason to do this other than to make fun of it.  The whole idea is retarded beyond imagination.  Just because the same company might be behind them doesn't mean we have to become insane and actually pretend that they have anything to do with each other.  Might as well ask who would win in a fight between Mara Jade and a very angry Donald Duck.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 26, 2013, 11:34:51 AM
Might as well ask who would win in a fight between Mara Jade and a very angry Donald Duck.
Donald effing Duck, of course. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on July 26, 2013, 11:45:08 AM
No, no, no.  Mara would use Sith Mind tricks to control Judge Doom. Then Donald would be dead!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on July 26, 2013, 12:56:09 PM
The real question is who would win if Mara Jade were in a tank and Donald Duck were in a mech.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on July 26, 2013, 09:37:00 PM
No, no, no.  Mara would use Sith Mind tricks to control Judge Doom. Then Donald would be dead!

Anger leads to hate and hate leads to the Dark Side. Who's got more anger than old-school Donald Duck? The powers of Judge Doom are nothing compared to a Category 5 Force Lightning Storm arising from Donald!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 26, 2013, 10:59:00 PM
No, no, no.  Mara would use Sith Mind tricks to control Judge Doom. Then Donald would be dead!
Anger leads to hate and hate leads to the Dark Side. Who's got more anger than old-school Donald Duck? The powers of Judge Doom are nothing compared to a Category 5 Force Lightning Storm arising from Donald!
Look, if you're not going to be serious about this, then pipe down. 

Donald.

Fing.

Duck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on July 26, 2013, 11:05:05 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pSrvGEsVSmU/UUFSbRmYbJI/AAAAAAAAELo/dUE8Sqn3AlI/s1600/Darkwing+Duck+photo.jpg)

Ok, technically not donald duck, but still...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on July 27, 2013, 12:59:00 AM
Racist.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on July 27, 2013, 11:50:14 AM
That's just not final art.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 27, 2013, 12:16:02 PM
Dude.  Darkwing Duck is no Donald.  Fing.  Duck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 27, 2013, 07:36:43 PM
There are different levels of preposterous, and the further you dig into those comics, the more preposterous things get.  It is already silly to talk about who would win between the movie level versions (the A level Canon).  It is even more ridiculous to take the comic book canon and do the same thing, though I can see why some people would have fun with it.  But then to look at something like the totally pants-on-head abomination of a Superman who somehow visits Eternia and fights Skeletor and He-Man...there is no sane reason to do this other than to make fun of it.  The whole idea is retarded beyond imagination.  Just because the same company might be behind them doesn't mean we have to become insane and actually pretend that they have anything to do with each other. 

I pulled out the He-Man comic because it's fucking awesometerrible. If you want a more "canon" example, how about-

Dr. Fate
Zatana
Etrigan
Captain Marvel

or any other of the DC universe's magical superheroes and villains? I'd be fucking shocked if Batman didn't have a section of the Batcave packed with magic junk at this point.

Quote
Might as well ask who would win in a fight between Mara Jade and a very angry Donald Duck.

This what all these discussions boil down to anyway. Just because Batman is a little more realistic than Optimus Prime, doesn't make Batman any more plausible.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: SurfD on July 27, 2013, 10:58:56 PM
At this point, I do believe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwBK31tC5QM is totally relivant to the topic at hand.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 29, 2013, 01:48:12 AM
There are different levels of preposterous, and the further you dig into those comics, the more preposterous things get.  It is already silly to talk about who would win between the movie level versions (the A level Canon).  It is even more ridiculous to take the comic book canon and do the same thing, though I can see why some people would have fun with it.  But then to look at something like the totally pants-on-head abomination of a Superman who somehow visits Eternia and fights Skeletor and He-Man...there is no sane reason to do this other than to make fun of it.  The whole idea is retarded beyond imagination.  Just because the same company might be behind them doesn't mean we have to become insane and actually pretend that they have anything to do with each other. 

I pulled out the He-Man comic because it's fucking awesometerrible. If you want a more "canon" example, how about-

Dr. Fate
Zatana
Etrigan
Captain Marvel

or any other of the DC universe's magical superheroes and villains? I'd be fucking shocked if Batman didn't have a section of the Batcave packed with magic junk at this point.

Quote
Might as well ask who would win in a fight between Mara Jade and a very angry Donald Duck.

This what all these discussions boil down to anyway. Just because Batman is a little more realistic than Optimus Prime, doesn't make Batman any more plausible.

Sorry if it came across as an attack aimed at you personally, didn't mean it that way.  Here's what I do mean:  Batman versus Superman is a totally fair game, because they theoretically occupy the same logical universe.  The same cannot be said about He-Man and Superman.  They do not fit together in any sensible way, regardless of whatever ham-fisted story-telling is trying to be used to convince us otherwise.  The comic you brought out is indeed awesometerrible.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on July 29, 2013, 02:20:13 AM
There are different levels of preposterous, and the further you dig into those comics, the more preposterous things get.  It is already silly to talk about who would win between the movie level versions (the A level Canon).  It is even more ridiculous to take the comic book canon and do the same thing, though I can see why some people would have fun with it.  But then to look at something like the totally pants-on-head abomination of a Superman who somehow visits Eternia and fights Skeletor and He-Man...there is no sane reason to do this other than to make fun of it.  The whole idea is retarded beyond imagination.  Just because the same company might be behind them doesn't mean we have to become insane and actually pretend that they have anything to do with each other. 

I pulled out the He-Man comic because it's fucking awesometerrible. If you want a more "canon" example, how about-

Dr. Fate
Zatana
Etrigan
Captain Marvel

or any other of the DC universe's magical superheroes and villains? I'd be fucking shocked if Batman didn't have a section of the Batcave packed with magic junk at this point.

Quote
Might as well ask who would win in a fight between Mara Jade and a very angry Donald Duck.

This what all these discussions boil down to anyway. Just because Batman is a little more realistic than Optimus Prime, doesn't make Batman any more plausible.

Sorry if it came across as an attack aimed at you personally, didn't mean it that way.  Here's what I do mean:  Batman versus Superman is a totally fair game, because they theoretically occupy the same logical universe.  The same cannot be said about He-Man and Superman.  They do not fit together in any sensible way, regardless of whatever ham-fisted story-telling is trying to be used to convince us otherwise.  The comic you brought out is indeed awesometerrible.

No sweat man.

I'm just trying to point out that Superman's vulerability to magic is a Thing, and it's been pretty consistent in the fiction. There's a whole swath of DC heroes (and villains) who could have a shot at Superman without using the green crutch. And in a versus scenario, it's not totally implausible for Batman to get ahold of some magic advantage to even the odds. Though it does bring in the magic aspect of the DC Universe, which would probably feel like a cop-out to moviegoers who aren't into the big morass of DC universe lore. "Batman borrowed a magic wand, WTF?"


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 29, 2013, 02:57:38 AM
Yeah, that's kinda how I look at it, too, to be honest.  If speculating what would happen in a MOVIE between these two, I think it best to stick to the movie canon.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on July 29, 2013, 09:37:04 AM
Yeah, that's kinda how I look at it, too, to be honest.  If speculating what would happen in a MOVIE between these two, I think it best to stick to the movie canon.
... in which we have neither Magic or Kryptonite, yet.et.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on July 30, 2013, 12:10:37 AM
Yeah, that's kinda how I look at it, too, to be honest.  If speculating what would happen in a MOVIE between these two, I think it best to stick to the movie canon.
... in which we have neither Magic or Kryptonite, yet.et.

I haven't seen any of the newer movies, so I am considering the orignal stuff from the 80s to be fair game too.  ALL movie canon.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 13, 2013, 04:27:21 PM
Rumor is WB is offering ALL OF THE MONEY to Christian Bale (http://www.slashfilm.com/rumor-warner-bros-offers-christian-bale-60-million-to-play-batman-again/).

BAD WB. *grabs the water bottle*


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2013, 05:12:52 PM
Idiots.

And Hollywood wonders why they aren't making money back on movies.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on August 13, 2013, 06:03:22 PM
My first reaction is how are they going to have a 'gimpy' Batman alongside Supes. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2013, 06:15:24 PM
Dude got destroyed by a normal human thug, Bane.  What's he gonna do if he gets punched by anyone with any kind of super strength?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 13, 2013, 06:24:10 PM
He and Robin will be driving a Bat-Jaeger.   :drill:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 13, 2013, 07:14:01 PM
Obviously Batman will see that what he needs to do is build a giant tank with a main gun that spews concrete filled with bits of Kryptonite all over the Fortress of Solitude, and will just bury Supes at the bottom of the Arctic ocean.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on August 13, 2013, 07:20:50 PM
That's a lot of concrete.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on August 13, 2013, 07:31:43 PM
An overkill. Just need flecks of concrete.

Not at all surprised about Bale offer though. Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman. I'm sure on paper, the  business-types think they can save themselves much headaches this way.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 13, 2013, 08:00:00 PM
An overkill. Just need flecks of concrete.

Not at all surprised about Bale offer though. Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman. I'm sure on paper, the  business-types think they can save themselves much headaches this way.

If they want to keep continuity, they use JGL. Otherwise they've undermined everything anyway, why not go with someone new and launch batman from this flick.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 13, 2013, 08:32:19 PM
They need a new Batman.  They have to reboot a Batman that can actually hang with a new DC universe.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 13, 2013, 11:59:17 PM
Rumor is WB is offering ALL OF THE MONEY to Christian Bale (http://www.slashfilm.com/rumor-warner-bros-offers-christian-bale-60-million-to-play-batman-again/).

BAD WB. *grabs the water bottle*

Wouldn't make sense unless it was for the Superman movie and Justice League. You don't pay that much to get him back for one movie and then risk having to get someone new for the movie they're putting in this effort to build up to.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 14, 2013, 04:43:03 AM
It makes absolutely no sense to try to hire Bale. This is a dumb story made up to generate page views.

Anyway, if they wanted to link it to dark knight they would be trying to hire JGL.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 14, 2013, 05:28:02 AM
You guys are over thinking.

I remember Velorath and I were discussing Avengers before it came out about how Thor would be part of the group. I said he would just be part of the group and his appearance would be explained in a single line of throwaway dialog like "welp we repaired the space bridge with space magic yay." Velorath argued that the Thor movie made a very big deal out of him being stuck on Asgard, and that there was no way they would make that a major plot point in Thor without addressing it in Avengers. Well...

I don't think Velorath was wrong in that yes, it was stupid that Avengers didn't address Thor's situation at all. (Or stupid to make that a major plot point in Thor if it was going to be immediately dismissed) But here's the thing - people want to see an Avengers movie. Marvel wants to make an Avengers movie. Neither group is interested in a "how does Thor get back to earth?" movie being the first half of Avengers.

The Batman films are the only good DC films and the most profitable. The reason to make a Batman vs Superman movie is to have Bale fight Superman. It doesn't matter if his back is broken or he has a gimpy leg or is retired - Bale fighting Superman puts dollar signs in the eyes of movie execs. JGL fighting Superman doesn't.

Here's the thing: if you cast Bale as Batman the movie is 100% guaranteed to make tons of money. Even if you pay Bale $100 million. Dark Knight Rises made a billion dollars box office WW. Almost everyone who saw DKR will see Bale Batman vs Superman, even if they don't like the idea.

Here's the other thing: nobody green lights a movie like Batman vs Superman because they think it will be a good movie. It's not because it has a great script, or even any script. It's a money making concept. If you want continuity maybe you get JGL but movie execs want money, not continuity. Movie execs also like prestige and the Nolan / Bale Batman movies are the only superhero movies they have that get any critical acclaim.

I bet every single time this movie comes up at WB the first question is "so do we have Bale as Batman?"


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2013, 07:13:53 AM
It makes absolutely no sense to try to hire Bale.

You clearly do not deal with studio execs.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 14, 2013, 07:18:14 AM
I think my issue with the Avengers thing was honestly less of a problem with Avengers itself, and more just with the general issues like that which crop up when you're intertwining movies from a number of franchises all with different writers and directors, and the planning ahead of how everything links together is always in flux. That's how you get things like a major plot point at the end of Thor being a minor footnote the next time he shows up. Ideally I'd rather have had that shit cut out of Thor, not add more dialog and explanation to Avengers.

In this instance I get WB's point of view if they are in fact desperately trying to get back Bale or Nolan like the rumors constantly swirling around claim they are. They're less worried about story continuity, and more worried about the continuity of making billion dollar worldwide grossing movies. JGL as Batman is an unknown quantity to them. It gives them the negatives of locking into Nolan's continuity without any of the potential benefits (money). Batman as depicted there isn't a Justice League caliber. He's not the super-genius, prepared for every situation, World's Greatest Detective, Batman. JGL's character even less so. You can hand-wave all that away and just make him that guy, but then really, you might as well just go with a new actor as well.

Personally I think they'd be better off working on getting Nolan, because if the writer and director on this next movie are shit or even just average, Bale isn't going to save it any more than he did that last Terminator movie, and really in the best movie of the trilogy, Bale was practically a supporting role. Honestly though, I'm a huge fan of Nolan, and would rather see him do more original stuff rather than make more licensed stuff so I kinda hope they don't go that route.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
I don't agree with Margalis often, but he's 100% right here.

Execs don't care if a movie "Makes sense."  Only that it makes them money.  This is why we've seen nothing but an endless stream of superhero movies and sequels.  They're money makers.  When they stop making money, things will shift to whatever the next "Movie Bubble" will be.

Historic bubbles:
Epics, Westerns, Comedies, Dramas, 80's Action Movies, Late 70's/ Early 80's Fantasy, (current) Superheros.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 14, 2013, 07:44:54 AM
They could get Micheal Keaton for 20 times less money, and that would have people chattering too.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 14, 2013, 08:18:05 AM
DC has to be very worried that the first two movies to try to kick off their Marvel style formula (Green Lantern and Man of Steel) were both bad. Marvel got rolling on the back of Iron Man, a genuinely good movie with a good star. Meanwhile DC has Ryan Reynolds and Henry Cavill in two duds. At this point there's zero reason to care about a group movie or DC films as a universe. If they can't tie in with the Nolan Batman films in some way what do they have left - Flash? Wonder Woman? Martian Manhunter? Hawkgirl? Like...Plastic Man or some shit?

Realistically speaking in seems Flash is the only hope left. Otherwise it will be like trying to combine Ben Affleck's Daredevil, Nic Cage's Ghost Rider and Eric Bana's Hulk into a group.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2013, 08:30:02 AM
An older Keaton would work very well actually.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 14, 2013, 08:31:37 AM
Realistically speaking in seems Flash is the only hope left.

Flash is getting his own show on CW now.  He's getting a backdoor pilot on Arrow this season. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 14, 2013, 09:52:23 AM
You guys are over thinking.

I remember Velorath and I were discussing Avengers before it came out about how Thor would be part of the group. I said he would just be part of the group and his appearance would be explained in a single line of throwaway dialog like "welp we repaired the space bridge with space magic yay." Velorath argued that the Thor movie made a very big deal out of him being stuck on Asgard, and that there was no way they would make that a major plot point in Thor without addressing it in Avengers. Well...

I don't think Velorath was wrong in that yes, it was stupid that Avengers didn't address Thor's situation at all. (Or stupid to make that a major plot point in Thor if it was going to be immediately dismissed) But here's the thing - people want to see an Avengers movie. Marvel wants to make an Avengers movie. Neither group is interested in a "how does Thor get back to earth?" movie being the first half of Avengers.

The Batman films are the only good DC films and the most profitable. The reason to make a Batman vs Superman movie is to have Bale fight Superman. It doesn't matter if his back is broken or he has a gimpy leg or is retired - Bale fighting Superman puts dollar signs in the eyes of movie execs. JGL fighting Superman doesn't.

Here's the thing: if you cast Bale as Batman the movie is 100% guaranteed to make tons of money. Even if you pay Bale $100 million. Dark Knight Rises made a billion dollars box office WW. Almost everyone who saw DKR will see Bale Batman vs Superman, even if they don't like the idea.

Here's the other thing: nobody green lights a movie like Batman vs Superman because they think it will be a good movie. It's not because it has a great script, or even any script. It's a money making concept. If you want continuity maybe you get JGL but movie execs want money, not continuity. Movie execs also like prestige and the Nolan / Bale Batman movies are the only superhero movies they have that get any critical acclaim.

I bet every single time this movie comes up at WB the first question is "so do we have Bale as Batman?"

I'm going to speak only from my position, and fire something back at you. You are over thinking the complaints.

You don't actually have to tell anyone about how the studio works. The reason I'm annoyed at is is simply because it doesn't make sense if they are want to compete with what Marvel is doing. It's just another sign of a misstep for WB/DC.

I also don't think the reason that Nolan's batman films were a success were because of Bale. I liked him in them, and I really enjoy him as an actor, but I don't know if it really matters for the box office draw that it was Bale. First and foremost, Batman is a much more popular cultural character than Superman is. He has a shit ton more name appeal if only because he is saturated in pop culture with 50,000 different animated shows over the last 15 years.

I understand the studios motives for doing what they are doing, I am simply pointing out that it's stupid, and that they should do better. I want an awesome Avengers level Justice League movie and they are doing everything they can to shoot themselves in the foot.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on August 14, 2013, 10:17:29 AM
The Dark Knight trilogy was great because you had many amazing people involved: Bale is a solid actor, but you can't consider him without acknowledging the acting talents of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Heath Ledger, Tom Hardy, JGL, Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Anne Hathaway, and Marion Cotillard. That is a mind-blowing roster of acting skill right there, and then behind the camera you have the equally talented Christopher Nolan and Wally Pfister.

Thinking you can take one element of that and plop it into a new franchise - one which already has a pretty terrible premise - and hoping to get something great out of it is a massive overreach.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 14, 2013, 10:43:23 AM
Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman.

Not really. Batman is a cultural icon. Show up with Bat-ears and a cape, you don't really have to establish a new "origin." Fuck it's BATMAN. Parents died, kid went crazy, dressed up like Bela Lugosi and beats up criminals. Hell, I don't even think you have to do an origin story on a reboot.

Movie execs, however, are FUCKING IDIOTS who also think they are smarter than their audience. So yes, I can see them throwing bad money at Bale to try to shoehorn his Batman in this movie. But really, after the success of Man of Steel, it's not necessary. You have a built-in audience. The movie was a success. You don't NEED Bale especially not at that price. This is a bullshit story - at least I hope it is.

EDIT: Also, Margalis what are you smoking? Man of Steel was not a dud. It did over $288 million DOMESTICALLY on a $225 million dollar budget. Total worldwide = $648 million. That's an unqualified success by any standard.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 14, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If batman never leaves the suit it's one thing but the moment you have Bruce Wayne in a movie it will be jarring to see anyone not Nolan.  The batman movies are simply too recent and fresh in peoples minds to be used to another actor without the mask.  A non Bruce movie could work but you are seriously tying your wrists together when it comes to the script and especially to sequels which is something the studios likely want to avoid at all(60mil) costs.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 14, 2013, 10:51:52 AM
First and foremost, Batman is a much more popular cultural character than Superman is. He has a shit ton more name appeal if only because he is saturated in pop culture with 50,000 different animated shows over the last 15 years.

Tangent: I'm still amused at this because I remember when the exact opposite was true.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 14, 2013, 11:08:23 AM
If batman never leaves the suit it's one thing but the moment you have Bruce Wayne in a movie it will be jarring to see anyone not Nolan.  The batman movies are simply too recent and fresh in peoples minds to be used to another actor without the mask.  A non Bruce movie could work but you are seriously tying your wrists together when it comes to the script and especially to sequels which is something the studios likely want to avoid at all(60mil) costs.

But... Bale ISN'T Bats now. If it's "fresh in peoples minds", then it can't be Bale.

The only way they could do that is to have both Bale and JGL in it and JGL goes down and Bale "Returns", which arguably could work just fine. But I still don't want Snyder directing that trainwreck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2013, 11:11:37 AM
They can recast Batman without any problem. The real question is, "What Batman are they thinking of having?" The moment it's Bale's Batman, the whole thing stops making a lot of sense. E.g., these two characters EVEN IN their respective films ("Begins" to "Rise" for Batman; "Man of Steel" for Superman) don't really belong in the same universe. They have no iconic charge off of each other, they don't really represent opposites. They have no relation. It also fucks up the idea that the appearance of Superman in "Man of Steel" catalyzes the emergence of superheroes--Batman would have introduced the concept some years previously, and if we're to believe the end of "Rise", some sort of Batman has been operating ever since even with Bruce Wayne retiring, which you get no sense of at all in "Man of Steel".

If it's true, it's a terrible indicator quite aside from showing that these are guys who waste money in nearly criminal fashion.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on August 14, 2013, 02:27:58 PM
EDIT: Also, Margalis what are you smoking? Man of Steel was not a dud. It did over $288 million DOMESTICALLY on a $225 million dollar budget. Total worldwide = $648 million. That's an unqualified success by any standard.
No that just means it barely broke even (or maybe are still losing money) once you add in distribution and marketing costs. A movie like Man Steel probably cost WB around $350 - $400 million total. So far they gotten about $300 - $350 million in revenue. Not only do people still not understand that studios only get about half the box office receipts they spend *a lot* of money on marketing these "tentpole" movies as in $100 - $150 million or more in extra costs.

To give you a concrete example Disney took a $200 million write down on John Carter. World wide it grossed $282,778,100 and it had an estimated production budget of $250 million.

So using my formula above you get something like $150 million in revenue - $250 million in production costs - $100 million in marketing and distribution costs = $200 million write down


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 14, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
The sequel is already greenlit - thus it obviously made them enough money that it cannot be considered a dud.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 14, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
Remember that studio accounting is essentially a lie no matter which way it seems to come out. It is never entirely clear who made money, what kind of money they made, or from what exactly they made it. I heard a sort of insider's talk from a producer last spring where he talked about the actual revenue streams that actually made meaningful profits for studios and investors and by his account the totality is so byzantine that only a small handful of people on any given film really know how much it's made and when that got made. Basically each film is sold at least three, sometimes five times. The theatrical take is the biggest revenue stream but some films surprise and bring in a lot in the later parts of the cycle. (Less so now with the DVD market falling so fast.)

Incidentally this guy also pointed out that the really painful thing is that the occupancy rate on theaters Monday-Thursday is usually under 5% even in summer. I pointed out that restaurants and bars have much better weekday occupancy than that, so why not press theater owners to adopt a model more like the Alamo Drafthouse, where every night is an event and where the theater owners would have a more diversified revenue stream for themselves to boot? His basic answer is: because it's a totally separate industry and Hollywood has almost no influence over how theater owners operate, but on the other hand, theater owners produce the most important revenue for Hollywood. So they're dependent on theater owners and yet can do little to nothing to suggest alternative strategies for getting butts in seats beyond marketing--or doing dumb things like paying Christian Bale $50 million. Which is why someone wants to pay him $50 million--it's how a Hollywood exec proves he's doing something to improve the bottom line, by getting casting that will get a big open, even if the cost of the casting actually makes it way more challenging to make money on the product.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ratman_tf on August 14, 2013, 04:19:17 PM
Remember that studio accounting is essentially a lie no matter which way it seems to come out. It is never entirely clear who made money, what kind of money they made, or from what exactly they made it.

Reportedly (it's on the wiki entries) the LOTR trilogy was a huge financial loss.  :awesome_for_real:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Line_Cinema


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on August 14, 2013, 05:31:00 PM
They could get Micheal Keaton for 20 times less money, and that would have people chattering too.
Holy crap that's a good idea.

Like I said earlier, they'd need to spend a good chunk of the movie, or even a new Batman movie, establish a not-Bale Batman.

Not really. Batman is a cultural icon. Show up with Bat-ears and a cape, you don't really have to establish a new "origin." Fuck it's BATMAN.
In the context of any other medium, I'd totally agree. Rocksteady certainly didn't need to worry about this for Arkham Asylum :-)

But in the context of movies, there's a reason his origin story is told in every movie every time they introduce a new actor. Batman's origin is retold more often than freakin' 007 at this point.

Because it's not about Batman. It's about the movie that happens to feature an icon but which is otherwise completely subsumed by the seat-filling A-list actor likely to rally other actors and support staff to the project. Even if the link on page 3 is to a link-trolling article, you know they're driving trucks of cash over to Bale's house until he capitulates, pulls a diva tantrum, or escapes into a contract for another movie. This isn't about Batman's origin but rather Here's Why We Picked This Guy for Batman origin.

Which the way can be said all about Superman too.

Then add in the layer of importance to DC in general. They don't have an Avengers. They haven't established JLA at all, and obviously haven't figured out how to or they would have. Their entire lineup of movies is almost entirely Superman and Batman titles. Almost 60 years after the first Batman movie hit theaters, they're only now considering having both characters together. Maybe they think/hope that'll kickstart JLA, or maybe they realize these two are the only ones they can do right or something.

Whatever it is, you don't leave that kind of stuff up to any kind of financial chance at all.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 14, 2013, 05:38:23 PM
I don't think it's even really a matter of whether Man of Steel made or lost money. WB had to have been expecting more from it. The pre-release hype and early ticket sales got the sequel greenlit before the movie even came out. They were riding on a wave of anticipation that looks like it started to die out the week after release with a fairly large 64.6% weekend to weekend drop as the bad reviews and word of mouth started coming out. Dark Knight Rises was similarly high with a 61.4% drop but even then that was partly a result of what happened in Auora. If you adjust for inflation and take 3D upcharges into account, Man of Steel's numbers are pretty comparable to Superman Returns domestically.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on August 14, 2013, 06:11:06 PM
The pre-release hype and early ticket sales got the sequel greenlit before the movie even came out.

That and the $170 million it made in licensing deals alone before the film was even released (which doesn't include the pre-sales for other distribution channels)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 14, 2013, 08:15:01 PM
 A big dumb movie with a lot of marketing behind it that can play overseas like Man of Steel is going to make money. I called it a dud because it had no critical acclaim, poor word of mouth and didn't rake in as much as WB was probably hoping. A lot of people were taken by the hype, saw the movie and came away disappointed, which doesn't mean good things for a sequel.

Iron Man 3 made almost twice as much money at the BO.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on August 14, 2013, 09:47:31 PM
I've only skimmed the last page or so, so my apologies if I'm repeating someone's point, but:

To all those thinking that Bale isn't necessary to Batman, consider the screams of outrage every time someone tries to release a Batman game without using Kevin Conroy, or how the only 'real' Joker is Mark Hamill. Any Batman film without Bale is going to attract complaints that it doesn't have Bale and he's the only person who can really play Batman. This is despite all the people who said that Bale was too soft / pretty to play Batman before the first film.

Fans are morons. They don't know what they want until you shove it in their face, then if they like it they pretend that was what they always wanted. If they don't like it, they'll complain that you should have gone with what they said.

As for Bale: that money is insurance that if "Superman Vs Batman" flops it wasn't because they should have put Bale in the film. It's a job insurance payment. And it will get fans of the other Batman films - the serious comic book films that everyone raved about - in to see the new movie as well.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 14, 2013, 10:09:41 PM
Bale is no RDJ and does not deserve 60 mil. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 14, 2013, 10:28:23 PM
Bale is no RDJ and does not deserve 60 mil. 

"Deserves" has nothing to do with it. None of these guys deserve even a tenth of the money they are paid. But it's probably not a bad investment. If another actor would cost say 10 million you're paying 50 million extra. Are you going to make 50 million more in combined box office, DVDs, etc? Probably.

Similarly if you're Marvel it's probably worth it to pay RDJ $100+ million. It's crazy but the return on investment is there.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 14, 2013, 10:58:16 PM
I think Bale's draw is a tad overestimated here. Batman Begins didn't do anywhere near the money the second two movies did. Heath Ledger and to a much lesser extent Aaron Eckhart helped carry the second movie, which in turn created goodwill for the third. Bale did a good job as Wayne, but his Batman voice got nothing but mockery, and Bale is not a sure-fire box office bet by any means nor do I think he was what put asses in seats for these movies.

Also Unsub, if you want to see fan backlash imagine the nerd rage if the Nolan/Bale Batman is "tarnished" by being put into a crap Superman movie that ends up around 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. Also Bale has very vocally made it clear he doesn't really want to come back. In the long term it doesn't make sense to try to build to the Justice League movie and its sequels unless they can get him locked down to a 2-3 movie deal.

I can see why the Studio would want to try, but to me it's one of those things that only looks like the safe bet until you really start analyzing it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 15, 2013, 02:57:12 AM
It's not that Bale has innate draw, it's that in moviegoers' minds, he is Batman.  Period.  I don't think anyone since Adam West has done the role for that long (Keaton only did two movies, right?), or with nearly as much box office success.  Even if he wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats, the association has been forged.

Mark Hamill wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats for Star Wars, but try to imagine if they'd cast somebody else as Luke in Return of the Jedi.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 15, 2013, 03:08:50 AM
This is more like casting someone else for the trilogy Disney is doing.  Yeah, people *want* Luke, Han, and Leia to actually *be* older versions of the same characters, and the most elegant way to do that is to give the parts to actors that actually are thirty years older in the same roles.  But if Ford or Fisher didn't sign on, they'll cast someone else and nobody will give a shit, any more than Palpatine had to be the same actor in the prequels.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 15, 2013, 03:39:47 AM
Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

Where I do agree is that you wouldn't choose to introduce a new bond in the first ever Bond vs Transformers movie. Of course, I wouldn't ever make a Bond vs Transformers movie, but once you start down that road....


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 15, 2013, 05:58:50 AM
It's not that Bale has innate draw, it's that in moviegoers' minds, he is Batman.  Period.  I don't think anyone since Adam West has done the role for that long (Keaton only did two movies, right?), or with nearly as much box office success.  Even if he wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats, the association has been forged.

Mark Hamill wasn't the one putting the asses in the seats for Star Wars, but try to imagine if they'd cast somebody else as Luke in Return of the Jedi.

This isn't Return of the Jedi though unless I missed the part where Luke teamed up with Superman and George Lucas had already moved on to other things. They aren't replacing Bale mid-storyline. To me, getting upset about Bale not coming back to the role for this would be like getting upset if they didn't cast him as Bruce Wayne in Arrow. I'm about as big a comic nerd as you're likely to find on these boards and I can't be bothered to summon nerd rage at the possibility of someone new being cast as Batman. That's partly because "hey guys Batman is gonna be in the next Superman movie" was news that excited me for about two minutes before I remembered Man of Steel, and partly because I though Bale was often the weakest link of Nolan's cast (but hey, he was great in The Fighter at least).  RDJ is Iron Man. Bale is the guy that happened to be wearing a Batman suit in that one Heath Ledger movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 15, 2013, 10:19:01 AM
Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

I'd agree with this.  Plus, it's not as if modern movie goers aren't used to batman switching around.  West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, just for "Big" live action performances.  Bale just happened to be the last on the list. 

Bitching at this point is like the folks who bitched in 1989 that West wasn't Batman. (And yes, it did happen.)  You're replacing a concept with another.  Would West's camp fit in 1989? Fuck no.  Would Bale's fit S vs B? Depends on the script, but I certainly never saw that Batman display the intellect & cunning required to take-out the man of steel. He was the detective, not the strategist.

Hell if you want to get all pedantic about it, even Conroy isn't the "only" batman voice for the last 20 years and there's only been rage from the nerdiest of nerdy nerds about it.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000177/?ref_=tt_cl_t1


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2013, 10:33:51 AM
If there's any character in the world that can be recast at will, it's Batman. That's not a hypothetical, it's a demonstrated reality. The audience for Nolan's trilogy was there first for *Nolan*: it was his take on the character that really sold the films. Second they were there for Heath Ledger and stayed around for the third film.

As long as they don't put a wildly inappropriate guy in the cowl, they can do anybody really. The only thing that matters is having them decide which Batman this is and how he fits into a universe that has a Superman. That cannot be the Nolan Batman--that will fuck the film up right there and then. It can't be Miller's Batman from DKR either--that character is totally dependent upon a long-established relation between Batman and Superman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 15, 2013, 10:35:05 AM
I'd agree with this.  Plus, it's not as if modern movie goers aren't used to batman switching around.  West, Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale, just for "Big" live action performances.  Bale just happened to be the last on the list.

Kilmer was 1995, Clooney was 1997.  The target "modern movie goer" demographic wasn't old enough to see those movies when they came out.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 15, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
Luke isn't really a fair comparison. It's more like if they cast someone new as James Bond.

And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

Batman, like Bond, has become a cultural icon. To anyone that is 30 years old, Batman has already been portrayed by at least 2 people, up to 4 people if you are old enough to go back to the first or second Keaton movie. Moviegoers really aren't tied to one actor for iconic roles. Hell, they've already seen 2 Supermen in the last decade. 2 Bilbo Baggins. Moviegoers aren't going to boycott Superman 2 because Christian Bale isn't playing Batman - nerdragers MIGHT (but probably won't) but as movies like Pac Rim and Snakes on a Plane have already proven, THOSE DIEHARD FANS DO NOT FUCKING MATTER TO HOLLYWOOD.

$60 million is a CRAZY STUPID amount of money for one actor who isn't even the main star of the movie. Maybe if that much cash is being tossed around to sign Bale up for 2-3 movies, maybe I could see that. But that's not what this story would have us believe. That's why I call it a bullshit story. Any idiot that pays an actor that much money based off the performance of his last movie (which really only did about 4-5 times that amount of money total) deserves to have their studio burned to the ground.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 15, 2013, 11:35:49 AM
I don't think a studio is looking at this in terms of boycotting or nerd rage -- they don't give a flying fuck about nerds.  We all know this.  What they're going to look at it in terms of is whether the average idiot is going to see the trailer and accept this movie as part of the latest Batman franchise (which has a proven track record) and go see it on that basis, or if they're going to think it looks like some kind of Asylum ripoff and wait for it to hit Netflix.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on August 15, 2013, 12:13:11 PM
And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

I think people actually want the person playing Bond to change over time. Ideally each actor would get three-four films as Bond, then they get someone new in.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pennilenko on August 15, 2013, 04:39:44 PM
Batman movies are about the fucking Batman. Nobody gives a shit who fills the suit so long as Batman does Batman shit, to villains, while using gadgets that are bad ass and clever.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 15, 2013, 04:46:08 PM
And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

I think people actually want the person playing Bond to change over time. Ideally each actor would get three-four films as Bond, then they get someone new in.

Is that what people want, or is that just what they expect?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on August 15, 2013, 04:50:13 PM
They could get Micheal Keaton for 20 times less money, and that would have people chattering too.

Sounds good to me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 15, 2013, 06:54:35 PM
And yet the Bond franchise, for as bad as some of those movies have done, have gone along just fine with new actors playing Bond (as well as a lot of the supporting cast as well).

I think people actually want the person playing Bond to change over time. Ideally each actor would get three-four films as Bond, then they get someone new in.

Is that what people want, or is that just what they expect?

Doesn't matter which it is. People expect it, therefore they want whatever the new Bond is. Bond films have to really suck to seriously lose the audience and that has a bit to do with the Bond in question seeming a bit old hat and a lot to do with the film really, really sucking.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on August 15, 2013, 08:14:09 PM
Also Unsub, if you want to see fan backlash imagine the nerd rage if the Nolan/Bale Batman is "tarnished" by being put into a crap Superman movie that ends up around 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.

True. But if that's the case, having Bale wasn't the problem with the film. It was then the script or the director.

If a new actor - say one person who's be tapped to be Batman before and but the Justice League movie didn't take, Armie Hammer - takes on the role, and the film flops, then studio heads would roll because they didn't get Bale.

It's a case of making the safe, conservative decision of getting Bale or risking it on a new actor who may or may not deliver.

Personally I'm fine with a new actor for Batman. And a director who can actually shoot decent fight scenes, unlike Nolan.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on August 16, 2013, 08:14:09 PM
It's a case of making the safe, conservative decision of getting Bale or risking it on a new actor who may or may not deliver.
This. It's all about ROI. These movies cost to much to take unnecessary chances. A Hollywood exec ASSUMES Bale is Batman in this movie in the same breathe they assume Cavill is. 10 years ago they'd ASSUME it's George Clooney. 20 years ago it'd have been Keaton.

All the talk of Batman being some cultural icon suit anyone can fill the role of is bullshit in their minds because they don't make movies about suits. They make movies about actors and actresses who play roles in stories.

Bond works because we're all used to decades of new actors. But dig up some exec from the transition era from Connery to Moore and ask them what kind of risk they thought they were taking (and have smelling salts ready for when they remember Lazenby). And THEN layer that wiith the anticipation of a match up that has NEVER been told outside of comic books only the truly hardcore geeks are even aware of, and certainly not in the brainspace of anyone making a decision about bankrolling a $100mm+ flick.

This is where the realities of the business decision making engine run smack into the creative expectations of fans.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 16, 2013, 08:30:43 PM
Moore wasn't that much of a risk. He had already been playing a bond-ish character for quite some time with The Saint. He even made a couple of movies as The Saint, as it happens.

The thing people forget about Lazenby is that the studios were actually very happy with him. He just turned down the role of Bond as he didn't want to do it anymore. He was actually pretty good in the one film he was in, but people can't look at it now without picking out the faults as "there had to have been some reason he was dropped."


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 16, 2013, 08:48:27 PM
OHMSS was a financial, artistic, and critical success, broadly in line with the rest of the Bond canon.

I don't know where people get the idea from that it was either bad or unsuccessful. It is no From Russia with Love, but it is a better film than anything Piers Brosnan has ever been involved in.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on August 16, 2013, 09:25:52 PM
Moore wasn't that much of a risk. He had already been playing a bond-ish character for quite some time with The Saint. He even made a couple of movies as The Saint, as it happens.

The thing people forget about Lazenby is that the studios were actually very happy with him. He just turned down the role of Bond as he didn't want to do it anymore. He was actually pretty good in the one film he was in, but people can't look at it now without picking out the faults as "there had to have been some reason he was dropped."

I'm not talking about retrospect. I'm talking about the specific period when the people bankrolling films had to accept a transition away from Connery (before layering in the ++ stress of a long-in-coming matchup). Decades and a few Bonds later, it's no more an issue than there being 50 Dr Who's. Shit, a second Kirk actor wasn't any more of an issue than a second BA Baracus because in both cases the prior presentations of those characters were for completely different generations of viewers.

Five years from now a non-Bale Batman in a Superman/Batman mashup is probably fine if you accept what I said even earlier about needing to spend a chunk of movie establishing both actors in the roles, possibly enough to require a trilogy or establishing single-character movies leading into.

But this is coming soon enough after Dark Knight Rises that the execs really think Bale is required.

With all that said, I personally don't care. But nobody's made a movie targeting me in 15 years. I'm just trying to see this from the business manager angle.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Simond on August 18, 2013, 01:09:36 PM
To all those thinking that Bale isn't necessary to Batman, consider the screams of outrage every time someone tries to release a Batman game without using Kevin Conroy
Hey there's an idea: cast some random bloke as Batman and have Kevin Conroy overdub him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 18, 2013, 02:00:00 PM
lol.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 19, 2013, 09:31:15 AM
Let's fuck with things and give it to Idris Elba.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MuffinMan on August 22, 2013, 09:04:35 PM
Ben Afflek. (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/22/ben-affleck-batman/)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 22, 2013, 09:53:47 PM
Shine on, you crazy Diamond, DC.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 22, 2013, 10:00:17 PM
Hey, I have an idea. Let's get the guy that fucked up the closest equivalent to Batman in the Marvel Universe...

I am dumb-fucking founded by this casting.  I thought I was pessimistic about this film before, but now I'm dreading it.  I could be surprised, but the odds seem to be getting longer and longer...

And let's all be honest: If you lined up all of the Batmen you've ever seen on screen and had to pick one that you'd guess Affleck would end up being most like, who would it be?  After Daredevil, I've got to go Kilmer.

Ugh.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 22, 2013, 10:16:26 PM
The first image that came to mind on reading this news:

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ut3aILNN1qeitqh.gif)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: naum on August 22, 2013, 10:37:21 PM
Ben Afflek. (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/22/ben-affleck-batman/)

"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened."


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 22, 2013, 10:44:59 PM
Wow, they have just made it so that I would probably pay money NOT to see this movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 22, 2013, 11:05:14 PM
And now paying $60 million for Bale looks even less crazy.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 22, 2013, 11:15:19 PM
That's it, I'm out.  Ben Fucking Afflek?  He's a decent director, but as an actor...he's a decent director.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Soln on August 22, 2013, 11:51:17 PM
OHMSS is my favourite Bond film ever.




Affleck?  What the Pope resign or something?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rasix on August 23, 2013, 12:02:44 AM
Ben Afflek. (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/08/22/ben-affleck-batman/)

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/82533/nononononono.gif)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 23, 2013, 12:06:43 AM
Ben Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms yo!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pezzle on August 23, 2013, 01:00:42 AM
Expect.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 23, 2013, 03:42:41 AM
BUT GUYS PEOPLE EXPECT BATMAN TO BE PLAYED BY RANDOM JACKASSES

hahahaha, Affleck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on August 23, 2013, 05:15:25 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/k7dTaLj.jpg)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 23, 2013, 06:37:44 AM
BUT GUYS PEOPLE EXPECT BATMAN TO BE PLAYED BY RANDOM JACKASSES

hahahaha, Affleck.

To be fair the argument was random actors.  Only crazy people consider Affleck a real actor rather than a guy who rode his more talented friends coattails.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on August 23, 2013, 06:38:51 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/Rendakor/bunksmh.gif)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 23, 2013, 08:09:48 AM
 :ye_gods:

Well. Trying to think of what they're thinking. Not able to think of it. It isn't even worth trying to nerd-reason out the consequences.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: shiznitz on August 23, 2013, 08:49:40 AM
Does Affleck even have a specific audience demo that likes him any more?  I have a feeling he lobbied for the role to try and revive his acting career.

I also predict that there will be a loud, negative reaction to this from the comic book fanbase, enough to get him removed.  Going out on a limb there, but what the hell.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: 01101010 on August 23, 2013, 09:09:59 AM
Does Affleck even have a specific audience demo that likes him any more?  I have a feeling he lobbied for the role to try and revive his acting career.

I also predict that there will be a loud, negative reaction to this from the comic book fanbase, enough to get him removed.  Going out on a limb there, but what the hell.

That can't happen. I mean, he played a comic book author already!! What more does he have to prove?!?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Shannow on August 23, 2013, 09:10:34 AM
suck it geeks. You wanted to be mainstream and this is what you got.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on August 23, 2013, 09:11:36 AM
so the buttsex guy from mallrats is gonna be batman?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 23, 2013, 09:28:45 AM
Does Affleck even have a specific audience demo that likes him any more?  I have a feeling he lobbied for the role to try and revive his acting career.

I also predict that there will be a loud, negative reaction to this from the comic book fanbase, enough to get him removed.  Going out on a limb there, but what the hell.

So, I don't like the pick. I like Affleck well enough, both as a director and an actor, but I just don't see the fit. Given his success in directing/acting as is, I'm not sure he has to revive anything. Dude was just up for oscars.

As for the negative reaction. It's there , but not nearly enough to get him removed. Has that ever ever happened?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 23, 2013, 10:26:25 AM
I'm a bit ambivalent. I like Affleck as both actor and director. I think he'll be fine as Bruce Wayne. I'm not entirely sure he'll be good as Batman but I think that's going to be down more to the director than the actor as to how he's played.

I think this is more about who gets to direct the Justice League movie than it is who gets to play Batman. The studio likely wanted an actor who was willing to commit a good bit to their franchises - more than most actors will want to do. Affleck probably said "let me direct the Justice League and you can pay me less and I'll sign up for umpteen pictures." And if he directs Justice League, that is a good thing.

As for Affleck in Daredevil, the problems with that movie had fuckall to do with who was playing the main character. That movie started going bad with the writer and director, went on into poor studio choices and ended with poor editing choices.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Signe on August 23, 2013, 10:35:00 AM
He doesn't have enough lip charisma for Batman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 23, 2013, 10:45:56 AM
Let's go through the checklist:

1.) An actor that failed as Marvel's 'Poor Man's Batman,
2.) A storyline based upon a long standing relationship between two heroes,
3.) Locking a foundational franchise in their combined universe into a 41 year old actor with no geek cred, and
4.) An actor that tried to play 'gravitas' repeatedly and always come off like his character from Mallrats.

I'm usually a benefit of the doubt kind of guy, but I'd be shocked if this is not a trainwreck.  I applaud WB for the balls to make a decision that their fandom will hate because they think they know better... but if the Comic Con 2014 footage does not blow us away, they're going to be SCREWED.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 23, 2013, 10:47:35 AM
Do we know for certain that Cavill is Superman?  Because if they get Damon instead this will be movie of the year.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pennilenko on August 23, 2013, 10:52:12 AM
...lip charisma...
:drill:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 23, 2013, 11:06:14 AM
I'm a bit ambivalent. I like Affleck as both actor and director. I think he'll be fine as Bruce Wayne. I'm not entirely sure he'll be good as Batman but I think that's going to be down more to the director than the actor as to how he's played.

I think this is more about who gets to direct the Justice League movie than it is who gets to play Batman. The studio likely wanted an actor who was willing to commit a good bit to their franchises - more than most actors will want to do. Affleck probably said "let me direct the Justice League and you can pay me less and I'll sign up for umpteen pictures." And if he directs Justice League, that is a good thing.

As for Affleck in Daredevil, the problems with that movie had fuckall to do with who was playing the main character. That movie started going bad with the writer and director, went on into poor studio choices and ended with poor editing choices.

The Affleck director thing is not something that is happening. I actually like that idea of him directing that movie quite a lot now that you mention it, but it just seems like it would be a trainwreck of a time dealing with Snyder, etc during that kind of transition.


I don't disagree with you about Daredevil though. I thought he was fine in it. It was just a shitty movie. He was hardly the reason for it being shitty.

Do we know for certain that Cavill is Superman?  Because if they get Damon instead this will be movie of the year.

Cavill is Sups again, yes.

Damon = Robin, clearly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Shannow on August 23, 2013, 11:33:29 AM
Someone pointed out that the internet chucked a massive wobbly when Heath Ledger was named as the Joker....


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 23, 2013, 11:40:05 AM
You can argue that Affleck was not the main problem with Daredevil, but he was a problem.  I'm sorry, but the guy has no force of personality at all, and Batman and Daredevil are all about force of personality.  You need an actor that can stare down a foe in a way that gives the audience shivers - not giggles.

Seriously, can you think of a single moment in anything he has ever done where he was (*in any way*) threatening? He's played a super hero, a fallen angel, a driller/astronaught, a marine trained CIA operative, and Basketball Player #10 in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie).  He has had plenty of opportunity to show us that he can intimidate.  Was there ever a single moment when he evoked 'bad-ass'?  Is there ever a moment that you don't think he'd be the guy to blink first?  

Seriously - Hugh Jackman is a singing and dancing fool when he wants to be, but is there any doubt about which one of those two can summon more intensity?

And before we go down that road: This isn't a Michael Keaton situation.  Keaton wasn't an obvious choice for Batman, but he did well.  Keaton doesn't have that threatening face, but he could be intense.  He could summon that intensity and be the Batman.  Affleck has never shown the fire that it takes.

I'd much rather they went with a fairly unknown guy than go with the big name that doesn't have the mettle and spirit to be Batman.  


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 23, 2013, 12:07:08 PM
Affleck didn't help Daredevil, but I agree that movie had way bigger problems than him.

Damon should be cast as Lex Luthor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Thrawn on August 23, 2013, 12:13:43 PM
Someone pointed out that the internet chucked a massive wobbly when Heath Ledger was named as the Joker....

I could be completely wrong since I'm not going to look into it, but I remember the Ledger stuff being more like "Huh, odd choice, we will see what happens." where Affleck is just more outright "NOPE".

I think I'm a rarity that I didn't like the way Joker was written in TDK.  Ledger's acting was great, but the character didn't feel like the Joker to me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 23, 2013, 12:14:47 PM
Affleck can direct, he can even act but he can't carry a movie and that people keep wanting him to be a leading man is ridiculous.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 23, 2013, 12:22:27 PM
Someone pointed out that the internet chucked a massive wobbly when Heath Ledger was named as the Joker....

I could be completely wrong since I'm not going to look into it, but I remember the Ledger stuff being more like "Huh, odd choice, we will see what happens." where Affleck is just more outright "NOPE".

I think I'm a rarity that I didn't like the way Joker was written in TDK.  Ledger's acting was great, but the character didn't feel like the Joker to me.

You are completely wrong. There was a lot of homophobic shit especially, given Brokeback Mountain. His joker was the perfect joker for that more realistic/gritty universe.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 23, 2013, 12:51:40 PM
Affleck is just not a good actor. He's pretty much the same in every role, and while it works for some people it definitely doesn't work for him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 23, 2013, 01:11:06 PM
Ledger/Joker and Affuck/Batman are worlds apart.

First, the lashing against Ledger was there, but it wasn't overwhelming.  It was the usual minority backlash you see with any major casting. 

Second, Ledger had never really been called on to do that type of role and failed.  It was a situation where people could say, "I can't see how this will work."  It was not a situation in which you'd say, "I've seen this fail a number of times already."


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 23, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
Affleck is just not a good actor. He's pretty much the same in every role, and while it works for some people it definitely doesn't work for him.

He's not just the same in every role, he's an angry and/or sulking young man with an overinflated ego in every role. Even in Argo.

Bruce Wayne could be played as a sulky man, but he can't really be played as inexperienced.

Someone pointed out that the internet chucked a massive wobbly when Heath Ledger was named as the Joker....

The only shit around Ledger was from unwashed idiots whose opinion people here generally give zero fucks about.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: 01101010 on August 23, 2013, 01:40:15 PM
I'm a bit ambivalent. I like Affleck as both actor and director. I think he'll be fine as Bruce Wayne. I'm not entirely sure he'll be good as Batman but I think that's going to be down more to the director than the actor as to how he's played.

I am sorta going this route as well. I liked Bale as Batman, but thought he was horrible as Bruce. I think Ben will be opposite.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 23, 2013, 01:58:58 PM
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1175687_462627227184818_1007538927_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 23, 2013, 02:20:12 PM
I'm a bit ambivalent. I like Affleck as both actor and director. I think he'll be fine as Bruce Wayne. I'm not entirely sure he'll be good as Batman but I think that's going to be down more to the director than the actor as to how he's played.

I am sorta going this route as well. I liked Bale as Batman, but thought he was horrible as Bruce. I think Ben will be opposite.

And if this was Clark Kent vs. Bruce Wayne....

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 23, 2013, 03:08:24 PM
Batman is three characters.  Batman, public Bruce Wayne, and private Bruce Wayne. 

We've discussed Affleck as Batman.  Nobody seems likely to change their mind about how well this will work.

Affleck as the public Bruce Wayne?  Sure.  Why not.  In a way, this is an irrelevant role in the movie.  He could be played like Tony Stark, or he could be a complete fop.  There are a thousnad ways to go, there, and it would be hard to argue any of them is wrong.  This role is just a disguise for the main character with no real importance to the audience.

Bruce Wayne in private, however, is the hardest role.  He is Batman without the theatrics.  He is Batman stripped down to his soul.  He has to be intense and powerful through the force of his presence.  I don't think Bale nailed this part of Batman.  It is one of the reasons I think the third movie was the weakest of the trilogy - because it was the one movie that relied heaviest upon what made Bruce Wayne special.  This is the part of the character that Affleck has tried to show in other roles and always failed to produce.  To me, it seems far beyond his abilities.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 23, 2013, 03:16:17 PM
Very well, put. Thank you. Agreed. Mind you in the context of this movie, given the director, I'm not sure the private Bruce Wayne will ever be shown.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2013, 03:17:54 PM
Affleck didn't write or direct Daredevil, I don't really think he bears the blame for it. Good actors are usually bad in bad movies, a bad director or bad script can ruin just about anyone. It's really pretty rare where you get something like Anthony Perkins turning in a great performance in Psycho 2 in the service of an otherwise horrible movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: naum on August 23, 2013, 04:02:58 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/KaBv2aJ.jpg)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 23, 2013, 04:09:58 PM
I'm going to go with 'I don't care' for this whole furore.

Really.

Though I will say that Ben is a great Director and, as an actor, he's a great Director.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 23, 2013, 04:13:48 PM
So... possibly Cranston as Lex. And 13 fucking picture deal for Affleck? Jesus fuck. (http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/exclusive-bryan-cranston-lex-luthor-batman-superman-matt-damon-aquaman-mark-strong-sinestro)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 23, 2013, 04:16:06 PM
So... possibly Cranston as Lex. And 13 fucking picture deal for Affleck? Jesus fuck. (http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/exclusive-bryan-cranston-lex-luthor-batman-superman-matt-damon-aquaman-mark-strong-sinestro)

Quote
DC also does have major interest in bringing Matt Damon into the Justice League now that Affleck is on board, and it is rumored that he is being considered for Aquaman or Martian Manhunter.

That one line makes me think this story is not true and that the web site owner is just fucking with us. Damon as Aquaman? Really?



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ingmar on August 23, 2013, 04:21:52 PM
yessssssssss

(http://i.imgur.com/LciE6qK.gif)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on August 23, 2013, 04:30:04 PM
Meh, I don't mind that Affleck is Bats, but he'll need to show some gravitas he's never shown in a movie before.

Loved Argo and The Town.

Reindeer Games is on right now.  True fact!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on August 23, 2013, 04:33:43 PM
I plan to enjoy every last minute of this metaphorical train wreck.

Matt Damon and Sarah Silverman as the wonder twins.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 23, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
Affleck didn't write or direct Daredevil, I don't really think he bears the blame for it. Good actors are usually bad in bad movies, a bad director or bad script can ruin just about anyone. It's really pretty rare where you get something like Anthony Perkins turning in a great performance in Psycho 2 in the service of an otherwise horrible movie.
It isn't about him acting 'good or bad' in the past - it is about whether he can deliver Batman.  Affleck has played a number of roles that should have been intense with a strong force of personality.  In each of them he has failed to deliver.  Daredevil, Jack Ryan, a fallen Angel, etc... were all characters that should have been forces on the screen and ended up coming off as guys along for the ride.  You can't say that was all bad direction and bad writing.  Affleck must be given the blame as well. 

To be clear: Affleck was fine in several roles, but has never been acceptable in roles like Batman.

Regardless, even if he was the perfect Batman, this is a horrible situation.  Introducing Batman in another hero's film - in a franchise that many considered to start weekly primarily due to a lack of faithfullness to the character's core tennants - in a version of a storyline that is built upon the long term relationship between the two characters... Recipe for failure.   Batman needed his own film before you shoved them together.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 23, 2013, 06:48:02 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/RViEHVx.gif)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on August 23, 2013, 07:46:49 PM
I'm not anywhere near the level of geek about Batman heritage as some here. I loved me some of the graphic novels, but I haven't read an actual I-waited-a-month comic book since, like ever because my parents said no fucking way and I was into Zork before I had spending money of my own.

So far my interest has been mostly "if not Bale, then who" and how much movie they need to use to explain the Actor choice.

Ben Affleck can work specifically because of Daredevil. Doesn't matter if that was an awesome movie. It matters that he's got pretty good butts-in-seats appeal, has a pretty good range, can possibly bring other talent on board, and played some dark-ish hero-type a hundred years ago.

This is why I love the general nerd reaction to any decision hollywood makes about beloved comic book stuff. There is NO overlap between culturess at all. There''s barely 15 degrees of seperation even, much less 6.

Afflleck will be fine. It won't be robot jesus wearing a suit of ken miller. But good luck explaining wtf that means to anyone outside the extreme geek subculture.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 24, 2013, 07:50:15 AM
...Actually Damon kinds of looks like I would imagine Aquaman to look.

And people are misremembering the reaction to Ledger. It was intense, near-universal and sustained in its hostility.

The thing is I have no confidence in *Snyder* to find some potential in Affleck and to shape it. He didn't do very much with Cavill who I think could have been far better in the role, and I don't think he's ever gotten a particularly great performance out of anyone except maybe Gerard Butler, and that was within the one-dimensional limits of 300.

A great director can probably get a passable performance out of almost anyone. Snyder is not that guy.

The basic problem with the film is also still not Affleck and maybe not even Snyder. It's that they don't have a script and they expect to be out in two years, and that they're working from the flawed set up of Man of Steel.  What they're saying so far and confirmed with the casting of Affleck is that this is an older, experienced, near-retired Batman who's already had a bunch of adventures. Did the world of "Man of Steel" feel like the people in it were familiar with the idea of a guy dressing up in a costume and fighting criminals? Didn't to me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2013, 08:02:37 AM
I really think you're overplaying the Ledger stuff.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on August 24, 2013, 08:07:57 AM
I didn't see Dark Knight in theaters, mostly because I thought Ledger would be a horrible Joker. I was wrong, but I'm certainly among those who thought it was a bad choice before seeing the film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2013, 08:26:30 AM
I wasn't a fan of the Glasgow Grin, but I didn't mind the choice of Actor.

I'm just saying that it wasn't as universally 'OMG' as Affleck.  Not that I'm bothered by that either.

Let's wait and see, eh ?  Especially considering we have absolutely no fucking choice in the matter.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 24, 2013, 08:42:12 AM
We don't have argue about the Ledger Joker reaction because this is the internet and you can look it up right here...
http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=7786.0

The only person who had a problem with it was Stray, and he got over it in about a day.

This is not like that.

I give only limited fucks because this is both a superman film and a Zac Snyder film, so Ben Affleck is at least the 3rd worst thing about it. But this is not the normal level of nerd whine by any means.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Signe on August 24, 2013, 09:26:01 AM
Ben Affleck has no face character.  The most important thing about Batman is his face... especially the bottom bit.  Same is true for Robo Cop.  We need more face!  Especially interesting lips.  I would love to see Cranston as a totally evil character. 

IW, you are a hooligan and you are corrupting our soft American boys!  Shame on you!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2013, 10:02:30 AM
I.. what ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Signe on August 24, 2013, 10:12:53 AM
Your Glasgow grin.  I haven't heard that for ages and only out of the mouths of Scots.  Well, there's Chelsea but they call it something else.  Of course, maybe it's different now because of Tommy Flannagan - whom I adore, scars and all.  

edit:  I make typo!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 24, 2013, 02:00:52 PM
I thought everyone called it that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 24, 2013, 02:27:36 PM
I.. what ?

I think she's saying you touch little boys.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Raguel on August 24, 2013, 02:41:18 PM

I hope going with Affleck means they aren't doing Batman as "the Dark Knight" but as "the Detective"; not that I don't like the first but I'd rather see another interpretation and I think it's a better fit for Affleck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Setanta on August 24, 2013, 05:09:48 PM

Regardless, even if he was the perfect Batman, this is a horrible situation.  Introducing Batman in another hero's film - in a franchise that many considered to start weekly primarily due to a lack of faithfullness to the character's core tennants - in a version of a storyline that is built upon the long term relationship between the two characters... Recipe for failure.   Batman needed his own film before you shoved them together.

I'm amazed more people haven't picked up on this because all I can think is the ending to the "How It Should Have Ended" clips.

I'm certain that the writers have a vision, but they are competing with the memory of Bale as Batman. To me it stinks of them just trying to focus an audience on Superman again by using a character that seems to be a lot more popular than Superman, but by using an actor that is not established as Batman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 25, 2013, 03:45:00 AM

Regardless, even if he was the perfect Batman, this is a horrible situation.  Introducing Batman in another hero's film - in a franchise that many considered to start weekly primarily due to a lack of faithfullness to the character's core tennants - in a version of a storyline that is built upon the long term relationship between the two characters... Recipe for failure.   Batman needed his own film before you shoved them together.

I'm amazed more people haven't picked up on this because all I can think is the ending to the "How It Should Have Ended" clips.

I'm certain that the writers have a vision, but they are competing with the memory of Bale as Batman. To me it stinks of them just trying to focus an audience on Superman again by using a character that seems to be a lot more popular than Superman, but by using an actor that is not established as Batman.

I think if there's one thing they're doing right here, it's that we don't need another Batman origin movie. Multiple generations have been exposed to the character already. If a new Batman shows up in a Superman movie people aren't going to be asking themselves "who the hell is this guy in a bat suit?".


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2013, 03:58:43 AM
Problem is even knowing batman there are still many differing versions of him.  Is the batman/superman batman the same as the nolan batman with a different actor? Is morgan freeman going to pop up? is Ras dead/alive? Is the joker? 

With a new actor and no backstory there are a lot of questions, irregardless of how well known batman is.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 25, 2013, 05:10:11 AM
Problem is even knowing batman there are still many differing versions of him.  Is the batman/superman batman the same as the nolan batman with a different actor? Is morgan freeman going to pop up? is Ras dead/alive? Is the joker? 

With a new actor and no backstory there are a lot of questions, irregardless of how well known batman is.

Anybody who gives a fuck about any of those questions is already going to know going into the movie that it's not the Nolan Batman. We're still just under two years away from this movie, and WB is out there loudly saying it's not the same character. The phrase "entirely new incarnation" was in the press release which every major news outlet has reported on.

These arguments about these hypothetical moviegoers who are going to be so confused by the change are really a bit ridiculous. By the time July 2015 rolls around and God knows how much marketing the public has endured, what do you think the percentage of movie goers who are interested in seeing a Superman/Batman movie but don't know it's not a continuation of the Nolan stuff is really going to be? The younger audience is already flooded with this stuff on twitter, and older people have been through multiple reboots of the character enough to understand how it works. Is there really a significant number of people who are going to be watching the movie unable to wrap their head around the fact that this is a different take on the character, but that the character is still likely a rich guy whose parents were killed which made him decide to fight crime in a bat costume?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2013, 06:35:58 AM
I went to a production of "the Tempest" last month, I was sorely disappointed to discover that Prospero was not only played by different actor to that which I saw previously, but also was back on the island which he had previously escaped! Also Miranda and Ferdinand were acting like they had never met despite being married in the previous production!

People can cope with 'its a new continuity'. Nobody expected the Dark Knight to respect the Adam West continuity.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2013, 07:10:19 AM
I don't think anyone will be confused about who the Batman is or what his motivations are in general. But it has a huge impact on the world-building they're doing if they're trying to work up to a Justice League.

Look at the subtle but persistent effects in Marvel movies of the sequence of characters being introduced and an account of how long they've been around and in what way.

"JL-World" will be very different if we're meant to believe that Batman in his outfit with his gimmicks has been a known part of life in Gotham City for a decade vs. if instead Bruce Wayne has been an unseen ninja fighting crime for his entire adult life but decides to put on a spandex uniform when he sees Superman on the TV.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 25, 2013, 11:17:24 AM
irregardless

 :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2013, 11:46:28 AM
I went to a production of "the Tempest" last month, I was sorely disappointed to discover that Prospero was not only played by different actor to that which I saw previously, but also was back on the island which he had previously escaped! Also Miranda and Ferdinand were acting like they had never met despite being married in the previous production!

People can cope with 'its a new continuity'. Nobody expected the Dark Knight to respect the Adam West continuity.

There are not a hundred different versions of the tempest.  There is no communist Prospero or a female Prospero, it's the same story note by note every time.  The only constant in batman is "parent's die" and in some comics not even that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2013, 01:48:16 PM
Actually directors do sometimes cast Prospero as female just to shake things up. Shakespeare is a bad/good example to bring up here depending on what side you're on--a different staging, different casting, different choices of abridgement, can make a Shakespeare play completely different from one performance to the next, and often does. No one really noted or cared much about the colonial subtext of The Tempest until relatively recently, and now that's become the major staging or concept in most performances of it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2013, 03:17:51 PM
I went to a production of "the Tempest" last month, I was sorely disappointed to discover that Prospero was not only played by different actor to that which I saw previously, but also was back on the island which he had previously escaped! Also Miranda and Ferdinand were acting like they had never met despite being married in the previous production!

People can cope with 'its a new continuity'. Nobody expected the Dark Knight to respect the Adam West continuity.

There are not a hundred different versions of the tempest.  There is no communist Prospero or a female Prospero, it's the same story note by note every time.  The only constant in batman is "parent's die" and in some comics not even that.

Honestly not sure if serious.

You do know Helen Mirren only recently shot a version playing Prospero?

Unless I just fell into the sarchasm you need to get out to the theatre more.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 25, 2013, 04:07:28 PM
I went to a production of "the Tempest" last month, I was sorely disappointed to discover that Prospero was not only played by different actor to that which I saw previously, but also was back on the island which he had previously escaped! Also Miranda and Ferdinand were acting like they had never met despite being married in the previous production!

People can cope with 'its a new continuity'. Nobody expected the Dark Knight to respect the Adam West continuity.

There are not a hundred different versions of the tempest.  There is no communist Prospero or a female Prospero, it's the same story note by note every time.  The only constant in batman is "parent's die" and in some comics not even that.

There are a lot more constants than that. Virtually every non-comic depiction of Batman from Adam West to Christian Bale including the various animated series and the Arkham video games has included him being rich and having a mansion, the Batcave and the Batmobile, a butler/father figure named Alfred, his archenemy being the Joker, Catwoman being a enemy/ally/love interest, Commissioner Gordon being one of his biggest allies, etc...

Yeah there are a lot of versions of Batman but they mainly vary in regards to how dark or light-hearted the writing is, and to what extent the writers choose to play up his intellect or his fighting ability. With a good writer, you can establish that in about 5 minutes of screen time. I maintain that the biggest problem is that Goyer and Snyder are two of the most insanely inconsistent people working in the industry.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2013, 05:17:40 PM
That said, there really is no reason you couldn't do a medieval batman, a steam punk batman, female batman, or batman 3013. The only reason it doesn't get shaken up as much as Shakespeare is the insidious, chilling effect of IP law.

There will never be another set of plays, characters, or stories reinterpreted the way Shakespeare is because of the power of corporate interests to rewrite copyright law for their own benefit.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 25, 2013, 05:25:50 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ben.jpg?resize=600%2C1390)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 25, 2013, 05:34:04 PM
I do not think we need to redo an origin story for Batman.  If you decided to do it, you could do it as a montage during the opening credits, or have Batman do it in a 3 to 5 minute flashback.  However, even though the origin doesn't need to be redone, you MUST establish this Batman on screen.  If he is going to carry a movie in the future, you have to establish who he is.  Is this a mirror of Bale's Batman?  Or Keaton's?  Or is it more like the Detective depicted in animated Batman shows?  Or something else?

Go back and think about your favorite action movies.  If they focus on one character (like Die Hard): How well do you get to know the secondary characters?  If this is a Superman movie with Batman, we're not going to get to know him very well.  If, on the other hand, we treat it like a buddy movie (like Tango & Cash or Lethal Weapon): Is there any character that was fleshed out deeply?  Usually the answer is no.  They instead rely upon you not understanding the depths of the character to make them a mystery and to make you unsure how they'll react in stressful times.  Does that type of uncertainty work in Batman and Superman movies?  I don't think so.

This is a movie where you need to remind people who Superman is, introduce Batman, introduce the villian (Luthor?), establish the conflict, have a conflict between Batman and Superman, twist the resolution to turn them against the villain and then have the final conflict.  In a story with those elements, you need to establish Batman in the first third of the movie AFTER reintroducing Superman.  That gives you about 15 to 20 minutes to give us the character of Batman.  And, as Affleck couldn't do it if we gave him 5 days to do it...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 25, 2013, 05:37:06 PM
Well, if anything, this has at least brought the scum to the surface.

You know, that type of horrid person that thought Keaton did a good job.


 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 25, 2013, 05:44:46 PM
I don't understand the comic strip. Affleck is not good in Argo. He's the biggest flaw in the film. This is not an unusual sentiment.

The town and Argo are remarkable for being good despite the director's performance as an actor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 25, 2013, 06:26:59 PM
Well, if anything, this has at least brought the scum to the surface.

You know, that type of horrid person that thought Keaton did a good job.

:why_so_serious:
Context.

I don't know how old you are, but if you saw what had come before in terms of Superhero movies and then saw Keaton's Batman at release, you'd have no doubt that it was a huge leap forward.  If you look back now, it doesn't hold up as well - much as Star Wars does not hold up and provide the same magic it did when released - but the Keaton Batman was incredible for the time. 

Keaton did a fantastic job.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on August 25, 2013, 07:00:27 PM
Yeah, it was the first (to me probably) time the geek culture really were vocal about displeasure in casting.  They should have been more worried about Prince's crazy-ass soundtrack.  Maybe Keaton and Burton took it to heart, he was the greatest Batman EVAR.

If you disagree I hope you like being wrong.  :grin:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 25, 2013, 07:14:30 PM
Keaton was a smary and troubled Bruce but as batman he was more hampered by the suit and Burton having no idea how to do action than anything to do with acting.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 25, 2013, 08:00:03 PM
I actually watch Batman Returns every Christmas. Its a perfect Christmass movie for me and, for me, holds up really well. The entire cast was fantastic.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 25, 2013, 09:03:56 PM
Well. Sometimes you have your opinion of people confirmed by unexpected evidence. Today is such a moment for me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 25, 2013, 09:29:28 PM
So... the fact that I like to watch a movie set around Christmass at Christmass means what exactly?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 25, 2013, 09:35:27 PM
I actually watch Batman Returns every Christmas. Its a perfect Christmass movie for me and, for me, holds up really well. The entire cast was fantastic.

With the exception of the dance scene between Pfieffer and Keaton, the rest of that movie is absolute, utter shit of the worst kind.

The problems with the Burton Batman movies had nothing to do with Keaton, BTW.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 25, 2013, 09:45:21 PM
I tend to watch it as Pheiffer, Keaton, Walken and DeVito having a great time and acting their ass off. The 4 of them carry the movie and it would have been utterly stupid without them putting in a stellar performance. Besides when the rest of my family insist on watching shit like "the Santa Clause"  oer and over, 5 times in one day at Christmas, Batman Returns gives me a welcome sense of relief.

Besides, why be biased. Hell, the sexes are equal with their erogenous zones blown sky high.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Hoax on August 25, 2013, 10:15:09 PM
I think Rises proves that the actor doesn't matter for the quality of the Batman. Costume design, fight choreography and writing in lots of gadgets and smart ass Batman tricks and tactics for Batman to use make a good Batman along with a ton of other non actor stuff. That's why the quality of the Batman scenes even though it was still Bale were so fucking awful compared to the first two.

Keaton's Bruce Wayne was good to great and that's really the only parts the actor has full control over. He may have been a lazy fuck unwilling to learn cool looking movie kungfu in which case some of the Batman bits sucking is on him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 25, 2013, 10:18:00 PM
I tend to watch it as Pheiffer, Keaton, Walken and DeVito having a great time and acting their ass off. The 4 of them carry the movie and it would have been utterly stupid without them putting in a stellar performance. Besides when the rest of my family insist on watching shit like "the Santa Clause"  oer and over, 5 times in one day at Christmas, Batman Returns gives me a welcome sense of relief.

Besides, why be biased. Hell, the sexes are equal with their erogenous zones blown sky high.
The Santa Clause?  I'm so, so sorry.  It could be worse, it could be Santa Claus: The Movie, from 85 with Dudley Moore.

I feel a lot less bad about watching Christmas Vacation and A Christmas Story during the holidays now.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 25, 2013, 10:19:45 PM
Keaton was a good actor. You can argue whether or not he was right for Batman, but he was already established as a good actor and was often the best performer in whatever movie he was in.

Affleck is a bad actor. He's usually one of the worst actors in whatever movie he's in, and his best roles are mostly as a Boston goon / himself. He's not even good as himself half the time. I mean, he's like the worst actor in Jay and Silent Bob even.

I'm not super angry because it's a Zach Snyder movie so it's going to suck no matter what. But it's an odd choice.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 12:30:14 AM
It is a Snyder movie... and a contract for much more (some rumors saying up to 13 movies).  The reports are unconfirmed (AFAIK), but WB is reportedly locking their actors in before the first movie is made so that they don't have any RDJ/Iron Man issues. 

They're building a foundation on moldy Alffuck wood.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2013, 03:56:09 AM
I don't know how old you are,

Very.   :heartbreak: :cry: :heartbreak: :cry: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :heartbreak: :cry:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on August 26, 2013, 04:47:31 AM
It is a Snyder movie... and a contract for much more (some rumors saying up to 13 movies).  The reports are unconfirmed (AFAIK), but WB is reportedly locking their actors in before the first movie is made so that they don't have any RDJ/Iron Man issues. 

They're building a foundation on moldy Alffuck wood.

Even if Affleck is good, even if Snyder does good, how many times can you go see these cats before it goes stale?  There's a reason for trilogies.  Tell an epic story then shut it down.  I love RDJ and Iron Man, but it was time for it to end. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2013, 04:57:05 AM
Probably true.  Iron Man 3 and Rises both dissappointed me somewhat.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 26, 2013, 05:04:40 AM
Plus this is DC, not marvel. So the second string characters are just awful. Also this bubble is already bursting. Marvel will be good to avengers 2. They might eke it out to Avengers 3, but after that they are going to need to go on the back burner for a while.

Without Snyder, without Affleck, even without Superman, this whole concept is a moneypit. The flames will be amusing though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 26, 2013, 05:10:16 AM
It is a Snyder movie... and a contract for much more (some rumors saying up to 13 movies).  The reports are unconfirmed (AFAIK), but WB is reportedly locking their actors in before the first movie is made so that they don't have any RDJ/Iron Man issues. 

They're building a foundation on moldy Alffuck wood.

Even if Affleck is good, even if Snyder does good, how many times can you go see these cats before it goes stale?  There's a reason for trilogies.  Tell an epic story then shut it down.  I love RDJ and Iron Man, but it was time for it to end. 

I've thought that before with various TV shows, comics, movies, games, etc..., and then somebody comes along and takes a series that I thought had spent itself and does something really fucking good with it. Somebody could have come along that could have hit Iron Man 3 or Dark Knight Rises out of the park, but that's not what we ended up getting. Doesn't mean it couldn't have been done right though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2013, 05:42:16 AM
I think the problem with that is that, actually, sometimes the guy doing it are mired in what has come before.  Let's be honest, if Rises hadn't tried stupidly to mash Knightfall and DK Returns together, it would probably have been a much better film.  Same with Iron Man 3 which tried to do Extremis and Armor Wars and kinda ended up with a big pile of Poo.

Doing something 'New' and 'Spectacular' sometimes requires you to leave the source the fuck alone.

That's just my smelly opinion though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 26, 2013, 09:00:14 AM
What's interesting is that Avengers did well by respecting the source material with some slight tweaks and updating--not so much a particular storyline, but the classic character bits like "puny god" and so on. Mostly when you see comic-book movies, it's hard to get away from the impression that the director and the studio executives are still kind of embarassed by the source material, that somehow it just won't fly if they don't do something to make it more "realistic" and "mature".


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 26, 2013, 09:27:29 AM
Thing is, "Rises" was probably the least realistic of the Nolan films and whose scope greatly exceeded that of the other two.  IM3 was a bad case of hollywood getting too invested in a property and really felt like a lot of cooks adding spice where it wasn't needed.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 26, 2013, 09:29:36 AM
Again, I think it was the least realistic precisely because it lost that focus.  It tried to do too much and it came off stupid.  Like, 8 years of nothing, sore leg, broken back, Magic Rope Healing, etc.

Iron Man 3 went further by actually devaluing the Concept of Iron Man.  The more you thought about 'Multiple Drone Suits', the less invested you were in Tony because, Holy Fuck, he did it all very, very stupid if he could do all that.  Drone Better.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 09:32:12 AM
You can tell phenomenal stories with characters that have beena aound for thousands of comics. As such, I think it ridiculous to say you can't make 5, 10 or 20 great  movies with the same characters.  What you need is continuity, passion and talent.  We certainly can get thousands of hours of great TV out of a series like Breaking Bad on TV. I believe you could do the same in Movies with the right people in charge.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 26, 2013, 01:35:10 PM
Scope at the end of Begins or DK was pretty broad. They both were a total destruction of the city thing. DKR hadn't earned it, and didn't thematically make any particular sense in the way both prior films did.

DKR is a weird film in that I thought they did a perfectly good job with batman, bane, Catwoman, Gordon, Robin and even Talia as characters. Just the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 04:04:39 PM
Scope at the end of Begins or DK was pretty broad. They both were a total destruction of the city thing. DKR hadn't earned it, and didn't thematically make any particular sense in the way both prior films did.

DKR is a weird film in that I thought they did a perfectly good job with batman, bane, Catwoman, Gordon, Robin and even Talia as characters. Just the story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Although there have been many reports to the contrary, I believe that DKR would have been a vastly different movie had Ledger survivied.  The story the movie tells - Batman coming out of retirement, Gordon retiring, gangs taking over Gotham, etc ... comes right out of the comics version of DKR... and the villian there (for the first half of the story) was the Joker. 

I believe that had Ledger survived, the movie would have had the Joker storyline from DKR woven into a simplified version of the movie. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 26, 2013, 04:16:17 PM
None of the Batman movies have done much with recurring villains (with the exception of Scarecrow showing up in all three Nolan films).  Villain-of-the-week probably seems more exciting, especially given that each Batman film incarnation only gets a few movies before it's put out to pasture, but I think it's kind of a waste to set these villains up only to never use them again.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 04:26:23 PM
Considering the amazing buzz before his passing from critics and then the awards following his death, I doubt the studio would have allowed Batman 3 to not be able to advertise the %!$# out of having the Joker as the villian.

And, looking forward, they're talking about a 6 picture deal (reportedly) for Cranston as Lex Luthor.  These comics movies are now being looked at as serials with recurring characters locked in... not as a 'monster of the week' deal like we saw in the Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney era.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 26, 2013, 04:28:11 PM
Keep in mind those deals are structured in that way so they can show up, even for 5 minutes in whatever movie they want/need. So, Cranston having that kind of deal doesn't mean he'll be the big bad in all of the films.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 26, 2013, 04:44:09 PM
Yeah, these are for a given number of "appearances", not major roles.  Could be anything from a cameo or even a walk-on through a supporting role to effective co-star, it depends on the exact terms.  I don't think Affleck signed up to make 13 Batman movies, rather to be a common character that appears briefly in all or nearly all of the DC movies.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 26, 2013, 04:44:35 PM
There is a lot of speculation into how the Marvel contracts work, but we don't really know the details of those - and have not even had a clue as to what the DC contracts might contain.  There are union rules governing some ways in which those contracts can be written, but there are still a lot of possibilities.

Regardless, the lengths on these contracts has yet to be confirmed, so who the %@$# knows what will happen (other than Affleck being less intimidating the Adam West).


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pezzle on August 26, 2013, 08:42:25 PM
Adam West as the next batman would get me to the theatre.  That is more than I can say for that jobber Affleck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 27, 2013, 10:33:04 AM
Here is the pitch: Tim Burton does a movie revival of the Adam West Batman.  It maintains continuity and feel with the series, telling a campy and surreal version of Dark Knight returns featuring Brandon Routh as a Donner Film continuity Superman.  Mandatory low budget to keep the feel right.

That is a Superman/Batman film that I'd be eager to see.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 27, 2013, 11:25:41 AM
Adam West in Frank Miller's DKR was exactly what I was thinking too.  I also would love to see that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 27, 2013, 11:29:21 AM
I think Adam West is even a bit too old for that at this rate.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 27, 2013, 12:16:48 PM
If he dies while filming, so be it.  That would make excellent footage.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 27, 2013, 03:25:33 PM
"Sorry...old...chum...can't...go...on."

On this slight derail, by the way, I enthusiastically recommend the comic DC is publishing now that's riffing off of the old Batman TV series. It's great. It might be the only comic that DC is publishing at the moment that is great.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 27, 2013, 04:22:17 PM
Fan trailer. (http://io9.com/this-fake-batman-superman-trailer-is-so-great-even-batf-1207972184)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: naum on August 27, 2013, 05:43:11 PM
"Sorry...old...chum...can't...go...on."

Holy slipped disc Batman!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Shannow on August 27, 2013, 07:39:19 PM
Fan trailer. (http://io9.com/this-fake-batman-superman-trailer-is-so-great-even-batf-1207972184)

Which just goes to show you trailers can make any pile of crap look good.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on August 27, 2013, 08:46:28 PM
Plus this is DC, not marvel. So the second string characters are just awful.

Marvel's second stringers being so good is the reason why we're getting a film featuring a space raccoon and a movie dedicated to understanding Hank Pym, a man who builds killer robots and size-shifts, yet still manages to keep "boring" as his main superpower.

Both universes have their fair share of A-listers and dud characters. What's more important is the team behind the film - in the right hands of a writer, director and producer, even characters like Freak the Power Brother could be a must see film.

Which is why I care less about Affleck being Batman than I do about Snyder being director.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 27, 2013, 09:24:08 PM
Ant-Man is not Hank Pym in the new movie. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 27, 2013, 09:42:15 PM
Nor, apparently, does whomever he is build killer robots.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 27, 2013, 10:31:02 PM
Wait... The ant man movie is indeed Pym. I'm a bit confused


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 27, 2013, 10:38:53 PM
Wait... The ant man movie is indeed Pym. I'm a bit confused

Pym is in Ant-Man, but Ant-Man is the Scott Lang version.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 27, 2013, 11:31:08 PM
There are a lot of rumors about Ant-man, but it will likely have Pym, Land and Van Dyne... However, the script is as far rom complete as Avengers was when the recently released storyboards were made - you know, the ones with the Wasp, an evil JARVIS, and a cyborg fighting Iron Man in a jungle.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 28, 2013, 03:09:49 AM
Plus this is DC, not marvel. So the second string characters are just awful.

Marvel's second stringers being so good is the reason why we're getting a film featuring a space raccoon and a movie dedicated to understanding Hank Pym, a man who builds killer robots and size-shifts, yet still manages to keep "boring" as his main superpower.

Both universes have their fair share of A-listers and dud characters. What's more important is the team behind the film - in the right hands of a writer, director and producer, even characters like Freak the Power Brother could be a must see film.

Which is why I care less about Affleck being Batman than I do about Snyder being director.

DC's A list consists of Batman, and maybe the Flash. Superman has some excellent PR but remains a terrible character to tell a story about.

Marvel are definitely into overreach but they have far more viable material even without access to spiderman and xmen.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 08:51:06 AM
DC does have an 800lb gorilla in the room too. One of their most widely known characters that no one will touch.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Miasma on August 28, 2013, 09:08:23 AM
Who's that?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on August 28, 2013, 09:11:43 AM
Aquaman?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on August 28, 2013, 09:32:31 AM
Wonder Woman. Ya, it will be hard to get her right with our modern sensibilities.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 28, 2013, 09:41:14 AM
Tazelbain beat me to it. Definitely Wonder Woman which is a shame, I've been a fan of her since Linda Carter. Then again, that's probably less to do with the character and more to do with Linda Carter in spandex.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2013, 09:48:57 AM
I actually do not get the idea that WW is hard for "modern sensibilities". Ok, so you can't go back to the early comics, since they're all about femdom and lesbian bondage fetishism and a weird variant vision of feminism, and you can't do the 70s cheese version. But you can get WW out of her bathing suit and into something like a stylized and colorful suit of Greek armor (which is not very far from what's been done to other longjohn and spandex costumes) and basically make her a warrior who is also a stranger in a strange land. The only real narrative puzzle is what to do about the Greek gods: I think you have to get rid of them or make them inaccessible to WW and the Amazons, make Paradise Island more like Asgard in the Marvel films--a sort of science/magic hybrid in a pocket dimension that WW is an exile from.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 11:07:31 AM
Exactly.  EVERYONE knows wonder woman, comic fan or not, It's definitely a bigger name than iron man was pre-movie. Yet no one wants to go near a wonder woman movie for some reason.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2013, 11:15:48 AM
Yeah, it's weird. Maybe it's just Warner Brothers/DC, who really seem to have an aversion to success. I hope somebody there today is holding his head in his hands and weeping softly at the thought that they had Whedon all lined up to make a Wonder Woman movie, for example.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Miasma on August 28, 2013, 11:20:50 AM
Dark seems to be in right now.  I don't know anything about her origins, is there something dark, brooding and compelling in there?  Something good enough that the campy 70s tv show could be purged from people's memories after watching a trailer?

And that invisible plane nonsense would have to be dropped.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2013, 11:33:04 AM
The new 52 Wonder Woman has been really quite dark in some ways, but not in the conventional adolescent style of most of DC's books. Mostly Azzarrello just went back to Greek myth, both about the Amazons and the pantheon and built up from there. So, for example, we found out early on that the Amazons (as in myth) did sometimes abduct sailors to serve as sperm donors, more or less, and that they got rid of any male babies (not by killing them as in myth, but by giving them over to the god Hephesteus to serve as forge workers). He also made a smart change in WW's origin--now she's not a magic parthenogenic baby made from clay but just one more of Zeus' many demi-god children, and the whole "I made you out of clay thing" is a lie that her mom told her that she actually believed for most of her life.  You can also add some grit to WW around the circumstances of her departure from Paradise Island--either she can be an exile who can never go home or Paradise Island is lost to her for some reason, which gives her a link to both Superman and Batman's origins. (Add in Martian Manhunter, Aquaman and Hawkwoman and almost all of the Justice League can be played as orphans cut off from their home cultures and families in some way or another: only GL and Flash are 'normal' guys where there's really nothing in their classic origins to set them up that way.)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 28, 2013, 11:33:58 AM
The problem is that a modern wonder woman would either be bad karate in stillettos or Xena the warrior princess. Either of which has been done to death and would make everyone puke. Doing her as effectively the She hulk type of empowered woman character seems to be beyond the imagination of holywood. They seem stuck in "Empowered women means they take their clothes off"


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 11:40:52 AM
but but but....catwoman is empowered... :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2013, 12:10:58 PM
Whedon had a WW take.  I may not have 100% confidence in everything he does, but I'm pretty sure he'd have an empowering and non-exploitative take on the character.  If DC were smart, they'd gravitate in that direction.

Honestly, I don't think it matters.  DC characters don't work for the screen.  The reason is simple.  Pick 10 Marvel characters and 10 DC characters and write an elevator pitch (One or two sentences of about 25 words that summarize the core of the character) about each.  Pick out the key words of each.  Most people will find that the words that describe the majority of the DC character descriptions will focus on WHAT the character is (God/alien/robot, powers, etc...) while the Marvel desciptions will focus more on WHO the character is (motivations and personality (With great power comes great responsibility, FF is about family, mutants ar about persecution, Thor has family issues, etc...)).  The DC penchant fo overpowered characters doesn't help, either.  DC characters are outdated and unrelatable.  The only real excerptions are two of the characters that translate best to the screen - Green Arrow and Batman.  And, if you think about it, those characters would probably fit better in the Marvel Universe than the DC universe.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 01:12:40 PM
Honestly a WW period piece could do well. I don't know why they couldn't have an entire movie devoted to ancient culture cause stylistically it always plays out well.  Captain America style so at the end it's modern day but only briefly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 01:49:39 PM
DC characters are outdated and unrelatable.  The only real excerptions are two of the characters that translate best to the screen - Green Arrow and Batman.  And, if you think about it, those characters would probably fit better in the Marvel Universe than the DC universe.

I disagree with what you said. Hell, Green Arrow is a particularly silly character in the comics context - an archer who shoots boxing arrow gloves at people?

And yet, in the hands of a competent writing team, the Green Arrow TV series is both a hit and a decent story. There's nothing particularly outdated or unrelatable about the DC characters other than an insistence on holding on to certain parts of continuity that may or may not work onscreen in the hands of the right creative team. The Green Lantern movie wasn't terrible but it wasn't written very well.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on August 28, 2013, 02:15:37 PM
The other thing about batman and green arrow is that they are very nearly the same guy.

As for wonder woman; she'd fit into Lois and Clark just fine. Yet another reason that is the best superman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2013, 03:19:13 PM
Green Arrow dumped the boxing glove arrows (and other gadget arrows) in the 80s with the Longbow Hunters.  LH is the start of the storylines that inspire Arrow.  He may use gadgets on occasion in the comics, but for the most part, AFAIK, he uses real arrows.  Like Batman and the Dark Knight reboot, Green Arrow from the 80s on is a different character than what came before.  From 1987 on, he is a more Marvel character that would fit in comics with Daredevil, Punisher, Captain America, Spider-man, and SHIELD. 

As for the relatability of Superman, WW, Flash, Green Lantern, Hawkman, Martian Manhunter, etc... The characters, at their core, are not part of society.  They've above it.  They're Gods amongst mortals.  Aliens with powers thar keep them out of society.   People unbound by the laws of science.  People that travel the cosmos fighting threats that can consume worlds.  How are those relatable?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 03:26:08 PM
Yes, Thor the God of Thunder is so much more relatable than a guy raised by humans in Kansas or a test pilot given magic alien wish ring.  :oh_i_see:

EDIT: And just to clarify, relatable is in how you write the damn character, not the character concept itself. Martian Manhunter? Totally get the whole loner trying to find common ground with society at large thing. Hawkman or Green Lantern? Interstellar cops. Flash? Flash has always been a relatable character. Wonder Woman? Woman trying to succeed in a male-dominated society.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 28, 2013, 03:27:10 PM
But Thor was made relatable precisely because he was human for, well, almost all of his own film and we identified hugely with him because he was Utterly Unable to Relate to Anything.

You know better H.  You do.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 03:28:22 PM
See my edit. I was being snarky.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 28, 2013, 03:31:26 PM
Yeah, it's about how it's approached.  But I do agree that, previously (on Tour of Duty) DC have no idea how to get their heroes relatable.  They've never, ever, ever managed it with Superman for me.  Ever.  Batman is just barely there when we deal with Wayne, I can see Wonder Woman, oddly, being done great, but the rest of it ?  I'm not convinced.

I'm happy to be convinced.  But you won't do it with Green Lantern.  That was silly, silly silly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 28, 2013, 03:34:23 PM
It may just be me talking, but given my last name and the fact that i have shitty vision, I connect with Thor far more than I do with Green Lantern.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 03:51:07 PM
Classic Hal Jordan creates a problem with being relatable mostly because, 1) he has no fear and that's a pretty big component of his character and 2) he's an absolute dick. Of course, I would say the same thing about Wolverine and yet he's a beloved character (I personally hate him except when Jackman plays him AND he's written well). I always had problems relating to Capt. America because for the longest time, he was the ultimate WhiteBread character, as bad if not worse than Superman.

Tony Stark is a genius billionaire whose only real flaw is alcohoism - I can't relate to that concept at all. And other than his persona being more SOCIAL than Bruce Wayne's, how is he any different at an abstract level than Batman? Batman's flaw is grief, something much more relatable to most people than alcoholism.

DC's characters aren't less relatable, they are just generally VERY BADLY WRITTEN for the screen. The reasons they are so badly written is 1) they cling to too many Silver Age tropes that make no sense these days (test pilots anyone?), 2) WB producers I think tend to believe that comic book super hero movies will do good no matter the quality purely because geeks will buy anything with geek stuff on it. They haven't yet figured out that Nolan's Batman movies or the Marvel movies were so successful because they had top quality writers/producers/actors involved in the project. Geeks didn't make Avengers $1 billion at the box office.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
There is no definitive or final version of these characters--Green Arrow goes back and forth in his comics from being a liberal blowhard with woman troubles and trick arrows to being a grittier vigilante and so on (but yeah, always tied in some ways to Batman, which goes back to his beginnings). I'm with Haemish on this--there is no DC or Marvel character that you couldn't do 'right' for a film if you found the right take.

The odds of getting it 'right', though, go down if you insist on doing what Marvel's doing and having a bunch of characters who come together in a single franchise package. That's why that was so gutsy on their part and so impressive that it's worked out pretty well so far.  I don't think you can back into that the way Warner is about to--you gotta have a plan. You could way up the fantastic and weird and superhero-fetish elements in the DC film universe and have it succeed (The Incredibles works fine, for example, with that kind of treatment) but that then has to touch on any character who is in your shared set of films. You can keep characters completely isolated and do fun shit that's very different with each of them.  You can ground it all in a grittier, more 'real' approach but then there are characters who no longer work right or who only work right if you're willing to abandon everything that audiences think they know about them. (You can make Superman work in a 'realistic' mode if you're willing to go where Alan Moore went with Miracleman, for example, where the character almost inevitably becomes a god and dictator whether he wants to or not.) But you have to have a take, a direction, an interpretation and it has to be based on something other than what some studio guy hears in the elevator pitch.

If I had to name DC characters who could work as one-off characters in their own little world, it would probably *not* be the Justice League except for Batman and Wonder Woman. Wonder Woman could work because she carries along with her a potentially interesting mythology that also helps supply some matched-up antagonists and some solid relationships. If I were looking over DC's catalog and not thinking about a Justice League movie, I'd be looking at the weird second-stringers who have a completely self-contained sort of aesthetic, an interesting hook in terms of powers/origins, and don't require a universe full of spandex-clad guys to make sense--the Demon, Hitman, Animal Man, Resurrection Man, etc.  Flash, Green Lantern, Cyborg, Black Canary, all those kinds of people really only are interesting in a setting with other fantastic beings and people in costumes.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on August 28, 2013, 04:02:18 PM
You wouldn't think they could cock up Constantine so badly, and yet there it was.  Also, I would reallllly like to see Zatana up there.

(Though I've lost the plot of who's arguing what now and we've drifted so far from Batman and Supes that it's not real.)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 28, 2013, 04:14:33 PM
Preacher as directed by the Cohen brothers.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2013, 04:20:04 PM
There is no definitive or final version of these characters--Green Arrow goes back and forth in his comics from being a liberal blowhard with woman troubles and trick arrows to being a grittier vigilante and so on (but yeah, always tied in some ways to Batman, which goes back to his beginnings). I'm with Haemish on this--there is no DC or Marvel character that you couldn't do 'right' for a film if you found the right take.
I'm awaiting your pitch for a viable Vibe movie.  You know, other than the porn version.  

At the core, relatable means that we can get into the character's skin and feel for them.  Everything that makes up the character is apart of that equation.  The way the character is written plays a huge part, but the history (including the origin) of the character is a huge limitation.  How many people have written Superman stories?  How many of them are relatable to the audience?  The Godlike nature of the character makes it nearly impossible to write stories to which people can relate.  That is why so many of the stories are 'I'm an alien' stories.

I'm not in left field with my observations here.  In fact, they're not really observations.  They're vomit.  I'm just regurgitating things that have been observed a million times before by much more hard-core geeks than me.  DC has failed, and will continue to fail, because their characters, outside a select few, are out of synch.  

As for the Thor observations - I almost brought him up, but decided to wait to see if someone else would.  The vast majority of the Thor stories boil down to family stories.  Thor and Loki.  Thor and Odin.  More are responsibility stories about his duty to Midgard and Asgard.    Thor is the least relatable of the Marvel characters in many ways, but even he is built upon topics that are relatable.  Duty.  Family.  Hots for a nurse.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 28, 2013, 04:27:12 PM
You can reduce most characters down to that, though. It's really not anything that's exclusive to Thor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on August 28, 2013, 04:34:02 PM
Not sure why they need Batman and Superman to team up except to form the Justice League down the road.  Because, you know, there are threats out there the World's Greatest Detective and the Man of Steel can't solve on their own.  :awesome_for_real:

Why do they HAVE to film the Justice League?  Just because of Marvel's The Avengers? 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on August 28, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
Yes.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 28, 2013, 04:52:29 PM
Not sure why they need Batman and Superman to team up except to form the Justice League down the road.  Because, you know, there are threats out there the World's Greatest Detective and the Man of Steel can't solve on their own.  :awesome_for_real:

Why do they HAVE to film the Justice League?  Just because of Marvel's The Avengers? 


That is the weirdest set of questions.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on August 28, 2013, 04:54:56 PM
As for the Thor observations - I almost brought him up, but decided to wait to see if someone else would.  The vast majority of the Thor stories boil down to family stories.  Thor and Loki.  Thor and Odin.  More are responsibility stories about his duty to Midgard and Asgard.    Thor is the least relatable of the Marvel characters in many ways, but even he is built upon topics that are relatable.  Duty.  Family.  Hots for a nurse.

Everyone of those things you mention are in the Man of Steel movie. Family is a HUGE part of that movie. Duty to his homeworld and parents vs. duty to his adopted parents and the world he feels at home in. Hots for a nurse - well, ok for a journalist but still. I felt a lot more empathy with the Henry Cavill/Zak Synder Superman than I did with Thor and I liked the Thor movie a lot. I also say this as someone who feels Superman isn't a very interesting character BECAUSE of the god-powers.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 28, 2013, 06:37:06 PM
One of the charming things in an odd way is that the Justice League wasn't one of these teams built where everyone is a different kind of specialist so you can see why they have to be a team. It's more like a bunch of really successful guys who have a social club and then it turns out that every once in a while there's something too big for any one of them. But it's definitely not what you'd do if you were trying to come up with the conventional "we have a ninja and a strongman and a psychic and a smart guy and a teleporter" teams, which mostly have not actually lasted.

Vibe might be a good example of the kind of character that's so third-rate that you can't really think of a way to do it right conceptually. Or maybe all you'd need is to dial it back and ask, "So what would happen if you were a Latino street kid and you suddenly had weird sonic powers?" That can go comic, it can go semi-serious, you just have to decide which and then get a guy who is actually going to understand the setting and the possibilities. Hell, the Justice League cartoon found a way to make the Wonder Twins, Black Vulcan and Apache Chief into interesting characters; Alan Moore found a twist that made Swamp Thing something way more interesting than just another man-into-monster. There's always something an imaginative person can see in there somewhere, or at least almost always.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 28, 2013, 07:53:38 PM
...Everyone of those things you mention are in the Man of Steel movie. Family is a HUGE part of that movie. Duty to his homeworld and parents vs. duty to his adopted parents and the world he feels at home in. Hots for a nurse - well, ok for a journalist but still...
Dude, if you're going to compare a nurse to a journalist, then we're just wasting our time here.  You're clearly not being realistic.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fordel on August 28, 2013, 07:57:25 PM
The problem is that a modern wonder woman would either be bad karate in stillettos or Xena the warrior princess. Either of which has been done to death and would make everyone puke. Doing her as effectively the She hulk type of empowered woman character seems to be beyond the imagination of holywood. They seem stuck in "Empowered women means they take their clothes off"


She's not wearing much to begin with!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 29, 2013, 01:26:57 AM
The great part of it was that Wonder Woman was originally a feminist vehicle chock-full of man-hating crypto-lesbian subtext, but it's absolutely impossible to make a movie about her now without setting off the professional feminists, in full "TEAR DOWN THE PATRIARCHY!" dudgeon.

Of course, Xena would probably get the same treatment now, too.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on August 29, 2013, 06:10:52 AM
I've always thought that DC / WB should just go all in and make "Kingdom Come".

At the core, relatable means that we can get into the character's skin and feel for them.  Everything that makes up the character is apart of that equation.  The way the character is written plays a huge part, but the history (including the origin) of the character is a huge limitation.

Most superhero movies select key bits of character history and throw out the rest. "X-Men" cut things back to a core idea of good, attractive mutants fighting evil, ugly mutants in a world that fears both types. Where a film doesn't like part of the comic book origin, it gets changed. Like where Bruce Wayne is trained up by Ra's Al Ghul in "Batman Begins".


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on August 29, 2013, 06:18:32 AM
I've always thought that DC / WB should just go all in and make "Kingdom Come".

Yeah, I can see how taking a story which was largely notable for its art, would come across as gibberish to most of the audience, and would have to be butchered so much to fit into a movie length that even fans of the comic wouldn't be happy with it would seem like a good idea.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2013, 07:21:19 AM
The great part of it was that Wonder Woman was originally a feminist vehicle chock-full of man-hating crypto-lesbian subtext, but it's absolutely impossible to make a movie about her now without setting off the professional feminists, in full "TEAR DOWN THE PATRIARCHY!" dudgeon.

Of course, Xena would probably get the same treatment now, too.

--Dave

1. She was at least a not-unproblematic "feminist vehicle" at the start by any standard. Unless your conception of feminism involves tons of bondage and domination.
2. Since nobody has made a movie about her, I think arguing that the "professional feminists" (whatever the fuck that means) would set off in dudgeon is a bit premature to say the least.
3. The feminists (most of them, admittedly, amateurs) that I read or know about who also like comics were perfectly geeked out about the possibility of Whedon making a WW film. Less so some other scripts but not because of feminism, simply because they sucked. Sort of like how nobody wanted James Cameron to make a Spider-Man film when they heard about the working script and Cameron's take on the character. It's true that some comic bloggers who are also feminists don't like Azzarello's take on the character but I see why they don't like it and I think it's a legitimate reaction. Oddly this has not made it "impossible" for the current comic version to go ahead. Perhaps only professional feminists have sufficient dudgeon.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 29, 2013, 08:32:21 AM
Uhhh.. they only let WW join the Justice League because they needed a secretary. I'm not making that up. When she was dreamed up, it was an era of sexism and close mindedness. You can argue she was feminist for the time in that she was sometimes not the damsel in distress( sometimes), but don't go too far down the rabbit hole. She was far closer to WWII porn than a voice for change.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on August 29, 2013, 09:45:27 AM
She was secretary to the Justice Society, not the League. The overall point stands, but just wanted to clarify.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2013, 12:08:00 PM
You're thinking of the Justice Society, actually. [ah, I see someone else got to this point first]


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on August 29, 2013, 12:23:24 PM
Isn't the larger problem with DC vs Marvel centered around the alter-ego question?

DC's players are Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman.  They masquerade as Clark Kent, Bruce Wayne and Diana Carter but those aren't who they are.

Marvel's players are Peter Parker, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark.  Their alter egos are the superheroes.  

One you're dealing with the impact of being a super hero on a human being, flawed or smart or orphaned.  That's relateable, you can see yourself in their shoes.  It's easy to understand the crisis of how the superhero problem impacts their human life, relationships or aspirations.

The other, you're dealing with a super-powered being dealing with the difficulties of being that being. Solving problems and dealing with issues much bigger than anything you or I will ever handle.  It takes a different approach.  You can't try and make them relateable beings because they are not.  It has to be about the bigger problem, how they handle that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 29, 2013, 03:02:35 PM
This is a subset of the problem with DC's characters being icons/myths and Marvel's characters being people, flaws and all.

Green Arrow is actually a lovely case of this. So on the surface he and Hawkeye are the same, right down to going back and forth between being guys who use boxing glove arrows and other gimmicks and guys who are just good fighters who also shoot sharp pointy arrows into the flesh of gangsters.

But who is Green Arrow as a person? He starts as a Bruce Wayne clone without the parental trauma--basically they graft Robinson Crusoe into Bruce Wayne. Then who is he? He's a guy who loses his fortune and goes "Easy Rider". Then he gets the fortune back. Then he loses it again. Then he gets it back. He's a liberal crusader. He's grim. Then he's funny. Then he's dead. Then he's not dead. He's got a long-time girlfriend, but then he's a rake who hits on all sorts of women. He's got a sidekick! Then he neglects the sidekick and he takes heroin. Then he's got another sidekick. And so on. The person in the middle of that is mostly a cipher who is anchored by his power set, his costume, and a bit of his history.

Hawkeye seems equally mutable if you look at his costumes and even his power shifts (since for a while he was Goliath) but actually the person at the heart of it--angry orphan who has had brushes with the law and has some unsavory guys in his background, guy who wants to be a leader but who also often acts impulsively or foolishly, guy who has a problem with authority figures and is unlucky in love--that's all pretty consistent, whether or not he's Goliath or he's a trick archer with gimmick arrows or he's a redesigned not-trick archer who looks like the character from the film.

A DC film either has to jack up the mythic and legendary, which maybe only works for Batman because he's the only myth they have left that anybody really likes or responds to, or it has to settle on the person and make him interesting. Which so far mostly DC films have not at all managed to do. In a lot of cases I'm not sure they can--if I was starting from scratch, the person I would give the most powerful weapon in the universe to if I wanted to write interesting stories would not be Hal Jordan, Kyle Rayner, Guy Gardner or any of those guys. None of them are interesting people, really, and so all you have left is the legendary/mythic story of the most powerful weapon in the universe and the most cosmic police force that doles it out. Which is assuredly not the Green Lantern film that got made.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on August 29, 2013, 07:18:22 PM
If you want some Devils advocacy on the wonder woman thing, you could bring up how Sue Storm of the fantastic 4 was when she was first conceived. She wasn't just a life support system for a pair of tits like she was in the 2 movies, she was EVEN MORE STUPID. She was so stupid that they had kids writing in complaining about how utterly stupid it was that this dingbat was being being let near a set of pliers, let alone dangerous villains. Of course they gave her a totally non threataning superpower at first, which made her even more useless. Go feminism.

(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/7/8/1/178781.jpg?v=1)

For more Sue Storm stupidity, check  out http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-beloved-superheroes-who-are-actually-really-stupid/


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on August 29, 2013, 07:46:40 PM
That's a little unfair given that the FF is kind of a dysfunctional family. (Just a little, mind you) In the old comics Sue was always crying about everything and felt left out, Ben was always grousing about his situation, Reed was kind of an ass.

But they "fixed" her over time anyway. The problem with WW is that in terms of Justice League she's just a weak Superman and in terms of her own thing she has no civilian identity. She's just Wonder Woman, some magical Amazon heroine, so it always seems stupid when she pretends to be a normal person and does normal person things.

There was that TV pilot where she was like an ad exec or something - it was laughably bad. Why would Wonder Woman dress up in a power suit and give a powerpoint presentation?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: rk47 on August 29, 2013, 11:20:33 PM
Wonder Woman
She's born in an island full of wimin.
She's made out of clay.
And went to a 'Man's world'
When she is bound by a man, she loses her power.
Conveniently, her lasso of truth can be used on her.

I'm a fan.  :awesome_for_real:



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on August 29, 2013, 11:24:39 PM
Wonder Woman was originally conceived by a psychologist (with input from his wife IIRC) who wanted to create a strong feminine role model that would make girls proud of being girls, and show that they didn't need to emulate men in order to be considered strong.  By modern standards Wonder Woman would be considered antifeminist because of her obvious sex appeal, but she was definitely intended to be a feminist role model rather than wank material.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on August 29, 2013, 11:38:41 PM
Wonder Woman was originally conceived by a psychologist (with input from his wife IIRC) who wanted to create a strong feminine role model that would make girls proud of being girls, and show that they didn't need to emulate men in order to be considered strong.  By modern standards Wonder Woman would be considered antifeminist because of her obvious sex appeal, but she was definitely intended to be a feminist role model rather than wank material.

That's what Power Girl is for!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on August 30, 2013, 12:11:23 AM
Just like people, what happens after conception is far more important to characters than what the plan was at conception.  She was PG porn for the era, with nothing to contribute but legs and female subservience.  Regardless, what she was in the 40s is pretty irrelevant at this point.  What she is now is more important, and that is still PG porn.  To quote Jessica Rabbit...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on August 30, 2013, 05:41:11 AM
Wonder Woman was originally conceived by a psychologist (with input from his wife IIRC) who wanted to create a strong feminine role model that would make girls proud of being girls, and show that they didn't need to emulate men in order to be considered strong.  By modern standards Wonder Woman would be considered antifeminist because of her obvious sex appeal, but she was definitely intended to be a feminist role model rather than wank material.

You're leaving a few things about Marston, though. The stuff about submission (including the erotic side of it) was an integral part of his conception of the character and he thought that the character was as important for boys as girls as it might teach them to submit to strong women, which he thought was key for creating a more civilized and peaceful world.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on September 14, 2013, 05:52:05 PM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/14/article-0-1BCF6AAF000005DC-369_634x631.jpg)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 14, 2013, 08:52:11 PM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/14/article-0-1BCF6AAF000005DC-369_634x631.jpg)
Go ahead you fucks.  Go ahead and try to defend this move. :-)

(Note that fucks, in this context, is a term of endearment...)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on September 14, 2013, 10:47:53 PM
I'm going with "Bieber trolls theinterwebz" until an announcement from WB rather than the Instagram site of a guy who knows how much the web hates him.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 15, 2013, 01:40:44 AM
photoshopped cause beiber has a douchy new moustache now and obviously shopped.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: SurfD on September 15, 2013, 06:45:02 PM
Indeed.   I mean, holy christ, what is he doing that puts him so close to the bathroom floor that the toilet paper roll is ABOVE his head....


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 15, 2013, 07:28:01 PM
Confirmed it came from Bieber, but likely still a prank. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on September 16, 2013, 07:40:43 AM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 16, 2013, 12:08:32 PM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast off a boat and a giant whale eats him.  Millions of teenage girls mourn him for 38 seconds until their ADHD turns them to the next Bieber clone and by 2016 Bieber is nothing more than a trivia question that most people can't answer.

Best guess: This is going to be a Funny or Die thing. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on September 16, 2013, 12:10:20 PM
Yeah, based on the follow-up it's a FoD thing. 

Just remember, people were all about Brittney Spears, 98 degrees, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, and NKOTB before too.  Bieber, too, shall pass.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on September 16, 2013, 01:02:11 PM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.

I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Jason Todd Robin and they decide to adapt "Death in the Family" for the first five minutes of the film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on September 16, 2013, 01:53:14 PM
Yeah, based on the follow-up it's a FoD thing. 

Just remember, people were all about Brittney Spears, 98 degrees, N'Sync, Backstreet Boys, and NKOTB before too.  Bieber, too, shall pass.

Here's what's funny about that, to my mind;  I had heard all those chaps sing and perform and whatnot, but I've heard a metric fuckton about Bieber (none of it good) and I've yet to witness the horror that is him doing anything.

Lucky escape there then.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: shiznitz on September 16, 2013, 01:58:14 PM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.

I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Jason Todd Robin and they decide to adapt "Death in the Family" for the first five minutes of the film.

I want to live in a world where someone remakes Oz as a gay S&M porno and Bieber plays the new inmate.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ingmar on September 16, 2013, 02:16:41 PM
Getting a little Freudian in here.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Teleku on September 16, 2013, 02:19:44 PM
That's what she said.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 16, 2013, 02:49:44 PM
Getting a little Freudian in here.
Uhhhh... have you taken a careful look at your avatar? 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on September 16, 2013, 03:47:54 PM
Someone decided to make a fan-made follow up for the Nolanverse. For a fan film, looks solid.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/dark-knight-legacy-the-ultimate-batman-fan-series/x/3706252


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on September 17, 2013, 04:21:15 PM
Here's what's funny about that, to my mind;  I had heard all those chaps sing and perform and whatnot, but I've heard a metric fuckton about Bieber (none of it good) and I've yet to witness the horror that is him doing anything.


I don't know - he's kinda responsible for one of the coolest bits of the Dredd 3D soundtrack.

No, really!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on September 17, 2013, 04:47:38 PM
Really ?  Was it in the film ?  Cause I've seen that 3 times.

Ah well.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on September 17, 2013, 05:50:17 PM
Yep.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspuCt1FM9M) became this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNAxw8PuKi4&list=PLF6tW055Hhxf6aEcVRfATH73OXY65hlQD).


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on September 17, 2013, 05:55:32 PM
Dredd was a surprisingly excellent movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on September 17, 2013, 09:21:05 PM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.
It's happened before; see DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on September 18, 2013, 02:46:23 AM
I want to live in a world where Bieber gets cast as the Boy Wonder, and earns an Oscar for his timeless portrayal of the tragic, youthful ward.  The whole internet will be like "damn, I didn't know Bieber had it in him."

Because that would be hysterical.  I hate Bieber, but I would love that for some reason.
It's happened before; see DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can.

Not sure what you mean?  I don't remember a time when I didn't think DiCaprio was a really good actor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pezzle on September 18, 2013, 08:50:20 AM
I can!  Right now!  His performances might be better, but he still ruins scenes for me.  I like some movies in spite of him though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on September 18, 2013, 07:16:57 PM
Right after Titanic he was incredibly unpopular, particularly among young males.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on September 19, 2013, 03:34:02 PM
I found him pretty annoying before titantic, after titantic, pretty much all the way up to The Departed. It was probably the jobs he took more than his ability as an actor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on September 20, 2013, 01:18:37 AM
Yeah, I am not saying by any stretch that I love all of his movies.  Not even close.  But I do think he is easily one of the better actors in Hollywood. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on September 20, 2013, 06:46:31 AM
I agree now. But until Gangs of New York and Catch Me If You Can, he was like Beiber: adored by teen girls and loathed by young males.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on September 20, 2013, 04:45:37 PM
I liked him in The Beach


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 20, 2013, 05:14:53 PM
ALthough I think he has been in some good films, I have never thought he was good in them.  However, I have not seen Gangs of New York.  Regardless, I don't think he'll be in Slaughterman vs Butfleck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 20, 2013, 06:36:57 PM
Turn your fanboy down a bit, it's waking up the baby.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on September 20, 2013, 07:28:16 PM
Hopefully I will never lose my ability to be gently amused by nerds who argue that someone else being too much of a nerd.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 20, 2013, 10:07:53 PM
I will zealously defend my right and obligation to call people out on their inane wordplay when it comes to things they dislike.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 21, 2013, 05:20:41 PM
I will zealously defend my right and obligation to call people out on their inane wordplay when it comes to things they dislike.
When do we do that, Lake of Sanitation?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on September 21, 2013, 10:30:41 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on September 22, 2013, 12:13:03 PM
:facepalm:
Hey, you poked the bear.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2013, 05:35:22 PM
Wonder woman cast.

http://www.blastr.com/2013-12-4/its-official-batman-vs-superman-has-found-its-wonder-woman (http://www.blastr.com/2013-12-4/its-official-batman-vs-superman-has-found-its-wonder-woman)

She strikes me as too fraile looking for the role.  I was assuming they'd go with someone more athletic and less 'model'-ish. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 04, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
  I was assuming they'd go with someone more athletic and less 'model'-ish. 

Your assumptions are based on no hollywood reality I know.  Athletic to them is this, anything else just makes you some sort of monstrous bulldyke not fit for the silver screen.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2013, 06:52:23 PM
There is a spectrum amongst young actresses. Some of the most popular are more athletically built than this girl. I was not expecting Lisa Lobo, but someone with a toned musculature and non fragile frame would be a better physical match.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on December 04, 2013, 06:57:44 PM
I'm assuming she'll do a lot of physical training for this role. While I doubt she'll end up looking like Linda Hamilton in T2 I would expect her to look less scrawny than she does right now by the time principal filming starts.




Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on December 04, 2013, 07:48:21 PM
It's a Snyder movie. She'll look exactly like she does now if Sucker Punch is any indication.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 04, 2013, 08:12:54 PM
Exactly. "Girls kick ass!"  (as long as they are only fit for modelling.)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on December 04, 2013, 08:13:33 PM
Zach Synder is about a million miles down the list of people that I think could get Wonder Woman--or any female protagonist--right.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2013, 08:27:59 PM
Zach Synder is about a million miles down the list of people that I think could get Wonder Woman--or any female protagonist--right.
Hey, I'd put him a step above Michael Bay.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 05, 2013, 02:37:25 AM
Speaking as Joe Q. Public (someone who was never into the comic book scene), the first thing you expect from Wonder Woman is that she is stupidly, ridiculously good looking.  I cannot think of an incarnation of WW that I have ever seen - including very limited comic book exposure, the old TV show, the Saturday morning cartoons, and even as she appeared in the DC Universe trailers - where she wasn't just soul crushingly gorgeous.  That she is also a bit voluptuous at the same time is also sort of expected, though that can be helped to a degree by the costume itself...but certainly not as rail thin as this chick appears to be.  There is a very short list of current actresses or celebrities that currently fit or could be made to fit this ideal.  Even if you beef up this Gal Gardot (or whatever her name is) up a bit, she isn't a match.

Short list of humans who, IMO, could be WW:

Scarlett Johansson - Obviously it can never happen, but she is probably the closest thing to a perfect match if you make her hair raven black.
Megan Fox - I know she is annoying as all fucking hell, but I think we all remember a scene or two from the Transformers movies where we forgot to breath for a couple seconds.  She would need more meat on her bones, and I imagine a bit of kung fu training.
That slightly chubby girl that has a TV show currently - Can't remember her name at all.  She would need to lose weight, but fuck me if she couldn't be cleaned up something nice.  Wish I could recall her name.  Somebody here knows who I am talking about.  I think she was even mentioned before as a candidate.
Katy Perry - don't laugh, think about it.  She cleans up disturbingly well.  She looks exactly like Wonder Woman, and it didn't occur to me until just right now.

And that's all I can think of.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on December 05, 2013, 02:59:11 AM
Katy Perry wouldn't do it. She would have to wear a totally different brand of makeup and look more like herself to do it, and her entire career is built on not looking like herself at all. I agree that she would be really good though.

WW always struck me as a Diana Rigg type, personally. Pity there are pretty much zero actresses out there with that kind of class and beauty these days.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 05, 2013, 03:57:00 AM
Wanked Pic.

I do not agree that Wonder Woman has to be 'Drop Dead Gorgeous'.  Indeed, I think that's a dangerous trap to fall into.

Take Megan Fox and Katy Perry to fuck.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 05, 2013, 06:28:04 AM
What I mean by that is that's what I think the average schlub expects.  There is a certain mold that has been created for her, like it or not, and people will be dis-inclined to find something outside of that mold as credible.  Why not have a blond, slightly chubby Superman?  Kinda the same thing.  Supes has to have black hair, a muscular build, preferably blue eyes, a square jaw and absolutely must wear his underwear on the outside of his clothes.  You have to be extremely careful about re-inventing these brands.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 05, 2013, 07:03:48 AM
Aye, I had a pic there which caused argument about what's pretty enough or not for Wonder Woman amongst my retarded friends, but it got wanked.

Basically, I really, really want to get away from the Lynda Carter look because I'd really, really rather than Wonder Woman looked like someone who could beat the utter fuckery out of you without worrying about breaking a nail.

Don't get me wrong, Lynda Carter was, and is, awesome, but if we're reinventing, why not do it right ?  Why not follow a Batman mould that WORKS ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 05, 2013, 07:27:52 AM
I dunno.  In my head, she isn't WW if she isn't also a stunner.

Angelina Jolie of 10 years ago might have also worked.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on December 05, 2013, 07:52:47 AM
I would much rather a WW who looked like a warrior than a model. It's time for that, and there have been some feints and moves here and there in the comics in that direction.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 05, 2013, 08:23:11 AM
Personally, I think they should have gone with someone Mediterranean looking rather than northern European. And as for the TV actress Cyrrex mentioned, I just do not see Melissa McCarthy as Wonder Woman. (Did you really mean Zoey Deschanel?)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2013, 09:00:34 AM
Why on earth would you want wonder woman looking like some swarthy Mediterranean?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 05, 2013, 09:08:31 AM
So sick of this Waif-Fu Bullshit.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 05, 2013, 10:42:39 AM
Why on earth would you want wonder woman looking like some swarthy Mediterranean?  :oh_i_see:
Oh ye of little faith and over reliance on stereotypes...

http://www.listal.com/list/beautiful-greek-actresses (http://www.listal.com/list/beautiful-greek-actresses)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on December 05, 2013, 10:47:19 AM
So sick of this Waif-Fu Bullshit.



This. I don't know enough about this women to care much, but my first thought when I saw a picture of her was "DAMN SHE IS THIN. RAIL THIN. EAT A DAMN SAMMICH THIN."

Not saying she couldn't pull it off, but not what I think of for Wonder Woman. Lucy Lawless at the height of Xena is pretty much my ideal actress to play Wonder Woman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 05, 2013, 10:50:53 AM
You know, I was going to say that, but I thought I'd be opening myself up to a pile on.

Pretty much.  If your woman is meant to be a fucking Amazon and the pinnacle of warrior women everywhere, Xena would be somewhere to START.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on December 05, 2013, 11:08:13 AM
This is a film in which Ben Affleck plays Batman, eyes on the prize people, Wonder Woman being too skinny is not even in the top 3 things wrong with this film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
I have no problem with Affleck as Bats. I initially laughed because it was so left field, but he'll be fine. He won't be anywhere near the problem with this flick if it turns out to be shit.

I still like the old idea of Gina Torres as WW.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2013, 11:35:42 AM
Why on earth would you want wonder woman looking like some swarthy Mediterranean?  :oh_i_see:
Oh ye of little faith and over reliance on stereotypes...

http://www.listal.com/list/beautiful-greek-actresses (http://www.listal.com/list/beautiful-greek-actresses)

O ye of little irony.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on December 05, 2013, 02:31:03 PM
I didn't like Xena TWP show, but even I have to admit that a Lucy Lawless type would be the ideal way to go for WW.  At least Xena looked like she would pick up a sword without passing out. The actress they have now looks like she would have difficulty lifting WW's bracelets.

Waif-Fu be dammed. It was shit even when they had monsters throwing themselves backwards pretending to be hit hard from Buffy, and she was a bodybuilder compared to this woman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fordel on December 05, 2013, 02:41:42 PM
How tall is this lady?

That's what is going to be really jarring for me, if she turns out to be 5 foot nothing standing beside Batman and Superman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on December 05, 2013, 02:51:03 PM
5' 9" (175 cm)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on December 05, 2013, 03:14:32 PM
Cavill is 6'1" and Afflec is 6'4"

Even at 5'9" she's gonna look tiny.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fordel on December 05, 2013, 03:18:10 PM
Is Afflec really that tall? Damn, wouldn't have guessed that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DevilsAdvocate25 on December 05, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
She's not an actress and she is short, but I think Jillian Michaels could credibly play Wonder Woman. She has the physique and the attitude of an amazon woman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on December 05, 2013, 03:43:17 PM
Is Afflec really that tall? Damn, wouldn't have guessed that.

One of the best places to see his size is movies like Chasing Amy and Goodwill Hunting. He towers over everyone.

But the height thing doesnt bother me, they can do all sorts of camera tricks. It's more or less that her build is... tiny.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on December 05, 2013, 10:28:52 PM
Why do you guys keep saying Waif-Fu? The term is waifu, and it doesn't mean waif, it means wife.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: schpain on December 05, 2013, 10:56:50 PM
Speaking as Joe Q. Public (someone who was never into the comic book scene), the first thing you expect from Wonder Woman is that she is stupidly, ridiculously good looking.  I cannot think of an incarnation of WW that I have ever seen - including very limited comic book exposure, the old TV show, the Saturday morning cartoons, and even as she appeared in the DC Universe trailers - where she wasn't just soul crushingly gorgeous.  That she is also a bit voluptuous at the same time is also sort of expected, though that can be helped to a degree by the costume itself...but certainly not as rail thin as this chick appears to be.  There is a very short list of current actresses or celebrities that currently fit or could be made to fit this ideal.  Even if you beef up this Gal Gardot (or whatever her name is) up a bit, she isn't a match.

Short list of humans who, IMO, could be WW:

Scarlett Johansson - Obviously it can never happen, but she is probably the closest thing to a perfect match if you make her hair raven black.
Megan Fox - I know she is annoying as all fucking hell, but I think we all remember a scene or two from the Transformers movies where we forgot to breath for a couple seconds.  She would need more meat on her bones, and I imagine a bit of kung fu training.
That slightly chubby girl that has a TV show currently - Can't remember her name at all.  She would need to lose weight, but fuck me if she couldn't be cleaned up something nice.  Wish I could recall her name.  Somebody here knows who I am talking about.  I think she was even mentioned before as a candidate.
Katy Perry - don't laugh, think about it.  She cleans up disturbingly well.  She looks exactly like Wonder Woman, and it didn't occur to me until just right now.

And that's all I can think of.

Cyrrex - you totally mean Kat Dennings, right? From Two Broke Girls?  Because I totally agree.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFJ3UTyE0d5oCFeWSzS6qQrypNWyGxCluGb4xufKx2-oULkCHD)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 05, 2013, 11:26:36 PM
Speaking as Joe Q. Public (someone who was never into the comic book scene), the first thing you expect from Wonder Woman is that she is stupidly, ridiculously good looking.  I cannot think of an incarnation of WW that I have ever seen - including very limited comic book exposure, the old TV show, the Saturday morning cartoons, and even as she appeared in the DC Universe trailers - where she wasn't just soul crushingly gorgeous.  That she is also a bit voluptuous at the same time is also sort of expected, though that can be helped to a degree by the costume itself...but certainly not as rail thin as this chick appears to be.  There is a very short list of current actresses or celebrities that currently fit or could be made to fit this ideal.  Even if you beef up this Gal Gardot (or whatever her name is) up a bit, she isn't a match.

Short list of humans who, IMO, could be WW:

Scarlett Johansson - Obviously it can never happen, but she is probably the closest thing to a perfect match if you make her hair raven black.
Megan Fox - I know she is annoying as all fucking hell, but I think we all remember a scene or two from the Transformers movies where we forgot to breath for a couple seconds.  She would need more meat on her bones, and I imagine a bit of kung fu training.
That slightly chubby girl that has a TV show currently - Can't remember her name at all.  She would need to lose weight, but fuck me if she couldn't be cleaned up something nice.  Wish I could recall her name.  Somebody here knows who I am talking about.  I think she was even mentioned before as a candidate.
Katy Perry - don't laugh, think about it.  She cleans up disturbingly well.  She looks exactly like Wonder Woman, and it didn't occur to me until just right now.

And that's all I can think of.

Cyrrex - you totally mean Kat Dennings, right? From Two Broke Girls?  Because I totally agree.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFJ3UTyE0d5oCFeWSzS6qQrypNWyGxCluGb4xufKx2-oULkCHD)

Goodness gracious yes.  Thanks.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 06, 2013, 12:24:56 AM
Why do you guys keep saying Waif-Fu? The term is waifu, and it doesn't mean waif, it means wife.
Waif + Fu (as in Kung).  Waif fighting girls.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: SurfD on December 06, 2013, 01:13:06 AM
Cyrrex - you totally mean Kat Dennings, right? From Two Broke Girls?  Because I totally agree.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFJ3UTyE0d5oCFeWSzS6qQrypNWyGxCluGb4xufKx2-oULkCHD)
Except that if she was wonderwoman, practically 90% of the audience would mentally have to suppress the constant urge to wonder why Thor does not have a cameo appearance in the movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 06, 2013, 03:09:56 AM
Huh?  Was she the nerdy girl in Thor?  If so, I totally never noticed that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 03:38:19 AM
Seriously ?

Is it because she wore a coat all the time ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 06, 2013, 04:03:57 AM
Well, probably, yeah. I wanna say she was wearing some kind of hat, too.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 04:12:07 AM
She was.

I feel for the lassie, I think most people just remember the paps.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on December 06, 2013, 04:17:58 AM
She has an impressive set to be sure, but that isn't the the part of her that does it for me. Those eyes kill me, and don't even get me started on the lips.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 06, 2013, 04:19:02 AM
Then I shall not.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on December 06, 2013, 03:26:43 PM
Well, probably, yeah. I wanna say she was wearing some kind of hat, too.
Don't feel bad. I didn't make the connection until schpain mentioned it (and Ironwood's explanation is about right). I blame biology and genetics and shit.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Thrawn on December 06, 2013, 04:03:35 PM
Well, probably, yeah. I wanna say she was wearing some kind of hat, too.
Don't feel bad. I didn't make the connection until schpain mentioned it (and Ironwood's explanation is about right). I blame biology and genetics and shit.

She got kind of dressed down so she wouldn't risk coming across as the sexy one over Portman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 06, 2013, 04:58:45 PM
Really, there are only three reasons to cast her as Wonder Woman (including hair color).  She has never shown the right acting chops for such a role, and her facial features are all wrong.  Regardless, I still maintain they should have gone for a quality actress from Greece (or elsewhere in the Mediterranean) even if she was not a known name in the US.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: palmer_eldritch on December 08, 2013, 10:46:37 AM
Speaking as Joe Q. Public (someone who was never into the comic book scene), the first thing you expect from Wonder Woman is that she is stupidly, ridiculously good looking.  I cannot think of an incarnation of WW that I have ever seen - including very limited comic book exposure, the old TV show, the Saturday morning cartoons, and even as she appeared in the DC Universe trailers - where she wasn't just soul crushingly gorgeous.  That she is also a bit voluptuous at the same time is also sort of expected, though that can be helped to a degree by the costume itself...but certainly not as rail thin as this chick appears to be.  There is a very short list of current actresses or celebrities that currently fit or could be made to fit this ideal.  Even if you beef up this Gal Gardot (or whatever her name is) up a bit, she isn't a match.

Short list of humans who, IMO, could be WW:

Scarlett Johansson - Obviously it can never happen, but she is probably the closest thing to a perfect match if you make her hair raven black.
Megan Fox - I know she is annoying as all fucking hell, but I think we all remember a scene or two from the Transformers movies where we forgot to breath for a couple seconds.  She would need more meat on her bones, and I imagine a bit of kung fu training.
That slightly chubby girl that has a TV show currently - Can't remember her name at all.  She would need to lose weight, but fuck me if she couldn't be cleaned up something nice.  Wish I could recall her name.  Somebody here knows who I am talking about.  I think she was even mentioned before as a candidate.
Katy Perry - don't laugh, think about it.  She cleans up disturbingly well.  She looks exactly like Wonder Woman, and it didn't occur to me until just right now.

And that's all I can think of.

Cyrrex - you totally mean Kat Dennings, right? From Two Broke Girls?  Because I totally agree.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFJ3UTyE0d5oCFeWSzS6qQrypNWyGxCluGb4xufKx2-oULkCHD)

Goodness gracious yes.  Thanks.

I have no idea who that is but I would also like to thank you.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on December 10, 2013, 06:33:20 AM
I haven't seen the woman cast as Wonder Woman in anything, and have read that she was a fitness instructor in the Israeli Military, but she lacks the build. Wonder Woman needs to be able to eyeball Superman and look like she can take him down (which she can).

It makes Megan Gale - who was almost Wonder Woman in the JLA film - a great choice by comparison.

But we'll see.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on December 10, 2013, 09:40:51 AM
Thread seems to have degenerated into complaining about Hollywood casting on the basis of looks as demonstrated by hiring an actress who the f13 community deem innappropriate because of her looks.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pennilenko on December 10, 2013, 10:09:50 AM
Irony is delicious.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2013, 10:50:32 AM
There's no irony there.

If someone isn't right for the role because she doesn't 'fit', that's not really complaining about her 'looks'.  That's saying that we can't quite see her as this character we've lived with.

Hollywood, of course, sees things different, which is entirely up for grabs to complain about, since they have an ideal that appeals and you KNOW they have an ideal that appeals, so even arguing with it is pointless.

It's not her looks.  Wonder Woman Should be Beautiful.  It's the standard of that beauty that I'm kind of objecting to.  I just don't 'see' it yet.  Maybe I'll be wrong.  Who knows.  Maybe she'll bulk up, fill out, have a distracting costume, play it perfectly, whatever.

But right now I really, really don't see it because above all I want to have some willing suspension of disbelief that will draw me into the film.  Look at all the Avengers cast.  They all worked because actually, at the heart of it, all of them looked like the comic counterparts, even Black Widow.  The worst one was Renner, but since no-one gives a shit about Hawkeye, who cares ?

But Wonder Woman has a very, very, very iconic look and getting that right is important.  Superman is just a badge.  Batman is just a cowl.  They've both proved any arsehole can do it.  Wonder Woman needs a little more care, I think.

And I don't see The Stick working for me.

Delighted to be wrong.  People said the same thing about Ledger.  Look how THAT turned out.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on December 10, 2013, 10:57:38 AM
Given that they hired someone most people never heard of, and the title doesn't have wonder woman in it, my guess is none of this will matter as it will end up being a 3 line cameo that gets recast twice before we see a Justice League film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on December 10, 2013, 02:16:41 PM
Not looks - physicality.  She does not have the physical body to be Wonder Woman.  If they were making a movie about the life of Andre the Giant and cast Peter Dinklage in the role, it'd be ridiculous.  It would not be bad because Dinklage is a bad actor, or because he can't portay the actions and reactions of Andre, but because his physicality does not match the role.  A thin frame is not suitable for an Amazon Princess.  Gal's frame is more appropriate for other characters.

I just don't see us ever believeing that her frame could stop a truck.

And we're now hearing that we have Superman, Batman, Nightwing, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor and Doomsday in this thing?  And, apparently, there is discussion of what it would take to meld this movie continuity with the Arrow TV show continuity (setting Man of Steel at the current Arrow season).


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on December 10, 2013, 05:34:37 PM
And we're now hearing that we have Superman, Batman, Nightwing, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor and Doomsday in this thing?  And, apparently, there is discussion of what it would take to meld this movie continuity with the Arrow TV show continuity (setting Man of Steel at the current Arrow season).

God I hope not.  Arrow is too good for the DC cinematic universe to fuck it up.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on January 17, 2014, 11:29:35 PM
Pushed back to May 2016.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 18, 2014, 04:14:14 PM
Pushed back to May 2016.
And I expect we'll get an announcement soon that Justice League hits summer 2017...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 18, 2014, 06:56:15 PM
Wonder Woman is 6' tall and is able to beat up anybody short of Superman without breaking a sweat. I think you'd have trouble finding an actress that tall and that built who could actually act though two that come to mind for me are Tricia Helfer and Gina Carano.

(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjQ5NjMxOTU5OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODY4NzQyNw@@._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg)

Gina is only a so-so actress. I quite enjoyed her in Haywire but it played to her strengths. (brutal fight scenes!)

However, she has the right build and looks tough. Unfortunately she is only 5'8". Tricia Helfer is 5'10 1/2 and is a better actress but she'd have to add some muscle.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 18, 2014, 07:57:56 PM
And Martin Freeman is far too tall to play Bilbo.

Computers man. Computers  :grin:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 18, 2014, 09:03:39 PM
And Martin Freeman is far too tall to play Bilbo.

Computers man. Computers  :grin:
If computers can make that waif with the toothpick arms look like Wonder Woman, then they might as well just CGI her whole role.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 18, 2014, 10:09:14 PM
Who, Riggswolfe's choice? Looks fine for the part to me. It's not like the movie goer is going to notice if she's 4" too short for the role. That's so within the margin of error of what a computer could correct (again, see: Bilbo) that it wouldn't even be heavy lifting. And really, it's not like I needed to dig deep for Freeman. They've been making Arnold Schwarzenegger look tall for 30 years.

Also, let's keep this in perspective. We're talking Wonder Woman here. If they can change Superman three times in one generation and have a short kinda scrawny Batman in a trilogy of largely enjoyable and financially successful enough movies, they can kinda do whatever the heck they want with a character that hasn't had any screen time since before Buck Rogers era TV. They're only going to piss off a rounding error's worth of movie ticket buyers no matter what they do.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ginaz on January 19, 2014, 11:14:30 AM
I remember people saying Heath Ledger was all wrong for the Joker.  How did that turn out? :awesome_for_real:  Its one of the reasons why I don't take comic book nerds very seriously when they bitch about casting choices.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 19, 2014, 12:44:23 PM
I remember people saying Heath Ledger was all wrong for the Joker.  How did that turn out? :awesome_for_real:  Its one of the reasons why I don't take comic book nerds very seriously when they bitch about casting choices.
There is a difference between:

* We don't think Actor X can pull it off, and
* We don't think Actor X has the right look for the part.

For the most part, I don't care about race, frame, or even gender for a role.  If you wanted to remake TJ Hooker with a 380 lb Hispanic female in Shatner's role - bring it on.  I'm open minded.  I had no problem with Joan Watson on Elementary and
However, if there are physical aspects to the role that are central to the core of the character, you can't brush them aside.  I'm closed off t those types of changes.  Wonder Woman must be a woman.  Further, she needs to be an Amazon.  She needs to look like a truck hitting her is going to bend around her, not like she'll bend around a feather that falls on her.

And before someone says something about the acting being more important - there are many actresses with the right look that can also act the socks off the role.  It doesn't need to be one or the other... but Hollywood is so desperate to get Megan Foxes in almost every role to sell sex, they sacrifice both the right physicality and the right acting to get their sex.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 19, 2014, 01:08:20 PM
A LOT of the Ledger bullshit was based squarely on Brokeback Mountain and stupid homophobic BS.

But yes, there is a GULF of difference between this situation and Ledger as Joker.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on January 19, 2014, 05:45:12 PM
Also, while there was a lot of ledger bullshit, it wasn't on forums like this. Here on f13, one regular poster had an issue with it, and he got over it in about 24 hours.

Nothing abo,,ut this film is like the dark knight.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 19, 2014, 06:03:22 PM
Yarp.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: SurfD on January 19, 2014, 11:31:32 PM
However, if there are physical aspects to the role that are central to the core of the character, you can't brush them aside.  I'm closed off t those types of changes.  Wonder Woman must be a woman.  Further, she needs to be an Amazon.  She needs to look like a truck hitting her is going to bend around her, not like she'll bend around a feather that falls on her.
So much this.   It took me all of 10 seconds to get over Kingpin in Daredevil being a big mean black man, instead of a big mean white man.   Now try to picture Kevin Heart being the kingpin.   It's practically impossible.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 19, 2014, 11:34:41 PM
Eh. A better analogy would be a terrible SKINNY comedic actor.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MahrinSkel on January 19, 2014, 11:55:28 PM
Eh. A better analogy would be a terrible SKINNY comedic actor.
Steve Buscemi as The Kingpin?  He's not a terrible actor, but there's just no way.

--Dave


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on January 20, 2014, 08:25:21 AM
Quite.  And as I remember it most of the outrage over Ledger was also due to the Glasgow Grin.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 20, 2014, 10:16:24 AM
The outrage stuff we are talking about was during casting, long before we knew what he would look like.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 20, 2014, 02:28:59 PM
The outrage stuff we are talking about was during casting, long before we knew what he would look like.
People also overstate the resistance on that for some reason.  The vast majority approached it more questioningly than objectingly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on January 20, 2014, 02:49:22 PM
How to fix superman vs batman.

1. Stop calling it superman vs batman
2. Stop casting justice league
3. 1 villain per hero. No minor villains.

Chances that they'll take any of this advice? 0%


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 20, 2014, 03:12:23 PM
In the end, I think they're screwed regardless of their approach.

DC characters just don't work on screen.  They're 'bigger than life', and when you have the Flash, Green Lantern, Shazam, and Superman in live action, their powers look ridiculous.  Most of them are artifacts that were conevied of in an era that is ridiculously out of place in modern sensibilities.

If I were DC, I'd stick to the animated movies and TV series and leave the live action to Marvel - their characters work better on film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on January 20, 2014, 04:24:38 PM
That's a great point and I tend to agree BUT surely they could find someone who could update these iconic heroes to a modern sensibility.  Sadly, I don't think anyone at WB has 'The Vision' Marvel has to make these heroes relateable and cool.

It strikes me as they don't really have an overall plan like Marvel does and they are foundering.  Marvel is digging down deep in their gold mine while DC is smacking at the creek water with their gold pan.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 20, 2014, 07:37:05 PM
Marvel(or disney in the case of the movies) didn't have much of a plan before Iron man either, really.  They needed a comic book hero that wasn't spiderman or the fantastic four and let's be honest way back in the day the argument was "will people even know who iron man is?"

DC had the same opportunity with batman begins and dark knight and they tried, god bless em.  They released a terrible green lantern movie and a superman darker than anyone was comfortable with.  They had all the same chances as marvel to build up a justice league movie on par with avengers but they've squandered that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on January 20, 2014, 07:42:44 PM
Well, DC is doing pretty good with Arrow and I believe they plan on doing Flash after this season of Arrow ends (since they've introduced and origin'd him). I'm not sure if those characters are slated to appear in a future JL movie, but Arrow is the first DC thing other than Nolan's Batman trilogy that I've enjoyed.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 21, 2014, 12:28:32 AM
The outrage stuff we are talking about was during casting, long before we knew what he would look like.
People also overstate the resistance on that for some reason.  The vast majority approached it more questioningly than objectingly.

Right, but we weren't talking about them. We were talking about the people openly bitching.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on January 21, 2014, 11:22:10 AM
Marvel(or disney in the case of the movies) didn't have much of a plan before Iron man either, really.  They needed a comic book hero that wasn't spiderman or the fantastic four and let's be honest way back in the day the argument was "will people even know who iron man is?"

DC had the same opportunity with batman begins and dark knight and they tried, god bless em.  They released a terrible green lantern movie and a superman darker than anyone was comfortable with.  They had all the same chances as marvel to build up a justice league movie on par with avengers but they've squandered that.

Marvel actually was in a worse position before the success of Iron Man because of how many different companies they had sold licenses to. Spider-Man is at Sony, Fox has the X-Men line so they couldn't (and still can't) control all their brands cohesively. DC, OTOH, was all owned by Warner Bros. and could have pulled all their properties into one universe/one brand and made a killing. Hell, they even have the more iconic characters - Superman and Batman have been around for more than 75 years and were infinitely more recognizable than Iron Man. The problem was they didn't (and don't) have executives who think about it that way. They were thinking about 1 franchise, not 1 universe of multiple franchises. They are still floundering with it. They need a guy like Avi Arad or Kevin Feige, an executive who understands the properties as individuals and as a whole.

Good luck with that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 21, 2014, 12:03:50 PM
That's a great point and I tend to agree BUT surely they could find someone who could update these iconic heroes to a modern sensibility.  Sadly, I don't think anyone at WB has 'The Vision' Marvel has to make these heroes relateable and cool...
I'm not sure you can have that vision, as it is inherently inconsistent.  The majority of main DC heroes are defined by the insane power levels.  If you depower them enough to make them fit with a modern relatable sensibility, they stop being the characters we know.  There are obvious exceptions, but when it comes to Supes, Shazam, Flash, Martian Manhunter, Green Lantern(s), Spectre, Dr. Fate, etc... there are too many massively powerful characters to accept.

Yes, Marvel has a few of these issues.  Swallowing GotG, Thor and Dr. Strange is quite a bit different than accepting Hulk, Iron Man and Ant-man.  However, it is not on the same scale - and Marvel barely made Thor work in the eyes of most people.  GotG and Dr. Strange have yet to be pulled off.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on January 21, 2014, 12:35:14 PM
To my mind Thor is the most impressive film of the lot, allowing for the quality of the material they had to work with.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on January 21, 2014, 12:43:24 PM
Answering Haemish's point, while I'm all in favour of piling on DC, they don't really have more recognisable characters beyond superman and batman. Superman is a terrible premise in the first place and neither plays well with others.

The idea of trying to make Batman and Superman grind through the back and forth banter of a buddy movie fills me with dread even before you get Zac Snyder and Ben Affleck involved.

Sometimes the sum of the parts really is worth more than the whole.

Even the avengers is far from certain to work out ok twice.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 21, 2014, 01:31:32 PM
The fact that Bats and Sups don't play well together or anyone else is largely the premise of all of their teamup stuff as well as JL. The title has been Superman vs Batman, not BUDDY ACTION THEATER.

Zac Snyder is the thing to worry about most, especially if there are female characters involved.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on January 21, 2014, 02:23:58 PM
The answer is simple: these characters "don't work" until someone comes along who can make them work. There is no character in DC or Marvel's canon who could categorically cannot be in a film and be enjoyed by mainstream audiences. Every character is locked up until a screenwriter, director and actors comes along with a key.

This includes characters with "insane power levels", characters in a world full of superheroes, and so on.  There have already BEEN movies enjoyed by mainstream audiences where there are or have been lots of superpowered people with complex relationships. The Incredibles is the best example.

It's stupid to make dictates or rule things out. Geeks are fond of ruling things out as impossible and then quickly forgetting that they said so once it happens.

However, if you're going to use an existing character, you have to both get the character right--in that they have some specific spirit or nature that distinguishes them that is the reason for working with them--and you have to be willing to shuck off anything that doesn't work, to reshape and modernize the character.

If you're working with a character who is inherently referential--e.g., requires a universe full of superheroes who they contrast against or relate to--you have to not make them the first property you're working with or not try to shoehorn in everything else. You have to do it the way The Incredibles did--quick strokes that establish the genre and setting, then get to work on your main guy.

If you're working with an iconic character who can potentially stand alone, strip them down to the essential idea and build it back again.

If you want more than one character, though? Then you've got to start making a world where that makes sense. You can't make Lord of the Rings and have elves and dwarves meet for the first time--it has to be a world where elves and dwarves have been there for thousands of years. If you're going to have a Justice League, you need to have an idea about why suddenly there are seven people who wear costumes and fight bad guys.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 21, 2014, 02:30:37 PM
I agree with everything you said.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on January 22, 2014, 11:29:24 AM
There is no physical reason why DC can't make one shared universe for its superhero movies. Or feature other heroes besides batman and superman. Or create a justice league movie.

The problem here is that folks with the money are far too old to do anything with the license except mimic what the marketing executives feed them through IV.

At this point I don't even want to see them attempt to tie the entirety of DC into one filming franchise.I think their better off with a more oceans 11 approach to justice league than a "Look see? Remember that guy in the blue suit you saw 2 movies ago? He's back but with more superfriends who may or may not have gotten their own movies." They don't know what to do with what they have so their flaundering on executive orders to make the marvel hat dollars.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on January 22, 2014, 11:45:07 AM
Which requires talent and vision on the executive level not just in the directors chair.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 22, 2014, 02:25:01 PM
If you'd rather characterize the situation by saying it is far, far, far more difficult to make a live action DC film with the larger than life heroes than it is to makie movies about the more grounded Marvel heroes, I think that is fair.  

I just think it is hard to a degree that exceeds a reasonable expectation for what a studio can produce.  I thought the Superman movie they made was pretty darn good for a Superman movie - but it was not great overall.

On a different note: Stephen Arnell has confirmed to Fandango that his Green Arrow could make the leap to a Justice League movie and establish that his Greeb Arrow and the new Flash are part of the movie continuity...

http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/bam-pow-zap-talking-superhero-rumors-with-steven-amell-jason-momoa-and-sam-l-jackson-746510.html (http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/bam-pow-zap-talking-superhero-rumors-with-steven-amell-jason-momoa-and-sam-l-jackson-746510.html)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on January 22, 2014, 04:28:35 PM
I don't disagree it is possible in the way Khaldun suggests.

I just don't see why you'd want to, seems to be an awful waste of creative effort, and don't agree there is any automatic premium on putting these characters in the same film.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on January 22, 2014, 07:36:17 PM
Arrow is the best thing DC has done since Bats 2.  They should get the show runners to come up with a comprehensive plan for the JL heroes. Also, no hero origins, here's an example.

Superman:  "So Batman right?  What's your story?"
Batman:  "None of your business."

Done.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Furiously on January 22, 2014, 10:24:14 PM
They need to let Bruce Timm and Paul Dini direct :P


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on January 23, 2014, 07:41:41 AM
Bruce Timm directing this with complete god like authority would be the only thing saving this crap wheel that's on fire.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on January 23, 2014, 12:51:24 PM
Part of the problem is that most of the executives green-lighting superhero movies, and even some of the directors, are actually kind of embarrassed by superheroes and comic-books. That can work if you're trying to work with a grittier 'real-life' vigilante pulp character like Batman. It can't work if you're dealing with a four-color spandex guy who has superpowers. It just can't. You can't be embarrassed by the gaudy unreality of a guy who could move the Moon from its orbit flying around saving cats from trees and stopping muggers and still green-light the movie.

You have to actually love the idea of a world full of men and women who wear their underwear on the outside doing mighty deeds and stoping evil-doers. That's why The Incredibles worked--it had not even one ounce of chagrin about a super-hero world. It's ultimately why The Avengers worked--it's more "real world" than The Incredibles, but Whedon basically loves the core tropes of superhero team-up books and reworks them beautifully. He's not in the least ashamed of them.

Watchmen--the book at least--was the final word on what you have to do with superheroes if you're embarrassed by them: you have to recognize that in a world like our world, a guy who dressed up in form-fitting spandex and beat up criminals would be a sex fetishist or a mental case of one kind or another, and a person with genuine super-powers would change literally everything about geopolitics and society.

The problem so far with the Superman lead-in to a Justice League film is that it's ashamed of the character and the genre. "Man of Steel" tried so hard to show that it's "grown-up" and in the process just killed all the fun out of it. They narrowcast their sense of being "grown up" at the kind of post-adolescent who got an erection looking at Rob Liefield illustrations of Cable carrying an even bigger gun and wearing even bigger pouches. If they don't fix that basic issue, none of the rest of it is going to be even a teeny bit fun or right.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 23, 2014, 07:05:15 PM
Absolutely Agree with the problem you see, but still disagree that there is a solution with mass appeal for a wide audience.   


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on January 23, 2014, 07:10:01 PM
I felt the same about Thor.  True, it may not look like comic book Martian Manhunter, etc. but it can be done.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 23, 2014, 09:20:30 PM
Khaldun's point was not that it couldn't work.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on January 23, 2014, 10:03:16 PM
It can totally work. The guys making it and the suits funding it just have to not be secretly ashamed of the whole genre.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on January 24, 2014, 01:39:47 AM
The answer is simple: these characters "don't work" until someone comes along who can make them work. There is no character in DC or Marvel's canon who could categorically cannot be in a film and be enjoyed by mainstream audiences. Every character is locked up until a screenwriter, director and actors comes along with a key.

I sort of agree, but then I think about characters like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern.

Green Lantern's ability is that if someone shoots a round bomb at him he creates a green ping pong paddle and hits it back at them. His weakness is the color yellow. To me this says comedy film, or at least a film with a humorous side. He's a little goofy, even for a movie like Avengers. His super power is being ridiculous.

I get that you can not make his weakness yellow and make him create magical machine guns instead of ping pong paddles, but then it's not really the classic Green Lantern any more. He's then just a guy who can create anything.

And then there is Wonder Woman. She is basically just a weak Superman who is female. Also she has an invisible plane and lasso of truth. She's pretty fundamentally ridiculous, but also boring. I struggle to think of anything interesting about her beyond the fact that she's female. She's like Paris Hilton - Paris Hilton is famous just for being Paris Hilton. Wonder Woman is well-known because she is Wonder Woman, but her character brings very little to the table.

With a character like Spider-Man you have fundamental stuff to draw on. He has some fun powers, the whole "with great responsibility" thing, he's a teenage with typical teenage problems. His origin has been retold a few times but those fundamentals are mostly fixed.

Wonder Woman (and Green Lantern) are much less consistent. Wonder Woman is an Amazon, she's made out of clay, she's the daughter of Zeus. She's a peacenik, she's a feminist...there's not much through-line to her character, in the end she's just got a recognizable costume.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on January 24, 2014, 04:40:40 AM
That's why a movie comes along that explains how she got the invisible plane, the lasso and her strength.  Again, they did it with Thor, they can do it with WW.  Maybe it's not an invisible plane, maybe it's a stealth jet.  Audiences (barely) bought a carrier that flies thru the air and turns invisible, they'll buy a single plane.  Maybe the lasso isn't magical, maybe it's Amazonian tech.  "Hey we got this guy tied up with a carbon-fiber lasso, might as well program it to make him tell the truth."

Marvel knew Thor was a tough sell because he's a god of Asgard.  Instead they made it so that Asgard is just technologically advanced and the primitive humans considered them gods.   It worked.





Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Raguel on January 24, 2014, 07:17:19 AM

Does WW even have an invisible plane in the comics? She flies last time I read a WW comic so I don't see the point of even including it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 24, 2014, 09:17:50 AM
There are many versions of all of these characters in the comics. DC reinvents them all the time. If you go back to the 50s, 60s and 70s comics, the Batman shown in that era, he hasmore in common with the modern Riddler than the modern Batman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on January 24, 2014, 10:10:40 AM
The problem so far with the Superman lead-in to a Justice League film is that it's ashamed of the character and the genre. "Man of Steel" tried so hard to show that it's "grown-up" and in the process just killed all the fun out of it.

I disagree with what you said. Vehemently. For all its attempt at a grittier Superman who kills when necessary, I thought it got the character just right for a modern-day audience. I don't think it tried hard to show that it was grown up - I just thought it tried to inject some actual drama and character growth into what is a very static iconic character.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Nevermore on January 24, 2014, 10:15:43 AM
I sort of agree, but then I think about characters like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern.

Green Lantern's ability is that if someone shoots a round bomb at him he creates a green ping pong paddle and hits it back at them. His weakness is the color yellow. To me this says comedy film, or at least a film with a humorous side. He's a little goofy, even for a movie like Avengers. His super power is being ridiculous.

I get that you can not make his weakness yellow and make him create magical machine guns instead of ping pong paddles, but then it's not really the classic Green Lantern any more. He's then just a guy who can create anything.

And then there is Wonder Woman. She is basically just a weak Superman who is female. Also she has an invisible plane and lasso of truth. She's pretty fundamentally ridiculous, but also boring. I struggle to think of anything interesting about her beyond the fact that she's female. She's like Paris Hilton - Paris Hilton is famous just for being Paris Hilton. Wonder Woman is well-known because she is Wonder Woman, but her character brings very little to the table.

With a character like Spider-Man you have fundamental stuff to draw on. He has some fun powers, the whole "with great responsibility" thing, he's a teenage with typical teenage problems. His origin has been retold a few times but those fundamentals are mostly fixed.

Wonder Woman (and Green Lantern) are much less consistent. Wonder Woman is an Amazon, she's made out of clay, she's the daughter of Zeus. She's a peacenik, she's a feminist...there's not much through-line to her character, in the end she's just got a recognizable costume.

Actually, the original Green Lantern's weakness was wood, not the color yellow.  And Wonder Woman originally was just as strong as the original Superman (Superman became stronger and more ridiculous over time), and she also had telepathy, ESP, astral projection and a bondage theme both with the lasso and with her propensity for ending up tied up or shackled herself.  The invisible plane didn't come until later.

By the way William Marston, the creator of Wonder Woman, is quite a character himself.  He's the inventor of the lie detector and lived in a polygamous relationship with two women.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 24, 2014, 11:33:35 AM
Nothing wrong with a strong woman who likes being tied up.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Phildo on January 24, 2014, 12:19:07 PM
Not very strong, then, is she?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 24, 2014, 12:35:35 PM
Don't make me get into BDSM psychology....


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Pennilenko on January 24, 2014, 12:51:15 PM
Don't make me get into BDSM psychology....

Please do, that sounds like fascinating discussion.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on January 24, 2014, 02:23:53 PM
I like the idea of the polygraph being invented by a polymath polygamist, and resolve never to look it up so as to avoid disappointment.

I choose to imagine the original prototype being made entirely out of polyester.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 24, 2014, 02:42:39 PM
There are many versions of all of these characters in the comics. DC reinvents them all the time.

This. As others have said, they can make it work if they take it seriously. The audience will follow along. That includes the neckbeards who invariably only like one specific depiction of that character, and probably the one few others know about.

There's a different between loving a character and being open minded enough to love the brand (which requires understanding the difference  :awesome_for_real:)

The problem so far with the Superman lead-in to a Justice League film is that it's ashamed of the character and the genre. "Man of Steel" tried so hard to show that it's "grown-up" and in the process just killed all the fun out of it.

I disagree with what you said. Vehemently. For all its attempt at a grittier Superman who kills when necessary, I thought it got the character just right for a modern-day audience. I don't think it tried hard to show that it was grown up - I just thought it tried to inject some actual drama and character growth into what is a very static iconic character.

And this. A slightly optimistic/niave Superman who still steps up and does the right thing. But without Richard Pryor or one dimensional cookie cutout boy from the last reinvention. They did well.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on January 24, 2014, 09:43:44 PM
Green Lantern is an interesting case. If you strip away dumb shit like "his weakness is wood/yellow" and say, "This is a story about space cops who have magic rings that can do almost anything" and ask the question, "What keeps someone with a magic ring from being bad?" and "if the magic ring is only limited by your imagination, but when you first get it your imagination is kind of limited" those two things might make for an interesting story when you put them together. (E.g., on question 1: why isn't everyone Sinestro? and on the second, "what gives you enough imagination to actually use a ring like that?")

It's all a matter of thinking of what's essential and not essential. Weakness to yellow or whatever is non-essential.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: NowhereMan on January 25, 2014, 03:48:20 AM
Plus it gives an interesting tension with Batman if you're looking at a JL movie. On the one hand you've got the ultimate vigilante with a moral code who's unashamedly doing what he thinks is right and fuck anyone that disagrees. On the other hand you've got someone working within the system that's been empowered by the law but also clearly shows how external and 'alien' that kind of system is to those it's enforced on. So you can get a healthy bit of back and forth with GL criticising Batman for working outside the law and Batman questioning where the right to set laws comes from that makes GL any better.

Ultimately though I think the point about DC movie producers and directors being a little embarrassed by the spandex is true and they're looking for movies that either try and cover the whole cape thing up with grittiness or just go 'fuck it' and ignore plot and acting in favour of spectacle. Thing is I don't think the Dark Knight style gritty atmosphere would work particularly well for a team up movie, especially taking into account the characters that would be teaming up. DC heroes have always been more archetypal and super while Marvel focused a bit more on relatable figures. Either way can make for an entertaining story but the threat for a JL type team up would require something huge. Any pretence at realism would have to go out the window, although at the same time making it cartoonishly silly would kill the drama.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on January 25, 2014, 07:42:09 PM
JL Batman cannot be Nolan Batman.

He's got to be the "smarter than you, more motivated than you, more driven than you, no matter whether you're from Krypton or have a magic ring" Batman: someone who lives in a world where magic powers are possible but where human will still has a chance to trump those powers.

It's one reason I'm glad that over the years DC slowly came to recognize that Lex Luthor is almost as interesting a villain for Batman as he is for Superman. Because they might actually have some points of sympathetic connection. I gather Luthor is joining the Justice League in the comics soon, which is a pretty interesting twist. Not that I'm gonna read it, given that it's the nu52 DC with all of its stupidity and ugliness, but still.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on January 26, 2014, 06:01:49 AM
I was snowed in yesterday so I caught a lot of a Batman movie marathon.  Under Burton, Bats was part of a dark circus of bizarre characters.  Keaton's mostly understated role helped ground some of this Wonderland fantasy.  Not grim and gritty.  Kilmer's Batman was looking for love and maybe trying to heal from his childhood trauma.  Who better to help than a psychiatrist girlfriend?  Clooney's Batman was, well Clooney hamming it up a bit.  His Batman was the most 'normal' Batman, he publicly worked with the cops and reached out to a troubled Robin.  Of course the movie was ass but Clooney wasn't bad.

Everyone knows the Nolan version and for many it's the iconic Batman.  Not me. Grim and gritty get tiresome and three movies was probably one movie too long.  Or maybe it's because each movie was so long, that third one was ponderous with a capital P.

Anyway, after much wandering, my point is this. The world can take a new version of Batman without shitting itself.  Make him like the JLA Morrison Batman and I'll be happy.  He's supposed to be 'The World's Greatest Detective', lets see it.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on January 26, 2014, 07:13:28 AM
I never found Nolans batman films grim or gritty. I can say that about Rises more than Knight and Begins is too nonchalant to be anything. For example without the Joker the only real moral squandry is the fake fallout between fox and bruce over the nsa wet dream project. And its only grimy dew to the implications, beyond that the machine isn't really explored, fox quiting out of moral outrage seems kinda off coming from the same man who hands and develops military grade hardware to the questionably sane. At least Rises goes into the depth of despair, sees a man broken and a city lose hope. Sigh in a lot of ways Nolans films did more damage than good to batman.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 26, 2014, 09:29:06 AM
Well, it depends on whether you think of Batman has the costumed hero or Batman as the normal guy with a lot of money, motivation and training. Nolan's Batman didn't have some of the genius deduction I personally had gotten used to (felt like Alfred carried that role more than Bruce). It also didn't have basically-an-asshole-all-the-time Batman thing either (I feel like Arrow does that better). And it lacked a whole bunch of other things people would associated with Batman from some era of the comics.

But it did go into the plight of the man well.

I didn't much care for Rises. As a movie, it had some of the same problems of Dark Knight (pacing, length, editiing) but without Heath Ledger to offset the issues. But at least it did try to remind us about the difference between the cowl and the man, by forcing them to be separate for so much of the movie. Like Tony Stark/suit of armor.

These kinds of comic book movies can't really please ardent fans of the comic itself, especially since even that community sub-divides. But, the foundation of the characters can make for good movie going experiences. They have all the hallmarks of summer seat-filling movies, and come with the benefit of having to spend slightly less attention on establishing a story from scratch.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 26, 2014, 11:09:18 AM
These kinds of comic book movies can't really please ardent fans of the comic itself, especially since even that community sub-divides.

Sure it can, but that part of the contract relies somewhat on the movie viewer. I'm a huge bat-nerd, and love the three Nolan films. They are going to be inherently different, if only because someone else is writing him. The characters, as we've pointed out, change to various degrees when there are different writers through the years. A movie version is just one more change.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 26, 2014, 01:01:29 PM
Right. But you're open minded to love the franchise and the individual takes on it. I'm similar with Star Trek. For me, if someone tries to take the franchise seriously, that's good enough for me, even if it means reinventing pieces of it.

I was more talking about the neckbeards.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on January 26, 2014, 01:23:28 PM
I was more talking about the neckbeards.

Fuck them in their tiny batholes.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 26, 2014, 07:22:11 PM
We're keeping in mind who will be playing Batman, right?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on January 26, 2014, 09:28:53 PM
I must be the only person on this board that didn't much care for The Dark Knight. I mean The actors were fine but the plot was a ridiculous "The Jokers is so clever that everyone does exactly what he wants then to do even if doing so is retarded because he is such a genius" by a person that saw too many screenings of SAW. It's dark and depressing to be dark and depressing. Hell my sister saw it and we had a big discussion afterwords with my entire family agreeing that the thing was boring as fuck. If you don't by into the premise that the Joker is so clever and amazing, and none of us did because it requires everyone bar the Joker to be acting like idiots for no good reason at all, the movie was crap.

And frankly, The growl voice of Batman became tiresome and ridiculous though the movie.

I loved Batman Begins but this one, no.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 26, 2014, 09:54:15 PM
The Batman growl from the last trilogy was - by far - the worst part of it for me.  I thought it was a joke when he started doing it in the first movie and was sure it'd be dropped. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 27, 2014, 12:09:31 AM
We're keeping in mind who will be playing Batman, right?

I don't have the Affleck hate gene.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on January 27, 2014, 04:16:07 AM
I hate Begins its such a nothing film. If you skipped Begins for Knight or Returns you wouldn't miss anyrhing.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on January 27, 2014, 05:31:39 AM
I don't have the Affleck hate gene.

I don't either. Granted he has been in some awful films but he did solid work in them. I'm willing to wait and see how he does.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fordel on January 30, 2014, 08:20:09 PM
Really, he's the perfect Bruce Wayne, no one can believe he is Batman.


Did we make that joke already? Whatever I'm going with it!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on January 31, 2014, 07:32:58 AM
I hate Begins its such a nothing film. If you skipped Begins for Knight or Returns you wouldn't miss anyrhing.

Whut ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2014, 12:01:50 PM
So. uh.... what?

Quote
"Warner Bros. has announced today that Jesse Eisenberg will play Lex Luthor in the upcoming "Man Of Steel" sequel, with Jeremy Irons also on board in the role of Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred."
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/jesse-eisenberg-jeremy-irons-are-lex-luthor-alfred-in-zack-snyders-batman-vs-superman-20140131


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2014, 01:03:52 PM
This could be a level of comedic performance never before seen.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
Oh, I get it... it is a live action parallel of The Super Hero Squad Show.

Irons as Alfred is intersting casting, at least.  But Eisenberg?  With Afleck as Bats and Eisenberg as Luther, Cavill is going to look imposing as heck.  So will Amy Adams, though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on January 31, 2014, 02:11:12 PM
So. uh.... what?

Quote
"Warner Bros. has announced today that Jesse Eisenberg will play Lex Luthor in the upcoming "Man Of Steel" sequel, with Jeremy Irons also on board in the role of Bruce Wayne's butler, Alfred."
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/jesse-eisenberg-jeremy-irons-are-lex-luthor-alfred-in-zack-snyders-batman-vs-superman-20140131

Wierd. But when I think Arrow and I think what's on the rest of CW and I think the audience they're shooting for, it kinda makes sense. Even if it makes me feel old as dirt.

We're keeping in mind who will be playing Batman, right?

I don't have the Affleck hate gene.

I kinda get it but I don't feel it myself. I didn't hate Daredevil and don't think he'd necessarily do a bad job as Batman. I just need to unthink all the things I did like about Nolan's trilogy. And by way of interesting coincidences (http://trenchescomic.com/comic/post/not-the-hero-we-want)...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Nevermore on January 31, 2014, 02:45:48 PM
I don't hate Affleck but when I think Batman, I think at least brooding.  I can't see Affleck effectively brooding.  Even Keaton managed to brood.  This cast is starting to remind me of the cast of Batman & Robin.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on January 31, 2014, 02:59:45 PM
He brooded a fair bit in Daredevil.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on January 31, 2014, 03:03:49 PM
Eisenberg can play a smart dickbag well... but I just think he looks WAY TOO YOUNG to be a convincing Lex Luthor. I don't get this casting at all. Irons is fine as Alfred.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Nevermore on January 31, 2014, 03:07:53 PM
He brooded a fair bit in Daredevil.


He tried to, but I wouldn't say it was effective.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Hoax on January 31, 2014, 03:16:34 PM
You guys do realize that you are the neckbeards right? The guy has plenty of chops for a super hero movie unless all of you watched Now You See Me and Double whatever those are and he was horrible in them?

Its been 4 years since Social Network and 5 since Zombieland, which are the films I saw and remember him from and yes he was still pretty kid-like but I don't see any reason to worry about that here. Things like makeup, wardrobe and you know the acting and dialogue can change our perception of his age just fine I'd think.

Seems like wondering about what the guy who wrote Argo will do when he re-drafts the script would be way more productive and will make a much bigger difference in how this movie turns out.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on January 31, 2014, 03:24:06 PM
Yes, he was horrible in them.  He'll be horrible in this.  He's not a good actor.  At all, as far as I've seen.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2014, 03:34:37 PM
I should point out that I'm not hating on it. I like Eisenberg and he can play a dickhead pretty well. It was just so left field. The Jeremy Irons casting is the weirder one for me, honestly. Just doesn't seem to quite fit.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Phildo on January 31, 2014, 03:42:15 PM
Jeremy Irons was great in the Dungeons & Dragons movie.  Just saying.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Fordel on January 31, 2014, 03:46:06 PM
I confused Jeremy Irons with Michael Ironside. Now THAT would have been a interesting Alfred  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Phildo on January 31, 2014, 03:47:20 PM
Alfred, reimagined as an ex-Navy SEAL?

Woodhouse?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2014, 04:35:46 PM
I love Jeremy Irons but for fucks sake you might as well get Alan Rickman to play Alfred if you are going that direction.  It's just, weird.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2014, 04:36:31 PM
Though, I would pay double a ticket fee to hear Rickman say "Master Bruce."


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2014, 05:09:58 PM
Plot twist: Alfred now despises Wayne.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ingmar on January 31, 2014, 05:11:56 PM
Are we going to get Reversal of Fortune Jeremy Irons, or D&D the Movie Jeremy Irons?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Nevermore on January 31, 2014, 05:15:10 PM
I hope it's The Borgias Jeremy Irons and it turns out he's really Batman and Bruce Wayne is just a front.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on January 31, 2014, 05:17:51 PM
Lolita. (Watch out Carrie Kelley!)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on January 31, 2014, 07:06:22 PM
I can see Irons as an Alfred. Not the Michael Caine version, but more of the dry sarcastic character - like IM's Jarvis.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on January 31, 2014, 07:07:26 PM
I can see Irons as an Alfred. Not the Michael Caine version, but more of the dry sarcastic character - like IM's Jarvis.

Congrats, you just won, "what was the pitch line to the casting director."  Your noprize is in the mail.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Wizgar on February 01, 2014, 12:23:44 AM
I'm over the neckbeard bellyaching and the post-neckbeard apologism. This movie just sounds dumb from top to bottom.

I'm not really down with their casting choices, but whatever, actors can act, they could pull it off. My concern is that the movie is going to be two hours of Batman holding Superman down and making him drink pee, so to speak, because DC basically hates Superman and Batman has a legion of wanking fans to please.

Batman's superpower is having writers who obsessively suck his dick, and ironically it's made him every bit as dull as anyone ever claimed Superman was. Nobody can ever beat Batman because he's the smartest guy in the universe and always has exactly what he needs, blah blah blah, prep time, blah blah.

It's no longer interesting having him defeat or hold his own guys who have superpowers and are stronger than him on paper, because he's now just the writer's pet who always does that. Yeah, yeah, of course he has secret plans that would let him take down anyone/everyone else in the justice league, of course he's got kryptonite cufflinks or whatever doodad he needs right at hand whenever he needs it. It's Batman, yawn, wake me up when the writer of whatever I'm watching/reading finishes fapping.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Teleku on February 01, 2014, 11:52:02 PM
......

Did that actually just happen?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on February 01, 2014, 11:54:21 PM
No, it happened a day ago.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on February 02, 2014, 01:28:12 AM
I agree that some writers (and fans) have gone a little crazy with Batman just being so fucking crafty that he can do anything. I mean, it was stupid even in Dark Knight returns - 60 year old Batman defeats Superman with the power of electricity. Lol.

In the Justice League cartoon Batman is able to dodge Darkseid's eye lasers and Darkseid is like "nobody has dodged my lasers before!" Really? He's fought a guy who can travel at mach speed, a bunch of godlike interstellar beings, and fucking Batman is the first to dodge his lasers?

Batman does sometimes appear to have a superpower that is "I'm fucking Batman" that translates into "I can do anything." Which does somewhat defeat the purpose of a non-super-powered character.

This is the problem the Justice League as always run into. You have a guy like Superman who is basically a god, fighting next to a woman with wings and a mace. It works if Superman is a foil for those characters (which works best in small doses / limited storylines), but more often than not either the other characters somehow step up via the power of positive thinking, or highly contrived storylines make Superman irrelevant / on vacation.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on February 02, 2014, 08:31:39 AM
I mean, it was stupid even in Dark Knight returns - 60 year old Batman defeats Superman with the power of electricity. Lol.


You're really missing some nuance there.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 02, 2014, 08:32:37 AM
No batman movie has ever made batman crafty like they do in the comics, I'm not sure that's a valid concern for this one either, considering the director.  


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 02, 2014, 09:23:40 AM
Batman got his shit tore up in the last film, so it isn't like he was invincible.  The whole trilogy was pretty consistent on that point.

This is still the dumbest idea ever.  Just because they exist in the same universe in the comics (which only the neckbeards care about), doesn't mean they should on the big screen.  Throwing in WW doesn't help matters, even less so when she doesn't even match what we think WW should look like in any way.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 02, 2014, 10:17:47 AM
Batman got his shit tore up in the last film, so it isn't like he was invincible.  The whole trilogy was pretty consistent on that point.

This is still the dumbest idea ever.  Just because they exist in the same universe in the comics (which only the neckbeards care about), doesn't mean they should on the big screen.  Throwing in WW doesn't help matters, even less so when she doesn't even match what we think WW should look like in any way.

But but....marvel did it and made a shitton of money, what could go wrong?!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on February 02, 2014, 10:34:11 AM
Man you guys act like movies are suddenly parallels to real life. Their more comic books now than ever. So let me get this straight batman finds the joker by using a machine that turns every cellphone into a sonar device (yeah I glad they glossed over explaining how that worked) and than uses this machine to find the joker with pinpoint accuracy despite no one in that building holding a cellphone.  :drill:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on February 02, 2014, 03:21:53 PM
I mean, it was stupid even in Dark Knight returns - 60 year old Batman defeats Superman with the power of electricity. Lol.
You're really missing some nuance there.

I know there was more to it than that but it was still a very apparent case of "hero X won because it was hero X's book."


Quote from: Lakov
But but....marvel did it and made a shitton of money, what could go wrong?!

The Avengers group of Iron Man, Hulk and Thor works pretty well together. But even in the Avengers they clearly had some trouble figuring out relevant stuff for Hawkeye, Black Widow and Captain America to do. Hawkeye spent a lot of the movie brainwashed, Black Widow's big scene was a conversation with Loki, and in every fight Captain America did a highly contrived gymnastics routine. The fate of the world rests on him swinging around on an I-Beam or some shit.

I don't envy the people trying to write a workable Superman / Batman / WW movie. You have to introduce WW entirely, introduce a new Batman, explain why they are together, and come up with some scenario where they are all useful.

I like the approach the JL animated series took with a guy like The Question - it doesn't make a lot of sense for him to be throwing punches next to Superman, so instead he does investigative work and takes on small scale quirky cases. But I don't think you can do that in Batman / WW / Superman movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on February 02, 2014, 04:22:37 PM
If they have any sense, JL members who aren't Batman or Superman will be a cameo, save them havng to explain anything.

That said, if they had any sense, they'd have Irons play Batman, Affleck direct the thing, and Snyder can play Alfred or something. Or he can just fuck off.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 03, 2014, 09:29:29 AM
I've been trying to figure out what the plot of this movie will be. I think the most likely arc will be:

Batman figures out who Superman really is and goes to Metropolis the pile of rubble that was Metropolis to introduce himself. Hopefully Batman says "oh, by the way numbskull, if you have to fight another super powered bad guy, do it outside of city limits mmkay?"

Luthor decides that Superman is a menace, both to his criminal enterprises and to the safety of Metropolis and poisons him with Kryptonite, depowering him.

Batman and a depowered Superman have to work together to take down Luther. Before this they have a knockdown drag out fight because Snyder saw it in the Avengers and wants his movie to make $1 billion dollars. Wonder Woman stops them, then poses to look sexy before leaving to deal with another issue.

Batman and Superman fight Lex Luthor. Depowered Superman would have learned how fragile humans really are due to being depowered but since it is a Zach Snyder movie he instead kicks Luthor off of a high rise while screaming "This! Is! Metropolis!", gets his powers back, and circles the globe, not to revive Lois Lane, but as a victory lap.

End.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on February 03, 2014, 11:11:30 AM
and in every fight Captain America did a highly contrived gymnastics routine. The fate of the world rests on him swinging around on an I-Beam or some shit.

 :facepalm:

Nuance really isn't your thing, is it?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on February 03, 2014, 09:29:17 PM
Nuance really isn't your thing, is it?

Are we really pretending that Captain America doing gymnastics so that he can pull a lever to stop a flying aircraft carrier from falling out of the sky is "nuance?"

They needed to give Captain America something to do so they came up with contrived scenarios that played to his strengths. It's like having a guy on the team that can shrink and on every mission there's a tiny doorway that only he can enter. Nuance!


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 04, 2014, 01:51:18 AM
I have to kinda agree.  I really loved Avengers, but CA had to be pretty much shoe-horned into it.  I actually thought they did a better job getting Hawkeye and Black Widow to make sense (though to be fair, the only thing you have to do to get Scarlett to fit into any movie is to have her stare at the camera), because they are clearly meant to be second tier superheroes.  Captain America is a first stringer, with second stringer abilities and plenty of contrived parkour being shown.    He also came across as an unlikable douche, so even the leadership angle didn't work.

I think he comes off better in the stand alone movie.  I saw Avengers first, and didn't like him at all.  The Captain America movie helped redeem things a bit, because his powers make more sense in that context.

Anyway, as soon as you put Batman together with Superman, you end up with the same problem.  Batman is another first stringer with second stringer abilities (shit, technically it is probably third stringer since he doesn't actually have anything superhuman).  The only way this works on any level is to somehow reduce Supes, pretty much as Margalis describes.  And the only reasonable way to do that is kryponite, and fuck that in the ear already.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on February 04, 2014, 04:16:14 AM
I have to kinda agree.  I really loved Avengers, but CA had to be pretty much shoe-horned into it.  I actually thought they did a better job getting Hawkeye and Black Widow to make sense (though to be fair, the only thing you have to do to get Scarlett to fit into any movie is to have her stare at the camera), because they are clearly meant to be second tier superheroes.  Captain America is a first stringer, with second stringer abilities and plenty of contrived parkour being shown.    He also came across as an unlikable douche, so even the leadership angle didn't work.

Agree. They did a pretty good job with Hawkeye and Black Widow, all things considered.

With Cap his powers didn't lend themselves to much, and him being an excellent leader didn't come across well either. They tried - in the end battle he sort of lays out their plan, but it's pretty lame. In the comics he often provides the human glue that keeps the team together, but that's hard to make work in a movie.

Haem, you should really watch it again (or not) and look at how much of Cap's action is swinging around on stuff.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on February 04, 2014, 04:50:09 AM
    He also came across as an unlikable douche, so even the leadership angle didn't work.


They ALL came across as unlikeable douches except for Banner who was likeable because he literally had no other option beyond turning into a giant rage monster.

That was kind of the point of Avengers Assemble.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 04, 2014, 07:45:20 AM
Ironman is a dick, but an extremely charismatic, sarcastic and funny one as far as the audience is concerned.  Everyone wants to be, or be friends with, Tony Stark.

Thor is a dick, but has the big ole hunky Adonis type charisma that human beings are automatically drawn to, whether we like it or not.

Hulk is a dick, but in a totally awesome and sometimes hilarious way.  We also feel bad for him, so there's that.

Cap is a dick....and yep, pretty much just a dick.  He needs some kind of schtick, something that we can respond to positively.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 04, 2014, 07:49:52 AM
The avengers movie had almost zero time to establish any character growth at all,  I don't know what people expect could have been done in the time allotted.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on February 04, 2014, 07:50:19 AM
A lot of "boy scout" characters can come off as douches if their handling is a little off. And Whedon leans heavily towards everybody being a douche already.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 04, 2014, 08:16:43 AM
The avengers movie had almost zero time to establish any character growth at all,  I don't know what people expect could have been done in the time allotted.

That's a fair enough comment, but they still need to find a way to make CA seem more useful to the group.  If you magically erased him from the last movie, what's the worse thing that happens?  Eh, maybe like 10 more civilians dies.  Do that with any of the other three, and Loki takes over the whole fucking world.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on February 04, 2014, 09:22:33 AM
Ironman is a dick, but an extremely charismatic, sarcastic and funny one as far as the audience is concerned.  Everyone wants to be, or be friends with, Tony Stark.

Thor is a dick, but has the big ole hunky Adonis type charisma that human beings are automatically drawn to, whether we like it or not.

Hulk is a dick, but in a totally awesome and sometimes hilarious way.  We also feel bad for him, so there's that.

Cap is a dick....and yep, pretty much just a dick.  He needs some kind of schtick, something that we can respond to positively.

Actually, for me, I responded better to Cap because he was a man out of time and had a much, much healthier view of the world.  I suspect (and have some inkling due to the trailers) that's what I'll like about the next Cap film also.

Basically, I liked Cap, so fuck all y'all.  Or something.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on February 04, 2014, 09:23:51 AM
The usual way of making Captain America matter in team adventures in the comics mostly apply to Batman in the Justice League:

1) Indomitableness (fairly similar to Batman's writer-enhanced abilities to always have a plan). He's the last guy standing, somehow, usually with the assistance of his shield. He's the guy that talks the bad guy out of it, somehow gets to his feet when even gods and monsters are down, has a plan when everyone else has given up, fights on even when he's badly wounded, etc.  Very hard to do in a film.
2) Team leaderliness. I think there's a way to do this but yeah, it means he has to be the guy that everybody trusts even when they don't trust each other. Which means he has to be something he often hasn't been in the comics, which is someone with a lot of emotional intelligence--a guy who gets you, whomever you are, and knows how to talk to you, whomever you are. The way they do it in the comics instead is that he's the ultimate Dudley Do-Right, who always knows what's right, who is always honest and transparent, etc.--but that's not enough in a 21st Century setting, where we've maybe grown up enough to know that sometimes there isn't one single thing that's right and everything else completely wrong, and that being brutally honest at all times and all situations is actually a sort of sociopathic way to live.
3) Tactical leaderliness. The Avengers' version of Ender Wiggen who somehow sees that the enemy's gate is down. Also really hard to do in a film, and hard to do without doing the Batman-always-has-a-plan kind of writing.
4) By giving him supreme leadership over the street-level guys, etc.--sort of the boss of all the vigilantes, the spies and ninjas, the specialists, the hand-to-hand guys. The trainer who teaches everybody baseline combat skills, etc.   This works well, but then you have to have part of the story be "things that gods and monsters can't do", just as you would with a Justice League story.

You have to start in both cases with a story that genuinely has something that muscle and speed can't accomplish. In a JL story, that can be: a villain who can't be touched without triggering retaliation against all superheroes (e.g., Luthor looks like a good guy, has the law and government on his side, etc.); a villain who has something to counter the muscle and speed (kryptonite, etc.); a street-level villain who is keeping the muscle and speed occupied with his own muscle and speed while he goes off and executes the master plan, etc.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 04, 2014, 09:28:48 AM

Basically, I liked Cap, so fuck all y'all.  Or something.


Well...I kinda do too in his own movie, because absolutely everything about him makes sense.  I am really only picking on how he comes across in the Avengers movie, and making a parallel to how Batman has the same issues if he's teamed with Superman.

Edit:  changed to to too.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on February 04, 2014, 09:30:15 AM
It's ok, I get that.  I'm not REALLY telling you to go fuck yourself.  That would be something of an overreaction given the movie.  :)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on February 04, 2014, 09:34:17 AM
Make him like Goku, every time he gets beat up he gets stronger, more agaile, heal faster.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 04, 2014, 09:45:37 AM
Shit, give him like a stealthy suit (predator style) or something so that he can blend in with the background or something.  There, now he's super useful, and it doesn't require an exaggeration of his powers.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on February 04, 2014, 10:28:52 AM
You almost had it, then you dismissed it. Cap is not there for "gymnastics," he's there for leadership. And I don't just mean leadership of these all-powerful beings - though he does have the stones to carry that off. No, Captain America is there to provide a public face of leadership, to assure the general public that yes, these fuckers can destroy mountains and there are aliens blowing up shit in New York, but this "REGULAR GUY" is there to pull them together and lead them, he's there to inspire people. The scene in Avengers where he orders the panicking cops to set up a perimeter and all that - that's the shit Captain America was there to do. No, it isn't hitting things very loudly but it is just as important to SHIELD and to the Avengers. He also gave specific assignments to the super powered folks - hit them here, drive those units that way, etc. He's the battlefield general.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on February 04, 2014, 01:27:21 PM
You almost had it, then you dismissed it. Cap is not there for "gymnastics," he's there for leadership. And I don't just mean leadership of these all-powerful beings - though he does have the stones to carry that off. No, Captain America is there to provide a public face of leadership, to assure the general public that yes, these fuckers can destroy mountains and there are aliens blowing up shit in New York, but this "REGULAR GUY" is there to pull them together and lead them, he's there to inspire people. The scene in Avengers where he orders the panicking cops to set up a perimeter and all that - that's the shit Captain America was there to do. No, it isn't hitting things very loudly but it is just as important to SHIELD and to the Avengers. He also gave specific assignments to the super powered folks - hit them here, drive those units that way, etc. He's the battlefield general.

This.  Cap is a leader, and his core beliefs and morality is why almost every superhero in Marvel will follow him into battle. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Wizgar on February 04, 2014, 05:54:51 PM
This is just one of those literary problems that has existed forever. My favorite example was Hercules joining the voyage of the Argonauts and then having to fuck off before getting to do anything. They've been sending Superman off on space vacation to let Batman have some fun since antiquity.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on February 05, 2014, 07:50:56 AM
The only alternatives to mixing gods and humans are making the Superman-level characters so remote that the drama is mostly about whether they can be motivated to give a shit (Dr. Manhattan) or making them genuine gods who rule over humanity (Miracleman). Otherwise you somehow write stories where there are things gods can't do that humans have to do, or there are too many things for gods to do so there's stuff in there that humans need to do as well. (That's basically Superman and lots of his iterations in the comics, like Samaritan in Astro City.) 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on February 05, 2014, 04:27:02 PM
Sidebar:  Hey!  Another Astro City fan! Wasn't that comic the bees knees?

Look at it from this direction:  Could Thor have stopped the Chitauri by himself?  Right after New York didn't he just stop the Dark Elf invasion pretty much by himself?  Think of the Avengers movie and tell me where Thor couldn't have done it solo.  But it was a team movie so he didn't.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on February 05, 2014, 04:33:59 PM
The Chitauri invasion was also significantly larger than the Dark Elf invasion.

Plus, he did have help.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 05, 2014, 05:04:40 PM
Sidebar:  Hey!  Another Astro City fan! Wasn't that comic the bees knees?

Look at it from this direction:  Could Thor have stopped the Chitauri by himself?  Right after New York didn't he just stop the Dark Elf invasion pretty much by himself?  Think of the Avengers movie and tell me where Thor couldn't have done it solo.  But it was a team movie so he didn't.

huh? Thor didn't do anything in "The dark world" by himself.  He was constantly being helped along by Asgardians and Humans, he ultimately defeated the dark elves but it was far from a solo effort.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: SurfD on February 06, 2014, 07:17:12 AM
Sidebar:  Hey!  Another Astro City fan! Wasn't that comic the bees knees?

Look at it from this direction:  Could Thor have stopped the Chitauri by himself?  Right after New York didn't he just stop the Dark Elf invasion pretty much by himself?  Think of the Avengers movie and tell me where Thor couldn't have done it solo.  But it was a team movie so he didn't.
The Dark Elf invasion force that reached earth was nowhere NEAR the scale of the Chitauri attack, and the rest of the Dark Elf forces pretty much faceplanted themselves all over Asguard trying to get into the city.  Also, events of Dark world take place what appears to be at least 1, possibly as much as 2 years after Newyork.  Otherwise, Jane would not have been almost over him enough to begin trying to date other guys.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on February 06, 2014, 10:07:20 AM
Also, Padme wouldn't have said to James Hunt "huh, it's been 2 years since new mexico".


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: MediumHigh on February 06, 2014, 10:21:01 AM
Thor really doesn't do much of anything in his own movie. Does he beat Malikith... nope... save the world from eternal darkness... nope.... beat super dark elf... nope.... defeat an army of dark elves soldiers by himself... nope. I'm kinda wondering how much they are willing to down grade suoperman for the sake of sequals and the team up movies. Thor kinda started waaaaaaaay gimped so any decrease in superman's power level would be noticeable.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: K9 on February 06, 2014, 05:03:26 PM
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2014, 05:04:34 PM
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor

Are you reporting news, Bloodworth?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Raguel on February 06, 2014, 05:48:39 PM
Jesse Eisenberg as tattoed gang-banger Lex Luthor

fixed  :why_so_serious:

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a549413/jesse-eisenbergs-lex-luthor-to-be-bald-with-sleeve-tattoo-spoilers.html


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on February 06, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
*cough*Latino Review*cough*

I wouldn't put a lot of faith into anything they say.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on February 08, 2014, 08:33:06 AM
I agree that some writers (and fans) have gone a little crazy with Batman just being so fucking crafty that he can do anything. I mean, it was stupid even in Dark Knight returns - 60 year old Batman defeats Superman with the power of electricity. Lol.
No. They made a very clear point about how this didn't matter. His kitted-out battle tank didn't matter. His new-Robin didn't matter. His suit, it plugged into the power grid, and all the strength it gave him didn't matter.

It was all a set up to Ollie shooting that kryptonite arrow so that Superman would catch it at the same moment Wayne had the faux heart attack (and even that didn't work out perfectly).

This actually corrolates to Cap in the Avengers movie. They have him doing gymnastics just so he has a seat at the table. But as was discussed on this page, his real role is the leadership he shows first by trying to get the team to work together and then ultimately to run the strategy for the battle in NY. He just needed the powers for the movie because the part of the non-super human leader was already being played by Fury.

Now, I won't say I think they pulled that off well, just that it was their intent :-)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on February 08, 2014, 10:08:46 AM
I just don't think they pulled off the leadership angle well AT ALL.  He basically pissed them all off on the carrier.  In New York, the impression I came away with was that he was directing all the unimportant stuff, whiles IM, Hulk and Thor did all the world-saving.  I may have missed a thing here or there, but that's what I remember.  He comes across as just slightly better than useless.

Again, I like CA, particularly in his own movie.  I think Whedon needs to work harder to put him on more equal footing with the rest of the Avengers, however.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: sickrubik on February 08, 2014, 10:31:27 AM
I just don't think they pulled off the leadership angle well AT ALL.  He basically pissed them all off on the carrier.

You know the pissed them off had a lot to do with the mind gem, right? Additionally, it's hard to be in charge with a group of crazy people who have all operated on their own previously, which was what they were showing.

But more over,  he's a BATTLEFIELD leader, which they illustrated quite well. He's not the leader-leader. That's Fury/SHIELD.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on February 08, 2014, 02:25:07 PM
THEY WERE ALL DOUCHEBAGS AND NOT A TEAM.  THEN THEY BECAME A TEAM.

IT'S LIKE YOUR MISSING THE POINT OF THE WHOLE FILM FOR THE FUN OF IT.

Stop it.  It's kinda silly.

Jesus wept, it was even called 'Avengers Assemble'.

Thor - I am a God and here to do my shit, don't get in my way.
Hulk - I want to be left alone to the point of suicide
Iron Man - I am just better than all of you.  And rich.  So, so rich.
Black Widow - I could kill you all with my vagina.
Hawkeye - Brood.  Brood, brood, brood, crows nest.
Captain America - I have no fucking idea what's going on in this timestream and it confuses and angers me and who are all these douchebags ?

The fact that they all magically forget everything that they did and learned in their own films was entirely on point.  It was about building a team and let me tell you when you build a team in real life, it's pretty much like that fucking film.

Even with Loki.  I fucking hate when Loki turns up in real life.  Goddamn mind gems and trying to tell people we pay overtime and shit.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on February 08, 2014, 05:13:42 PM
Black Widow - I could kill you all with my vagina.

I volunteer to test that boast.

Quote
The fact that they all magically forget everything that they did and learned in their own films was entirely on point.  It was about building a team and let me tell you when you build a team in real life, it's pretty much like that fucking film.

Even with Loki.  I fucking hate when Loki turns up in real life.  Goddamn mind gems and trying to tell people we pay overtime and shit.

http://alturl.com/83jto
Mikey is really just Loki in disguise.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Furiously on February 15, 2014, 02:42:55 AM
So, I'm just going to throw out that Superman and Batman are great foils to each-other.  You have the boyscout and the dark cynical one. Granted in the comics it works a lot better because you can have thought bubbles, where each respects the other for what they do. It will be really tough to show the mutual respect they have for the other. 

Or it can be a cop buddy movie.

I have a feeling we are going to get the cop buddy movie unfortunately.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2014, 03:01:36 PM
Because you couldn't hate Zak Synder enough, he will direct the Justice League movie (http://www.geeksofdoom.com/2014/04/28/zack-snyder-will-direct-justice-league-after-batman-vs-superman?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+geeksofdoom+%28GEEKS+OF+DOOM%29).

I actually don't have a problem with this, but I'm sure someone's beard just got a little heated and neckly.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on April 29, 2014, 03:13:32 PM
Eh, I see so many small signs that WB still doesn't have a fucking clue about how to handle this IP that Synder is only a small piece of it all.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on April 29, 2014, 03:23:03 PM
DC just keep fucking the dog.

We finally got Man of Steel over here and we lasted about 20-30 mins before we changed the channel.  Fucking Woeful movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on April 29, 2014, 03:28:13 PM
I don't hate Snyder. Visually the guy has a lot of talent. Sucker Punch showed that he should never write again though, and most peoples' biggest issue with Watchmen seemed to be that Snyder stuck too rigidly to the source material which, let's face it, is probably the smallest sin an Alan Moore adaptation has committed. Didn't see the Owl movie, but Man of Steel had a lot of talented people involved in the process and it just didn't turn out well.

That said, I'm not looking forward to these upcoming DC movies at all.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on April 29, 2014, 04:15:53 PM
I still think you guys are giving Man of Steel too much shit, as I really liked everything up to the killing of Zod. I understand your concerns with the tone, but I liked it. The "we destroyed Metropolis and either nobody died or no one cared" criticisms I just can't take seriously because LOLCOMICSMOVIE. I think the "we have literally draped everything in a turquoise filter to make explosions pop more" is a more valid criticism.

Sucker Punch, though... yeah, that was a dreadful fucking mistake on almost every level. And I don't see how sticking to the source material hurt Watchmen at all, considering he changed the ending pretty significantly and for the better, IMO.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Hoax on April 29, 2014, 04:19:19 PM
Yeah Man of Steel was better for me than the X-Men/Spiderman/Batman movies I didn't like. Which is good enough considering I find Supes to be lame as fuck as a hero. It certainly was not Ghost Rider or Fantastic Four bad and I'm guessing Green Latern was much much worse. I have never watched ten minutes of that one.

Best comic book movie? Certainly not. Disservice to comic book movies / some kind of big letdown of such a cool and interesting character? I don't get it. How can you say that.

Watchman was fantastic, I saw it a week or two ago and it holds up well. Anyone bitching about that just loves bitching a bit too much.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on April 29, 2014, 04:41:05 PM
Seeing as Marvel just gave a master's class on how to handle your moral pillar comic book hero, I would think MoS failure to have Superman act like Superman is abundantly clear.

Anyway, watching WB flop on the floor like fish is fun, so I am all for a JL movie.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Velorath on April 29, 2014, 05:34:21 PM
I still think you guys are giving Man of Steel too much shit, as I really liked everything up to the killing of Zod. I understand your concerns with the tone, but I liked it. The "we destroyed Metropolis and either nobody died or no one cared" criticisms I just can't take seriously because LOLCOMICSMOVIE. I think the "we have literally draped everything in a turquoise filter to make explosions pop more" is a more valid criticism.

Sucker Punch, though... yeah, that was a dreadful fucking mistake on almost every level. And I don't see how sticking to the source material hurt Watchmen at all, considering he changed the ending pretty significantly and for the better, IMO.

The Watchmen thing is just the general impression I got from a lot of the complaints I read about it. Personally I thought it was ok, but I've never felt the need to watch it again after the first time I saw it. Man of Steel to me wasn't horrible but it was fairly forgettable. Nothing about the story or the acting really stuck with me.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on April 29, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
I still think you guys are giving Man of Steel too much shit, as I really liked everything up to the killing of Zod.

Nah, I think I'm giving it just the right amount of shit.  I haven't been that uninterested, uninvested and bored of a hero movie in, well, a long time.

And did we REALLY need another origin story of Superman ?  I mean, did we ?

It was a shambles, what little of it I saw.  Jor El outrunning a spaceship on a dragon was merely the start.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on April 30, 2014, 09:12:43 AM
I rate MoS above two of the Nolan Batman movies.  Re-watched MoS yesterday and it holds up pretty good. 

Snyder gets too much shit in my opinion. 

300-Great movie, though I think most folks missed the 'unreliable narrator' who made Persians into giants and monsters.
Watchmen-Personally I loved it and he even made the story better by removing the alien aspect.  Might have been TOO faithful.
Sucker Punch-Great visuals can't make up for a horrible, horrible script and story.
MoS-If you HAVE to do an origin do it like this, mix it up.  The super fighting was cool and some of the most comic book-like in any movie.  Everyone bitching about Supes killing Zod; maybe that's why Supes now has a no kill policy.  It was his origin story after all.

To sum up I guess I like Snyder, because he does take some narrative risks in these multi-million dollar projects. So I'm OK for him to do the JL movie.  He may be DC's only hope.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Draegan on April 30, 2014, 09:37:12 AM
I enjoyed Man of Steel. I never need to see it again, but I don't regret the time I spent watching it. It's not high on my list of comic movies, but it's not the worst. It's pretty average.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on April 30, 2014, 09:47:36 AM
Saying, "Oh 300 is just an unreliable narrator" is like saying "Oh Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are just an unreliable narrator" except that 300 is too silly to take super-seriously as racial/civilizational propaganda. (Though that's pretty much what Frank Miller seems to have wanted people to take it as.)

Watchmen I liked better than I expected to.

Other than that Snyder blows. But in this case it's really not his fault, at least, not all by himself.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on April 30, 2014, 09:55:06 AM
I'm a shameless Snyder fan; 300 was awesome, Watchmen was alright for someone who hasn't read the comics, Sucker Punch was great as a turn-off-your-brain live action anime, and MoS was the best Supes film I've seen.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 30, 2014, 10:16:19 AM
I rate MoS above two of the Nolan Batman movies.  Re-watched MoS yesterday and it holds up pretty good. 


Maybe Rises but if you are trying to say MOS is better than Batman Begins, you are certifiably insane.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Evildrider on April 30, 2014, 03:28:07 PM
I liked Daredevil more than Man of Steel. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Raguel on April 30, 2014, 03:52:42 PM

I didn't like Costner's paranoia. I really liked the female Kryptonian (whose name escapes me). She's what I'd hope Wonder Woman would be like on film, but probably a little less hostile.  Honestly, a not-ready-for-primetime Superman should get his butt handed to him by trained soldiers IMO. The only advantage he had going was that he was used to his powers. So overall I liked the film, but I think it was on par with either of the Hulk movies.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on May 02, 2014, 10:05:40 PM
I liked Daredevil more than Man of Steel. 
I thought Daredevil was fine. I've learrned that is a minority opinion...

I also thought Man of Steel was great! He calls into question the cheerleading of shit best left to the poliitics board. Snyder deserves kudos for making politics fun  :grin:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Simond on May 03, 2014, 09:09:53 AM
The Director's Cut of Daredevil was a decent comic-book action movie, the one released to the cinema was bad.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Maven on May 04, 2014, 11:27:17 AM
There was a lack of synergy and some notable quality gaps in Man of Steel from its composite elements, notably how the material was presented from the expectations of the character. Superman... angst! So many plot issues. Faora was the best part of the movie only because tough and dark appeals to me. Short black hair? Yes. Appreciation of the beauty aside, her character had some great moments playing off Chris Meloni's character.

Snyder/Millar Side-Bar: I thought 300 was a movie that was very cool and fresh (however much Snyder had to do with that). If Millar wanted to create his own interpretation of "Sparta was awesome and here's why", that's within his right as a creative (I would equate as the same as Aronosky's interpretation of Noah). I don't think he was after historical accuracy, but history as a pretext to tell an interesting comic book story / creative project.

However, I thought the sequel was an unnecessary follow-up, more cash-grab inheriting only the style of story-telling green-lit because of 300's success. A Dame To Kill For may be like this, but it inherits more than "black and white stylistic comic-book visualization", which should allow it to match its predecessor in quality and entertainment value.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: NowhereMan on May 06, 2014, 04:43:19 AM
That follow up is the only movie I've walked out on in a while. It was terrible on every possible level.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 06, 2014, 11:58:27 AM
There was a lack of synergy and some notable quality gaps in Man of Steel from its composite elements, notably how the material was presented from the expectations of the character. Superman... angst! So many plot issues. Faora was the best part of the movie only because tough and dark appeals to me. Short black hair? Yes. Appreciation of the beauty aside, her character had some great moments playing off Chris Meloni's character.

Snyder/Millar Side-Bar: I thought 300 was a movie that was very cool and fresh (however much Snyder had to do with that). If Millar wanted to create his own interpretation of "Sparta was awesome and here's why", that's within his right as a creative (I would equate as the same as Aronosky's interpretation of Noah). I don't think he was after historical accuracy, but history as a pretext to tell an interesting comic book story / creative project.

However, I thought the sequel was an unnecessary follow-up, more cash-grab inheriting only the style of story-telling green-lit because of 300's success. A Dame To Kill For may be like this, but it inherits more than "black and white stylistic comic-book visualization", which should allow it to match its predecessor in quality and entertainment value.

Miller expressly wanted to make a story about manly white people standing against the dirty brown people from the East. That's become even more clear with time.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on May 08, 2014, 12:15:21 AM
Mike Millar and Frank Miller are two different people.

Just barely though.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 08, 2014, 03:39:55 AM
Whores Whores Whores.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on May 08, 2014, 01:53:52 PM
Mike Millar and Frank Miller are two different people.

Just barely though.

One's a Scottish dickbag with pretensions of Grant Morrison. The other is an American dickbag with drawing skills and virulent Islamophobia.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on May 13, 2014, 11:36:40 AM
First image of Batfleck? (as tweeted by Snyder)

(http://i.imgur.com/3hRU6px.jpg)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 13, 2014, 12:24:50 PM
 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 13, 2014, 12:47:12 PM
Posed, that is a good image (IMHO).  I somehow doubt it will look so good when he is moving given that most of what we're seeing has to be a padded suit.  Affleck does not look like that image - not in the least.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: DraconianOne on May 13, 2014, 12:56:18 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on May 13, 2014, 01:13:04 PM
Posed, that is a good image (IMHO).  I somehow doubt it will look so good when he is moving given that most of what we're seeing has to be a padded suit.  Affleck does not look like that image - not in the least.


It'll look like a big rubber suit.  It's Batman as Godzilla.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on May 13, 2014, 01:22:05 PM
So bad.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 13, 2014, 02:02:10 PM
It is a very good match - posed - to some of the iconic Batman images that have yet to be used as a Template for a live action Batman.  I can't imagine it looking good in motion, but it is perfectly fine as posed there. 

I think the casting is horrible, and the movie is seemingly headed down almost every wrong path possible - but I have more problems with the Batmobile than I do the Batman in that still image.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on May 13, 2014, 02:10:42 PM
I can't really look at it in any fair critical manner without thinking "WTF ARE YOU THINKING CASTING BEN AFFLECK".

So, in short, meh.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 13, 2014, 03:19:04 PM
MoS was the best Supes film I've seen.

What...I don't even....this is like saying Batman Forever was better than the DarkKnight. It just doesn't compute in any rational universe. Even with its 70s campiness, the first Christopher Reeves movie and parts of the second are a million times better than MoS.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 13, 2014, 03:24:20 PM
I can't really look at it in any fair critical manner without thinking "WTF ARE YOU THINKING CASTING BEN AFFLECK".

So, in short, meh.
Absolutely fair.  As far as I'm concerned, Marvel has done things exceptionally well (not perfect, but far better than my expectations).  They realized how their characters work on the screen and put them to work.  

DC, on the other hand, has blown everything.  Their Superman has the wrong personality.  They can't decide whether their TV properties are part of the same universe or not.  Their casting is mind-boggling... and their characters are generally MUCH harder to translate to the screen.  They have a harder road, are walking in the wrong direction, and don't even seem to know it.  

I seriously think they'd be better pulling all of their plugs over the next few years with a goal to relaunch the universe.  Do a Spring TV limited series in a few years that spends one hour per hero introducing the Justice League origen stories - and then put a real Justice League in theaters for that summer.  Then, put together your mix of TV series, movies, limited series, etc... in a combined universe as well thought out as Marvel's - which can capitalizing on the work Marvel has done to slowly build acceptance of the wilder aspects of the Marvel Universe.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Malakili on May 13, 2014, 05:00:28 PM
Maybe Ben Affleck tried that one secret tip the gym doesn't want you to know about building muscle.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Trippy on May 13, 2014, 05:23:23 PM
Affleck's been bulking up for a while now.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 13, 2014, 08:29:03 PM
I liked Daredevil more than Man of Steel. 

I liked dropping scalding coffee on my dick more than Man of Steel.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on May 14, 2014, 12:19:54 AM
MoS was the best Supes film I've seen.

What...I don't even....this is like saying Batman Forever was better than the DarkKnight. It just doesn't compute in any rational universe. Even with its 70s campiness, the first Christopher Reeves movie and parts of the second are a million times better than MoS.
I guess it's my age; I saw them as a teenager in the 90s and the camp was a huge turnoff. I haven't seen any Smallville either (and don't read comics nor watch any superhero cartoons), so my only other experience is Superman Returns which was an awful movie that even Kevin Spacey couldn't save. So, I stand by my point; MoS was a good popcorn action flick, giving me DBZ style fights on the big screen that I've been dreaming of for years. It wasn't a great movie, but given my experience with the character the bar was not high.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2014, 02:24:22 AM
I need to point out that comparing superman films is like discussing which venereal disease you want to avoid least.

Smallville is better than all of them, and Lois and Clark is better than that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 04:32:10 AM
I liked Daredevil more than Man of Steel. 

I liked dropping scalding coffee on my dick more than Man of Steel.

 :heart:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 14, 2014, 08:32:57 AM
I liked Daredevil more than Man of Steel. 

I liked dropping scalding coffee on my dick more than Man of Steel.

Rule 34 gets more interesting every day.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 14, 2014, 10:07:34 AM
I recognize that there are Superman fans who take issue with his depiction in MoS.  Can someone articulate to me this position?  As a casual fan who has seen the film once and enjoyed it, I note the following:

* Superman in MoS was arguably at his weakest as an untrained and untested farmboy who had heretofore only ever won a bar fight.

*  Suddenly he's faced with someone at least as strong as he is, from the same planet, with the Sun conferring the same benefits, with the only difference being that he was trained from birth in martial arts for war.

*  Superman has an initial advantage in that he has learned to control his powers, to focus his senses and not be distracted by the overwhelming sensory overload, but over the course of their encounter, that advantage quickly dissipates.

*  As the balance of power shifts towards Zod, Zod makes no bones about his intention to eradicate the human race as an act of vengeance.

*Superman finally kills Zod while Zod is trying to use heat vision (which he has just mastered, further indicating his growing power)to murder innocents.  After pleading with him, and struggling to stop him, he finally kills Zod.

So, against that desperate backdrop, it's hard to fathom what else he should have done.  Any contrived solution that you could envision where he incapacitates Zod and they imprison him would be a huge gamble with the lives of the entire human race.

Zod has nothing left to live for, he and Superman are the only two surviving members of their species.  He cannot be reasoned with.  No amount of punching him through a mountain would stop him.  No prison on earth could hold him.

Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on May 14, 2014, 10:26:12 AM
Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 

I think that's essentially it, yes.  Similar to how Archie comics never deal with teenage pregnancy, Superman comics do not deal with any sort of moral grey area.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 14, 2014, 10:29:11 AM
Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 

I think that's essentially it, yes.  Similar to how Archie comics never deal with teenage pregnancy, Superman comics do not deal with any sort of moral grey area.

Weird. It's kind of like admitting you're dumb and you like dumb stuff.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2014, 10:34:12 AM
Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 

Well, that and the fact that all Zod needed to do was to move his eyes instantly to the right to fry the family, instead of his entire head.  I couldn't stop thinking about that during and after the scene.  I understood why Supes killed him, that was fine.  Christopher Reeve also killed the shit out of his Zod.

I liked MoS better than most around here, but I can think of a few things I didn't like about it:

- There is almost no Superman doing super things endearing him to the general public long before the appearance of the bad guys.  The people don't care about Superman, so why the fuck should we.  
- I disliked virtually everything about Zod.  I much prefer the pure evil that was the original Zod back in the 80s, not to mention Non and Ursa (who herself was responsible for many a confusing dream for my pre-pubescent self).  I didn't need all that backstory for Zod.  I didn't need to find know that he had sorta valid reasons (or at least ones we could relate to) about what he was doing.  I just wanted him to talk in an amazing accent and tell people to kneel before him and ask them why they would say such things to him when they knew he would only kill them.
-As campy as it was, I always liked doofy Clark Kent, bumbling around, knocking over shit and totally looking like Superman only with his hair parted the wrong way, totally pining after Lois Lane.  We got zero of that, and the dynamic between them is now set in stone.

The effects were cooler than shit, and it was otherwise a perfectly fine superhero flick.  


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2014, 10:39:43 AM
I strongly disliked Man of Steel because it was a very, very poorly executed film.  Nevermind Larry Hagman as Zod and how-does-he-shave and EMO and all the other complaints: it was edited by an incompetent.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 10:40:25 AM
 Christopher Reeve also killed the shit out of his Zod.

No.  No, he fucking didn't.  What film did you watch ?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on May 14, 2014, 10:46:31 AM
Captain America found a way cut through the grey so can Superman.

Besides the movie gave Clark a way to imprison Zod the same way he was imprisoned earlier.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2014, 10:50:43 AM
 Christopher Reeve also killed the shit out of his Zod.

No.  No, he fucking didn't.  What film did you watch ?


Erm, didn't he pretty much crush his hand, pick him up and toss him against the ice wall where he fell down into some kind of horrible crevice?  Looked pretty death-inducing to me.  What am I missing?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lantyssa on May 14, 2014, 10:54:42 AM
Being put back into the Phantom Zone?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on May 14, 2014, 10:59:22 AM
He was suppose to Take the third option (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeAThirdOption) and be a hero not the lesser of two evils and be a regular dude.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2014, 11:00:43 AM
Being put back into the Phantom Zone?

Seriously, where in the movie is it implied that they all didn't simply die?  I recall nothing, but maybe I missed something.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 14, 2014, 11:09:18 AM
Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 

I think that's essentially it, yes.  Similar to how Archie comics never deal with teenage pregnancy, Superman comics do not deal with any sort of moral grey area.

Weird. It's kind of like admitting you're dumb and you like dumb stuff.

Comic books are fiction and fantasy.  Any argument that "The real world is nothing but grey areas"  is flawed and just as dumb because superman does not live in the real world.  Superman lives in a fictional world of fantasy and pixie farts and as such he can lift a bus. 

Fantasy movies are about telling stories where a hero can overcome the lesser of two evils, where dreams can be reality.  Gritty realism is fun to watch sometimes and it works with some super heroes like batman but when it comes to superman, the character is already so ridiculous and fantastical in premise that trying to insert realism feels forced and grates on the viewer.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 11:16:04 AM
Being put back into the Phantom Zone?

Seriously, where in the movie is it implied that they all didn't simply die?  I recall nothing, but maybe I missed something.

That's almost incidental.  For a start, they all slid into fog.  Maybe they died, maybe they didn't.

The point is Superman engineered it in such a way that he depowered them and removed the threat.

This whole fucking slew of new age American shit where torturing people and killing them is always the only answer just fucking, fucking, fucking SUCKS especially from your Superheroes who SHOULD KNOW BETTER for the sake of fucking GRIMDARK just makes me so angry.

Look at Cap 2.  That's kinda how you do it.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 14, 2014, 11:37:35 AM
Superman is incredibly hard to directly translate to film because of his power level.  His speed, strength, etc... are so off the charts that it is hard to imagine a way to represent a challenge to him using conventional concepts without earth shattering implications.  A fight between Zod and Superman should have destroyed Metropolis without the machine being involved - and done it over the span of a few seconds given their ability to move so fast and their massive power levels.  It is one of the problems that makes DC's challenges much greater than Marvel: Outside of psychological/moral challenges, there is no challenge (outside of Achilles Heels in the form of Kryptonite, Magic, or depowerment stories) that can challenge him without the need for obvious collateral damage on the scale of a nuclear weapon.

Regardless, the critics of the movie point to his code of ethics and his unwillingness to kill and say it should not have been broken in the origen story.  There is definitely a potential for a good story in which his resolve to avoid killing is pushed and exceeded by a particular threat, but it should not be in an introductory story.  That would be like doing a Wolverine origen film in which he loses his healing factor, a Star Trek reboot without the Enterprise, or a Deadpool origen movie in which he is sane.  You don't break the rules in the same breath you establish them.   Basic storytelling.



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2014, 11:46:46 AM
Being put back into the Phantom Zone?

Seriously, where in the movie is it implied that they all didn't simply die?  I recall nothing, but maybe I missed something.

That's almost incidental.  For a start, they all slid into fog.  Maybe they died, maybe they didn't.

The point is Superman engineered it in such a way that he depowered them and removed the threat.


Hmm, interesting perspective.  I wonder how many people interpreted it that way when they saw it.  If I was a betting man, I'd guess the average viewer saw him trick them, depower them, and then totally kill Zod.  He also totally crushed the shit out of his hands first, which was a bit unnecessary, no? 

That said, I totally agree with the general point you are making.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2014, 12:15:49 PM
This whole fucking slew of new age American shit where torturing people and killing them is always the only answer just fucking, fucking, fucking SUCKS especially from your Superheroes who SHOULD KNOW BETTER for the sake of fucking GRIMDARK just makes me so angry.

Look at Cap 2.  That's kinda how you do it.

This. SO MUCH THIS. And I say that as someone who like Man of Steel except the killing.

I've stopped watching TV shows (Hawaii 5-0 and 24) because they were rather cavalier about torturing people and breaking laws and shit. I get tired of that narrative crutch.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 14, 2014, 01:22:37 PM
Is what people are really saying is that a Superman story should never put Superman in that position?  That the character's fiction can't allow a choice between the lesser of two evils because the character of Superman always finds a miraculous way to save the day with zero collateral damage? 

I think that's essentially it, yes.  Similar to how Archie comics never deal with teenage pregnancy, Superman comics do not deal with any sort of moral grey area.

Weird. It's kind of like admitting you're dumb and you like dumb stuff.

Comic books are fiction and fantasy.  Any argument that "The real world is nothing but grey areas"  is flawed and just as dumb because superman does not live in the real world.  Superman lives in a fictional world of fantasy and pixie farts and as such he can lift a bus. 

Fantasy movies are about telling stories where a hero can overcome the lesser of two evils, where dreams can be reality.  Gritty realism is fun to watch sometimes and it works with some super heroes like batman but when it comes to superman, the character is already so ridiculous and fantastical in premise that trying to insert realism feels forced and grates on the viewer.

What's interesting is taking a person with uncompromising ideals and then placing them in positions that beg for compromise.  That's drama.

Would the "real Superman" allow 7 billion people to die because he was afraid to kill a dangerous and murderous psychopath that was also trying to kill him?  I guess that's an argument but don't act like it's a good thing.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2014, 01:28:46 PM
Not being a Superman fan or anything, do we often see "Technically it was the fall that killed him" which is employed by various other heroes who decide to not save a villain?

Also I didn't watch the end of Man of Steel.  Presumably since the Phantom Zone Stargate is destroyed, something creative had to be done.  Also I missed the part where he must have done something to make someone bald.  However, I find that I do not care due to complete mishandling of the entire movie at the cinematic layer.  I didn't see the one where someone shot a bullet into Superman's eye, but it had to have been better than this.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Maven on May 14, 2014, 01:42:02 PM
- Disney Villain Death: Zod's crew after being depowered are knocked down a chasm or fall in while trying to fly. Deleted scenes (used in some TV cuts) reveal that the villains are not, in fact, dead, and are instead arrested by the "Arctic Patrol," but in other cuts, it certainly looks like Superman lets the villains die. Not only that, but it looks like Lois commits her first murder!

Source: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/SupermanII


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Hoax on May 14, 2014, 01:45:32 PM
All I ever get from these MoS discussions is some people really really hate Snyder so therefore MoS must have been one of the worst comic book movies made and definitely was not true enough to Superman blahblahblah.

I fucking hate Superman. I don't really like DC in general and it was a watchable movie. The evil girl was hot. The evil guy was ok. The fights were comprehensible considering the speed things were supposed to be going at. It wasn't great but Superman stories aren't very great. The part with his dad and the dog had feels and that was nice. In fact his family stuff was pretty good. The stupid shit with Russel Crowe was stupid but comic stories usually hit you with some junk that could have been left behind.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on May 14, 2014, 01:50:14 PM
The stuff with Costner is MST3K level badness.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2014, 02:05:31 PM
The stuff with Costner is MST3K level badness.

Son, you must live in fear and let me die because people are small minded and stupid.  I will also die needlessly because I am equally small minded and stupid for doing things I know you wouldn't have gotten injured doing.

Pa Kent herped all the derps in that movie.  I saw it for the first time last weekend because it's on HBO and I regret not changing the channel.  When I fell asleep 45 mins in without seeing Superman I should have known better.

Also: Supes killed Zod by proxy in SM2. sorry, it's always been interpreted as, "and now the bad guy is dead, having plummeted down a giant pit with now powers."  Unless you believe Elsa and the Nazis lived in the Last Crusade, too.  They also fell down a giant chasm into fog.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
My main problems with MoS (And I say this as a person that likes some Snyder films, I enjoy the hell out of Watchmen for example):

1) Pa Kent was all wrong. Utterly, utterly wrong. Costner did a good job in the acting department but Pa Kent's main role in Superman is to teach him to be the boyscout he grows up to be. He's the one that instills in him the value of human life and doing the right thing.

2) The fight in Metropolis was wrong on two counts. A) He should have destroyed the machine then lured the villains away. Look at Superman 2, that is what Christopher Reeves did. He fights them briefly, realizes there will be collateral damage and flees to lure them away. and B) Superman has zero emotional reaction to the events that occur in Metropolis and Smallville. I don't want to see him weeping but I would like at least for him to acknowledge how bad it was and perhaps use it as a reason for him to change how he does stuff.

3) We don't get any establishment of him as a hero before Zod shows up. So all the world knows about him is he fought another dude in Metropolis and more or less wiped it off of the face of the Earth.

4) Clark and Lois are one of the central relationships in Superman, yet she only meets him in the last 20 seconds of the movie.

5) Killing Zod was the realistic thing to do. It was not, however,what Superman would do. He'd find another way. When Superman kills it is SHOCKING because it is so rare and I can only think of a handful of times it has happened in the comics.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Thrawn on May 14, 2014, 02:41:59 PM
Son, you must live in fear and let me die because people are small minded and stupid.  I will also die needlessly because I am equally small minded and stupid for doing things I know you wouldn't have gotten injured doing.

Pa Kent herped all the derps in that movie. 

I'm not a big Superman fan but this possibly my biggest issue, it seems like they really screwed up his parents.  I always thought one of Superman's big background points was that his parents raised him to always do what was right, be good, help others, etc. and that's why he is such a Boy Scout.  That entire scene with his dad seemed to fly in the face of that and be trying to teach him that he should just watch people die rather than reveal himself to anyone.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 14, 2014, 04:12:41 PM
I wasn't sure about any of that because of how the first half of the movie lurched forward like the final scene in Time Bandits.  It was obviously chopped spinach in order to accommodate the too-long actions sequences that lay atop me for the last section of the "film".

I do, now that you mention it, remember a lot of stupid decisions being made.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 04:20:25 PM
Being put back into the Phantom Zone?

Seriously, where in the movie is it implied that they all didn't simply die?  I recall nothing, but maybe I missed something.

That's almost incidental.  For a start, they all slid into fog.  Maybe they died, maybe they didn't.

The point is Superman engineered it in such a way that he depowered them and removed the threat.

Hmm, interesting perspective.  I wonder how many people interpreted it that way when they saw it.  If I was a betting man, I'd guess the average viewer saw him trick them, depower them, and then totally kill Zod.  He also totally crushed the shit out of his hands first, which was a bit unnecessary, no? 

That said, I totally agree with the general point you are making.

Yeah, but it's deliberately vague, I think.  Non fell over.  Ursa got bitchslapped.  Nothing in the scene realllllly said 'MORTAL DANGER' even when he crushed my goddamned hand.

I always thought the fog was just a phantom zone chute, to be honest, but it kinda doesn't matter.

If you think the crushing hand was unnecessary, he went back and kicked FUCK out of the bullying trucker.  So it was BOTH Superman AND Clark getting even to their respective bullies.

Rather neat, I thought.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 14, 2014, 04:23:06 PM
Unless you believe Elsa and the Nazis lived in the Last Crusade, too.  They also fell down a giant chasm into fog.

Man, you're funny.  You really think Elsa died ?

Nature may abhor a vacuum, but the universe also knows when to preserve some fine blonde ass.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: eldaec on May 14, 2014, 04:47:12 PM

4) Clark and Lois are one of the central relationships in Superman, yet she only meets him in the last 20 seconds of the movie.

It's a terrible movie, but I keep seeing people post this and I really have no fucking clue how you missed the large segment of the film where Lois Lane tracks down Clark Kent and says "hey you're superman" then gives him a reason to have faith in humanity and loses her job over it before Zod even arrives on Earth.

I mean, the film is dull, and I'm the guy who couldn't even remember the villain in Amazing Spider-Man 18 months after I saw it, but seriously, were you watching a different edit or something?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on May 14, 2014, 05:38:11 PM
He means that Clark Kent, Daily Planet Reporter is out of the picture until the last 20s.  Not "Hey, intrepid Journalist tracks down mystery alien guy" Clark Kent.   Which, since she'd done so before meant they were fucking with the whole origin story because she knows who this reporter is.

I get why people were fucked about it.  It bothered me she knew, but less than it bothered me that she did it while the Government that had a real reason to do the same shit after a confimed UFO flew away didn't.  "Hey where's Jim at?" "Dunno, ship flew off and he was gone. Coincidences, eh!?"


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on May 14, 2014, 07:51:41 PM
Didn't we have a thread for this?  :awesome_for_real:

I enjoyed MoS, have seen a few times. I get what people are bitching about. It had its flaws. But the rage is disproportionate this being the fourth origin story over six films. The last one was bunk and while I liked the first to Christopher Reeves ones, they don't hold up. I also don't care much at all about comics, though the brief Return of Superman series was kinda interesting (except for that godawful Steel movie it spawned).

As to the Batman shot now a page back: looked ok. Only thing I don't like is the bat symbol. Don't care what it's evocative of. It looks dumb.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 14, 2014, 09:40:27 PM
Look, it's really kind of stupid to say, "Oh, man, it's REALISTIC that he just got his powers and he's facing a soldier from his own planet and so it's just so REALISTIC that he would get into a fight and not know what to do and buildings get knocked down and stuff."  This is pretty much from Planet Rob Liefield, where men have steroidal muscles and guns and ladies have no feet, tits the size of an asteroid and waists that make hourglasses look fat. This is where DC Comics as a whole is dialed into right now, looking for guys who think that if comics were REALISTIC there would be more limbs torn off and blood and shit.

Yes, sure, you want to give Superman a dramatic choice. That's the only thing you CAN do with the character. You either need to show how he manages, somehow, to make his way through an impossible dilemma or you need to show him *failing* to do so. But to make him *failing* to do so, you have to establish that he has a track record of NOT failing, that he's a Boy Scout and pure of heart and all that shit. Man of Steel didn't earn that at all. He's got a fuckstupid Pa Kent who doesn't given him any kind of moral compass besides "hide, son, because you're a mutant and the Sentinels are gonna getcha, let me die, I was gonna blow my brains out next week anyway". So there's no dramatic tension here, because this character hasn't been established as anything besides a mopey whiner who wanders around growing his beard and being afraid of everything. Who cares if he destroys half the planet in fighting, we don't really know whether that bothers him or not.

If you want to tarnish the armor, you have to polish it first. This movie couldn't be bothered. Which is going to be the problem with the next one--they're trying to do Miller's Dark Knight (the picture is big big proof of that) without the characters having ANY history with each other. They're using a story as a template that requires the two of them have known each other for decades. This is all tell, no show.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 14, 2014, 10:56:30 PM
Didn't we have a thread for this?  :awesome_for_real:

I enjoyed MoS, have seen a few times. I get what people are bitching about. It had its flaws. But the rage is disproportionate this being the fourth origin story over six films. The last one was bunk and while I liked the first to Christopher Reeves ones, they don't hold up. I also don't care much at all about comics, though the brief Return of Superman series was kinda interesting (except for that godawful Steel movie it spawned).

As to the Batman shot now a page back: looked ok. Only thing I don't like is the bat symbol. Don't care what it's evocative of. It looks dumb.

Rage isn't my feeling about MoS. It can best be summed as 'meh'. It had some cool action sequences and moments here and there were good but it just seemed like a miss overall.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: rk47 on May 14, 2014, 11:23:09 PM
Unless you believe Elsa and the Nazis lived in the Last Crusade, too.  They also fell down a giant chasm into fog.

Man, you're funny.  You really think Elsa died ?

Nature may abhor a vacuum, but the universe also knows when to preserve some fine blonde ass.


The tentacle monsters would find more use in a female captive anyway to breed.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Malakili on May 15, 2014, 02:49:02 AM

Rage isn't my feeling about MoS. It can best be summed as 'meh'. It had some cool action sequences and moments here and there were good but it just seemed like a miss overall.

The whole thing is "Oh gee, those new Batman movies are doing well, let's copy that but with Superman."

But that tone doesn't work for a Superman movie. Superman isn't The Dark Knight.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 15, 2014, 03:21:00 AM
Also, even Batman didn't kill anyone.  Except arguably Dent.  Which, if I remember right, we all didn't like much.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Maven on May 15, 2014, 04:18:37 AM
Small aside: I've been reading historical accounts of politics, and it creates this dissonance from the whole "life is precious at any cost" idealism that saturates comic books and most superheroics juxtaposed against this backdrop of men in power routinely sacrificing men and underlings in a cunning bid at some larger scheme. It's anti-politics.

I don't see anywhere that an interpretation of the Superman Story has to be a certain way. What story were they trying to tell using Superman and his mythos as a jumping off point? Did it work for this? In isolation, I saw the film crush itself under its own faulty internal narrative logic and poor execution. It had cool moments and I think good casting in Henry Cavill.

It's a film that is forcibly shoe-horned into a larger franchise (not implying it didn't integrate franchise possibilities from the start), with its own meta-execution issues, as has been repeatedly pointed out. I reserve judgment until I see the execution. DC's track record isn't great, and what the previews they're showing raises artistic concerns, but not business ones. There have been many valid points about DC's difficulties with creating a sustainable movie franchise in this thread compared to the *relative* ease that Marvel has.

Also, regarding Zod's murder: It is frustrating to read that "X character could have done this" -- when every plot has character's actions dictated by the narrative rather than by something a real person would do.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 15, 2014, 09:20:54 AM
The Superman Story must be about the character of Superman to be a Superman Story. His Boy Scout nature is a cornerstone foundation of that character.  A Superman that has not been established to be so against the loss of any life that he'd go to great extremes to preserve it is simply not a Superman Story. 


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 15, 2014, 09:53:50 AM
The Superman Story must be about the character of Superman to be a Superman Story. His Boy Scout nature is a cornerstone foundation of that character.  A Superman that has not been established to be so against the loss of any life that he'd go to great extremes to preserve it is simply not a Superman Story.  

Uh, that's the point.  Saying "well, he could have come up with some magical bullshit to defeat Zod without killing him" doesn't do anything.  It's just you sad that Superman had to kill someone in the context of the MoS narrative.  Like it or not (you don't like it) that narrative was about him having to kill Zod or allow Zod to kill him and everyone on the planet.  The film makes it clear this was a last resort and tough a choice.

Superman has killed before, and I think killing someone more powerful than you who is intent on destroying an entire planet is still what a "boy scout" would do if left with no other choice.  We're talking about a boy scout right?  Not Ghandi or some other pacifist?  

The fact that you may be able to extrapolate other half-baked solutions is immaterial.  This isn't real life, the context of the narrative dictated there was no other way.

Even if it was real life, it would be insane to Monday morning quarterback a situation like that.  



Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: tazelbain on May 15, 2014, 10:19:04 AM
>someone more powerful than you who is intent on destroying an entire planet is still what a "boy scout" would do if left with no other choice
Disagree the Zod was more powerful. Zod had more training, Superman had experience. But regardless, beings as powerful as Superman, there are always more choices.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 15, 2014, 10:26:49 AM
>someone more powerful than you who is intent on destroying an entire planet is still what a "boy scout" would do if left with no other choice
Disagree the Zod was more powerful. Zod had more training, Superman had experience. But regardless, beings as powerful as Superman, there are always more choices.

Superman had a temporary advantage that compensated for his zero training in combat.  That temporary advantage was rapidly dissipating, and arguably completely gone by the time Superman killed Zod.  The movie takes great pains to show Zod figuring out how to control new powers one by one.

It would be like a Spartan warrior trained from age seven in the agoge beating your pasty ass in a fist fight.  Not even close.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 15, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
You're missing the point.  The very fact they made it a dark, gritty movie where superman had no choice goes against the character himself as established in all other forms of media.  It would be like making a strawberry shortcake missing in action movie where she has to liberate P.O.W's from Vietnam.  You could write a narrative to explain that but it would still be dumb.

If you think it's silly that superman would find some magic way out of killing I would even agree since I think superman is a terrible superhero but that's what superman is and I recognize that.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 15, 2014, 11:09:15 AM
You're missing the point.  The very fact they made it a dark, gritty movie where superman had no choice goes against the character himself as established in all other forms of media.  It would be like making a strawberry shortcake missing in action movie where she has to liberate P.O.W's from Vietnam.  You could write a narrative to explain that but it would still be dumb.

If you think it's silly that superman would find some magic way out of killing I would even agree since I think superman is a terrible superhero but that's what superman is and I recognize that.

pennyarcadelawsuit.jpg

 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 15, 2014, 11:24:55 AM
The Zod-killing is in any event not the main issue that a lot of people had with the film. The real issue for me and many others was Superman not seeming to give a fuck about collateral damage and about there being tons of collateral damage. That's where "but that's REALISTIC" chafes me the most. Sure, maybe, but if you're going to go there, you should go there all the way, then, like Alan Moore's Miracleman did--you don't get to destroy half a major city and most of a small town in a battle between superpowered titans with alien death machines and then just have everybody kind of shrug it off at the end. One building got destroyed by terrorists in NYC and it sent this country off into a psychotic episode. If you want to go "realism", but then have the people in your realistic world be all, "Oh wells, it's Tuesday, Tuesday is 'Skyscrapers Fall Down Day'", it's just dumb teenage boy realism.

You can have Superman making the difficult choice to kill (and then feeling regret or sadness or trauma about it) if you like--but then treat that like a major dramatic choice and build the whole film around it thematically. MoS doesn't really do that. Compare it to the TV show "Arrow", which has been thinking about the consequences of having a vigilante who kills in a sustained thematic way.

Almost nothing has been set up in MoS that makes a Justice League film make any kind of sense. Do the civilians of MoS seem to live in a world where there are already superheroes? No. But now we're being told, "Oh, Batman, he's been around for a while." Really? And nobody said, "This Superman, he's a costumed guy like that Batman dude, only way stronger." Does it make any sense for costumed heroes to show up now because they're inspired by Superman's example? Fuck no: why would you say, "I want to be like that guy on TV who was involved in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in Metropolis! Because he's a hero!" Even if everybody in Earth-ManofSteel says, "Ok, we recognize that he was trying to stop the destruction, that he's basically a good guy", they're still going to associate him with a terrible trauma, his public image is going to be about sadness and fear, not about rescuing kittens or truth and justice.

Is there any basis for superpowers in Earth-MoS except Krypton? No. Cyborg I guess is possible with Luthor's technology, esp. if Luthor gets access to Kryptonian artifacts or tech. Wonder Woman? What, does anyone get the impression there's a secret island of superpowered women in the world of that film? Flash? Green Lantern? No and no. If they have Martian Manhunter I assume they'll do something drastic to distinguish him from Superman, but at least yet another superpowered alien seems somewhat plausible in this universe. Aquaman? Hawkgirl/Hawkman? Right. If there's been a Batman for a decade or more, I guess there could be other street-level vigilantes, but what's the point of throwing them into the JL mix?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 15, 2014, 11:49:57 AM
You're missing the point.  The very fact they made it a dark, gritty movie where superman had no choice goes against the character himself as established in all other forms of media.  It would be like making a strawberry shortcake missing in action movie where she has to liberate P.O.W's from Vietnam.  You could write a narrative to explain that but it would still be dumb.

If you think it's silly that superman would find some magic way out of killing I would even agree since I think superman is a terrible superhero but that's what superman is and I recognize that.

pennyarcadelawsuit.jpg

 :why_so_serious:

I was thinking that when I wrote it. Good eye.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: dusematic on May 15, 2014, 12:50:24 PM
You're missing the point.  The very fact they made it a dark, gritty movie where superman had no choice goes against the character himself as established in all other forms of media.  It would be like making a strawberry shortcake missing in action movie where she has to liberate P.O.W's from Vietnam.  You could write a narrative to explain that but it would still be dumb.

If you think it's silly that superman would find some magic way out of killing I would even agree since I think superman is a terrible superhero but that's what superman is and I recognize that.

Nobody thinks MoS is a "dark, gritty movie." It's just not campy.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Maven on May 15, 2014, 01:49:21 PM
Nobody thinks MoS is a "dark, gritty movie." It's just not campy.

Uhm. Thought that dark and gritty was the whole foundation of the film's cinematography.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 15, 2014, 02:09:59 PM
The point: This was an origen story.  It established who Superman is.  You CANNOT have the character violate his basic character traits during his origen and have it be that character.  If you establish the exception as part of the general rule, it is not the exception.

Yes, obviously you can have the 'learn from my mistakes' moment which puts a character on a path of redemption.... but that is not Superman's story. 

Superman is the character that was raised right... the paladin... the Boy Scout... He is Truth, Justice and Apple friggin Pie.  He is not just *a* Boy Scout... he is *THE* Boy Scout.  Having a father that tells him to put himself first is not Superman.  Having him be forced to kill Zod during his first true challenge is not Superman.  Those are things that can happen in a hero's story, but not in Superman's story.

The obvious problem: Superman is as boring as they come.  He can't be physically challenged outside of Achilles Heel cheats (which grow boring fast), and that pristine personality is the type of thing that drive most of us crazy when we see it in real life.  You can pull it off with Captain America because there is more to his story and he isn't all powerful.  However, with Superman?  I think the best you can do is introduce him and then use him as a secondary character for other characters to sound off against.  My hope is that the next 2 movies are set up for that use.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 15, 2014, 02:40:44 PM
I think the movie wanted to be dark and gritty, but there's only so much you can do.  Everything sure was grey and depressing to look at.

Challenges don't make things any better, and it reminds me that my ten-year-old (who doesn't care a lot about comic books or the movies based on them) wanted to know who Superman's nemeses are.  Naturally the first word out of my mouth was Mytzlplyk, or however-the-fuck it is spelled.  That guy isn't grimdark.  It doesn't get much better from there.  Bizarro?

Next two movies?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lantyssa on May 15, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
Lobo.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Samwise on May 15, 2014, 06:28:00 PM
Brainiac.  Luthor.  Uhhhmm....


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on May 15, 2014, 06:31:50 PM
You CANNOT have the character violate his basic character traits during his origen and have it be that character. 
Why not? Superman as he has historically existed is vanilla-boring-overpowered. For MoS (and Supes vs Bat, and the inevitable JL), they decided to reinvent the character and I'm ok with that since I have no preexisting attachment to Superman. I have no problem with people disliking MoS on it's own merits, but "that's not how Superman acts" just comes off as whiny comic nerd. Adaptations are not true to the source material, news at 11.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on May 15, 2014, 06:33:46 PM
Brainiac.  Luthor.  Uhhhmm....

Doomsday, Solomon Grundy, Darkseid, Metallo, Parasite.

And that's just the ones I remember from the 90's Superman Animated show.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on May 15, 2014, 07:04:53 PM
Superman is the character that was raised right... the paladin... the Boy Scout... He is Truth, Justice and Apple friggin Pie.  He is not just *a* Boy Scout... he is *THE* Boy Scout.  Having a father that tells him to put himself first is not Superman.  Having him be forced to kill Zod during his first true challenge is not Superman.  Those are things that can happen in a hero's story, but not in Superman's story.

The obvious problem: Superman is as boring as they come. 

The second part answers the first. DC doesn't have a long list of established characters that can easily jump to the movie screen for the mass audience that needs to show up to pay for that film.  Especially since that audience has evolved by two generations since the heartwarming background lovestory hope-is-all-powerful kool aid we were drinking in the 80s, and because the future of any franchise isn't being written on the backs of comic book sales.

This movie was an origin story about a new version of Superman. In this the movie was self consistent (as you point out). It doesn't jive with the actual Superman lore, but that's for those crying a river to Paramount over Trek.

So you're right. But if the last last movie had done awesome, we wouldn't have needed this one :-)


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: jgsugden on May 15, 2014, 07:11:49 PM
You CANNOT have the character violate his basic character traits during his origen and have it be that character. 
Why not? Superman as he has historically existed is vanilla-boring-overpowered. ...
I answered this already.

If he isn't the Boy Scout, he is not Superman.   A character is not an image or a name, it is a set of characteristics.  If you change those characteristics, it is not the same character.

Being the Boy Scout is a defying aspect of Superman.

You might as well ask why an apple can't be citrus. If it were citrus, it would not be an apple.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Surlyboi on May 15, 2014, 07:20:42 PM
Lobo.

They ain't made a movie that can hold the Main Man.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on May 15, 2014, 07:24:35 PM
I answered this already.

If he isn't the Boy Scout, he is not Superman.   A character is not an image or a name, it is a set of characteristics.  If you change those characteristics, it is not the same character.

Being the Boy Scout is a defying aspect of Superman.

You might as well ask why an apple can't be citrus. If it were citrus, it would not be an apple.
I disagree with what you said.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lantyssa on May 15, 2014, 07:45:20 PM
Adam West Batman versus anything more modern.  Characters change.  They can be good or suck on their own merits.

Batman is no longer happy.  Superman is no longer a boy scout.  Shame they kept the worst parts about him since he's just not that interesting being all-powerful.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Johny Cee on May 16, 2014, 12:05:36 AM
You CANNOT have the character violate his basic character traits during his origen and have it be that character. 
Why not? Superman as he has historically existed is vanilla-boring-overpowered. For MoS (and Supes vs Bat, and the inevitable JL), they decided to reinvent the character and I'm ok with that since I have no preexisting attachment to Superman. I have no problem with people disliking MoS on it's own merits, but "that's not how Superman acts" just comes off as whiny comic nerd. Adaptations are not true to the source material, news at 11.

If you are going to use a character, why not include what actually made the character so popular?  This was discussed in the Constantine TV thread, where people enjoyed the movie well enough but the character wasn't anything like the comic character, to the point that there really didn't seem to be much of a reason to call it a Constantine movie.

And yah, his defining trait is Boy Scout ultra-moral guy and that is a great source for tension and story-telling, which the DCAU (original Superman series and Justice League) took full advantage of.  Superman's weakness isn't kryptonite, its his moral code.  Smart villains could take great advantage of that.  Superman getting the best of you?  Throw a car at some civies and hit him when he's distracted.  Want to rob a bank?  Plant a bomb in a random school, when he shows up to stop you tell him and watch him scamper off.  Imagine how much fun Heath Ledger's Joker fucking around with goody two shoes Superman would be in a movie?

All the comic book characters are pretty archetypical, so if you start massively fucking around with their characters and motivations you don't have the archetype anymore and then you get into '90s comics grimdark blah.  It can be fun to switch things up every now and then...  but when you make wholesale changes it can really kill interest in the character.

Adam West Batman versus anything more modern.  Characters change.  They can be good or suck on their own merits.

Batman is no longer happy.  Superman is no longer a boy scout.  Shame they kept the worst parts about him since he's just not that interesting being all-powerful.

Batman's defining trait isn't being sad his parents died.  It's being the Great Detective (as silly as he was, West's Batman was this) and obsessively focused on using his vast resources to stop crime (West's Batman still did this).  He's been more or less grim at various points in his history.  The Batman show was campy, but the character was still identifibly Batman.


Put it another way:

Kevin Smith can write some pretty funny dialogue and character interactions, but he's not very good at much else.  If you take out his signature traits, why would you ever want to watch his movies?  You'd have Jersey Girl and Cop Out.  Or Jhoss Whedon without witty banter and sly character interactions....  you'd just have awkward fight scenes with barely legal anorexics and his obvious foot fetish.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Maven on May 16, 2014, 03:22:59 AM
I answered this already.

If he isn't the Boy Scout, he is not Superman.   A character is not an image or a name, it is a set of characteristics.  If you change those characteristics, it is not the same character.

Being the Boy Scout is a defying aspect of Superman.

You might as well ask why an apple can't be citrus. If it were citrus, it would not be an apple.
I disagree with what you said.

Seconded. Your conception of Superman is very stipulative. They created a Superman that fits in the world they are creating and with the story they want to tell. They focused on his alienation, heritage, his vast superiority versus the human race, the *understandable* and *realistic* distrust that humanity would have of aliens and super powered beings on earth. He was to be a Guardian.

As a former Eagle Scout, being a Boy Scout in the modern world only works in the right community where everyone is drinking the same Character Kool-Aid. More, this conception of the purity of a Boy Scout hides its own issues (need I remind you about Boy Scouts' relation to homosexuality). That throwback to the past doesn't hold as much water nowadays nor with a contemporary movie-watching audience.

I think the attempt was to make him more a real character with real issues, and to base his morals on philosophy and a sense of responsibility to others BECAUSE he is powerful. The reading of Plato didn't go unmissed.

When dealing with real world issues and real people, the right action doesn't always equate to one where everything turns out for the better and the bad guy ends up defeated.

Finally, did Zod's interpretation match up to the comics? I thought Zod's characterization was great. Maybe a little too "evil" and "racist".


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 16, 2014, 03:40:34 AM

This movie was an origin story about a new version of Superman. In this the movie was self consistent (as you point out).


Ok, let's say I accept that ;  This version SUCKS.  And, strangely, WORSE THAN THE OLD ONE.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on May 16, 2014, 04:47:59 AM
I like the new Batman costume, even the little ears.  I'm going into the JL movie with an open mind, hopefully.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Cyrrex on May 16, 2014, 05:27:57 AM
I thought the actual actor and suit were very well designed.  He totally looked like Superman to me.  That said, I think they need to doofy up Clark Kent a bit more.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 16, 2014, 07:49:20 AM
You can have grimdark Superman, sure. He's called Miracleman, for those of you who've read it. Or Doctor Manhattan.

The thing is, Superman being slightly goofy, Boy-Scout, cornfed Kansas boy, all that stuff, has functioned over the years as the explanation for why you're reading a superhero story about a basically good guy. The moment Superman doesn't put weird constraints on his own actions (no killing, always save civilians, don't just fly over to the country next door and kill every dictator) then the story HAS to be Alan Moore's Miracleman: a story of how Superman rules the world and there's nothing we can do to stop his benevolent tyranny. Just getting another Superman (or even a Luthor!) in the mix doesn't change that story, because once a nice guy raised by loving parents in a morally upright community is causing the collateral death of thousands and killing anyone that he finds disasteful, it's not as if someone else with his powers is going to do any differently--the story now admits that no nurture can overcome nature, if by nature you have the powers of a god. The only way the character remains remotely heroic in that context is the way Miracleman does: by ruling the world as a kind and loving god who wants what's best for all of us. (I suspect that had Gaiman or other writers been allowed to continue where they were going with it, even that would have stopped being the case eventually.)

Superman is only a "superhero" because he prevents himself from doing what he could do, because he places ridiculous, absurd constraints on himself that none of would observe for a minute, constraints that in some cases actually produce immoral outcomes. This is a guy who *could*, for example, find every warlord and mass killer in Africa in ten minutes and kill them, or even deposit them at the Hague. Or could disarm every combatant in Syria and fling the leader of every faction into space until they stopped fighting. Etc. If you could, wouldn't you? Isn't it right to? *That* is where the dramatic tension in a Superman story comes from: how will he manage to keep his constraints this time? If he makes an exception in the course of the story, how will he keep from giving himself the right to make more exceptions? What will the consequences be? If you want to *hurt* him, give him gravitas, you don't pull out the Kryptonite, you have someone else suffer because his self-imposed constraints keep him from doing the easy thing, the expedient thing. But when he doesn't really seem to give much of a shit about the fact that he's destroying half a city, you haven't even *noticed* that you're telling the Miracleman story rather than a Superman story.

You might properly observe that this is why Superman is a dumb character no matter what: that the story of such a character should never be the story of a "superhero", that superheroes by nature have to have a much more diminished capacity to make choices, do the right (or wrong) thing, with fewer consequences outside their own lives and communities. That's fair enough. But in that case, the real thing you should say is, "Nobody should make movies about this character, period." If they're going to, they've *got* to deal with the necessary baseline requirements for telling stories that make sense about that character.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Merusk on May 16, 2014, 08:18:25 AM
If you are going to use a character, why not include what actually made the character so popular?  This was discussed in the Constantine TV thread, where people enjoyed the movie well enough but the character wasn't anything like the comic character, to the point that there really didn't seem to be much of a reason to call it a Constantine movie.

This is a great example because of how often people bitch about characters they like being changed, but then say "suck it up" when it's one they don't like/ don't care about.

So yeah, Constantine whiners, just suck it up. This is the new take on Constantine, he's a religious guy who never smoked and has a moral superiority.

Godzilla 1998 was a great movie, because that's the NEW vision of Godzilla.

The new Alien movie will have Ripley, but she's going to be a screaming blonde who's scared of the dark.    :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on May 16, 2014, 09:52:22 AM

This is a great example because of how often people bitch about characters they like being changed, but then say "suck it up" when it's one they don't like/ don't care about.

So yeah, Constantine whiners, just suck it up. This is the new take on Constantine, he's a religious guy who never smoked and has a moral superiority.

Godzilla 1998 was a great movie, because that's the NEW vision of Godzilla.

The new Alien movie will have Ripley, but she's going to be a screaming blonde who's scared of the dark.    :why_so_serious:

Firstly, for the second time this week, Keaneu Constantine was not a religious guy and he smoked. Yeah he stopped smoking at the end of the movie because he realized he had been given a second chance and because he wasn't a moron. If he had kept smoking NO-ONE would have believed it. And Constantine in the comics has changed too, from mage with almost no power but being incredibly lucky (flat description of him in The Books of Magic where a character is amazed that the evel mages backed off from him because "John, you have almost no power!") to supermage today.

Ok now how about we turn Batman from a dark and brooding character to a funny goofy comic character in a TV series? And then back to Dark and brooding in movies and then back to goofy in a cartoon? Have you ever seen Batman Above and Beyond?

And seriously, you are crying because Supe does not care about property destruction? Have a look at the Superman cartoon series, Supes throws a punch and windows shatter for a mile around. Bonus points for having badguy be punched through a skyscraper. And hell, Superman sucks up the stored solar energy of a freaking Jungle in The Dark Knight Returns, killing every tree in it. That's being a little bit self centered. And yet no-one complained that was way out of character for Superman at the time, and that came out 20 freaking years ago.

Hell the Hulk stopped splitting from Banner to Hulk in the comics for 8 years.

Characters change and evolve in the media all the time. As I alluded to, I'm sure there are Constantine purists who hate the way Constantine is today over the way he was in the beginning. No-one bitched and moaned when they changed the Joker from Jack Nicholson to Jigsaw, yet that's a pretty major change in that character.

And even Godzilla has gone through several different iterations over the years, from Destroyer of Tokyo, to Protector of the Earth and Japan, and back again. And by the way, the 1998 Godzilla creature has been officially named Zilla by Togo (who own the rights to Godzilla) as they said the 1998 movie is a good monster movie and the continual fan crying about it was beyond stupid. So its officially a different creature, happy?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 16, 2014, 09:54:36 AM
*Toho  and they named it 'zilla because they DON'T recognize it as Godzilla, not because they accept it.  It wasn't just fans crying about it, no one liked that version especially the Japanese creators of the franchise.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on May 16, 2014, 10:06:17 AM
That's funny, because they are releasing every Godzilla movie on Blue ray with the release of this years movie, and included in the collection is *drum roll* the 1998 movie.

Gosh.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 16, 2014, 10:23:37 AM
That's funny, because they are releasing every Godzilla movie on Blue ray with the release of this years movie, and included in the collection is *drum roll* the 1998 movie.

Gosh.

Because money?

5second googling

 
Quote
These sentiments were echoed by veteran Godzilla actors Haruo Nakajima and Kenpachiro Satsuma, and by Shusuke Kaneko, director of the 90s Gamera films. Nakajima ridiculed the character design, stating “its face looks like an iguana and its body and limbs look like a frog.”[24] Satsuma walked out of the film, saying “it’s not Godzilla, it doesn’t have his spirit.”[25] Kaneko opined “[Americans] seem unable to accept a creature that cannot be put down by their arms.”,[26] and later alluded to the character in his film Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack as a monster that Americans mistook for Godzilla.[27]In Godzilla: Final Wars, Zilla attacked Godzilla and was easily dispatched in less than 20 seconds, the shortest monster fight in the film.

and

Quote
PENNY BLOOD: You were quoted as saying, “that you renamed Hollywood’s 1998 version of the monster ‘Zilla’ because they took the God out of Godzilla.” When I read that quote, I interpreted it to be a slam against Hollywood’s Godzilla (1998.) I’m getting the impression now that your statement was referring to the “spiritual interpretation” of Godzilla in Japan verses Hollywood’s “monster interpretation.” It really wasn’t meant as a putdown. Is that correct?

SHOGO TOMIYAMA: Yes, because Hollywood’s Godzilla is just a normal monster. He’s not a God. Hollywood treated Godzilla as a live monster or live animal. They shot him down with missiles and all that.


So basically, you are wrong.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on May 16, 2014, 10:33:16 AM
Ahem, read more carefully. Allow me to chop out the relevant words.

Quote
When I read that quote, I interpreted it to be a slam against Hollywood’s Godzilla (1998.) I’m getting the impression now that your statement was referring to the “spiritual interpretation” of Godzilla in Japan verses Hollywood’s “monster interpretation.” It really wasn’t meant as a putdown. Is that correct?

SHOGO TOMIYAMA: Yes,

So his words were NOT meant as a put down of the 1998 Godzilla movie.

Which means that he did not mean it was shit. It just wasn't a Godzilla movie, meaning a movie with the Atomic God of destruction. it was just another monster movie with a big lizard. A fair opinion. It was more "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" than Godzilla.

And if everyone thinks the movie was shit, they would make no money from re-releasing it, would they, and no-one would buy it. So "because money" makes no sense as an argument. They have chosen to release Zilla as part of the total Godzilla movie collection. They could easily have left it out but they didn't.

Seriously, stop crying into your beard. Their words and actions don't bear out your interpretation of total and anguished butthurt.

And yeah they had a bit of gun having Zilla smacked down in a later Godzilla movie in 30 seconds (not 20 as your article said) So what, it was good fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RowQsMJckKw <-- Zilla smackdown.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 16, 2014, 10:48:31 AM
Your point was that just because you change a character it's still the same character and that they only changed the name to zilla to appease fans.  What I'm saying is that at a certain point, as illustrated by 'zilla it stops being that character entirely.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Sir T on May 16, 2014, 11:21:39 AM
No, my point was that far from having one solid constant core to a character, characters can and do change over time, and sometimes the stuff people say they find objectionable can be found actually part of the character before that. Which you totally ignored to pick on Zilla. As I pointed out even the oft repeated example of Constantine has changed radically even in the comics over the past 20 years (And I really don't know why people keep saying he was "religious" in the movie.)

The actual point about Zilla is that American movies and Japanese movies are based on totally different cultures and assumptions. Would you have described Godzilla as a God? If A Japanese Filmmaker made a Batman Movie people over in America would probably freak, and there would be much screaming that they missed the whole point even if they ticked all the boxes of rich guy beating up poor criminals for their own good. Hell, it might be a good thing to compare the Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven and see how the same story can be twisted in totally different ways simply by culture. And lets not talk about the Karate Kid...


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Margalis on May 16, 2014, 11:59:21 AM
The vast majority of people have no idea who Constantine is.

Everyone knows who Superman is. The reason to make a Superman movie is precisely because everyone knows who he is - Superman being Superman is really the only interesting thing about him.  So to me it makes no sense to make a Superman movie then try to change who Superman is. At that point he's just any generic superguy.

You can change a character but it doesn't make sense to change a defining characteristic. It wouldn't make sense to make a Spider-Man who never cracks wise either. That's just no Spider-Man.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Yegolev on May 16, 2014, 12:56:55 PM
Well, I'm led to believe that we will get a non-smartass Spiderman movie soon.  He's called Venom.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Khaldun on May 23, 2014, 06:10:38 AM
You will perhaps remember that I've argued that the films of DC properties show real signs of the people making them pretty much hating and/or being embarrassed by comic-books as a genre and hating and being embarrassed by their fans, unlike Marvel's current stuff, which is mostly in the hands of people who like and and appreciate the source material.

Exhibit D for the prosecution:

http://www.avclub.com/article/she-hulk-sex-fantasy-virgins-and-other-david-s-goy-204935


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Tannhauser on May 23, 2014, 06:23:24 AM
Wow.  That dude hates his job.  Also, he can fuck right off.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Ironwood on May 23, 2014, 06:24:06 AM
The 'Hi Target Market of Horrible Virgins' was particularly well played.

 :uhrr: :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 23, 2014, 06:41:18 AM
What virgins? Everyone who saw man of steel got screwed.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: HaemishM on May 23, 2014, 09:36:29 AM
Wow.  That dude hates his job.  Also, he can fuck right off.

This. Whatever respect I might have had for him is gone. Fuck him in his tiny earhole.

Who the fuck gives an entire genre's worth of movies over to a guy who CLEARLY FUCKING HATES THE GENRE? And what kind of an asshole takes that job?


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Rendakor on May 23, 2014, 09:51:05 AM
The kind of asshole who likes money. It's no different from someone like Randall in Clerks; people hating their customer base is not uncommon.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: Venkman on May 23, 2014, 04:26:23 PM
I see it differently.

I don't think of it as hating the customers. It's more that him and the production company know they've already got those customers, and there's just not enough business from them to justify pandering only to them.

No matter how much comic book fans hated MoS, they showed up and bought tickets and popcorn and maybe watched it on Netflix, Bluray or iTunes anyway. That's the customer they have, the one who's going to watch it once or twice by sheer virtue of it existing. You don't market to those people because you don't need to pander to them.

You only need to assess whether they can keep the larger audience away.

And the studios know if one's strongest defense is "it's not like the comics", there's nothing to be worried about  :grin:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on May 23, 2014, 04:38:52 PM
Thread subject updated to reflect announced title.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHnR26d.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2014, 02:18:54 AM
The more I look at that poster, the more sublimated the Superman part of the logo gets.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on May 25, 2014, 02:36:45 AM
Wait.  Goyer is in controll of the Sandman property for movie rights?  Wow.  That sucks a new level of donky dick.


Title: Re: Superman and/vs Batman
Post by: UnSub on May 25, 2014, 03:53:23 AM
Wow.  That dude hates his job.  Also, he can fuck right off.

This. Whatever respect I might have had for him is gone. Fuck him in his tiny earhole.

Who the fuck gives an entire genre's worth of movies over to a guy who CLEARLY FUCKING HATES THE GENRE? And what kind of an asshole takes that job?

Goyer's been doing it long enough that he may well have burned out, but he still likes the money. Plus he's pretty much always been a hack; he just happened to be a hack in the right place at the right time.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on May 25, 2014, 07:34:40 PM
He is the most right place right time person possibly in recent human history. Like if Akiva Goldman had happened to get the right job at the right moment rather than Lost in Space or whatever--the thing that takes you from hack-o-matic to guy allowed to shape $1billion worth of corporate investment without ever having to not be a hack-o-matic.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on May 25, 2014, 08:58:29 PM
I don't blame Goyer for taking the money. I blame the shithead who decided it was a good idea to give him the keys to this kingdom when he so clearly hates everything about it. That is a person who does not understand the economic possibilities of the properties they control and also does not understand the creative process.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on May 25, 2014, 09:02:50 PM
Contrast that with Kevin Feige at Marvel Studios:

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/192489-kevin-feige-marvels-superhero-at-running-movie-franchises


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on May 25, 2014, 09:46:50 PM
It helps that Iger, while ambitious, isn't Eisner.  There's a lot of good folks behind Marvel's success purely by coincidence. Like most success stories, I suppose.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on May 25, 2014, 09:48:12 PM
I think it was just a perfect storm.  Even Arad leaving was a good thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on May 26, 2014, 07:19:04 AM
"We can't call him Martian Manhunter, that's just goofy."  Yeah what was Marvel thinking about Rocket Racoon, that's so silly.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on May 27, 2014, 02:22:14 PM
"We can't call him Martian Manhunter, that's just goofy."  Yeah what was Marvel thinking about Rocket Racoon, that's so silly.
Any name that would work in porn is good for Superheroes. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on May 27, 2014, 02:42:02 PM
To be fair, it looks like in Guardians they are just calling him 'Rocket'.  Manhunter does just sound better and less awkward then trying to fully title him 'Martian Manhunter'.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on May 27, 2014, 02:52:07 PM
See also: Arrow.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on May 27, 2014, 03:23:35 PM
To be fair, it looks like in Guardians they are just calling him 'Rocket'.  Manhunter does just sound better and less awkward then trying to fully title him 'Martian Manhunter'.

People are complaining that he won't be from mars because of comments stated earlier but I always took those comments to mean they found remains on mars and decided to clone/grow the cells.  You could easily have his memory be cellular too so that this civilization could be long gone, which is why we haven't run into anything so far.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Surlyboi on May 27, 2014, 05:47:45 PM
Thread subject updated to reflect announced title.

(http://i.imgur.com/UHnR26d.jpg)


To quote one of my former monkeys, (Who's now sending me screenshots of texts he's getting from Ridley Scott since a screenplay he wrote got picked up and he's a big Hollywood Dick for the moment) "The Batman/Superman logo is almost exactly the same one from the Times Square billboard in "I Am Legend", Zack Snyder has doomed us all."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on May 27, 2014, 10:01:11 PM
Not really.

(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/1tGXEATdxIc/maxresdefault.jpg)

I mean, unless "almost exactly" just means some type of bat shape field in which some type of square serif S is bound  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 01, 2014, 12:17:26 PM
Darniaq, it was geek humor blaming Zach Snyder for the world becoming a zombie/vampire wasteland. Roll with it!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on June 13, 2014, 11:25:48 AM
DC movie plans have - theoreticllay - been revealed.  They've been put out there by multiple sources, at least.  3 films a year.

May 2016 - BATMAN V. SUPERMAN
July 2016 - SHAZAM
Xmas 2016 - SANDMAN
May 2017 - JUSTICE LEAGUE
July 2017 - WONDER WOMAN
XMAS 2017 - UNTITLED GREEN LANTERN/THE FLASH TEAM-UP
MAY 2018 - MAN OF STEEL 2

Unclear if these are all in the same universe (Shazam and Sandman are the big question marks) and if the Flash is going to be the TV Flash or a new Flash.  As DC has said there will be a tie in between TV and movies, there will be something... but there are still too many possibilities to lock it down. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: tazelbain on June 13, 2014, 11:32:16 AM
>July 2016 - SHAZAM
Smells like Bullshit.

I like Shazam and I think he makes a good antagonist for Superman. But there is no way WB is busting out Shazam anytime soon.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on June 13, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Shazam has been pushed a lot in the New 52.  He's also been in like 3-4 of the last DC animated movies.  Besides, this will finally give The Rock his chance at playing Black Adam.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 13, 2014, 01:12:51 PM
I don't doubt shazam may be a real thing, mostly because I believe they are that stupid.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on June 13, 2014, 01:46:11 PM
I don't doubt shazam may be a real thing, mostly because I believe they are that stupid.

Sandman is a shittier choice than Shazam imo.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on June 13, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Unless Death is a hottie. Then it's totally worth it :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2014, 02:01:19 PM
Death should be played by Emma Stone.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 13, 2014, 03:10:27 PM
I don't doubt shazam may be a real thing, mostly because I believe they are that stupid.

Sandman is a shittier choice than Shazam imo.

Sandman is non existent in the minds of most people but it has way more potential for an actual story than fucking  shazam.  You can do a lot of things with the sandman comics so that is really up to the writing/directing but how do you get past the fact that shazam is the ken to superman's ryu with possibly the dumbest origin of all?  You can throw out the backstory entirely and you still have knockoff superman. 

 The real question is why is wonder woman getting pushed until after both of them.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on June 13, 2014, 05:56:22 PM
DC is full of moronic man children?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on June 13, 2014, 06:40:27 PM
Death should be played by Emma Stone.

I hadn't paid her much notice until ASM2 and the Birdman trailer, but that would be a good casting choice. She's got a *look*.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hoax on June 13, 2014, 08:56:04 PM
I bet they are serious about Shazam and frankly it could work maybe. At least they get a decent villain in Black Adam.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on June 13, 2014, 11:37:43 PM
Shazam/Captain Marvel has been a significant part of the DC Universe for a least a decade now. The problem with making that a movie in the grimdark DC Universe established by Man of Steel is how much of the WTF CHEESE parts of that character are you going to strip out.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on June 14, 2014, 02:58:52 AM
The real question is why is wonder woman getting pushed until after both of them.

That's easy... Electra, Cat Woman, and the animated Wonder Woman movie all did poorly.  You can blame the scripts, but the bean-counter is going to say, "Women superhero's don't sell."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lantyssa on June 14, 2014, 08:08:49 AM
Sandman is the only one I'm interested in, but I imagine it's both very difficult to translate to the screen and it isn't about super heroes.  They occasionally played a role in the series, but it was always cameos and non-super moments.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on June 14, 2014, 09:26:51 AM
Female characters versus characters that are females.  That is why so many of them fail.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on June 14, 2014, 03:48:49 PM
Aquaman cast. (http://uproxx.com/gammasquad/2014/06/jason-momoa-to-play-aquaman-in-batman-vs-superman/)

Wait... Aquaman's in this? That doesn't bode well -- Avengers succeeded in part because the characters had room to breathe individually before the team picture. This progression of DC's feels like they're cramming for the final after they spent the semester partying.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on June 14, 2014, 04:11:50 PM
The real question is why is wonder woman getting pushed until after both of them.

That's easy... Electra, Cat Woman, and the animated Wonder Woman movie all did poorly.  You can blame the scripts, but the bean-counter is going to say, "Women superhero's don't sell."

I think it's more then just that.  Action movies with a female lead generally don't do very well.  I mean Underworld and Resident Evil had a bunch of sequels but they weren't box office smashes.  I think its because a majority of females just aren't into those types of films. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on June 14, 2014, 05:10:36 PM
Nah, it's just small sample size is small. How many middling male action hero movies get made and no one even blinks.

/shrug


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on June 15, 2014, 01:16:12 AM
Shazam/Captain Marvel has been a significant part of the DC Universe for a least a decade now. The problem with making that a movie in the grimdark DC Universe established by Man of Steel is how much of the WTF CHEESE parts of that character are you going to strip out.

Shazam can work in that kind of grimdark if they focus more on the Billy Batson side of things. Make it clear this is an idealistic kid with tremendous power who wants to be a hero. Show him going through some of the costs of being a hero, give the kid conflict and loss and show him coming out the other side still wanting to be a hero who does the right thing. Which is more or less the plot to Superman/Shazam: First Thunder and that I think does a really good job of making a superpowered Superman esque hero actually vulnerable.

The problem they face with the canon they've got going is that there really aren't any models for him to emulate. How do you get from 'Superman wiped out a city to fight aliens from his own planet and killed them to save earth' and spin that as inspiration for an idealistic kid? On top of that I don't think DC would have the balls to actually have an 11 year old suffering through being partly responsible for  Finally I'm not convinced they have the balls to make him an idealistic 10 year old in reality, I'm expecting his secret identity to be a wise ass 17 year old who makes obnoxious jokes and constantly goes after attractive women.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on June 15, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
Shazam actually has a concept that can be played for fun or for serious--the boy who becomes a super-strong man. Takes delicate handling though and nobody at WB/DC is even remotely subtle at the moment.

My guess on the JL characters is that they're all going to show up at the end of a Batman/Superman film, almost as cameos. I would guess that the very end is probably going to tease the coming of Darkseid, as per the current DC comics "origin" for the Justice League.

They're going to stay away from Green Lantern, I'm pretty sure.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on June 15, 2014, 10:07:48 PM
As has been said, it doesn't seem like anyone at WB/DC really likes comics, the lesson they seem to have taken from Nolan's Batman is that movie audiences will tolerate superheroes if they're in an exciting, 'serious' action movie. Considering their attempts so far like Green Lantern, which was treated like a kids movie in terms of respect for the material or audience, or the first Superman, which was just very by the numbers Superman plot points, they seem to think that lacking both of those elements means it won't succeed. Marvel could have gone the same way considering some of their earlier flops (like FF) but they seem to have gotten a production team that can actually recognise and promote 'fun' in their movies.

DC really haven't figured out how to get any fun into theirs, their only notable success so far definitely wasn't in that vein. Their problem is they seem to want to copy Nolan's tone into characters it really doesn't work with rather than trying to create movies that work for the characters.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2014, 02:25:07 PM
It just hit me:  I'm going to have to hear roughly 2 more years of speculation as to whether DC is on the right path or not before we know what BvS has to offer. 

Ugh. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on June 16, 2014, 02:29:35 PM
People don't speculate about whether this is a good idea. Speculation implies doubt.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on June 16, 2014, 02:49:53 PM
People don't speculate about whether this is a good idea. Speculation implies doubt.
Fair point - it'll be two years of people talking about how much this will suck before we see how much it sucks - although I personally hold out the 5% hope that they'll make this work.  If I were to pick an approach to DC movies and I was FORCED to use Man of Steel for my starting block, my plan would not be inconsistent with anything we've heard.  However, I'd give my best plan a slim chance to actually work - those DC characters are just so ridiculous that any 'grounded' version of them is hard to imagine.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on June 16, 2014, 02:51:45 PM
(http://cdn.wegotthiscovered.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Critic.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: DraconianOne on July 26, 2014, 01:30:52 PM
(http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2014/papa_vinyard/y74HKHY_large.jpg)

First shot of Wonder Woman and apparently a very short teaser shown at Comic-Con.

I'm not an expert but those heels don't look practical to run in. (I felt the same about Sif's heels in Thor as well.)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ragnoros on July 26, 2014, 01:38:04 PM
It's missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: DraconianOne on July 26, 2014, 01:40:06 PM
Not enough teal?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 26, 2014, 02:32:53 PM
Look, an extra got lost on her way to the sequel to 300...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on July 26, 2014, 02:43:49 PM
I wonder where the woman character from the comics is?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on July 26, 2014, 02:49:45 PM
MEH.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on July 26, 2014, 02:56:01 PM
Actually looks better than I was expecting.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 03:27:53 PM
Actually looks better than I was expecting.

This is not saying much imo.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on July 26, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
MEH.

This... it's pretty bland over all.  Looks like they got her costume from the Spartacus prop room.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Nevermore on July 26, 2014, 03:42:54 PM
She still looks like a model instead of an Amazon warrior.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on July 26, 2014, 03:46:43 PM
Should have been lucy Lawless.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on July 26, 2014, 05:29:24 PM
She still looks like a model instead of an Amazon warrior.
According to every portrayal of Amazon warriors I've ever seen, that's exactly what she should look like.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on July 26, 2014, 08:11:25 PM
That is WAY better then I was expecting. It's almost sorta like armor... an armored bathing suit at least. It could've been way way way worse.

Like, do we need to bring in pictures of the failed wonder woman TV pilot costume for a refresher here?  :why_so_serious:


The actress is doomed though, Wonder Woman shows so much skin that there's just no way to hide any short comings she has physically. At least the platform heels give her some more height.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Samwise on July 26, 2014, 08:16:11 PM
This is dangerously close to "pointy knees" territory, and maybe it's photoshop or a weird angle, but: do not skip leg day.  Nobody who does any sort of real physical activity on a regular basis has thighs that skinny.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 26, 2014, 08:18:25 PM
It may not be be rational but those heels really do bother me the more I think about them.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 26, 2014, 08:19:15 PM
It's like they took Wonder Woman's costume and drained it of all fucking color and contrast whatsoever. Which is just fucking stupid because if you remove the 4-color nature in the name of making it look like armor - well, that shit ain't gonna serve as good armor.

It's like the '90's called and said "everyone must wear leather" only instead of leather it was the color bland.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on July 26, 2014, 08:33:48 PM
I think it looks fine, although I'm not a comic fan so I've got no dog in the fight.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on July 28, 2014, 01:14:44 AM
It's missing something, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

Yes.  It is missing an extraordinarily gorgeous raven-haired, blue-eyed actress with meat on her bones.  Oh, and probably a better costume.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 28, 2014, 03:14:25 AM
The Golden Lasso of Truth is Silver.

What the fuck.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on July 28, 2014, 04:18:52 AM
Yes, and I hear they are changing the Invisible Jet into the Somewhat Opaque Airplane.

To be fair, though, all the colors in that photo are darkened like a motherfucker, so who knows what any of this actually looks like.  She is still small enough to easily snap into two pieces, which is the bigger problem I have with her.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Wizgar on July 28, 2014, 05:02:30 AM
Someone should let Xena know her 16 year old niece has been stealing her clothes.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 28, 2014, 07:09:00 AM
Reddit had a theory that this was to differentiate her from Batman and Superman.  The "Hero color palette"  Since Supes is already blue, Batman is black they made WW bronze because Flash will be Red.  This lets you quickly pick-out characters in a fight scene where action is fast because of the contrast vs. the static imagery of comics.

I doubt this seriously, but thought I'd offer it up anyway.  I'm more inclined to believe the costume designer heard "Amazon" and went for Xena because that's their exposure.  DC and their history of mishandling their own properties, after all.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Pezzle on July 28, 2014, 07:14:17 AM
Maybe that shot is pre Wonder Woman persona?
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2014, 10:34:13 AM
Superman's costume isn't blue, at least not in Man of Steel. It's more "ALL THINGS MUST BE GRIMDARK!!!!" blue gray.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on July 28, 2014, 10:55:48 AM
I am kinda torn. On the one hand, I am all for traditional costumes on superheros and this seems to be respectful enough to the design but modernized enough to be unique to this generation. On the other hand, I really can't stand the idea that women superheros are stuck with the swimsuit armor, whether it be a 1-piece or 2-piece. I like what the Avenger movies do with the costumes. As much as I am indifferent to Scarlett Johansson, I like the Black Widow gear and the upcoming Scarlet Witch gear. Hell, I even liked the fact that Capt America was not in skin tight spandex and his gear had texture and stitching where it should have been. Guess I am a non-traditionalist heathen.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2014, 11:19:14 AM
I had zero problems with the costumes in Avengers being updated versions of the comics (Ultimate Captain America has had that look for years, the current comics version has it also). I didn't even mind the Man of Steel costume other than the very blue-filtered, color-leeching effect they added to the whole thing (along with the intentional grittied up film grain effects). This Wonder Woman costume though is just so monochrome and dull. And it doesn't seem to be done that way in an attempt to make it like armor because fuck me, that shit doesn't cover any vital areas.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on July 28, 2014, 12:03:56 PM
...As much as I am indifferent to Scarlett Johansson...

Your next 40,000 posts are now, by default, totally without any value or relevance to any subject you may be speaking on whatsoever.  You are dead to me.

I mean, come on dude.  How can that even be a thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on July 28, 2014, 12:08:26 PM
...As much as I am indifferent to Scarlett Johansson...

Your next 40,000 posts are now, by default, totally without any value or relevance to any subject you may be speaking on whatsoever.  You are dead to me.

I mean, come on dude.  How can that even be a thing.

I simply do not find her attractive in the least. Something about the cheeks and mouth in relation to the eyes. Different strokes I guess.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on July 28, 2014, 12:11:04 PM
Sometimes it's different strokes.  Other times it's because you are totally in the wrong.

 :grin:

Seriously, though, what the fuck?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on July 28, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
I don't get the love for her either. She's pretty, but not exceptionally so. Her entirely unimpressive nudes from Under The Skin didn't help matters. I know, I know, sharp knees, etc.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 28, 2014, 12:44:34 PM
So I was really bothered by the light levels in the Wonder Woman shot.  Mainly because of Ironwood's "Wtf, silver lasso?" comment.  I thought to myself, "No.. surely it's only because things are so grimdark and gritty and desaturated."

So some really bad Photoshopping on my part produced this. Yeah, looks silver, though the bodice is apparently more red than bronze and the pants are grimdark blue.

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/148769012/WW%20Adjusted.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Nevermore on July 28, 2014, 12:55:58 PM
and the pants are grimdark blue.

Pants?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 28, 2014, 01:00:08 PM
True, though that outfit has more pants coverage than she's worn in 5 decades.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Simond on July 28, 2014, 01:57:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/IaB4U6o.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 28, 2014, 02:13:17 PM
 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on July 28, 2014, 02:51:16 PM
She starts off on a psuedo Greek Island.  I have no problems with the lack of RWB outfit at the start as it'd make no sense.  However, what is up with her left leg?  It looks like they poorly photoshopped a boot on her.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2014, 02:52:13 PM
I think they are meant to be something like vambraces on the front that don't completely surround the leg.

Which is of course, fuckstupid but...  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on July 28, 2014, 02:52:46 PM
Point the first: Costumes are the least wrong thing we know about this project.

Point the second: People in this thread sound like the people who complained that Wolverine wasn't wearing yellow and blue.

Wonder Woman wearing off brown is not the reason this film looks bad, and there is no reason you couldn't make a good film about a female superhero dressed like a warcraft rogue.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 28, 2014, 02:53:49 PM
We're not talking about a good film, we're talking about a movie with Wonder Woman in it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on July 28, 2014, 02:56:12 PM
We're not talking about a good film, we're talking about a movie with Wonder Woman in it.
There are plenty of good films with the porn equivalent of Wonder Woman in it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on July 28, 2014, 06:03:36 PM
She starts off on a psuedo Greek Island.  I have no problems with the lack of RWB outfit at the start as it'd make no sense.  However, what is up with her left leg?  It looks like they poorly photoshopped a boot on her.

IF this is the case, then I agree with you.  Otherwise the lack of RWB is a bit annoying.  Should Spiderman's costume be brown? It's RWB as well.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on July 29, 2014, 07:29:34 AM
The costume makes sense to me if she's suppose to be an amazon warrior princess.  She frankly looks fine for that in a styalized comic book way.  Hell, she's wearing armor.  Thats how all amazon armor ever looks, and its better than her normal outfit. 

I mean, if they wanted to make her true to the wonder woman comic, she would be wearing a RWB bikini and have much larger tits. Thats about the only difference I can see at all that seprates this from her comic book form.  But I can see the angst, I also would be happier if they found an actress with bigger tits and made her fight in a patriotic bikini the entire film.  Since the movie is going to suck anyways no matter what.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 29, 2014, 09:42:22 AM
  Thats how all amazon armor ever looks,

Nah, in Gladiator they had full breastplates which make shitloads more sense. The Sexah Amazonian is an old trope the same as chainmail bikinis. Not that I mind either, but it's never been a serious reason other than objectification. Which makes sense when you know the true history of Wonder Woman's creator.

Also, actual boob plates create a weak point easily caved in at the sternum. You bow the entire chestpiece to accommodate breasts, not a double-bump. But then: comic book movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2014, 10:00:20 AM
It really depends on whether the armor's functional or not. Late in the history of armor in Europe, some of it was almost entirely ceremonial, to be worn by the nobility for show and not really for combat. So some of that armor had some pretty ridiculous ornamental components that would have been a liability in actual combat. In that kind of context, if you'd had women being armored, I could easily see boobed chestplates and so on. But if it was being used in actual combat, yes, boob pieces would be a deathwish.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 29, 2014, 10:02:25 AM
 :oh_i_see:

So, if we're treating or woman as a decorative bit of eye candy, it's ok to dress her up as a decorative bit of eye candy.

Okay doke.

 :grin:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 29, 2014, 10:04:35 AM
Well, some of the cod pieces on decorative and ornamental armor in 16th-17 Century Europe were fairly  :-o


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 29, 2014, 10:07:05 AM
Indeed.  I used to think that the Blackadder scenes about the codpieces were a joke until I visited some of the museums around Scotland.

They really, really like poking the knob out in battle.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: angry.bob on July 29, 2014, 11:03:53 AM
In fairness to female armor designs I'm sure that the people designing it always try to go back and look at Female armor designs through history. I'm an especially big fan of Helenic female armor.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Wizgar on July 30, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
Does anyone even give a fuck at this point? Really? Or is this just a pantomime people go through now whenever a female character design pops up wearing anything that would scandalize Queen Victoria? This is the least like some sort of Mardi Gras prostitute Wonder Woman has ever looked.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soulflame on July 30, 2014, 10:04:56 PM
I just assumed this was her Princess Diana gear, as opposed to her Wonder Woman costume.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hoax on August 03, 2014, 04:53:35 PM
I just assumed this was her Princess Diana gear, as opposed to her Wonder Woman costume.

Likewise. Also can't really believe so many people actually care what Wonder Woman might look like, is she actually an interesting character in any way? DC is very much not my thing but I watched all the cartoons and Wonder Woman sucks ass in them.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 03, 2014, 05:09:43 PM
People are being super critical because it's bullshit to just cram wonder woman in a movie with batman and superman without even having her own movie first.  If that were a picture of wonder woman from the wonder woman movie it would be fine with everyone.  It's hard to express how insulting it is to have the premiere female super hero relegated to third most important character in an ensemble cast.  Meanwhile (gotg) has already been in two movies.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on August 03, 2014, 05:15:21 PM
Eh, it's not just the costume.. bad casting is bad casting.  At least get someone with some kind of physique.  Someone like Ronda Rousey.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 03, 2014, 07:04:00 PM
I just assumed this was her Princess Diana gear, as opposed to her Wonder Woman costume.

Likewise. Also can't really believe so many people actually care what Wonder Woman might look like, is she actually an interesting character in any way? DC is very much not my thing but I watched all the cartoons and Wonder Woman sucks ass in them.

Wonder Woman is a great character but she hasn't really been well done in any form of TV or movie yet. Linda Carter was fun to watch but the show wasn't a good Wonder Woman show.

Edit: Fixed a grammar/spelling issue. Good god I need to proofread more!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 03, 2014, 09:23:46 PM
If that were a picture of wonder woman from the wonder woman movie it would be fine with everyone. 

You are wrong. Wonder Woman being 3rd banana in this picture is the least of its problems.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on August 03, 2014, 10:00:18 PM
If that were a picture of wonder woman from the wonder woman movie it would be fine with everyone. 

You are wrong. Wonder Woman being 3rd banana in this picture is the least of its problems.

One thing it did do, we aren't complaining about Batfleck as much anymore.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 04, 2014, 11:19:29 AM
I'm pretty sure Ben Affleck as Batman is not even going to be close to the worst thing about this movie. If I had to guess, it'll be Mark Luthorberg or the script.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on August 05, 2014, 06:45:12 AM
Eh, it's not just the costume.. bad casting is bad casting.  At least get someone with some kind of physique.  Someone like Ronda Rousey.
That woman is way to butch/buff to pull off Wonder Woman.

Gina Carano would be about 100 times better (especially in the looks department) if you wanted to go that route, but still probably wouldn't look right.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 05, 2014, 06:58:14 AM
I don't agree.  When Rousey is cleaned up, she is really good looking and her physique is way closer to Amazon Warrior than Carano's.  Hair would need to be black, obviously.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on August 05, 2014, 07:23:25 AM
Wtf about wonder woman makes her a great character?



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 05, 2014, 07:31:53 AM
Wtf about wonder woman makes her a great character?

Boobs.  Raven black hair.  Blue eyes.  Delicious physique.  Probably a thing or two about that lasso.

Okay, maybe that doesn't make her a great character, really, if you don't nail all of those things you might as well not even bother.

Edit:  A case for brown eyes could possibly be made.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on August 05, 2014, 08:27:53 AM
Wtf about wonder woman makes her a great character?

Boobs.  Raven black hair.  Blue eyes.  Delicious physique.  Probably a thing or two about that lasso.

Okay, maybe that doesn't make her a great character, really, if you don't nail all of those things you might as well not even bother.

Edit:  A case for brown eyes could possibly be made.
Seems like Gal Gadot nailed the part perfectly then, sans huge boobs.    :why_so_serious:

(http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd229/goetz420/Kara__Wonder_Woman.jpg)

I mean seriously, Wonder Woman is skinny Bikini model who can magically pick up cars.  Gal Gadots body is probably going to be the only good thing about his movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 05, 2014, 10:47:58 AM
Dear God is that Jim Lee's version of Wonder Woman? No one ever any-fucking-where should ever take Jim Lee's advice when it comes to casting for a female's physique. That motherfucker is Rob Liefeld with the ability to draw hands and feet.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on August 05, 2014, 11:37:02 AM
Michael Turner apparently.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 05, 2014, 11:43:03 AM
Yeah, him too. I like Turner but relying on him for a physical reference for an actual physical woman... not a good idea.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 05, 2014, 12:20:35 PM
Gal Gadot hasn't got the boobs because she is waif thin.  She looks like you could break her in two by sneezing on her.  WW should be a very FIT binkini model.  More meat on the bones.  Even that picture you posted has a better looking physique than Gadot.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on August 05, 2014, 03:18:52 PM
The lack of muscularity and tone in these supposedly hyper-capable individuals is visual dissonance. I'm becoming increasingly aware of the Whedon Girls phenomenon.

Edit: Oh. That's because the movie tailors to a male audience. Guys have to go through these insane workouts to get muscular bods that set new standards in masculine physique, while women have to... look pretty? Be flexible? I guess they don't have to show definition as much as the guys do...

I dunno. I don't hear about the female cast members going through these brutal work out routines in order to more accurately reflect the image of the character. Aesthetic standards of feminine beauty as determined by Hollywood contradict that physique. The only past comparison I can think to examine is Carrie-Anne Moss in The Matrix, but I think that was more wire training as she just needed to look good in tight, shiny black outfits.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 05, 2014, 03:30:11 PM
There's only a very few characters in comics who are consistently drawn as having a musculature that corresponds to their power set. Ditko drew Spider-Man as spindly, and though that got lost for a while, it was eventually recovered, which fit the idea that this was a kid with a strength that was unnatural. The Flash has sometimes been drawn as having a runner's physique, though not always. Some relatively younger superheroines like Stargirl have been drawn as looking prepubescent, though Supergirl has been sexualized like nobody's business in recent years.

I'm prepared to see Wonder Woman as thin or muscular, trim or Rubenesque. I think the bigger problem is just that the character is really not a good one on the whole. Unlike Batman or Superman, her pulp origins are deeply weird and idiosyncratic--you can't really return her to the "roots", and she doesn't really correspond to a class of general archetypes. (Batman is basically linked to a whole range of Shadow-like vigilantes; Superman to a whole range of strongmen.) Even the other female superheroes of her approximate era of origin are very different--they're more like female versions of a Batman-type vigilante, "mystery women" of various kinds.

Nobody has ever really settled on a steady characterization for her since. There has been a sort of feminist-lite sentimental WW (George Perez' is probably the best of those), there's been "female Superman" (pretty much the standard approach for the 1970s) where she mirrored most of Superman's tropes and stories, and then there's several attempts to take the Greek mythology and Greek warrior-culture elements more seriously, most strikingly in her post-New 52 incarnation. Of all of those, I'd go with the latter as the most interesting possible way to do the character, but it is the approach which fits most poorly into a Nolanesque "realistic" DC Universe. There's no way that Zeus being her real father and her mother being the leader of an immortal race of Greek women who withdrew from the world works in the world that "Man of Steel" showcased. Just ain't happening.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on August 05, 2014, 04:01:15 PM
It could happen if they believe it could. Like, what made it OK to dump Thor into the same universe that Ironman was fucking around. Super science, Super science, oh literal ancient gods and monsters.


That's probably why no Wonder-woman movie is so frustrating to me, Marvel already figured it out for you, replace Norse myth with Greek myth, done, rubies and emeralds for everyone.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 05, 2014, 04:04:55 PM
For sure it could have happened if they'd left room for it imaginatively. Probably could still if they had the imagination that creates room. Look at GotG! But Synder, Goyer, etc., those guys imagining space-Greek Gods and utopian Greek warrior-women? Nope.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on August 05, 2014, 04:05:58 PM
So Batman is going to have been around and working Gotham for the last 30 years.  He's just never been caught on camera and been working in the shadows.  He's basically an urban legend in Gotham.  Wonder Woman is going to be in the same boat.  She's been active as a hero, but has been keeping a very low profile.  I guess this is a way to cut back on the back stories of the characters.  Although i do like them using a different version of Batman than has been used in the past.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 05, 2014, 04:18:47 PM
This part can work, I guess. Superman's very public appearance suddenly makes all these other lurkers suit up and go full spandex?

Batman I guess I can buy as "totally secret, nobody really believes in him except for a few cops who know he's for real" if he's only been taking down street-level thugs and shit. The moment they say "No, there's also been the Joker and Two-Face and the Riddler" that's done. You can't be an urban legend AND have a city full of colorful public criminals who wear costumes that you somehow always quietly take down just out of sight and without any profile.

Wonder Woman I guess I could buy as "secret warrior woman from a mysterious island" who does commando crap to take down evil guerillas or warlords now and again.

Aquaman works ok as a secret superguy.

Cyborg not so much but then he can be a newly-minted superdude.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: tazelbain on August 05, 2014, 04:23:19 PM
The hand-waving will vigorous and prolonged.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ingmar on August 05, 2014, 04:24:40 PM
Aquaman can't keep a low profile if he keeps doing shit like this.

(http://i.imgur.com/LciE6qK.gif)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evil Elvis on August 05, 2014, 05:03:59 PM
I don't agree.  When Rousey is cleaned up, she is really good looking and her physique is way closer to Amazon Warrior than Carano's.  Hair would need to be black, obviously.

Go watch Expendables 3, and come back saying you'd like to see Rousey act again.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on August 05, 2014, 05:29:34 PM
Aquaman can't keep a low profile if he keeps doing shit like this.

(http://i.imgur.com/LciE6qK.gif)


How long were you waiting for that chance?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ingmar on August 05, 2014, 05:31:06 PM
Roughly 13 years.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on August 05, 2014, 05:31:34 PM
You're not even joking are you.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Nevermore on August 05, 2014, 07:22:30 PM
I dunno. I don't hear about the female cast members going through these brutal work out routines in order to more accurately reflect the image of the character. Aesthetic standards of feminine beauty as determined by Hollywood contradict that physique. The only past comparison I can think to examine is Carrie-Anne Moss in The Matrix, but I think that was more wire training as she just needed to look good in tight, shiny black outfits.

I distinctly remember Linda Hamilton getting pretty buff for Terminator 2.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on August 05, 2014, 07:25:40 PM
Go watch Expendables 3, and come back saying you'd like to see Rousey act again.

I wouldn't be watching the acting. Besides, she is not a traditional actor - no acting background at all. Maybe once she grows out of MMA stuff, she'll have the time and coin to take some acting classes. Until then, she is just a muscular, fit animated model. And I am ok with that.  :grin:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 05, 2014, 08:19:30 PM
Michael Turner apparently.

I was going to say that's Top Cow Wonder Woman.

The guy can only draw one woman. The nose especially is a dead giveaway.

Re: Whedon Girls: The guy writes and casts women he wants to bone. It's that simple.

Quote
Nobody has ever really settled on a steady characterization for her since. There has been a sort of feminist-lite sentimental WW (George Perez' is probably the best of those), there's been "female Superman" (pretty much the standard approach for the 1970s) where she mirrored most of Superman's tropes and stories, and then there's several attempts to take the Greek mythology and Greek warrior-culture elements more seriously, most strikingly in her post-New 52 incarnation. Of all of those, I'd go with the latter as the most interesting possible way to do the character, but it is the approach which fits most poorly into a Nolanesque "realistic" DC Universe.

Exactly this. What does the general public know of WW? She has a magic lasso even though she's not any sort of cowgirl / old west hero, she has an invisible airplane, she dresses like Captain America even though she's probably not American, she can deflect stuff with bracelets - it's all ridiculous.

The only thing about Wonder Woman that is standout is that she's a woman. The Flash is fast, Plastic Man is stretchy, WW is female. That's her single notable trait. She's an awful character - like not even in the top 50 of female super heroes unless you grandfather her in. There are enough female superheroes these days that just being female isn't enough.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on August 06, 2014, 01:52:34 AM
Lack of muscle tone is no more a problem in super hero movies than any other film.

It won't matter if the script is good and the director is good.

Do you see what I did there?

(But seriously it just doesn't matter)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Velorath on August 06, 2014, 04:14:00 AM
Re: Whedon Girls: The guy writes and casts women he wants to bone. It's that simple.

 :roll:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 06, 2014, 06:43:31 AM
Go watch Expendables 3, and come back saying you'd like to see Rousey act again.

I wouldn't be watching the acting. Besides, she is not a traditional actor - no acting background at all. Maybe once she grows out of MMA stuff, she'll have the time and coin to take some acting classes. Until then, she is just a muscular, fit animated model. And I am ok with that.  :grin:

Yeah, I wasn't talking about actual acting, only the looks department.  I have no idea who Gal Gadot is either, or whether or not she can act.  And really, for a superhero...unless they CG everything, it also matters how athletic some of these people are.

I have a weird example.  From Attack of the Clones, of all things.  Natalie Portman is someone you should probably consider a good actor, if you are being reasonable.  There is that extended scene after they all get captured and have to fight in the arena.  All well and good.  Then they get on their ship and go after Dooku, and their ship gets shot down.  Padme rallies the surviving troopers and gives them some command or other, and then they all start running off.  Only, Natalie Portman looks like she never ran in her life, she literally does not know how to, and it looks amazingly retarded when she tries.  Every time I see it, it bothers the shit out of me.  Gone is the illusion of tough girl bad ass fighter girl. 

It is the same thing with the waif thin fighter girls.  If it does not look right visually, then the audience doesn't buy it.  It's not only the women.  Superman is always a larger, muscular guy, because we wouldn't believe it otherwise despite there being no actual reason for it.   

TL;DR Superheroes have to look the part, otherwise it is an instant fail.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on August 06, 2014, 09:32:00 AM
I've kinda changed my mind on it a little bit though - I regularly see fit, waiflike women at the gym that run farther, faster and press more weight than I ever could.

But I take the point.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on August 06, 2014, 10:25:16 AM
Can we please not use the star wars prequels as examples of why things will be bad.

There is so much wrong with each of them that you can't reasonably claim that the reason any aspect if them was bad was because of one specific thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 06, 2014, 11:28:56 AM
I get Cyrrex's point, though. An actor who can't physically move the way they should for the role they're playing is not a good actor. It's not just about line delivery. Contrarily, an actor who can 'sell' their take on the role with everything they're doing--body motion, body language, etc., can convince almost anybody that they are right for the role even if you originally thought otherwise. Remember Heath Ledger as the Joker, for example. I didn't join the crowd of people saying, "Totally wrong" but I have to admit that I looked at the guy and said, really not what I think of as The Joker. Because I thought of the Joker as tall, thin, with a pointed face, etc.

A slender non-muscular woman playing Wonder Woman can sell the role if she can move right, gesture right, if there's a real actor in that body controlling all aspects of the performance. (And a director who gets it.)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 06, 2014, 12:09:10 PM
(And a director who gets it.)

I think we see where the weak link will be. At least if you watch Sucker Punch, that is.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ragnoros on August 06, 2014, 01:05:41 PM
I don't agree.  When Rousey is cleaned up, she is really good looking and her physique is way closer to Amazon Warrior than Carano's.  Hair would need to be black, obviously.

Cant comment on her acting, but physique... (slight nsfw)



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 06, 2014, 01:49:20 PM
Can we please not use the star wars prequels as examples of why things will be bad.

There is so much wrong with each of them that you can't reasonably claim that the reason any aspect if them was bad was because of one specific thing.

Sorry I touched you in your bathing suit area.  It was just a random example, and I thought it was apt because it was somebody that many consider to be a great actress who totally couldn't pull of the physical part of a role.  It matters.

Lynda Carter, ironically, is another great example.  She gets a pass, however, on account that she was unbelievably gorgeous.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 06, 2014, 01:51:37 PM
Ragnaros, I am unsure what you are trying to say with that Rousey picture, but that is hands down one of the worst photos I have ever seen of her.  Awkward stance, and that is from a weigh-in were she is all drawn out and dehydrated.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 06, 2014, 02:12:58 PM
I think he's saying she looks good yet still muscular. I mean, that's what I'm saying when I look at that pic. Also, schwing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hoax on August 06, 2014, 02:56:19 PM
The problem with this movie is going to be DC is trying to be more like Marvel movies and they just aren't smart enough to even halfway pull it off. As others have noted Marvel would have put Affleck Batman and/orWonder Woman in their own movies first. This just isn't setup in any kind of sensible way. On top of that DC is run by people who think comics are stupid and comic movies are stupid and the people who care are the worst. So predictably all their movies are shit.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 06, 2014, 07:08:18 PM
Re: Whedon Girls: The guy writes and casts women he wants to bone. It's that simple.

 :roll:

You think he casts them for what - their acting ability? Eliza Dushku, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Summer Glau...stellar actresses!

I suppose you could be a bit more charitable and say he casts women he thinks the audience wants to bone. The point is he doesn't mind casting women who look hilariously ridiculous fighting as long as they look hot doing it. Those are his priorities.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 06, 2014, 08:21:14 PM
I think Summer Glau is pretty good at playing the characters she's been cast to play. And looks fairly convincing fighting.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 06, 2014, 08:52:10 PM
She's definitely the best out of those 3. SMG never learned how to throw a punch in all her years doing Buffy.

To me "she's a sexy high schooler / hooker / leather chick who looks hot and has grrl power" is already a little tiring, then you throw in not being good at acting or stage fighting and I'm out. (I forgot Cobie Smulders and that SHIELD chick!)

I'm kind of curious how Scarlett Johansson was cast. I assume it was run by Joss, by I also assume he wasn't as involved as in the casting of parts particular to Avengers or SHIELD. He clearly has one type and she's not it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Nevermore on August 06, 2014, 10:23:27 PM
I think Summer Glau is pretty good at playing the characters she's been cast to play. And looks fairly convincing fighting.


She's a classically trained ballet dancer.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ragnoros on August 06, 2014, 11:32:03 PM
I think he's saying she looks good yet still muscular. I mean, that's what I'm saying when I look at that pic. Also, schwing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 06, 2014, 11:56:00 PM

Lynda Carter, ironically, is another great example.  She gets a pass, however, on account that she was unbelievably gorgeous.
It was also the 70's, we had much lower standards when it came to fight choreography.  Half-assed wrist blocks were closer to real fighting than most Americans had ever seen on TV.

--Dave


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 07, 2014, 12:49:31 AM
Very true.  But still, she was also stupidly good-looking.  Hell, I think she might still be.

Summer Glau is also waif-like, but she pulls it off by virtue of actually being athletic.

I don't know much about what gives Joss Whedon a boner, but the casting of Scarlett Johansson is not terribly mysterious.  Right around that timeframe was when she was routinely be called "the most beautiful woman ever, ever".  I may have added those last two words myself.  Anyway, casting her wasn't exactly going out on a limb.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on August 07, 2014, 01:16:38 AM
She's definitely the best out of those 3. SMG never learned how to throw a punch in all her years doing Buffy.

To me "she's a sexy high schooler / hooker / leather chick who looks hot and has grrl power" is already a little tiring, then you throw in not being good at acting or stage fighting and I'm out. (I forgot Cobie Smulders and that SHIELD chick!)

I'm kind of curious how Scarlett Johansson was cast. I assume it was run by Joss, by I also assume he wasn't as involved as in the casting of parts particular to Avengers or SHIELD. He clearly has one type and she's not it.

I seem to remember Emily Blunt was the original casting fwiw.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Velorath on August 07, 2014, 04:55:08 AM
Re: Whedon Girls: The guy writes and casts women he wants to bone. It's that simple.

 :roll:

You think he casts them for what - their acting ability? Eliza Dushku, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Summer Glau...stellar actresses!

I suppose you could be a bit more charitable and say he casts women he thinks the audience wants to bone. The point is he doesn't mind casting women who look hilariously ridiculous fighting as long as they look hot doing it. Those are his priorities.

At least you're willing to very marginally backpedal from suggesting he's just casting women he wants to fuck. Of course, I'm not sure "he casts hot chicks on TV shows" is quite the searing insight you seem to think it is. The phrase Whedon Girls is kinda retarded also considering Charlie's Angels and Wonder Woman predate Buffy by a couple decades.

Also, Summer Glau didn't really do much in the way of fighting in Firefly until Serenity (where, as others mentioned she did a good job). Gina Torres was the tough female character on the show and looked convincing in the part.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 07, 2014, 06:28:54 AM
Yeah, her Serenity character was totally different as far as that was concerned.  I seemed to also remember her being a pretty convincing terminator.  That is actually quite a feat, the more I think about it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 07, 2014, 06:39:56 AM
At least you're willing to very marginally backpedal from suggesting he's just casting women he wants to fuck.

No, I'm saying someone could say that to be more charitable. That someone isn't me. 

Maybe Tarantino casts Uma Thurman because he thinks audiences really want to see Uma Thurman. Sure.


Quote
The phrase Whedon Girls is kinda retarded also considering Charlie's Angels and Wonder Woman predate Buffy by a couple decades.

Joss Whedon has what, 5 shows, as well as a bunch of movies, that reflect the same casting tendencies. If you want to say he makes Charlie's Angels level shlock I agree 100%.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 07, 2014, 06:47:55 AM
I must be dense, but I don't understand what those casting tendencies are you are referring to and more importantly what would be so unusual about such a thing if it is true.  The reasons that all of these movies are filled with attractive women is because we all want to bang them on some level.  It would seem odd if the directors that cast them didn't also want to bang them on some level.  If Joss Whedon prefers a certain kind of female, then it is also not terribly unusual that he would cast that kind of female.  And as far as I can tell, the women he picks tend to be pretty popular with the rest of us as well.  Hollywood owes a lot of its success to casting attractive people.

Maybe I just really don't get the point you are making.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: tazelbain on August 07, 2014, 09:28:07 AM
I think its cognitive dissonance of casting waives as martial arts bad asses.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on August 07, 2014, 09:41:09 AM
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow originally appeared in Iron Man 2. I don't think Whedon was involved by then.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 07, 2014, 10:03:04 AM
Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow originally appeared in Iron Man 2. I don't think Whedon was involved by then.


This. If anything, blame Jon Favreau as opposed to Whedon. I'm pretty sure the Josster had little input.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Velorath on August 07, 2014, 03:53:43 PM
I think its cognitive dissonance of casting waives as martial arts bad asses.

Which again, is pretty common. Right now Guardians of the Galaxy, a movie that most of us here seem to love, cast Zoe Saldana as the "most dangerous woman in the Galaxy". She also previously stared in Colombiana written by Luc Besson, who directed movies such as La Femme Nikita and The Fifth Element, which involved waifs Anne Parillaud and Milla Jovovich being badasses. Michelle Yeoh was never trained for martial arts prior to doing movies, and much like Summer Glau, was a trained dancer. Prior to Gina Carano doing a bit of acting, was there some pool of good actresses who are physically intimidating who were being underutilized?

Also, that dissonance was at least half the point of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The premise of the movie and the show is essentially that she's incredibly unlikely person to be the sole defender of humanity. Charisma Carpenter was looking fairly fit in Angel, especially as the show went on (another former ballet dancer as well as aerobics instructor and NFL cheerleader, so someone who obviously works out quite a bit). I still haven't seen a lot of Dollhouse so I can't really comment there. Firefly, as I said earlier, had Zoe as the badass not River (Summer Glau). Aside from shooting three people in one episode, River generally just got to hang out in the ship and be crazy. The martial arts badass in Agents of Shield is Ming-Na Wen, who maybe isn't the most physically imposing person but I'm not sure casting someone who is 50 years old fits in with the casting tendencies Margalis is talking about.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on August 07, 2014, 04:50:47 PM
Ming-na is buff bro.

(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/123/b/6/curvy_and_muscular_ming_na_wen_by_saitta4-d3finbj.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on August 07, 2014, 07:23:49 PM
This thread has gone a lot of places since I last posted.  So I guess I'll keep tangents going.   :awesome_for_real:
I don't agree.  When Rousey is cleaned up, she is really good looking and her physique is way closer to Amazon Warrior than Carano's.  Hair would need to be black, obviously.

Cant comment on her acting, but physique... (slight nsfw)


First, seriously, while she has a nice stomach, that chick is just not that attractive.  Especially compared to Gina Carano, whom I feel as a better physique.  Which actually makes me ask, why do you think she has a better physique for the role of Amazon Warrior than Carano?  Especially for the role of wonder woman (of which Carano seems to have two key advantages  :why_so_serious:).  Just curious.

My experience with Whedon is mainly limited to Firefly and his avengers stuff, but at least from that, I don't understand the Whedon Girl complains.  Summer made herself a very convincing fighter, and as others have said, the other main women on the show looked rather buff.  Only people who do wrestling and need the weight have to have physique like Carano or Rousey when fighting (which is all UFC seems to be).  Fast martial arts fighters (which in reality is more show than practical) don't, so very thin girls can easily make a convincing show in film of being an ultimate fighter.

The dissonance you guys complain about changes when we deal with comics.  Yes, Superman has always been drawn muscular, so we expect that.  But its because he was always drawn that way and what we are expecting to see in a film (along with red underwear and cape), since his sick triceps aren't what allow him to pick up buildings and throw them into space.  But it works the other way on women, since most women superheros (until recently) have always been drawn pretty damn slim/sexy.  So its what we expect.  A buff as shit wonder women causes me a much greater dissonance than a thin one, because most of pop culture remembers her as just a hot chick with big boobs running around in a swim suit.  Only in newer comics (like the one I showed above) do they seem to really try tone/muscle her up.  Linda Carter, for better or worst, is a big reference for people.  Hell, after arguing in this thread and wondering if I was crazy, I showed some co-workers (mainly in 30's to 40's age range) that promo picture that got released.  All 5 of them reacted roughly the same: "Wow, they really made Wonder Woman masculine!"   :awesome_for_real:

So yes, when casting for the characters of Black Widow or Wonder Woman, they are casting correctly as far as what people are expecting to see physically.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 07, 2014, 07:33:51 PM
I think its cognitive dissonance of casting waives as martial arts bad asses.

It's more the cognitive dissonance of casting bad actresses with the same body type in most roles regardless of how suitable they are.

I'm not saying every tough girl in movies has to be played by Ronda Rousey. But it's nice when a person cast actually fits the role to some degree, in looks or demeanor or being able to act appropriately.

In La Femme Nikita the female lead does a great job. No, she's not a body-builder or martial arts experts, but she pulls off the role. That's she's a rabid unhinged person who gets molded into an assassin is at least somewhat believable in the context of the movie.

Sigourney Weaver wasn't super ripped in the Alien films but she worked. Linda Hamilton was in good shape for T2 but she wasn't a martial arts expert. These women weren't real life badasses but they were good actresses.

Cobie Smulders is not convincing as a SHIELD higher-up. SMG is not convincing as an ass-kicker. SHIELD hacker chick is not convincing as a brainy hacker chick. Some of that is how they look, but a lot of that is how they act - not well. It's like these dozen interchangeable CW shows that are filled with good-looking bad actors. Being good looking or having a certain body type isn't an issue. The issue is when people are cast regardless of talent because of those attributes.

It's not "is this a tough person in real life?" This is acting. The question is "can this person act like a tough person onscreen?" Or "can this person act like a hacker?" Or a scientist, or whatever the role calls for. Tara Reid and Denise Richards didn't work as scientists because they are dumb in real life and, more importantly, don't have the acting ability to play a not-dumb person.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Velorath on August 07, 2014, 07:48:57 PM
Dushku maybe isn't a great actress, but SMG did get nominated for a Golden Globe one year for Buffy.  She's certainly not my favorite, but I wouldn't call her a bad actress. Especially since we're talking about a show on the WB. I'm not sure what young Academy Award winner you think they could have snagged for that role. Aside from that, I'm not sure where all these horrible actresses Whedon cast are.

Edit: Ok, Skye kinda sucks also.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Numtini on August 07, 2014, 09:09:13 PM
I think Whedon tends to cast mediocre people and get the best out of them, a lot like JMS did. I can understand the critiques of Whedon Girls, but overall, he's better than most.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 07, 2014, 09:29:33 PM
Buffy doesn't count either, she was supposed to be a cheerleader who gets supernatural strength.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 08, 2014, 12:38:08 AM
This thread has gone a lot of places since I last posted.  So I guess I'll keep tangents going.   :awesome_for_real:
I don't agree.  When Rousey is cleaned up, she is really good looking and her physique is way closer to Amazon Warrior than Carano's.  Hair would need to be black, obviously.

Cant comment on her acting, but physique... (slight nsfw)


First, seriously, while she has a nice stomach, that chick is just not that attractive.  Especially compared to Gina Carano, whom I feel as a better physique.  Which actually makes me ask, why do you think she has a better physique for the role of Amazon Warrior than Carano?  Especially for the role of wonder woman (of which Carano seems to have two key advantages  :why_so_serious:).  Just curious.


Again, that is a terrible photo, but I assume you are not judging her solely on that one.  Anyway, I also think Gina Carano is attractive and probably would fit the WW bill fairly well (I have no idea how well she acts, but she'd have the physical parts down).  My preference for Rousey is based do some degree on the fact that she simply gives me tingly feelings in my special place.  But mostly it is because she is a true to life bad ass.  Carano still comes across to me as a delicate princess.  I know this sound a bit too much like Internet Tough Guy (and I will admit that I am possibly wrong), but I would wager money that I could destroy Gina Carano.  On the other hand, I would wager zero dollars if I had to take on Rousey.  Partly because my boner would get in the way, but mostly because I actually think she would beat the shit out of me.  No, I don't actually want to fight any women.  The point is, Rousey is both very good looking in my opinion, has a crazy physique, and actually kicks a serious amount of real-world ass.

Interestingly enough, there still seems to be a chance that they will fight each other IRL.

   


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on August 08, 2014, 02:40:18 AM
Yeah, sorry, does sound a bit internet tough guy, haha.   :-P  I don’t know if you also do MMA fighting as a hobby and are ripped, so maybe you can actually make a call like that.  But I personally make the assumption that any man or women who have gotten themselves up to the level of being a professional competitive fighter can kick the shit out of me, since I’m not.

Anyways, just different strokes it seems, and we could tangent off forever on this.  I’ll let this very serious thread resume its course.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cyrrex on August 08, 2014, 03:10:32 AM
Yeah, sorry, does sound a bit internet tough guy, haha.   :-P

What's the point of a thread about a Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman movie where we can't debate which female actresses/MMA fighter are most suitable for the part and which ones we couldn't whoop IRL?   :awesome_for_real:

I shouldn't talk anyway, I have a pretty significant back injury I am still recovering from.  I couldn't even beat up my wife at this point.  Maybe in a week or two.

Still pretty sure I could take Carano if I were healthy. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 08, 2014, 07:35:53 AM
I couldn't even beat up my wife at this point.  Maybe in a week or two.


Don't give up on your dreams.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on August 08, 2014, 10:25:42 AM
I think Whedon tends to cast mediocre people and get the best out of them, a lot like JMS did. I can understand the critiques of Whedon Girls, but overall, he's better than most.
If you're referencing B5, I'd say that calling the cast mediocre is off base.  There were some great actors on that show.  There would have been even more but for the studio influence.  I'm not saying there were not bas ones as well - but at least half the main cast he intended were really great actors.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on August 08, 2014, 10:39:16 AM
I think where you could say that JMS got better performances than you might otherwise have expected through good writing and direction would be Boxleitner, Mumy and Furst. Jurasik and Katsulas actually frankly breathed more life into their characters than the scripts demanded, and more or less compelled JMS to build even better plotting around them as a result.

I think that happens when any decent showrunner/director meets up with any decent ensemble cast: some people push forward and make their characters more than anybody thought they would be going in.

If you want somebody who REALLY can't do that, Snyder strikes me as pretty much the definition of that kind of director. Because his stuff is so visual but shallow--he really doesn't have a feel for the soul of what he's doing in any film, even the ones that aren't awful.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 08, 2014, 10:42:34 AM
Yeah, I'm not counting on Synder to get a great performance out of Oscar winning actors, much less the people has has cast in this movie - especially if he is writing the screenplay.

He's like McG only he has a modicum of directing talent, just not much soul. Like a less technically savvy James Cameron.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 08, 2014, 10:43:37 AM
Every character in man of steel was bland and unremarkable.  SvB is going to suck balls for that reason alone, it doesn't really matter who they cast as what.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on August 08, 2014, 11:02:13 AM
I disagree. I thought Amy Adams did well as Lois Lane.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: tazelbain on August 08, 2014, 11:05:09 AM
Says a lot that the best character is the most forgettable.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on August 08, 2014, 11:11:42 AM
Amy Adams did fine, but the script didn't give her anything interesting to do.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lantyssa on August 08, 2014, 11:16:36 AM
It helps that Adams is a good actor.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on August 08, 2014, 11:53:01 AM
I disagree. I thought Amy Adams did well as Lois Lane.

Not really.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on August 08, 2014, 02:08:49 PM
Amy Adams is a fine actor but as said before she did literally nothing memorable in the movie except...I don't even know, she was just there. Was she good at her part of just standing around? Sure. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on August 08, 2014, 07:41:10 PM
Yeah, I'm not seeing how the cast of B5 was bad or even middling. Maybe the original main character guy who was pushed into the background when Bruce B came on board.

For Joss I think his scripts basically don't require a lot of acting, which is why mediocre actors do ok. It's less that he somehow gets the best out of them and more that he just doesn't demand much. Most of his characters are sort of jokey, there are few serious moments, and what serious moments there are still exist in that jokey context. Much of his work takes place in a sort of stylized universe where things feel unreal, so the actors don't have to portray authentic-feeling characters. They can get by on natural charisma and playing themselves to a large degree.

It's like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Cleopatra 2525 or soap operas. These types of shows don't require a lot of acting just inherently. On a soap opera when a character is shocked instead of the actor playing authentic shocked they play soap opera shocked. The expectation is that they aren't even trying to approximate real life, it's more a weird, heightened, melodramatic and fake version of real life.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on March 25, 2015, 12:00:52 PM
First pic of Eisenberg as Luthor.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA9IorUW4AAI3HH.jpg)

Edit: Link; https://twitter.com/ew/status/580741980159889409


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on March 25, 2015, 12:43:58 PM
First pic of Eisenberg as Luthor.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA9IorUW4AAI3HH.jpg)

Broken link, Entertainment Weekly has the image. It is... a bald Jesse Eisenberg. Nothing seems remotely memorable or remarkable about the image. In fact he looks like he lost a bet at a college frat party.

Contrast Cavill and Eisenberg. Cavill fits this prototypical masculine apex, while Eisenberg looks more like a man child. Maybe that is the point? Are they going to have Luthor be more a Zuckerberg / Sam Jackson in Kingsman type?

That could actually work, done right. Harry Osborn in Amazing Spider Man is how it is done wrong.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 25, 2015, 03:14:39 PM
Clearly it could work, they hired a guy who can act to play a character who can be written and directed as a fully human person. Actually I suspect the villains in MoS universe will be fine, the DC universe has better material on the evil side and Zac Snyder is less awful at antagonists.

People way overvalue what an actor looks like. It only matters if either the writer, director, or actor is bad at their job.

Harry Osborne was not a casting problem.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 25, 2015, 03:34:55 PM
Are they going to have Luthor be more a Zuckerberg type?

Yes, I think that's exactly what they are going for.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 25, 2015, 04:56:34 PM
And hollywood has 0 imagination when it comes to casting.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cadaverine on March 31, 2015, 07:28:28 PM
I don't see Eisenberg as Luther, but I was wrong about Heath Ledger, so who knows.  For my money, I'd have gone with Mark Strong.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Surlyboi on April 02, 2015, 04:17:48 PM
That's just because he's bald and English.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 02, 2015, 04:34:54 PM
Do what Marvel did - Samuel L Jackson as Luther.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: pxib on April 02, 2015, 05:39:05 PM
Mark Strong's too British. Billy Zane. Seriously. He's gone bald and he'd chew all the right scenery.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Nevermore on April 02, 2015, 07:14:05 PM
Vincent D'onofrio!  Michael Chiklis!

Have we run out of bald people yet?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 02, 2015, 07:56:53 PM
Vincent D'onofrio!  Michael Chiklis!

Have we run out of bald people yet?

Sinead O'Conner!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: pxib on April 02, 2015, 08:36:40 PM
Vin Diesel!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Pennilenko on April 02, 2015, 08:53:35 PM
Vin Diesel!
I would watch him as Lex Luthor. My wife said she would watch him as anything.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 02, 2015, 10:18:31 PM
You know, I hear they have technology that can actually remove hair. Thinking a bit outside the box Norman Reedus. Picture him bald, glaring, suited up and hiding that Walking Dead accent.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on April 03, 2015, 10:16:06 PM
Do what Marvel did - Samuel L Jackson as Luther.

So, make him Luther in the comics and then like 10 years later cast him in the movie?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 04, 2015, 07:32:18 AM
I dunno, I'm warming to the idea of Lex Luthor as a sociopathic Silicon Valley type. I think that's a nice updating of the character along several lines.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on April 04, 2015, 04:15:52 PM
Besides Sam Jackson has at least been twice a brainy comic book villain including playing off a nigh-invulnerable superhero.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: DraconianOne on April 17, 2015, 05:00:51 AM
New trailer out next week has been leaked early (although WB are hunting them down like a pig after truffles)

(http://i.imgur.com/jySAo78.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 17, 2015, 10:01:14 AM
Hmmmm... not really digging the hammer-blow lack of subtlety in the worship Superman as a God stuff. Talk about heavy fucking handed.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on April 17, 2015, 10:05:09 AM
I am not digging the entire premise of the movie, which means I'll either:

1. never see it and never give it a second thought
2. see it and it will go straight to the top 10 of my most favorite action adventure movies.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Draegan on April 17, 2015, 10:15:17 AM
I still don't understand Batman vs. Superman outside comicbook circle jerk stuff.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: murdoc on April 17, 2015, 10:36:01 AM
http://io9.com/everybody-hates-superman-in-the-first-batman-v-superman-1698392005

MEH


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 17, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Really not learned any lesson at all, have they ?

I read Dark Knight.  Don't particularly need to see one 5 minute scene in it stretched to a 3 hour marketing marathon.

Pass.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lantyssa on April 17, 2015, 11:14:58 AM
Also nice to know Batman is a pscyho.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 17, 2015, 11:33:27 AM
Somebody decided that what they were really making was a film of Alan Moore's Miracleman, I guess.

This is still very clearly being driven by the combination of Snyder's bad combination of good visual skills/shit narrative skills and Goyer's intense dislike for comic-books and superheroes. I have no idea why the suits at WB think that's the right combination for making superhero movies that will build up a franchise.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on April 17, 2015, 11:39:04 AM
Did someone already post this when the first teaser came out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQPYAhcEhlo


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Maven on April 17, 2015, 12:07:37 PM
Also nice to know Batman is a pscyho.

Hasn't it been obvious for years?  :grin:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 17, 2015, 12:26:22 PM
The phrase to describe the entire movie "Unnecessarily dark"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on April 17, 2015, 12:35:06 PM
The phrase to describe the entire movie "Unnecessarily dark"

I was thinking more like, "May the best orphan win."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on April 17, 2015, 05:54:42 PM
Any working links for that trailer?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 17, 2015, 06:15:04 PM
Might have to wait til Monday.  WB is really going after that leak.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: DraconianOne on April 17, 2015, 07:19:21 PM
https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/589197792662278144 (https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/589197792662278144)

YouTube when it happens...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on April 17, 2015, 10:13:46 PM
That doesn't look good at all.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on April 17, 2015, 10:39:16 PM
I dunno. The trailer has a much more believable premise than other plots I've read, kind of a Steelheart/alpha-Reckoners (http://www.amazon.com/Steelheart-The-Reckoners-Brandon-Sanderson/dp/1491512466) plot. I loved Miller's '86 Dark Knight Returns too, but that wouldn't play on the big screen without a few more Batman and Superman movies which DC doesn't have time to get done if they ever want their TV shows to ever converge into big screen offerings. And even that didn't get too deep into the fascist stuff (comics).

Thought Ben Affleck being Wayne in that one scene had the right look. But I don't get the paper mache Batman suit in the one that follows.

I'm not the first to wonder whether they know how to market this though. I also think the timing is off. Wait until Jan/Feb at least. They don't benefit from trailers this early. I mean heck, what are they, a Presidential candidate?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 17, 2015, 10:46:50 PM
I think DC is really just trying to hard with the gritty/dark feel to their movies.  On the other hand we have Feige saying the next Spider-Man movie will be the total wise-cracking teenage Peter Parker that we haven't really seen yet on the screen.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 18, 2015, 02:55:06 AM
Now that I've seen the not grainy pirated version - still too goddamn grimdark. The Batman voice doesn't bother me at all. It actually sounds better than the Bale voice because it sounds computer modulated, which makes more sense than gargling gravel.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Samwise on April 18, 2015, 04:57:09 AM
I'm more excited about this than I am about Star Wars.  Maybe because I have some clue what the movie is going to be about.   :awesome_for_real:

I'd be just as happy seeing a movie about a feared god-being if it wasn't called Superman, since obviously Superman isn't actually supposed to be all grimdark with Superman as a morally ambiguous character, but I'm not enough of a Superman fan to give any shits about them being stupid with the brand, so whatever.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: pxib on April 18, 2015, 11:45:05 AM
Weirdly, the most positive feeling I got out of that trailer was: "Oh yay, Holly Hunter!"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 18, 2015, 12:52:26 PM
Neil DeGrasse Tyson too.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Cadaverine on July 11, 2015, 03:59:19 PM
So, they released the Comic-con trailer.  It looks much better than the previous trailer they released, though I'm still not sold on Eisenberg as Luther, especially with the hair.

https://youtu.be/0WWzgGyAH6Y (https://youtu.be/0WWzgGyAH6Y)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Draegan on July 11, 2015, 04:08:31 PM
I went from not caring to interested with that trailer.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on July 11, 2015, 04:59:26 PM
Yeah that was better. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 11, 2015, 05:51:29 PM
Nope.  Still not interested.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on July 11, 2015, 06:12:08 PM
lolkryptonite.

And fuck that shitty Luthor.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Setanta on July 11, 2015, 07:29:41 PM
lolkryptonite.

And fuck that shitty Luthor.

That... was... Luthor...?

Yeah... nah. That was the only downside to the clip for me.

Not a Superman fan but I'm starting to get interested in the film.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on July 11, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
Nope.  Still not interested.



Yep, put me in this camp too.

I just re-watched Man of Steel the other day too, Christ they just don't GET IT.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on July 11, 2015, 08:38:59 PM
Look, it's easy movie making math. Superhero + more superheroes = profit! Now we just need the Wonder Twins...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Thrawn on July 11, 2015, 10:23:05 PM
The nerd in me just can't ever get past guy with lots of money vs guy who, well, is Superman.

But then again I guess we already had Iron Man, Thor and Captain throwing punches at each other like they were on equal levels, so meh.

Yes, I know, NEEERRRRDDD.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lantyssa on July 11, 2015, 10:26:23 PM
I'm sure the epic team-up at the end will be what causes Luthor to lose his hair and thus turns him irredeemably evil.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 11, 2015, 10:42:53 PM
lolkryptonite.

And fuck that shitty Luthor.

Yeah, this. "The red capes are coming?"

... the fuck? When did Luthor become the goddamn Joker? It's a sad indictment of this when Affleck's Batman looks like the best thing in it.

Still fucking hate that Wonder Woman costume. Not that I won't go see this because I'm a geek, but still.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on July 11, 2015, 10:53:07 PM
 I'll bitch about the DC movies, but my geek will still drive me to see these movies. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on July 12, 2015, 01:25:44 AM
I'll just remind those that are hopefull. It's still being directed by Snyder.

There is some REAL DUMB SHIT in this trailer. And the MechaBat suit still looks fucking dumb. Just dumb.

Superman has a police force now. And Batman decided a disguise was throwing an overcoat over his batsuit.

What the christ is going on in this movie.

The best batman news out of SDCC was the animated Killing Joke film.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soulflame on July 12, 2015, 12:35:05 PM
Is it too late to vote for a young Ben Kingsley as Lex Luthor?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on July 12, 2015, 01:20:59 PM
The nerd in me just can't ever get past guy with lots of money vs guy who, well, is Superman.

But then again I guess we already had Iron Man, Thor and Captain throwing punches at each other like they were on equal levels, so meh.

Yes, I know, NEEERRRRDDD.
Batman pretty much beats Superman every time they go against each other in what ever random comic.

Because everybody hates superman.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 12, 2015, 01:36:06 PM

 It's a sad indictment of this when Affleck's Batman looks like the best thing in it.

 

Yeah, Affleck's Batman didn't look bad. It looked to me like Affleck also really bulked up for the role. That said, I groaned when I saw the alleyway shooting and funeral for the Wayne parents. Guess what DC/WB? Every person on the planet knows how Batman became Batman. Every. Single. One. We don't need to see it again, especially not in a "Superman" movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on July 12, 2015, 04:25:42 PM
Affleck as Bruce Wayne... yes. He looked the part.

Affleck as Batman... no. George Clooney no.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on July 12, 2015, 05:16:09 PM
Only new thing I disliked in the trailer was seeing the Batsuit.

Wonder woman and Luthor looked fine to me. And if they are using what Superman did in MoS as Batman's motivation, that actually feels like a good idea.

Core problems remain :
 Zac Snyder and David S Goyer are making this/any film.
 Ben Affleck is in it but not cast as an angry young man.
 Film has Superman in it and it is inexplicably not "Lois and Clark the Movie".
 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 12, 2015, 05:18:03 PM
I'm guessing that we'll just see the shooting really quickly in passing (I hope).

I was prepared to accept Lex Luthor as Mark Zuckerberg but the koo-koo vibe in the trailer is not at all right for any version of the character.

Still lots of 15-year old boyish DESTROY! BOOM! LASER EYES! FUCK! stuff here, enough to remind me who is making the film.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on July 12, 2015, 10:37:48 PM
The trailer gives me the impression that there will be like 3 or 4 main plotlines going on in this movie; Superman/Batman conflict, Superman and the government conflict (which may or may not be related to Lex Luthor/Superman conflict) and it seems like there's some other Superman action that will cause the Superman/Batman conflict and somehow Wonder Woman is involved.

It really looks like it's going to be a confused mess plot wise and I'm still not excited about the Luthor character. I will say that I really like the Batman costume for this though, it does a really good job of giving him a strong physical presence. Superman also looks beefier and more 'Superman'. Although that leaves Wonder Woman looking a bit more out of place.

I'm expecting this to be visually great and everything else to range from  :uhrr: to  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 12, 2015, 11:34:20 PM
I re-watched the trailer and finally realized that it doesn't look like a Superman movie, it looks like Injustice: Gods Among Us - The Movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Setanta on July 13, 2015, 02:20:51 AM
I re-watched the trailer and finally realized that it doesn't look like a Superman movie, it looks like Injustice: Gods Among Us - The Movie.

So I thought to myself - you haven't seen a Superman movie since Christopher Reeve donned the cape - go have a look at Man of Steel as a weather vane for this movie.

OMFG whit a steaming pile of dogshit. The only thing I would have loved to see more of was ... oh I don't know... A whole film dedicated to Jor El because fuck me the rest of it was insipid boring shit. Superpowers are boring if you are indestructible. I was seriously praying for kryptonite to rain from the heavens and kill the hell out of everyone. Acctually, I would have been more interested in Jor El vs Zod the movie than the rest of this film.

Batman is interesting - Superman not.

I actually like the Injustice comics until it got all "lol magic". But that's because it really addresses the issue of abuse of power.





(And I really want to see Superman get trashed)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on July 13, 2015, 02:53:38 AM
No, don't go and look at Man of Steel, it's a trap and you will never recover those 2 hours of your life.

You can just trust us, it was bad and superman looked like this trailer.

Before watching any superman movie ask yourself "Is Terence Stamp in this?" if not, do not waste your time.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 13, 2015, 03:43:26 AM
Indeed.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on July 13, 2015, 06:17:02 AM
Indeed.
;D

I like Zach Snynder movies.  Yeah I said it.  300 was great, Watchmen was great, ok Suckerpunch was bad.  MoS was good in spots, bad in others.  I like his visual style.  He's not doing "Pride and Prejudice and Superpowers", he's making good summer popcorn action films.

As for BvS, I'll withhold final judgement, but I suspect it will be like MoS with cool action and a suspect script.  David S. Goyer.  He and Lindelhof should get a room.  In hell.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rishathra on July 13, 2015, 07:44:43 AM
As far as this trailer seems to indicate at least, I like that it looks to address the issues brought up by MoS, like how people might not be thrilled that an alien just helped trash a major city.

Another theme continued from the previous movie - apparently BOTH Kents are horrible parents with shit messages for their kid.  "Be a good person... or not.  It doesn't matter.  You don't owe this world anything."  I'll give Superman some credit that he actually had a 'WTF Mom?!' look on his face there.

I'm definitely digging Affleck as Wayne.  Not sure about Batman, but I think that's more because the suit is kind of shitty.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on July 13, 2015, 08:31:58 AM
Indeed.
;D

I like Zach Snynder movies.  Yeah I said it.  300 was great, Watchmen was great, ok Suckerpunch was bad.  MoS was good in spots, bad in others.  I like his visual style.  He's not doing "Pride and Prejudice and Superpowers", he's making good summer popcorn action films.

I don't even understand this.

MoS works even less well if you aren't giving credit for artistic effort. I actually like the idea of the Kents being not amazing, and superman having to deal with collateral damage - with my beret on this was only unwatchable because it was badly written and badly shot by someone incapable of making flawed humans relatable.

OTOH purely as an action movie it was just overlong and boring.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 13, 2015, 09:48:08 AM
The problem with just acknowledging the criticism (people are angry at Superman for destroying much of Metropolis! Grimdark realism!) is that it both misses the point of the criticism (most people were saying, 'Look, this character just doesn't throw skyscrapers at his enemies or ignore people dying all around him, you missed the point of the character') and it's not a sustainable line of plot development for any superhero film unless it wants to go all the way to the Watchmen/Miracleman boundary of the genre. E.g., the more you emphasize the 'realism' of having people angry with Superman and Zod for battling in the the middle of a city, the more you use 9/11 as a visual comparison, the more you make it impossible to enjoy the 'popcorn action' and the less plausible it becomes that these characters are 'superheroes' in any way that invokes comics as a genre or form.

Snyder et al want their cake and eat it too on this point. Think of how batshit crazy the American government and a strong majority of its people went when *one* building was destroyed and another damaged by terrorism. If two near-gods destroyed much of a city in the course of an alien attack, the whole planet would be irrevocably changed in fundamental ways, and there is absolutely no way that anybody would in their right mind be thinking about Superman as a warm, fuzzy guy who saves people from drowning and cats from trees. Pro-Superman people would be like John Yoo or Dick Cheney, in all likelihood, except without the nationalism (since Supes pointedly declined to work with the US government at the end of Man of Steel). I guess that's what all the fascist weirdos bowing to Superman in the trailer are probably about, but that's the point--if you're going to go Watchman, go all the way Watchman, go "Justice Lords" or "Injustice". Don't stop in a kind of queasy middle.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on July 13, 2015, 10:03:18 AM
The alternative, of course, being Superman as 'Pet'.  As you saw in TDKR.  Which is what fundamentally bothers me about this film;  It seems to be drawing the main inspiration from the fight scene in that book, but misses the entire point of what the fight was actually about.  It wasn't about two Superheroes going at each other, it was a larger point about how fundamentally unworkable as heroes this fucking pair were.  One was a Psychotic and the other was a trained Alien that Reagan kept as a pet.

And now, we've got what ?  Batman pissed off at 9/11 and Superman.... What exactly ?  After Man of Steel, what the fuck IS he anymore, apart from a cataclysmic plot mess ?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 13, 2015, 10:45:45 AM
Uh.. point of order, Four Buildings were destroyed on 9/11 not one. WTC1, 2, 3 and 5. I can understand missing 3 and 5 but wtf mate on combining 1 & 2.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 13, 2015, 10:49:28 AM
Four buildings. Thanks. That has a major effect on the point I was making.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 13, 2015, 11:17:58 AM
I liked Man of Steel in the theaters, and I thought they got the spectacle of 2 super-powered beings going at it down. I really liked Amy Adams portrayal of Lois Lane, and I liked Kevin Costner as Pa Kent (though even in the theater thought his death was wasteful). The part I really hated was killing Zod SPOILER!!!!

Then I watched it again a few months ago. It did not hold up well. It suffered from comparison to any of the Marvel movies - it's just not as good, not as coherent and really focuses way too much on gritty naturalist style. I think that grimdark naturalism is really lost on the DC characters other than Batman. This looks to double down on it and I think it's going to hurt the whole brand.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Yegolev on July 13, 2015, 03:13:33 PM
I'm sure the epic team-up at the end will be what causes Luthor to lose his hair and thus turns him irredeemably evil.

Having read the original origin, this made me chuckle.  Good job.  I always thought hair loss was a crap reason to become a villain.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on July 13, 2015, 03:54:31 PM
I'm sure the epic team-up at the end will be what causes Luthor to lose his hair and thus turns him irredeemably evil.

Having read the original origin, this made me chuckle.  Good job.  I always thought hair loss was a crap reason to become a villain.

Not at all, it's happening to Donald Trump.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on July 13, 2015, 03:58:13 PM
What I took from the trailer was go see Deadpool.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on July 13, 2015, 05:45:37 PM
...really focuses way too much on gritty naturalist style. I think that grimdark naturalism is really lost on the DC characters other than Batman. This looks to double down on it and I think it's going to hurt the whole brand.

Yeah, Superman just doesn't make a great brooding hero fighting to the death in scenes with most of the color washed out.  I don't have the faintest idea why someone thought that would work.

Did someone already post this in this thread? Hell, maybe I did.  Whatever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gd3vpgJwlM


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on July 13, 2015, 10:28:08 PM
The problem with Superman Man of Steel was

A. Too little superman
B. Superman sticks out like a bright neon sign in his own world. Everyone else is some variation of washed out grey, dirty white, or storm cloud black.
C. Everything that doesn't involve superman punching shit serves no purpose. Lios Lane not needed. The 30 minute mini movie about Kyrpoton, not needed. His smallvile backstory also not needed. No part of that movie gives me a reason not to fall asleep beyond seeing the super people wreck shit. And thats a shame AND a problem.
D. Lios Lane. Why.

What I see wrong with the new trailer...

Wonder Woman...why...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on July 13, 2015, 10:35:09 PM
What I took from the trailer was go see Deadpool.

Deadpool and the new X-Men look good so far.  I am just don't care enough about Fantastic Four atm.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sir T on July 14, 2015, 07:03:21 AM
The alternative, of course, being Superman as 'Pet'.  As you saw in TDKR.  Which is what fundamentally bothers me about this film;  It seems to be drawing the main inspiration from the fight scene in that book, but misses the entire point of what the fight was actually about.  It wasn't about two Superheroes going at each other, it was a larger point about how fundamentally unworkable as heroes this fucking pair were.  One was a Psychotic and the other was a trained Alien that Reagan kept as a pet.

And now, we've got what ?  Batman pissed off at 9/11 and Superman.... What exactly ?  After Man of Steel, what the fuck IS he anymore, apart from a cataclysmic plot mess ?


That was done very welll in the animated adaption of TDKR. Which frankly was made much more ambiguous in this remake as it was made by someone who wasn't Millar who was pretty much into the "oh it takes courage to do the right thing even if its the bad thing" Cheney bullshit.

Clark meets Wayne https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KfsAK3fIQo

The fanservice fight at the end... which at least had the 2 of them discussing what the hell they were fighting about rather than not having any dialogue at all as in the comic.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx6l39BR_FM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQYmDcNCGKs


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on July 16, 2015, 08:47:52 PM
I'm a heretic I'm sure, but I hated Bruce's voice as Batman in that.

I enjoyed MoS both times I watched it. But this new one seems to only borrow the concept of a fight between Superman and Batman from TDKR, skipping every establishing principal. That's fine in my mind. To do TDKR right, you'd need a few more Superman movies showing his decline from beacon of hope to government strong man, and probably one more Batman movie to recover from the sucky third one, to establish the new Batman actor, and show him going even more anti-establishment.

Timing-wise it does line up with Captain America Civil War, which has two moderate heavies going at it, one with genetic powers vs the other normal rich dude in expensive tech. But Marvel will do it better.

I also don't get why Wonder Woman is in this new movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ard on July 16, 2015, 11:13:49 PM
Because it's a story about how the justice league gets together, and she's one of the main three so it kinda has to include her.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Setanta on July 17, 2015, 01:00:58 AM
I now want to watch the cartoon version more than this film :)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on July 17, 2015, 03:24:32 AM
I also don't get why Wonder Woman is in this new movie.
Should we also consider it a telling point that as of yet Aquaman has yet to make ANY kind of appearance in actual footage?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 17, 2015, 07:17:54 AM
I don't think he's going to be in anything but the very end, though.

With Wonder Woman, my guess will be that she steps in to stop the boys from fighting and gets them to focus on whatever Lex Luthor is up to instead.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on July 17, 2015, 04:06:18 PM
From what I've heard they are not characters in the main part of this film.   Edit: That 'spoiler' seems wrong to some extent, now.  They may have more presence.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on July 24, 2015, 05:03:34 PM
Because it's a story about how the justice league gets together, and she's one of the main three so it kinda has to include her.

Kiinda wish that was the main thrust of their PR honestly. What average movie goer wants Batman and Superman to fight if all they've had over the last decade is Chris Nolan's Batman and the two Superman movies? I loved the original Miller comic, but I feel like DC is missing the build up to the fight that the whole original graphic novel established. In short, they kinda just jumped to the punchline.

While Marvel is out there effectively establishing what super hero movies should be (heroes and teams), this feels like the opposite.

Nothing new here for all of you of course. Late to the party and all that :-)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on October 06, 2015, 03:51:20 PM
Eisenberg not playing Lex Luthor. (http://www.polygon.com/2015/10/6/9463323/jesse-eisenberg-lex-luthor-batman-v-superman)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2015, 03:59:25 PM
I'm not sure that take on it is any improvement.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on October 06, 2015, 04:35:59 PM
Man of Steel 2.

Fucking Be There.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on October 06, 2015, 04:57:52 PM
I'm not sure that take on it is any improvement.

It does explain the look, at least. He at least looks like the redheaded douchecanoe.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on October 06, 2015, 05:13:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ViF6JRNjTk   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on December 01, 2015, 01:05:28 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6as8ahAr1Uc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6as8ahAr1Uc)

Dream sequence most likely.  I am surprised at how good the Batman outfit looks (although the trenchcoat is weird).  Despite the costume working, seeing Ben Awfuleck as Bruce Wayne just doesn't work for me.  It feels about as natural as Jack Black as Superman.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 01, 2015, 01:11:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6as8ahAr1Uc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6as8ahAr1Uc)

Dream sequence most likely.  I am surprised at how good the Batman outfit looks (although the trenchcoat is weird).  Despite the costume working, seeing Ben Awfuleck as Bruce Wayne just doesn't work for me.  It feels about as natural as Jack Black as Superman.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 01, 2015, 01:21:05 PM
I'm with sickrubik. And if true, impressed that they somehow managed to undershoot my expectations of what superman vs batman means.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 01, 2015, 01:29:39 PM
I'm with sickrubik. And if true, impressed that they somehow managed to undershoot my expectations of what superman vs batman means.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 01, 2015, 01:45:29 PM
The Superman in this clip is OBVIOUSLY Bizarro/Clone Superman just based on the bowing and scraping of the prison guards and the whole "I'm so evil" glare. As for the BatTrench, that look is pretty consistent with some of Miller's style from the Dark Knights.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 01, 2015, 02:16:26 PM
Glad I spoiler-tagged.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 01, 2015, 02:53:05 PM
Why bother spoilering for a movie that's not out for months and hasn't even revealed enough of the plot for spoilers to even exist?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 01, 2015, 02:54:59 PM
And will also be pish ?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 01, 2015, 03:27:11 PM
Oh, I'm not complaining. It seriously struck me as amusing. I'm overly cautious with that sorta thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 02, 2015, 02:29:27 AM
If, by Batman vs Dean Cain, they actually mean Daredevil & Superman vs Bizarro, they should have built different expectations. But hey, that still doesn't make the top 10 things that are wrong with this project.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on December 02, 2015, 11:50:36 PM
New Trailer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fis-9Zqu2Ro)

That looks a bit better then the last one.  I kind of want to be optimistic, but it's hard.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 12:01:23 AM
 :ye_gods:

This.... makes it look 10x worse. This looks like utter garbage. Basically, it looks like a Snyder movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on December 03, 2015, 12:09:28 AM
Hahahaha.

Stop trying to channel Ledger you terrible fuck.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on December 03, 2015, 12:10:36 AM
At least Ironwood can have his Zodsday avatar.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on December 03, 2015, 12:34:18 AM
That looks horrible. Or maybe it's that horrible music they put in the trailer.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on December 03, 2015, 12:39:05 AM
I actually am just interested in the Batman stuff.  I think the Lex/Doomsday stuff is just crap. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 03, 2015, 03:34:17 AM
That was pretty bad.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 03, 2015, 03:40:30 AM
Nothing they release manages to move my needle from even an iota above 'I Don't Care About This'.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on December 03, 2015, 04:30:40 AM
That looked decent, but Batman with a gun?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on December 03, 2015, 05:19:10 AM
WW with a sword and board?  :uhrr:

Sadly, most of my age 25-35 acquaintances are frothing at the mouth with excitement.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 03, 2015, 06:04:25 AM
Oh man, that Lex Luthor is like fingernails on a chalkboard. VASTLY worse than I suspected and I didn't have good expectations anyway.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 03, 2015, 06:28:37 AM
WW with a sword and board?  :uhrr:


Of course, she's tanking.  Duh.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on December 03, 2015, 06:37:07 AM
Its like they are actively trying to produce the worst possible movie they can.   I swear.  These people have absolutely no clue at all how to make a good movie using the property they have licencing rights to.  At. Fucking. All.   Almost nothing i have seen in any of the trailers make me think that these people actually understand why these characters work.  They are literally the Anti-Marvel at this point.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Shannow on December 03, 2015, 08:24:37 AM
What I've never understood is how you make Superman a workable character ever? An all-powerful, indestructable, flying guy is so fucking boring.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on December 03, 2015, 08:52:33 AM
What I've never understood is how you make Superman a workable character ever? An all-powerful, indestructable, flying guy is so fucking boring.

Damn powergamers.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Thrawn on December 03, 2015, 09:10:24 AM
Not that I'm surprised by this, but my first reaction to the new trailer was that the movie isn't going to really be Batman v Superman.  It's going to be generic Batman and Superman team up vs Supervillan.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on December 03, 2015, 09:21:44 AM
What I've never understood is how you make Superman a workable character ever? An all-powerful, indestructable, flying guy is so fucking boring.

Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve pulled it off just fine. He's a workable character but you need an actor who can sell boy scout and a director and writers who respect the character. We got 1.5 great movies out of Superman in the 70s and this was in the era where they had to fight not to be utter camp. Modern DC is ashamed of their characters and thinks they only work if you drain the color out of them and make everyone uber serious all the time. Under those circumstances Superman won't work.

As for the trailer I think they've gone right wing nutbar on Batman and Lex Luthor is awful. Which is odd because I like that actor but the way he is playing Luthor is terrible. I think the trailer pretty much gave away the plot.

Luthor tricks Batman and Superman into fighting. I suspect we'll see either a repeat of Superman 3 (new type of Kryptonite makes Superman crazy evil for awhile) or a clone.
Batman fails to kill Superman. (Duh)
Luthor makes Doomsday
Doomsday is such a threat that Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman team up against him, thus laying the foundation for the Justice League.

Oddly, one of the only things in all of the trailers I haven't disliked so far is Affleck.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 03, 2015, 09:29:53 AM
I think the "it is impossible ever to tell a good story about..." is just a bad argument that we go in circles discussing too often.

I will say that of the things I don't like about that trailer, Affleck surprisingly is not one of them for me as well.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 03, 2015, 09:33:02 AM
Oh man, that Lex Luthor is like fingernails on a chalkboard. VASTLY worse than I suspected and I didn't have good expectations anyway.


Yeah, I just utterly fucking hate their take on Luthor and Eisenberg's attempts at it completely. It's not that I dislike Eisenberg, I just think the entire approach to that character is utter, ass backwards wrong. The fight scene at the end and the appearance of Wonder Woman were to me the best parts of the whole thing, which isn't saying much. I still want to slap the director silly for the muted, dark color schemes.

EDIT: And yes, Affleck was probably the best thing about the trailers. I actually don't mind his Batman at all. It's the broody pissed off stubbly Bruce Wayne that I'm not sure is working all that well. Just from that trailer though, you can tell both the writer and director REALLY LOVE Batman and REALLY FUCKING HATE WITH THE HEAT OF A THOUSAND SUNS Superman.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 03, 2015, 10:01:23 AM
At least Ironwood can have his Zodsday avatar.   :awesome_for_real:

I have my new one all ready. 

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1411632/zod.JPG)


Just need to find the right Christmas hat.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on December 03, 2015, 10:29:10 AM
That was the worst Lex Luthor I've ever seen. It's like they showed Eisenberg the Tim Burton movies, and told him that Lex Luthor's personality is like a cross between Joker, Edward Nigma, and Two Face.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on December 03, 2015, 10:37:38 AM
That was the worst Lex Luthor I've ever seen. It's like they showed Eisenberg the Tim Burton movies, and told him that Lex Luthor's personality is like a cross between Joker, Edward Nigma, and Two Face.


The only thing that could save that Lex Luthor is if it turns out the way he is acting is an act he uses to disarm people and we see the "real" Lex Luthor later in the movie. That, however, requires writers that give a shit about the source material so it won't happen.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 10:39:26 AM
Remember, he's not playing the traditional Lex Luthor. He's playing his son.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on December 03, 2015, 11:31:09 AM
Remember, he's not playing the traditional Lex Luthor. He's playing his son.

What?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 11:31:54 AM
It was linked in this thread.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/10/6/9463323/jesse-eisenberg-lex-luthor-batman-v-superman

edit: In fact, it's just back one page.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: RhyssaFireheart on December 03, 2015, 12:08:54 PM
This latest trailer really did nothing for me.  And really, Wonder Woman just popping up out of nowhere and being introduced with the hackneyed "I thought she was with you?" trope?  Puh-lese! :uhrr:

I get that they don't really respect the characters, but that's a level of disrespect that's pretty damn amazing.  And Clark Kent's glasses look absolutely ridiculously huge.  And stupid.

I can't stand Jesse Eisenberg, so his portrayal of this Lex Luther just seems the usual bad to me.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on December 03, 2015, 12:16:34 PM
All these have left me with, after seeing Batman in a trenchcoat with an evil Superman, is I really want them to just make a Red Son movie. I mean if the creators were actually willing to go grimdark and man the fuck up about it I'd fucking love it.

But no because fundamentally the DC movie people are scared and utterly without confidence in the material or themselves. They don't trust the source material to be popular so they want to make it gritty and real but they don't really trust themselves to make something outside the normal story tropes so ultimately it's still Superheroes have some adversity then punch their way to justice and cake plot.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Well, it's all based (at least structurally, or ideologically) on something written by Frank Miller, so of course it's shit.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 03, 2015, 02:23:48 PM
Pre-9/11 non-Batshit Crazy Frank Miller was awesome.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
Nothing holds up for me from him. He's always been a reagan humping wacko.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Doomsday

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZN12FxNK--/sfb9w864goxnr5qyuh9w.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 03, 2015, 03:49:46 PM
You do realize he was actually satirizing Reagan in Dark Knight, correct? As well as Batman and Superman, a bit.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 03, 2015, 04:13:15 PM
it never really came across as satire, given everything else he did was so heavy handed (300, Sin City, etc). Additionally, everything I've ever heard about him industry-wise seemed to corroborate that.

Even removing the politics from it. It just feels dull and flat. No depth to Bats.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Der Helm on December 04, 2015, 10:29:56 AM
Fuck me, all the superhero action looked super plasticy (that a word even ? ) to me. Uncanny valley does not even begin to describe it because to me they did not look humanlike at all.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on December 04, 2015, 11:03:19 AM
ultimately it's still Superheroes have some adversity then punch their way to justice and cake plot.

I may just have to use this in a quote for something because it is really sitting well with me.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2015, 11:17:54 AM
I'm really curious to see what happens with the DC universe.  If this is a massive trainwreck, and Suicide Squad and Justice League are train wrecks.... do they cancel the DCCU?  Reboot?  Give free reign to the TV folks to use all characters and escalate their crossover adventures to movies?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rasix on December 04, 2015, 11:22:24 AM
New Trailer. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fis-9Zqu2Ro)

That looks a bit better then the last one.  I kind of want to be optimistic, but it's hard.

OK.  Perfect tl;dr.  No need to see this now.

Affleck seems great as Bruce Wayne and really shitty as Batman.  That bat suit looks bloated.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 04, 2015, 01:35:48 PM
They are definitely taking the size of the bat suit from the Dark Knight comics, where 1) Batman was older and much stockier than normally seen and 2) the suit had a lot of built in bullet proofing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Surlyboi on December 04, 2015, 06:48:45 PM
So, you know how every new Force Awakens trailer makes me want to see that movie more than the last?

This is like... the exact opposite of that.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on December 04, 2015, 07:09:48 PM
People aren't feeling that rubbernecking feeling? You don't want to see it just to see what an ugly wreck it is?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on December 04, 2015, 08:03:30 PM
Not for actual money, no.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on December 04, 2015, 08:35:48 PM
Yeah, although this doesn't look as bad as Fantastic Four I am not giving them money for this.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Tannhauser on December 04, 2015, 09:07:40 PM
I'm going to go watch it, not like I have anything else to do. Either I'll enjoy it or I'll come in here pissing and moaning.  Either way, win/win for me.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 04, 2015, 11:50:35 PM
It's a superhero movie. The chances of me paying money to see it in the theater is real high no matter how much of a trainwreck I think it's going to be.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on December 05, 2015, 01:31:40 AM
I'm really curious to see what happens with the DC universe.  If this is a massive trainwreck, and Suicide Squad and Justice League are train wrecks.... do they cancel the DCCU?  Reboot?  Give free reign to the TV folks to use all characters and escalate their crossover adventures to movies?
Well, as of now they have exactly one movie that currently exists in the "DCCU", which would be Man of Steel.  Assuming DoJ does well and is not considered a critical flop, they then have Suicide Squad as the next movie to actually "expand" the universe, which strikes me as wierd, since that would mean BatFleck does not get his own movie untill well into the DCCU establishment.   I realise they  might be wary of  rubbing some of the shine off the Nolanverse Batman movies by putting bats out there in a solo property too soon, but having one of the tentpole DC franchise characters basicly serve as a backup dancer for several movies just seems like  a critically dumb choice to me.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2015, 03:05:32 AM
... just seems like  a critically dumb choice to me.

That's pretty much WB's, "Guide to managing the  DC IP," in a nutshell.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 05, 2015, 12:49:02 PM
WB's movie people are gibbering idiots with pretensions of grandeur. As for Batman's solo movies, Affleck is signed for like 11 movies, so you'll see him A LOT. Plus, Dawn of Justice is really not Man of Steel 2, and it sure looks like Batman is getting equal billing with Superman. Which from a movie franchise standpoint, is also idiotic on a grand scale.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Slyfeind on December 05, 2015, 01:21:44 PM
I saw the trailer with the "red capes are coming" and was turned off. Then I read that article about "Son of Luthor" and doing the tech entrepreneur thing and thought, "Oh, well that might be interesting." After seeing him in that trailer... no. Just, no. Which is a shame, because I actually like Jesse Eisenberg.

Yeesh. The DCCU tanking with the TV shows thriving, that sounds like a great outcome to me.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on December 05, 2015, 05:30:33 PM
I'm really curious to see what happens with the DC universe.  If this is a massive trainwreck, and Suicide Squad and Justice League are train wrecks.... do they cancel the DCCU?  Reboot?  Give free reign to the TV folks to use all characters and escalate their crossover adventures to movies?
Well, as of now they have exactly one movie that currently exists in the "DCCU", which would be Man of Steel.  Assuming DoJ does well and is not considered a critical flop, they then have Suicide Squad as the next movie to actually "expand" the universe, which strikes me as wierd, since that would mean BatFleck does not get his own movie untill well into the DCCU establishment.   I realise they  might be wary of  rubbing some of the shine off the Nolanverse Batman movies by putting bats out there in a solo property too soon, but having one of the tentpole DC franchise characters basicly serve as a backup dancer for several movies just seems like  a critically dumb choice to me.

This is all ignoring the fact that they are literally introducing one of their core pillars with basically no build up, not even unconnected movies establishing consumer awareness. There is nothing in these trailers or marketing generally to tell me who WW is or why she's there. She has no relevance. I mean I thought maybe they were just going to kind of ignore her in the movie until the last trailer and then I remembered she was a character. I really don't know why.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 06, 2015, 06:23:16 AM
It's going to be at least another two movies or so before any thought of it "tanking" becomes possible. BvS is going to make a lot of money unless it is so vomitously bad that word of mouth kills it in a few weeks. Which I don't think is going to happen.

If Wonder Woman tanks, Goyer and Snyder and the WB suits will put it into a misogynistic penalty box: not their fault, it's a woman. If Suicide Squad tanks, they'll do something similar: not their fault, it's villains and edgy and all that.

It would take Justice League underperforming before they had to admit any problem--that's the equivalent of Fantastic Four or Amazing Spider-Man 2 underperforming. By the time Justice League underperforms, they're going to have at least one or two more DCCU films in production.

The thing is that I would guess they're almost inevitably going to underperform even if they're not shit, because I think somewhere around 2018-19, most people are going to be very very tired of superheroes. Somewhere around there your superheroes are going to have to be in an actually good movie if you want to do big box office.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ard on December 06, 2015, 01:03:00 PM
The thing is that I would guess they're almost inevitably going to underperform even if they're not shit, because I think somewhere around 2018-19, most people are going to be very very tired of superheroes. Somewhere around there your superheroes are going to have to be in an actually good movie if you want to do big box office.

People have been making that claim since iron man 2, six years ago.  Might as well predict the end of the world with as accurate as those claims have been.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 06, 2015, 03:45:40 PM
Arguably Marvel's pretty good output has been holding it all up.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on December 06, 2015, 05:56:28 PM
Put out a decent movie (Ant-Man say) and enough people will watch, put out a piece of shit and it will bomb (F4).  Same as it ever was.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 06, 2015, 06:07:03 PM
Put out a decent movie (Ant-Man say) and enough people will watch, put out a piece of shit and it will bomb (F4).  Same as it ever was.

This. Man of Steel, for all its flaws, was a decent movie. Fantastic Four was total shit and anyone who watched the trailers could see that. Superhero movies will eventually reach a saturation point but the DC stuff will need to be just an utter obvious turd from the first trailer for them to perform bad enough to tank the whole thing. They still won't do as well as Marvel because I think anyone can see that the quality of Marvel movies is higher than what DC is doing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2015, 04:27:08 AM
No, it wasn't.   :uhrr:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2015, 06:06:09 AM
It was bad. And I suspect it would have sunk without trace if not for the superman name.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2015, 06:13:53 AM
The thing is that I would guess they're almost inevitably going to underperform even if they're not shit, because I think somewhere around 2018-19, most people are going to be very very tired of superheroes. Somewhere around there your superheroes are going to have to be in an actually good movie if you want to do big box office.

People have been making that claim since iron man 2, six years ago.  Might as well predict the end of the world with as accurate as those claims have been.

I don't think things are that rosy any more.

I wouldn't expect automatic success for anything that isn't Marvel, Superman/Batman, or genuinely a good movie.

I'm not even sure a bad Marvel film would do well without RDJ, Thor, or Cap.

That F4 film would have done far better business a few years ago.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2015, 08:04:52 AM
That F4 film would have done far better business a few years ago.

I'll believe that when you point out one film as bad as that one that did better.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: sickrubik on December 07, 2015, 10:06:07 AM

That F4 film would have done far better business a few years ago.

There WAS a F4 a few years ago that did terribly. F4 is just a shitty property.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2015, 10:27:09 AM
Trouble is, the casting for those were actually good, with the possible exception of Alba, who at least was divine looking ;  with a good cast, it quickly becomes clear that the whole concept of FF doesn't really work on the screen at all well, mostly because of how dated the whole dynamic really is.

Also, DOOM and his motivation sucked absolute balls.  It always amazes me that they can't get someone as straightforward as Doom right.  Putting Mr Charmed on there was a disaster also.  And then you went and rendered Silver Surfer.   Which was kinda hilariously bad.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on December 07, 2015, 10:53:51 AM
Family drama with an inattentive genius father figure, a deformed tough guy, a careless playboy, and a female character that travels from whiny incompetent to capable heroine ... it can work just fine.  The last few attempts sucked because the approach was flawed.  If Marvel can make a notion as dated as Captain America work, a good FF film is certainly possible.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2015, 12:03:11 PM

That F4 film would have done far better business a few years ago.

There WAS a F4 a few years ago that did terribly. F4 is just a shitty property.

The first F4 film made twice as much money on a 30% smaller budget.

It was a bad film that did passable business.

That F4 film would have done far better business a few years ago.

I'll believe that when you point out one film as bad as that one that did better.

Rise of the Silver Surfer.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2015, 12:12:41 PM
Family drama with an inattentive genius father figure, a deformed tough guy, a careless playboy, and a female character that travels from whiny incompetent to capable heroine ... it can work just fine.  The last few attempts sucked because the approach was flawed.  If Marvel can make a notion as dated as Captain America work, a good FF film is certainly possible.

I'm not even convinced the approach was the problem. They were just badly made by people phoning it in. Or, in the case of the Chronicle guy, people who are batshit crazy.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2015, 12:28:49 PM
Besides the superhero trend started in 2000 with x-men, we reached saturation like a decade ago.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Shannow on December 07, 2015, 01:18:15 PM
Yup, X2 is still my favourite super hero movie, with Nightcrawler's attack on the White House being the best superhero scene ever shot.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on December 07, 2015, 01:47:43 PM
By the way - the scene that looks like a dream sequence is a dream sequence, per recent interviews. 

http://omelete.uol.com.br/filmes/noticia/ccxp-2015-figurinista-de-batman-vs-superman-confirma-pesadelo-de-bruce-wayne/ (http://omelete.uol.com.br/filmes/noticia/ccxp-2015-figurinista-de-batman-vs-superman-confirma-pesadelo-de-bruce-wayne/)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2015, 01:57:42 PM
 :facepalm:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 07, 2015, 01:59:47 PM
That facepalm icon needs to be MUCH MUCH bigger if that's true.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2015, 02:06:33 PM
A dream sequence.  Because it worked so well in Avengers.   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: shiznitz on December 07, 2015, 02:31:01 PM
Yup, X2 is still my favourite super hero movie, with Nightcrawler's attack on the White House being the best superhero scene ever shot.

That was good but the sentinel battles in Future Past with the teleport/gating girl were better. It was gruesome, but watching Colossus torn in half...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on December 07, 2015, 03:02:53 PM
Yup, X2 is still my favourite super hero movie, with Nightcrawler's attack on the White House being the best superhero scene ever shot.

That really is one of the greatest action sequences shot period. The main thing I love about Nightcrawler's attack on the white house isn't actually his actions, but the actions of all the secret service guards. USUALLY when you have situations like that, where the one badass person is taking on lots and lots of opponents, the opponents get jobbed and act very stupid in order to make the badass seem more badass then he actually is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLOMdddg11A
In this scene though, the Secret Service is doing everything right. There's no buffoonery or going at him one at a time or holding back on trying to shoot him. The moment the first guard see's something potentially dangerous, he goes for his weapon then calls it in. Then the next guard hears the call and is immediately on alert and calls in his report of 'multiple suspects'. There's no delay, all the guards spring into action, all those plans that have been drilled and re-drilled instantly kick in. Cover this exit, clear that corridor, lock-down the office, secure the adjacent rooms. They move in teams, they constantly communicate and they coordinate with efficiency and precision. You are left with the impression that if any mundane person tried this, that no matter how well trained or equipped, they would never make it past the first hallway. The Secret Service is just that good and Nightcrawler only makes it as far as he does BECAUSE he can instantly teleport out of the way of all the bullets and catch all his opponents entirely off guard at all times.

Not because the Secret Service guards are too busy playing a card game to see him on a security monitor or something equally stupid.




Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 07, 2015, 03:10:19 PM
Hadn't seen that in a while.  Yes, it's a really cool scene.

But the best Superhero one ?  I'd have to think.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
Yup, X2 is still my favourite super hero movie, with Nightcrawler's attack on the White House being the best superhero scene ever shot.

That really is one of the greatest action sequences shot period. The main thing I love about Nightcrawler's attack on the white house isn't actually his actions, but the actions of all the secret service guards. USUALLY when you have situations like that, where the one badass person is taking on lots and lots of opponents, the opponents get jobbed and act very stupid in order to make the badass seem more badass then he actually is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLOMdddg11A
In this scene though, the Secret Service is doing everything right. There's no buffoonery or going at him one at a time or holding back on trying to shoot him. The moment the first guard see's something potentially dangerous, he goes for his weapon then calls it in. Then the next guard hears the call and is immediately on alert and calls in his report of 'multiple suspects'. There's no delay, all the guards spring into action, all those plans that have been drilled and re-drilled instantly kick in. Cover this exit, clear that corridor, lock-down the office, secure the adjacent rooms. They move in teams, they constantly communicate and they coordinate with efficiency and precision. You are left with the impression that if any mundane person tried this, that no matter how well trained or equipped, they would never make it past the first hallway. The Secret Service is just that good and Nightcrawler only makes it as far as he does BECAUSE he can instantly teleport out of the way of all the bullets and catch all his opponents entirely off guard at all times.

Not because the Secret Service guards are too busy playing a card game to see him on a security monitor or something equally stupid.




And in the end they actually get a shot in and stop him.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: KallDrexx on December 07, 2015, 09:32:10 PM
Back in college we had a proper surround sound system and we would always use that scene to test and show it off.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lantyssa on December 08, 2015, 10:50:45 AM
I loved that scene because it showed just how effective Nightcrawler could be.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 09, 2015, 06:09:13 AM
The stuff with Azrael in First Class built on that. A fast, combat-trained teleporter would be extraordinarily difficult to fight unless you were also superfast or couldn't just be pancaked by being dropped from 300 feet up. It's sort of the same thing as when writers really began to think about what a capable character with Kitty Pryde's powers could do after she began to be able to phase other people. Can't be stopped, can disrupt electronics at will, can pull you into a wall and let you die after it mingles with your body, can drag you to an air pocket a thousand feet underground and leave you there.

It would be interesting to see a superhero film that was all like that White House scene--about the powers played to their conceptual maximum against competent human combatants who have to think of some way to fight them.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on December 09, 2015, 11:37:02 AM
It would be a very short film depending on which powers were in play, both ways.

Like, the Speedsters and Telepaths, they can finish fights before they even start. There's no defense against it, not without magical Tech-Tech that doesn't exist.  Like the only defense against say the Telepaths would be people miles away watching security cameras and ordering air-strikes on any known telepath position, or maybe remotely release some kind of tear gas. That doesn't even work against the speedsters though, someone like Quicksilver is likely able to actually outrun the explosion even if he is caught unawares.

Conversely, most other supers, probably just dead or detained. Anyone who isn't bullet proof or has some ability to avoid/deflect bullets subconsciously is just dead.

Even otherwise really powerful ones like say Storm, for all her power she's still vulnerable to plain old bullets.

Wolverine? Filled with bullets till he passes out then chained up till they can find a way to kill him permanently.

Cyclops, Havok, Beast, Toad, Mystique? Angel? Iceman? Pyro? All dead.

Batman? Punisher? SUPER DUPER dead in the 'real world'.  :why_so_serious:


Even people like Magneto, Nightcrawler and Kitty. When they are focused and looking or a fight, near untouchable. When they aren't though? Can Kitty phase in her sleep? Does she subconsciously and instinctively phase the moment she feels a bullet touch her skin? Or does she get offed by a sniper while she is sipping a latte?





Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on December 09, 2015, 04:01:58 PM
Speedsters could come under that too, if they're relaxing and talking to friends then a sniper from far enough away with a supersonic bullet could manage to catch them. Provided they don't actually see the bullet, they don't get the sound of the shot until the bullet's already passed them. Unless they're at permanent super speed, they need to sleep or relax from time to time too.

So basically all fights would come down to catching the super asleep and unawares then shooting them in the head from a great distance.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 09, 2015, 04:20:43 PM
If you don't do that, you're dead though.  Even some of the more ridiculous mutants are utterly deadly when you think about what the powers could DO in real life.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 09, 2015, 05:06:40 PM
A telekinetic who didn't need to see a target could invisibly kill people just by ripping their aorta, for example. Someone with a strong force field or invulnerability could just carry a backpack full of grenades and walk through the explosions.
etc.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2015, 03:38:42 AM
Yeah.  What always galls me is how little imagination the original vision had.  We have ICEMAN !!  He throws SNOWBALLS !!!

Not, like I would do, freeze your bladder from the inside.  Sure, comics code and whatnot, but it's like these chaps didn't THINK.   :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on December 10, 2015, 05:30:08 AM
Isn't Iceman now an Omega level mutant since they figured his powers basically require him being able to violate a few laws of thermodynamics and only explicable through him having some level of control over things at a nonphysical (for our 4 dimensional physics) level? Sometimes it's better if the writers don't think things through so much.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2015, 05:36:04 AM
Yes, NOW.  But let's be honest ;  the idea that he can coat himself with solid armor and project spikes of razor sharpness should really have occurred so much sooner.

Also, he's gay now.  But not really, just in case it offends.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 10, 2015, 08:34:47 AM
They basically did Iceman right with Elijah Snow on Planetary--recognizing that he was incredibly powerful and that most of the really powerful things he could do were subtle rather than sliding around on ice slides through the city.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 10, 2015, 08:45:03 AM
Not familiar.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on December 10, 2015, 10:11:26 AM
I think you'd actually love Planetary. http://www.amazon.com/Planetary-Omnibus-Warren-Ellis/dp/1401242383

Elijah Snow is the central character--tough old Warren Ellis-dialogue guy who can reduce temperatures in anything down to frozen nitrogen-ish levels. He doesn't wear leotards and run around fighting villains in the streets, he doesn't shoot ice out of his hands. He just looks at something and makes it cold. So he doesn't fuck around if he needs to use his power rather than his mind or his organization's resources. He just freezes the water in someone's body and kicks him into a zillion pieces. Or in one memorable case, freezes the liquid in a guy's genitals while he's at the urinal and threatens to kick him unless he gets the information he needs.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on December 10, 2015, 07:51:28 PM
Didn't Iceman learn to use his powers a billion times better because like Emma Frost took over his body and went 'Jesus you really have no idea how to use your abilities, here watch *turns into a Ice Elemental*'


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on December 10, 2015, 09:05:24 PM
Yes, NOW.  But let's be honest ;  the idea that he can coat himself with solid armor and project spikes of razor sharpness should really have occurred so much sooner.

Also, he's gay now.  But not really, just in case it offends.


It's almost as if they were written as escapism fantasies for preteen boys sometimes!  


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on December 10, 2015, 09:24:24 PM
That's no excuse for shitty shit stories like the one Ironwood was referencing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on December 11, 2015, 05:23:24 AM
Yes, NOW.  But let's be honest ;  the idea that he can coat himself with solid armor and project spikes of razor sharpness should really have occurred so much sooner.

Also, he's gay now.  But not really, just in case it offends.


It's almost as if they were written as escapism fantasies for preteen boys sometimes!  

The preteen boy I grew up with would be horrified if the hero wasn't wielding razor sharp blades, because fuck knows they all did.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on January 05, 2016, 05:45:40 PM
Daredevil Season 2 Marathon or BvS.... Such a tough decision ... Not.

http://comicbook.com/2016/01/04/daredevil-season-2-to-debut-march-25th-against-batman-v-superman/ (http://comicbook.com/2016/01/04/daredevil-season-2-to-debut-march-25th-against-batman-v-superman/)

(Yes, this might be false data about the DD release date).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on January 06, 2016, 07:57:16 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Netflix dropped it on that date.  Marvel doesn't have control over release dates to Netflix.  I am sure they work with them, but Netflix has final say.  Also Netflix doing this could just be a poke back at Warner Brothers since they pulled all their movie content from Netflix a couple years ago.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on February 11, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Final Trailer is out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cle_rKBpZ28

That block...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on February 11, 2016, 11:40:31 AM
I have to admit that the opening bit with Batman and Alfred is possibly the best cinematic realization of iconic comic-book Batman that I've seen.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soln on February 11, 2016, 11:46:25 AM
Yes that was pretty good.  If there's enough moments like that strung between the hoo-haa it may be worth watching.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on February 11, 2016, 12:12:27 PM
Nope.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on February 11, 2016, 12:16:37 PM
Still too much "Do you bleed?"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on February 11, 2016, 02:02:41 PM
I think this is going to be a bit like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride at Disneyland.  If you go into it trying to appreciate it on a cerebral level, you'll leave disappointed.  However, if you get massively high to the point you can't follow the 'story', you'll have a real good time. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on February 11, 2016, 03:11:21 PM
I like the bits with Batman. The Superman/Wonder Woman bits I could go either way on - not enough context in those clips to tell. The Lex Luthor bits though? FUCK THAT. Those bits look really goddamn terrible.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on February 11, 2016, 03:53:43 PM
Batfleck is looking good.. Meh to everything else.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on February 11, 2016, 03:57:43 PM
Nope.


I'm generally with you, still. WB finally got a marketing department for this and the Suicide Squad but I'm not willing to shell-out real money for this.

I've got a Movie Pass so I'll wind-up seeing it as part of the 5-6 movies I'll see that month as it will be "free" but only in 2d and not IMAX3DMEGABUX.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on February 11, 2016, 04:28:19 PM
I want to be wrong, but this still looks like a steaming pile.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on February 11, 2016, 05:22:18 PM
Note that the trailer is STILL banging on about the Batman Superman fight and, even worse, some of the new shots are just directly lifted from Dark Knight Returns.  Again.

It's starting to look more and more like one good fight scene is all it's going to have.  As some of you pointed out, the rest is just retarded because, you know, baddie is utterly fucking lame and Superman is still just Grimdark Superman.  If this was a Batman movie, maybe, because this trailer at least attempts the right 'Batman' notes.  But pay for this Snyder shite ?  No thanks.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on February 11, 2016, 09:40:15 PM
I think what it is still showing me is this:

Batman v Superman is made out of

Zack Snyder's characteristic affectations, which are pretty much just as predictable as Tim Burton's but without the whimsy and visual imagination
WB corporate clueless "we have to have a big corporate strategery for our intellectual property" thing
Somebody who read Frank Miller's DKR and thought it seemed cool but ignored that it depends on the characters having known each other for thirty years
Somebody else who realized halfway through production that Batman sells more tickets than Superman so make the movie more about him
Somebody who had the cool idea to make Lex Luthor be like Mark Zuckerberg and then somebody else said he should be like Heath Ledger's Joker and they said, "We can do both!"
A visit from the grimdark fairy


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soln on February 11, 2016, 10:01:52 PM
Yeah you're probably right.  :heartbreak:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on February 12, 2016, 09:22:39 AM
If this was a Batman movie, maybe, because this trailer at least attempts the right 'Batman' notes.  But pay for this Snyder shite ?  No thanks.

I think this may be part of the problem. It IS a Batman movie, or at least that what it's looked like to me. It isn't a sequel to Man of Steel which probably SHOULD have come first. Khaldun got it right in that it wants to do all the cool shit that Dark Knight Returns did with the two characters, without any of the history that makes all that cool shit make sense. It hasn't EARNED the animosity between the two. It's WB's and Snyder's very hamfisted way to do a universe movie without really having done shit to build the universe.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 12, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
If this was a Batman movie, maybe, because this trailer at least attempts the right 'Batman' notes.  But pay for this Snyder shite ?  No thanks.

I think this may be part of the problem. It IS a Batman movie, or at least that what it's looked like to me. It isn't a sequel to Man of Steel which probably SHOULD have come first. Khaldun got it right in that it wants to do all the cool shit that Dark Knight Returns did with the two characters, without any of the history that makes all that cool shit make sense. It hasn't EARNED the animosity between the two. It's WB's and Snyder's very hamfisted way to do a universe movie without really having done shit to build the universe.

In fairness, Man of Steel was a shitty Superman movie too. So regardless of what happened, we're getting a shitty Superman movie. This may just be a good Batman movie with some annoying Superman stuff in it. Not that it will make the movie salvageable, my main take-away from this trailer was "now I went to see a solo Batfleck movie that isn't hobbled by DC utterly failing to understand Superman."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on February 12, 2016, 01:18:58 PM
Yeah, actually I wouldn't mind seeing that too.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on February 12, 2016, 01:57:45 PM
If this was a Batman movie, maybe, because this trailer at least attempts the right 'Batman' notes.  But pay for this Snyder shite ?  No thanks.

I think this may be part of the problem. It IS a Batman movie, or at least that what it's looked like to me. It isn't a sequel to Man of Steel which probably SHOULD have come first. Khaldun got it right in that it wants to do all the cool shit that Dark Knight Returns did with the two characters, without any of the history that makes all that cool shit make sense. It hasn't EARNED the animosity between the two. It's WB's and Snyder's very hamfisted way to do a universe movie without really having done shit to build the universe.
It seems wrong for us to be in 100% agreement in a lengthy thread, doesn't it?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on February 12, 2016, 03:59:02 PM
Everyone should be in 100% agreement about how shitty this movie will probably be.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on February 12, 2016, 09:08:11 PM
I think this may be part of the problem. It IS a Batman movie, or at least that what it's looked like to me. It isn't a sequel to Man of Steel which probably SHOULD have come first. Khaldun got it right in that it wants to do all the cool shit that Dark Knight Returns did with the two characters, without any of the history that makes all that cool shit make sense. It hasn't EARNED the animosity between the two. It's WB's and Snyder's very hamfisted way to do a universe movie without really having done shit to build the universe.

I don't know if that's really fair - the animosity between Batman and Superman in TDKR is established mostly via a single expository monologue. I also think it's fair to lean on public knowledge. Even if these movies are not direct sequels to previous movies or cartoons or whatever, people still have a good general idea of who superman and batman are. The idea that they have different, potentially at-odds ways of doing things exists in the public consciousness.

Edit: I suspect the movie will be bad, but Batman being at odds with Superman doesn't seem out of left field to me. Just the explanation in the trailers makes sense. It's everything else in the trailers that looks bad to me, particularly Wonder Woman and Luthor.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on February 12, 2016, 09:37:44 PM
Everyone should be in 100% agreement about how shitty this movie will probably be.
Eh. 90% of the viewing audience is going in blind.

The other 10% are us, who will pay for it, even if we don't admit it  :awesome_for_real:

It's a good grimdark to align with the season finales on CW, months before the popcorn months begin.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on February 23, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Is aquaman still even in this? last i heard they hired Karl Drogo to play the part but he's in none of the trailers or interviews.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on February 23, 2016, 12:43:50 PM
Is aquaman still even in this? last i heard they hired Karl Drogo to play the part but he's in none of the trailers or interviews.

I assume at the end he'll pop in to sell the next movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on February 23, 2016, 07:05:45 PM
Speaking of which, I assume you've all seen the twitter post from the director who has essentially started preproduction (or maybe even filming?) of the Justice League movie. They're sure banking on this movie being successful.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on February 23, 2016, 07:33:42 PM
Zach Snyder looks rough in that picture too.  I think the whole thing is stressing him out.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on February 24, 2016, 08:50:25 AM
Complete train wreck in the comics and movies. They need to rebuild their brand with a comprehensive tv universe. Swerve into what is working.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on February 24, 2016, 10:48:48 AM
Speaking of which, I assume you've all seen the twitter post from the director who has essentially started preproduction (or maybe even filming?) of the Justice League movie. They're sure banking on this movie being successful.

It is not unreasonable of them to do that.

All the superman films have been a financial success and this one probably isn't much worse than Man of Steel.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on February 24, 2016, 10:58:57 AM
Recent projections are showing it not likely to be a huge success, but profitable.  The question will be whether they look at it and feel like it is heading their franchises towards an Amazing Spider-man downward spiral or if they feel like they are on an Iron Man upswing. 

The comics are dying based upon recent sales numbers.  It is almost like constantly restarting your

It is almost like constantly restating your

Constantly restarting your stuff gets annoying.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on February 24, 2016, 11:02:56 AM
Well played.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on February 24, 2016, 12:10:30 PM
Speak for yourself. Thomas and Martha Wayne getting shot never gets old!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 22, 2016, 08:33:44 PM
Ouch, this is sitting at 40% on RottenTomatoes atm. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ginaz on March 22, 2016, 08:46:36 PM
Ouch, this is sitting at 40% on RottenTomatoes atm. 

So you're saying I'd be better off just seeing Deadpool again?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 22, 2016, 08:53:14 PM
Ouch, this is sitting at 40% on RottenTomatoes atm. 

So you're saying I'd be better off just seeing Deadpool again?

I would say yes even if it was getting decent reviews.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 23, 2016, 02:50:34 AM
I enjoyed this review more than I suspect I will enjoy the film.

Quote
It’s a Men’s Rights loon’s dream of meathead orthodoxy, and leaves you wondering if Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens actually happened. Imagine Affleck, standing shirtless in a dungeon, repeatedly thumping a bus tyre with a sledgehammer. Got it? Good: that’s not just what the film feels like, it’s a real scene from it. And that’s all you need to know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/review/


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 23, 2016, 03:55:40 AM
So will this be Man of Steel again where you care very little for the actual details of your titular heroes, the side characters feel grossly irrelevant at best movie breaking at worse.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 23, 2016, 04:32:13 AM
That review suggests we were ALL right.

Good. Skip.


EDIT :  Actually, you know what's worse ?  The guy reviewing it described Man of Steel as 'superb'.  It wasn't superb.  It was a shitshow of awful.

Which means this guy who's panning it is a die hard fanboi.  Which means, oh my God, it's terribad.

Skiiiiiiip.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on March 23, 2016, 08:43:23 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/review/

Quote
... Gadot isn't called on to do much but slink.

I'd watch a movie of Gal Gadot slinking around at high society parties with Bruce Wayne.
If they can get someone besides Snyder to direct that sequel.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 23, 2016, 09:20:18 AM
While Mos was generally bad, it did have some non-story, non-acting elements that impressed me. The spectacle of it impressed me. It sounds like that may be true again here. The question for me is: is there enough spectacle stuff to warrant a movie ticket. So far, the ads say no.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 10:18:54 AM
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/batman-v-superman-review

"Ben Affleck is fine as Batman, once you get past the fact that he’s Ben Affleck in a waistcoat. The problem is the film’s vision of Batman. Fans of the same old beats will be thrilled to see the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents. Again. And young Bruce falling into a bat cave. Again. For fans of new beats, there’s the fact that this Batman is apparently some sort of demented Oracle, enduring endless, detailed visions of possible pasts and futures complete with fully choreographed fights. Oh, and this Batman repeatedly shatters his 'one rule', and kills willy-nilly while demonstrating a disturbing taste for sadistic mutilation. The excuse is that Superman has driven him to the edge – and yet this guy is still supposed to be our hero. There’s a difference between an antihero and a full-on villain, but this film never figures out where the boundaries lie."

"Meanwhile it's hard to imagine what Superman did to DC or Warners to earn the characterisation he has been saddled with here. He's never been further from a Big Blue Boy Scout; this guy doesn't seem to have a straightforwardly decent bone in his body and barely cracks a smile. Goofy and loveable Clark Kent is almost entirely absent, and when he is onscreen he’s every bit as stern and unforgiving as this Superman."

"As for the 'Dawn Of Justice' bit, Wonder Woman is the only member of the Justice League who gets any real screentime, and Gal Gadot is fine with the little she has – particularly in her very good fight scenes, which follow the moment when Batman makes the dumbest strategic decision in history. But the wider problem is that this film doesn’t make you want a Justice League film. It just wears you down and wears you out, making you wonder if there was ever such a thing as a hero anyway. Let them pummel each other if they must; just leave us out of it."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on March 23, 2016, 10:30:46 AM
In the Man of Steel universe Superman is a killer so it makes sense that adding Batman to that universe makes him one too.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 01:36:04 PM
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/batman-v-superman-is-v-bad-1766555948

"Lex Luthor. Oof, Lex Luthor is a drag. Jesse Eisenberg preens and over-enunciates and waxes crazily pedantic, like no one told him he’s not in a Sorkin movie anymore; his method of conveying Brilliant Insanity is to make as though he just ingested touring funk band quantities of cocaine. It is discomfiting and unpleasant."

"2. The plot. Yo, this movie makes no sense. Dream sequences and non sequiturs and red herrings and where-the-hell-are-we-now mini-excursions and false starts out the ass. There’s a suicide bombing and multiple government hearings and a Fight Club and an innocent civilian who gets Lieutenant Dan’d and one of those posh, uncomfortable Batman-movie parties where Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne sass each other."


"Yes, Zack Snyder, who is determined to 'THIS! IS! SPARTA!' every significant historical event in human history, and louse up every beloved comic-book enterprise besides. As with Man of Steel and The Watchmen (no ludicrous sex scenes in this jam, at least), this movie is relentlessly grim and gritty and resolutely No Fun Whatsoever, every line intoned with Desdemonian gravitas, every falling bullet casing memorialized with its own slow-mo funereal aria."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 23, 2016, 02:02:42 PM
I love this.  MORE.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: TheWalrus on March 23, 2016, 02:26:23 PM
Eventually they do, and a great many innocent walls and floors and ceilings and bathroom sinks are harmed as composer Hans Zimmer more or less gives up and just sits on the Inception button

This earned my poor monitor some undeserved coffee.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 02:57:38 PM
So far every single review I've read--even the few slightly positive ones--mention that it takes a shockingly long time before Batman and Superman actually trade blows, and that there is something unbelievably stupid about the way the plot triggers the battle. I have to admit that almost makes me curious.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on March 23, 2016, 03:06:01 PM
I find it amazing that DC is just this bad at making movies.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2016, 03:10:23 PM
Didn't the title alone sort of tip everyone off that this would be terrible?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: kaid on March 23, 2016, 03:18:34 PM
Speaking of which, I assume you've all seen the twitter post from the director who has essentially started preproduction (or maybe even filming?) of the Justice League movie. They're sure banking on this movie being successful.

Well given the presales its going to be successful its just a matter of how big a score they run up.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2016, 03:18:36 PM
All the negative reviews I've read basically confirm that everything I thought about this movie is true. I'll still give them my money (though not for 3D because FUCK 3D) but I don't expect much from it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ard on March 23, 2016, 03:25:03 PM
All the negative reviews I've read basically confirm that everything I thought about this movie is true. I'll still give them my money (though not for 3D because FUCK 3D) but I don't expect much from it.

Part of the problem.   Stop giving these assholes money.   :angryfist:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2016, 03:25:36 PM
All the negative reviews I've read basically confirm that everything I thought about this movie is true. I'll still give them my money (though not for 3D because FUCK 3D) but I don't expect much from it.

Uh.  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 03:31:28 PM
http://www.avclub.com/review/batman-v-superman-dawn-justice-inelegant-its-title-234188

"And that’s where Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice first runs into trouble. When the Last Son Of Krypton seems every bit as anguished, as edgily dark, as the Dark Knight himself, what’s the point in bashing them together? Their conflict isn’t so much 'day versus night,' to quote the bad guy, as 'late evening versus slightly later evening.'"

"What Snyder sees in these timeless characters is raw, herculean power, and little else; he pushes them closer to abstract icons of fascist supremacy than they’ve possibly ever been pushed, either paying lip service to or outright ignoring the values they’ve always stood for. Which, frankly, isn’t the end of the world: We can have a scarily remote Superman and a borderline-alcoholic Batman, just as we can now have a Gotham (never properly established, as nothing in this film is) that apparently lies just across the bay from Metropolis. But shouldn’t all this geeky property colliding still at least be entertaining? Shouldn’t it play to the cheap seats instead of wallowing in the murk? To enjoy Batman V Superman, a blockbuster somehow more boring than it is strange, is to cling for dear life to brief flashes of levity and lunacy."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 03:35:55 PM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11291550/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-review

"The darkest moment of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is a montage of Bruce Wayne, played by an emotive rectangle of muscle and tendons known as Ben Affleck, prepping for his Superman fight by doing CrossFit. The sequence takes place in the Batcave to ostensibly camouflage the sound of Wayne's weighted pullups and the percussion of steel weights dropped over and over. Wayne pushes a resistance sled — the kind you see in football movies like The Blind Side — and then swings a sledgehammer at a few tires. I don't completely understand how performing these exercises was supposed to help him defeat a bulletproof deity who can melt faces. But then again, I'm not really familiar with the latest in CrossFit trends."

"a sad and unnecessary PG-13 orphan fight that director Zack Snyder believes is an homage to DC Comics' most iconic heroes but is more along the lines of a home invasion perpetrated on comic book culture save for one absolutely glorious moment that Snyder and friends may have accidentally lucked into."



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 03:42:33 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-batman-v-superman-movie-review-20160322-column.html

"Human trafficking, intimations of child abuse (Luthor mutters about suffering his father’s 'fist and abominations'), a hollowed-out Superman resigning himself to the notion that 'no one stays good in this world' … the film is only slightly more pessimistic than Lars von Trier’s 'Antichrist.' You'd have to go back to Mel Gibson’s 'Passion of the Christ' to find this much Christian iconography wedded to this much sadism."


All the reviewers really like Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, though. So there's that.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 23, 2016, 03:51:56 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/movies/ct-batman-v-superman-movie-review-20160322-column.html

"Human trafficking, intimations of child abuse (Luthor mutters about suffering his father’s 'fist and abominations'), a hollowed-out Superman resigning himself to the notion that 'no one stays good in this world' … the film is only slightly more pessimistic than Lars von Trier’s 'Antichrist.' You'd have to go back to Mel Gibson’s 'Passion of the Christ' to find this much Christian iconography wedded to this much sadism."


All the reviewers really like Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman, though. So there's that.

On Kent's farm, a white dog turns to look at the camera.  From his open maw issues forth not the barking of a canine but a deep gutteral form of english both familiar and alien simultaneously.  Only two words issue forth that disturb both the senses and the soul.  "CHAOS...REIGNS"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2016, 04:02:39 PM
All the negative reviews I've read basically confirm that everything I thought about this movie is true. I'll still give them my money (though not for 3D because FUCK 3D) but I don't expect much from it.

Part of the problem.   Stop giving these assholes money.   :angryfist:

Yeah, yeah, like my $8 is keeping this franchise just limping along. It's Batman and Superman. I'm sure it'll somehow be less bad than Batman & Robin if only because it won't try for camp. And yes, I paid money for that in the theaters too. I'll see almost any comic book superhero movie because I love comic book superhero stories and want to see more of them.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 23, 2016, 04:03:01 PM
Supposedly this needs to make 800 million before it becomes profitable.    :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 23, 2016, 04:18:06 PM
Supposedly this needs to make 800 million before it becomes profitable.    :oh_i_see:
So all we need to do is spend a few dozen to hundreds of manhours convincing Haemish not to watch it, then repeat 100 million times, and we win?

Yeah, bad movie is bad, I hope it flops, but I'm not going to waste any effort on making it happen. I've seen a lot of bad movies just because I watch everything remotely like them (I saw the D&D movie on opening night), not going to make it my job to deliver box office justice.

--Dave


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 23, 2016, 04:28:07 PM
I support the kind of movies I want to see, even if they will probably suck. I WANT more DC movies - I'd just prefer they didn't suck. Since I can't convince Warners to shitcan Snyder and Goyer, and I do want to see the DC Universe's evolution, I'll pay money to see this and hope that it makes not enough money for them to continue on this path. Hell, I'll probably even see Suicide Squad, as it looks better than this (though still not great).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 04:54:07 PM
I think Goyer is not getting enough shit for this, by the way--Snyder is drawing all the fire. I smell Goyer behind all the grimdarkery more than Snyder, even. Goyer is the kind of guy who lucked into something (working with Nolan), suddenly found he was expected to produce more of the something that he had only been an apprentice on, and lacked any feeling for the genre or characters or narratives that he was drawing from. So he is churning out bad pastiches of the Nolanverse Batman grafted to Snyder's bargain-basement Leni Riefenstahl-ist aesthetics.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 23, 2016, 04:54:22 PM

On Kent's farm, a white dog turns to look at the camera.  From his open maw issues forth not the barking of a canine but a deep gutteral form of english both familiar and alien simultaneously.  Only two words issue forth that disturb both the senses and the soul.  "CHAOS...REIGNS"

Heh. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: TheWalrus on March 23, 2016, 05:42:39 PM
I'm still waiting for Gadot.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MahrinSkel on March 23, 2016, 06:28:10 PM
I'm still waiting for Gadot.
(http://i.imgur.com/sL7SwR8.jpg)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 23, 2016, 07:21:01 PM
I'll go see this movie, I'm just paying for zootopia and slinking into man of steal after. DC has written itself in the corner. Some exec is sitting in an office declaring to himself that marvel has cornered the market on B grade scripts and plausible movie plots. Instead they must sell expensive CGI fist fights between muscle bound WWE wrestlers because Marvel can never out due that :drill:

I think this is weird love child between monday night raw and the fast and the furious without the joy or the t&a.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ginaz on March 23, 2016, 07:37:28 PM
All the negative reviews I've read basically confirm that everything I thought about this movie is true. I'll still give them my money (though not for 3D because FUCK 3D) but I don't expect much from it.

I actually went to see London Has Fallen (which got a much lower score than this, 24%) a few weeks ago and I enjoyed it so I don't put much faith in "professional" reviews.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 23, 2016, 09:21:26 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/movies/review-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-when-super-friends-fight.html

"The studio has, in the usual way, begged and bullied critics not to reveal plot points, and I wouldn’t dream of denying you the thrill of discovering just how overstuffed and preposterous a movie narrative can be."

"Mr. Nolan’s filmmaking skill — above all the coherence of his inky, cruel vision of Gotham City and environs — enabled those movies to carry at least some of their self-assigned thematic weight. Mr. Snyder, for his part, deploys signifiers of importance without having anything much to say. Yes, there is a lot of talk (mostly stuffed into poor Mr. Eisenberg’s mouth) about Good and Evil and God and Man, and there is also a lot of religious symbolism. (Note the crucifixes dotting the landscape near the end.) There are murky shadows and muddy nightscapes, all redolent not just of ordinary danger but of metaphysical darkness. There is Mr. Affleck’s existential brooding and the stoic dimple on Mr. Cavill’s chin. For fun there are shots of the heroes shirtless and of Lois Lane in the bath. But the point of “Batman v Superman” isn’t fun, and it isn’t thinking, either. It’s obedience. The theology is invoked not to elicit meditations on mercy, justice or sacrifice, but to buttress a spectacle of power. And in that way the film serves as a metaphor for its own aspirations. The corporations that produce movies like this one, and the ambitious hacks who sign up to make them, have no evident motive beyond their own aggrandizement. Entertainment is less the goal than the byproduct, and as the commercial reach of superpower franchises grows, their creative exhaustion becomes ever more apparent. Not that anyone cares...As long as we are paying attention, or at least buying tickets, the system is working to its own satisfaction."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sir T on March 24, 2016, 02:27:29 AM
As an aside I picked up a copy of "The Death of Superman" i.e. Supes vs Doomsday as a graphic Novel yesterday. It wasnt bad at all.

It cost roughly 1/0 the amount I'm planning to spend on this farce.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on March 24, 2016, 07:01:48 PM
Yea that was a good GN. And I thought the followup was pretty good too. It was a shame what happened to Steel though. Wrong movie by a wide margin.

I've been smiling at all the bad reviews. Even the more level-headed publications sound like the more creative of the rants here :-)

I'm sure I'll find something in it like that. I usually do with these kinds of movies. I'm one of the, what, three people here who didn't hate Man of Steel?

But mostly it's because I find it hard nowadays to really give that much of a shit about entertainment, good or bad. I'll watch until bored or see it through or maybe not. Ciest la vie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on March 24, 2016, 09:00:20 PM
I liked Man of Steel; probably not going to see this till it hits Netflix.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 24, 2016, 09:16:10 PM
I liked Man of Steal because it proves a dragonball z movie could happen and not suck visually. As a superman movie its quite terrible but considering it has superman returns to compete with I'm not that surprised.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 24, 2016, 10:30:22 PM
Sad Affleck. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw)  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: KallDrexx on March 25, 2016, 06:09:42 AM
Sad Affleck. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwXfv25xJUw)  :awesome_for_real:

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on March 25, 2016, 06:34:38 AM
Yea that was a good GN. And I thought the followup was pretty good too. It was a shame what happened to Steel though. Wrong movie by a wide margin.

I've been smiling at all the bad reviews. Even the more level-headed publications sound like the more creative of the rants here :-)

I'm sure I'll find something in it like that. I usually do with these kinds of movies. I'm one of the, what, three people here who didn't hate Man of Steel?

But mostly it's because I find it hard nowadays to really give that much of a shit about entertainment, good or bad. I'll watch until bored or see it through or maybe not. Ciest la vie.

Love the fanboys who are defending this movie sight unseen. It's a dogmatic and astounding. They'll say and do anything just to keep the belief that any DC movie will measure up and dismiss the utter shit that is actually shown.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2016, 07:46:43 AM
This movie's been beaten by a two second snippet in a Marvel Trailer.  I find it astounding the studio doesn't get this.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 25, 2016, 08:52:48 AM
Wife is dragging me to this in an hour. I'd be more upset if we weren't using our passes for it. I'll have a report shortly thereafter.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 25, 2016, 02:09:33 PM
Wife is dragging me to this in an hour. I'd be more upset if we weren't using our passes for it. I'll have a report shortly thereafter.
I know a few good divorce attorneys and can help you find a safe shelter.  Nobody should take that kind of abuse from their spouse.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on March 25, 2016, 02:17:49 PM
He can take a nap until Wonder Woman shows up.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 25, 2016, 05:04:51 PM
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2016/03/batman-v-superman-but-its-actually-glengarry-glen-ross-and-they-fight-over-the-good-leads

"It is incomprehensible! Nothing makes any sense! We all understand that plots in these movies don't make sense. Of course they don't. That's standard. But in this movie nothing makes sense on a scene level. In a lot of movies that make no sense on a plot level, the person will say, 'I am going to rob this fruit store,' and you can quibble about why a person would rob a fruit store, but the characters in the movie accept it and go about robbing the fruit store and we go along with it. They have conviction and authenticity and they really try to rob that fruit store good, even if we in the audience think they are being ridiculous for robbing a fruit store, because when it really works, it doesn't matter. In Batman v Superman the characters say, 'I am going to rob this fruit store,' and then go into the fruit store, throw fruit in the air, paint the walls with fruit, pay for the fruit, use the fruit as puppets in improv comedy, have a dance party with the fruit, build a home in the fruit store, burn the fruit store down, exit the smoldering husk of the fruit store and announce, 'I robbed the vegetable store.'"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 25, 2016, 05:51:48 PM
Holy shit, this movie. I was expecting terrible but my goodness it managed to exceed my expectations. Much like Darniaq's damning testament to Indy: Alien Unknown, I wouldn't bother watching this on TV and I was bored.

So goddamn many problem with this thing. It's obviously a movie blockbuster by committee, trying to hit "key notes" while trying to create a world out of separate franchises and introducing new ones. It failed at doing both. It was a sepia-toned, emotionless, low-stakes garbage fest of "Hey this would look cool as a poster/ in the trailer/ as a GIF on the internet clips loosely strung together by the thinnest shoestring of a plot.

Every scene was filmed to be as dramatic and heavy as possible. One point Lois digs a bullet from a Lexcorp merc out of a journal and it has a dramatic score. Why? I don't fucking know, but it's all srs bzns so clearly this must be too. The need to over-damaticize meant that in the end nothing had weight.

Aflek was actually pretty good at acting. I was surprised he did so well with the garbage he was given. Lois Lane was terrible and I didn't believe she felt a single emotion the entire movie. Which is sad because she was in it far too much. Cavil was ok, giving the same performance as MOS and Gadot was a reasonable WW. Again, given the garbage she was thrown.

I'm not going to bother with spoilers. Fuck this movie it doesn't deserve them. If you guys want to bitch about it, then I'll put them in.

Yes, we rehash Batman's origin. Thankfully it's done as the opening credits roll, it's a nightmare Bruce is reliving. I don't know that it was totally needed, but hey, at least you didn't waste tons of run time on it. However once it's over and Bruce wakes up we're flung into a rehash of MOS from Bruce's perspective. He's landing in a helicopter as the final fight goes down. He's rushing through the WAAYYY too-empty streets of Metropolis in an SUV with emergency lights (privileges of being rich?) until he is stopped by a crowd, just in time to see the shuttle with SVU-guy crash into the world-destroyer and take it out.

He then runs to Wayne tower just in time to see Zod and Supes carve it up and send it tumbling-down. Personally pulling a guy who's obviously going to lose his legs from the wreckage and then saving the little girl from the trailer scene. We get the first impact of the death toll as Bruce asks where her mom is and she points to the destroyed building. Brucflek does his angry grimace and we snap-scene to a card that says 18-months-later.

The scene is labeled "somewhere in the Indian ocean." Somewhere? WTF? You don't know where this is at? Is the location important for us to keep hidden? Or is this just lazy and bad writing and you couldn't bother with a better descriptor? We see native divers outside of a wreck of another of the world destroyers, so  how about "Indian Ocean, near one of the downed world destroyers" as the scene title. That might have worked better if you massaged it through the committee a bit.

Anyway, they go down and pull up a big black lump of what looks like whale shit. No, seriously, it doesn't look like melted ore it looks like lumpy shit. They give it to a white guy who breaks it open so easily that the kid pulling it from the bottom would ALSO have broken it open. It's green and glowy. Oooh Kryptonite.

Quick-cut to "<location>,afghanistan" What? This gets a specific location, not the previous scene? Nice consistency, guys. Lois arrives in a to do her usual derpy, "I'm looking for a reason for my boyfriend to fuck people up because it makes me hot" damsel in distress routine. This time it's going to some warlord or another for an interview. Her camera guy and she are pulled out of a truck with bags on their head, clearly to keep the location secret. It's not Jimmy Olson, cue disposable camera guy protocol.

While she begins the interview, camera guy goes to snap a photo and paramilitary guy takes the camera from him. He then opens the camera, despite camera-guys protests and exposes the film. Wait.. film? Wtf year is this that an international reporter is using FILM? Maybe that's why the paramilitary was gets so suspicious and pulls the canister out then crushes it to reveal, OoOh a CIA tracker! CIA guy says "let her go, she knew nothing" as they off him in front of Lois.

The next scene is Lois failing to act scared because she's a terrible actress while she tells the warlord she knew nothing. He makes a quip about ignorance not being the same as innocence as we get a shot of paramilitary dude nodding to his crew. They then take out the warlord's crew in a "wtf is happening here?" moment then ride off. Warlord has pulled a gun and is using Lois as a shield while this is going on and Supes arrives. Clearly blind as a bat because he didn't see the 6 guys on motorcycles and SUVs bugging out 10 seconds earlier. He confronts the Warlord and Lois relaxes her grip on the guy so Supes can punch him through a wall. All done, next scene!

A capitol hill hearing about the fallout of, "The Superman Incident." White lady (D) Kentucky Senator (hahah) is hearing testimony from the village whose warlord Supes just turned into paste. Another warlord came in and killed all the men and families because the bad guy who was keeping them safe was dead. Lots of bleeding heart nonsense about this and that and Supe's unchecked power.

Fuck, at this point I wanted to leave. It was only about 45 mins in, but I'd read the reviews that said the final fights were worth it. I turned off my brain and really don't remember much other than similar jumps point to point that made little narrative sense in the moment. Sure, afterwards you can piece it all together but during you're just confused and wondering why the fuck you're sitting there watching things.

As to be expected by the Modern DC cinematic universe, characterizations are all garbage.

Superman is the same one from MOS. Terrible as it is, all the missed notes are still there. We even get a reappearance from Kevin Kostner to reaffirm he's the same idiot who can't make up his mind about how to do good. Martha at one point tells Supes tha he owes the world nothing and implies that she wouldn't care if he just stopped saving people. Yay Randian Superman!

Lex is behind it all but he has no motivation other than, "ooh I hate Superman. He's powerful and so we should kill him."  There's no history the ramblings they stuffed into Eisenberg's mouth make little sense and for a guy whose supposed motivation is saving the world from Superman he kills a LOT of people. Like just tons of them, including Mercy. He's randomly insane with no insight to why other than daddy issues. What's his ultimate endgame here? No idea, especially since he's used at the very end to foreshadow the Justice League movie.

After he's arrested we get a nice 5 minute scene of him being shaved bald and then jailed. Batman shows-up one day and tells him that he's lost, but Luthor says you can't unring a bell. "He's heard it. Ding, dong the god is dead, and he's coming!" Anyone familiar with DC knows it can only be Darkseid, but goddamn, really? If Luthor was so concerned about Supes power, why kill him knowing DS is out there. Fucking 'plot' reasons that's why.

Batman, when you look at it, was inept and incompetent in the whole movie. First off he uses guns, regularly. Second off he kills people without remorse. At one point he brands a guy and justifies it to Alfred with, "We're criminals Alfred, we've always been criminals." I see, so that justifies everything you do now? Batman's never been ends justify the means, or else he'd have been killing people for years.

Lots of references to him being old, too, and having done this for 20+ years. Explains why he fails to see Lex manipulating him into killing Supes in one of the most obvious ploys ever. Fuck, Lex is the guy importing the Kryptonite from earlier, why wouldn't you say, "Huh, why would he want that at all" Oh right, rage about all those dead people in the Wayne Financial tower was blinding him. Must also explain why when he decides to steal the Kryptonite he goes about it in the most brazen and uncovert way possible. A Batmobile chase with guns and explosions ending with Superman stopping him and telling him "The Bat is dead, next time your signal shows, don't answer it." OOOoh.

Good thing Batman put a tracker on the truck! Wait... he put a tracker on the truck. Why the fuck we go through the chase scene if he was.. ok nevermind.

WW shows up trying to 'find a picture of hers' that Lex has. She lets Bruce in on this only when he confronts her about stealing the data sniffer he'd planted. She's just a Mediterranean black-widow in this universe, albeit one who doesn't age. Once Bruce gets the sniffer back he finds her picture (because it was encrypted and she couldn't decrypt it) and he finds Lex has been gathering data on "Metahumans."

You see the WW, Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman symbols on the OS folders. He opens the WW folder, which is first, (hey what luck that's the woman he ran into good thing LexOS does things in reverse alphabetical order!) and finds the tracking data and photo she's looking for. It's a photo from WW1 with her in full regalia in Belgium. Why Wonder Woman posed for a post-battle photo in 1918, but hey, what the fuck ever, right? good thing the camera they used looked to take a photo as high-quality as modern equipment, because it scanned beautifully!

He mails this to her, which you discover later, along with all of the metahuman data. Why? I dunno, just cuz. Clearly she needed info on the other three rather than just the data she was looking for. No way at all it was conceived as a set-up to a tense scene of her clicking on all the folders and watching 15-30 second clips of the other metahumans, because that would be incredibly stupid. Even though that's what actually happened.

You'll notice at no point have I mentioned actual fights. Outside of the terribly-conceived Batmobile scene there were none, or any other action. You sit through two hours of set-up for the fights. It's a LONG two hours and in the end the final fights weren't worth it.

They were quick-cut and janky-cammed as much as the MOS fights but with more darkness to hide the terrible CGI Doomsday who Lex creates. (Having manipulated his way into the downed ship and possession of Zod's body earlier. I didn't mention that because it was dumb.)

Bats vs. Supes happens because Lex kidnaps Martha Kent. He uses Lois as bait and after Supes saves her from being pushed off the Lexcorp tower he reveals that his men have her hidden somewhere he doesn't know. That way Supes can't torture it out of him, I guess? Whatever. Anyway, Lex sets a kitchen timer and says he has an Hour, Batman's waiting for you (having done the setup previously) go kill him and bring me his head or we'll burn your mom alive.

So Supes goes to Gotham, which is apparently only across a bay from Metropolis. I mean you can SEE the Bat-signal Batflek turned-on from Lexcorp tower. WTF how are the two cities so different and why does Supes never clean up crime there? Ok whatever, hurting my brain now trying to create this world. Supes tries to convince Batman to help him save mommy, Batman keeps trying to kill Supes. The cloud of kryptonite weapon was pretty effective but the fight worked ONLY because Supes didn't really want to kill him.

Batflek is blind and dumb, not realizing this until he's got Supes down and has a Kryptonite spear ready to impale him and Supes gasps, "Save martha!" Oh no, that name. It's Mommy's name. Batman pauses long enough for Lois to arrive and say that's Supe's mom's name. Batflek realizes he's made a mistake NOW and agrees to help Supes save mommy. Hey, conviently Batflek had put a tracker on Lex's #1 henchman earlier. This is where we see the warehouse scene from the trailer. Why did Supes not help save mommy? IDK, long flight and he has to go get Lex I guess.

Batflek is NOT as badass as the trailer makes him look. he gets stabbed/ shot/ overpowered a few times and is saved only by his special plot-level armor in the Batflek suit. Seriously, the guy takes a .45 to the back of the head and doesn't even get ringing ears. For a company that wants gritty realism they relied on a LOT of comic-book physics for fights. I won't go into detail on the Batmobile that was dragging a car like a tin-can with no skidding or traction loss earlier in the movie.

Anyway, Batflek saves Martha Kent, because badguys who are on the last 10 mins of a 60-minute "kill her if I don't call before the beep" timer are nothing if not sticklers for the rules. No way they would have BBQd her once they started hearing all of the commotion from the 6 minute fight Batflek just went through outside the door. Just like there's no way Batflek could have done something simple like come up through the floor in the room the hostage actually WAS in instead of running the badguy gauntlet beforehand. Because Batflek is an idiot.

Sometime between this scene and the next Lois throws the Kryptonite spear into a deep pool of water in a collapsed building. Because reasons. Supes is gone, it's no danger to him and throwing it down there means nobody keeps track of it. This is the second dumbest thing Lois has done in the movie and for less reason.

Now Supes confronts Lex inside of the Kryptonian ship. Lex reveals he'd been gestating an abomination to kill Supes and we get Doomsday birthed from the wreckage of a world-destroyer. Why did this destroyer have the capability to do this sort of genetic manipulation which the Krypton-OS pointed out was forbidden? I don't know this is a comic book movie, you're not supposed to ask questions. Who do you think we are, Marvel or competent scriptwriters?

Anyway, the fight starts and Doomsday and Supes destroy a portion of Metropolis. They have Anderson Cooper throw a cursory, "the downdown core is thankfully mostly-empty dut to it being.." in. I suppose as an attempt to handwave casualties of this early Doomsday. Supes tackles DD from behind and takes him in to outerspace. The President orders a nuke strike on them both and we get a reenactment of Frank Miller's "supes gets nuked" scene. Doomstay falls to earth, Supes is overhead, KO'd and withered.

Batflek returns and sees DD is up and active. He's gotten more powerful from the energy. OOoh, ahh. Wonderwoman has seen this fight covered on the airplane she's boarding for no particular reason. I want to know what airline she's flying because none of them ever run local news on the plane screens when I fly. Good thing this one did, because we see her exit and a confused flight attendant yelling, "Miss Prince" after her. Because white ladies can do this without being tackled by Homeland Security and detained.

Batflek figures out - somehow - that DD is Kryptonian. I guess because of the eye-lasers so that makes some sense, but given his deductive powers up to this point he'd have needed a goddamn neon sign. He rationalizes that only Kryptonite weapons will work and he only has one round of the gas-gun left. He must get the creature to chase him back to Gotham where the spear is. A chase ensuses.. wait, no, it's a quick-cut where he lures DD and then is in Gotham and gets shot-down. DD crashes the Bat-plane and we get an "Oh, shit" right as DD does the eye-lasers. WW shows-up and uses her bracers to save Batflek. Hooray!

At this point, Lois decides to get the spear. Why? I don't know, man, she must have psychic powers or is better at deduction than Batflek. She jumps into the pool of water she'd thrown the spear in at just the wrong moment. Typical Lois, ha ha. Right as she's swimming about and energy blast from DD collapses the rest of the building on top of her swimmin' hole. Oops, hope there's an air pocket!

Supes wakes up as he orbits into the sunlight. He recovers and we go from Skull-man to Superman again and he rushes to aid WW and Batflek. Well, WW. She's kicking ass in the quick-cuts. Batflek is being inept because what the fuck is he going to do against DD anyway. Not like he still has the powersuit he nearly killed Supes with.

I don't remember how it happens, but there's a pause in the action. DD must've been buried but Supes asks Bats if he's found the spear. Batflek gives a sardonic, "I've been a bit busy" response. We then get the "I thought she was with you" scene after WW makes some forgettable quip. (I know it's forgettable because I forgot it.) DD starts his assault anew and Batflek does the dodge from laser eyes we saw in the trailer, awesome! Wait, no after that leap he crashes into a wall and fall down. Oh, Batlflek.  :awesome_for_real:

Supes and WW do a tagteam on DD until Supes on high hears Lois pounding on the wall as she drowns. He goes to save his woman because clearly WW has this. He pulles a just-drowned Lois out and with no rescue breathing she's alive again! Woo, good timing! Supes dives down to get the spear. Wait, how did he know that's where it was or why Lois was down there? Shut up, and just let it roll, ok.  

So Lois gets to drag Supes out of the drink because he's clutching Kryptonite while WW cuts off DD's hand. Awesome! Wait it grows back into a bone spear. Why? You know why already.

Lois tosses the spear aside so Supes can recover and he says he loves her. She says, "Oh no, don't do it." I'm thinking the same thing. Hey you idiot, WW is kicking ass and not affected by the spear how about you let HER take it up and you go give her a breather.

No, of course not. Supes picks up the spear and charges DD while WW has him tied up in her lariat. Batflek suddenly remembers he has the kyptonite gun and shoots him. I guess the writers would say this is why the lariat works on him, I say it's Batflek still being incompetent because shooting him while WW was kicking his ass earlier would have been more helpful. Thanks, Batflek.

Supes spears DD who in turn spears him. They both die and we get a long melodramatic funeral for Supes and Clark split between D.C. and the farm. This part drags on about as long as the goddamn Return of the King ending and is where the Lutor scene foreshadowing Darkseid happens. It's just as terrible and drawn out as it could possibly be.

The end has Bruce at Clark's graveside talking with WW and telling her he was wrong and, "failed him in life." He asks  her to help him track-down the other metahumans like her, because they'll have to fight. Why would they have to fight, she asks. Just a feeling, he replies. Good thing your feelings weren't 100% off the mark the whole movie, Batflek, otherwise one might question your decision making.

It ends with Lois dumping a handful of dirt on Clark's grave which starts floating. Roll Credits.


Fuck. This. Shit.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 25, 2016, 06:35:34 PM
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

But it's nice to have a local report that echoes the bad reviews. I think I'm skipping this one, and that's really rare for me in this genre.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on March 25, 2016, 06:50:25 PM
The Giant Wall of Text bites the Teleku in the left foot, busing the muscle through the <Giant Cave Spider Silk Cloak>!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: KallDrexx on March 25, 2016, 06:55:04 PM
Man, that's some good memory you have lol.

But I appreciate it cause that sounds pretty bad.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 25, 2016, 07:07:47 PM
Traumatic experiences are those most imprinted on the brain.  :awesome_for_real:

It all came back to me as I started writing. I left-out the several dream-sequences and a few other assorted, "Why is this here?" scenes. You can see why the movie is 2.5 hours.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 25, 2016, 07:18:43 PM
Can't stop laughing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on March 25, 2016, 07:31:33 PM
Thanks for saving me $30.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Selby on March 25, 2016, 08:29:45 PM
Can't stop laughing.
Me neither. The wife keeps asking what's so funny & I'm telling her you just have to be there...

The kid is mad I wouldn't go see this & now I'm glad I held strong.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 25, 2016, 09:21:32 PM
The really interesting thing about the bad reviews is that people who are generous and people who aren't seem to agree:

a) it's kind of boring
b) it makes almost no sense for a lot of it
c) what little sense it does make is stupid


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soln on March 25, 2016, 10:38:23 PM
Wow.  It take a lot of mediocrity to make something that bad.  Just mind boggling.  Thank you for the useful synopsis.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2016, 07:43:09 AM
I just heard one bit of news that I didn't know about that somehow seems to summarize the whole thing. Jimmy Olson is actually in the movie but not named. He's with Lois on a story early in the movie and gets shot in the head and killed. Because Snyder thought that was a cool twist like "Psycho".  :uhrr:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on March 26, 2016, 08:28:55 AM
It's kind of too bad because Snyder seems like he would do great as a guy who oversees storyboard production, or as some sort of "action scene conceptualizer" if that were a job.

In the BVS trailer the shots of Wayne running through the city while heat vision rips through the buildings look great. The problem is that his movies have an air of great significance and self-indulgence, but are so empty and meaningless. There's no story or human emotion to connect to, it's just cool scenes and "cool lore" and shit.

Having him advising and giving input into the look and set pieces of a movie is probably a good idea - having him direct is not. In some ways he's a lot like the Wachowskis, post Matrix.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2016, 08:36:08 AM
I think he'd be a great visual advisor, yes. That's mostly how I've felt about Tim Burton, who also has serious problems with storytelling about 60% of the time.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2016, 09:18:24 AM
I just heard one bit of news that I didn't know about that somehow seems to summarize the whole thing. Jimmy Olson is actually in the movie but not named. He's with Lois on a story early in the movie and gets shot in the head and killed. Because Snyder thought that was a cool twist like "Psycho".  :uhrr:

So.... what's the point of doing that but not naming him ?

And how do we know ?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2016, 09:37:10 AM
Obviously I didn't because I called him "CIA Guy." I didn't catch Lois saying, "Jimmy," or "Oh no, Jimmy what did you do," or anything. Just emotionless reacting to a guy getting his brains splattered, no mourning no sense of loss from an old friend. That makes it worse.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: KallDrexx on March 26, 2016, 10:34:17 AM
fwiw, even though it has a 30% on Rotten tomatoes it has a 73% audience score.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 26, 2016, 11:14:25 AM
Mark Kermode review, can be summarised as "I was bored".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1kyzE2We_8


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2016, 11:27:17 AM
I just heard one bit of news that I didn't know about that somehow seems to summarize the whole thing. Jimmy Olson is actually in the movie but not named. He's with Lois on a story early in the movie and gets shot in the head and killed. Because Snyder thought that was a cool twist like "Psycho".  :uhrr:

So.... what's the point of doing that but not naming him ?

And how do we know ?


He's actually in the credits as "Jimmy Olson", and Snyder's already said there's a slightly longer version of the scene that's going into the R-rated cut.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on March 26, 2016, 11:29:41 AM

He's actually in the credits as "Jimmy Olson", and Snyder's already said there's a slightly longer version of the scene that's going into the R-rated cut.


FFS. R-rated cut? Movies have DLC now? Fuck right off.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2016, 11:41:26 AM
fwiw, even though it has a 30% on Rotten tomatoes it has a 73% audience score.
0

Apparently if you're hardcore into DC comics and lore it's a great movie. I, clearly, disagree.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ceryse on March 26, 2016, 11:43:04 AM
FFS. R-rated cut? Movies have DLC now? Fuck right off.  :oh_i_see:

Well, it isn't anything new. Star Wars has been the poster child for this, imo. Growing up it felt like there was a new version of Star Wars being sold every month on lavish display in Blockbuster.

ON-topic; movie is crap, no surprise. Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman was a lot better than I expected (not hard) and was actually one of the better parts of the movie (again, not hard). Glad I didn't have to pay to see it -- saw it last night after the theatre closed (best way to see any movie, imo). It will, unfortunately, do well enough to guarantee sequels. Crap quality is irrelevant when you pander to the lowest common denominator (see: Transformers franchise). Supposedly WB is expecting it to be 1 billion, minimum, with 800 million their break-even (with a 400 million production and pr budget).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 26, 2016, 12:32:44 PM
The question is: How many more films in this universe get made before they address their mistakes?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 26, 2016, 12:50:02 PM
This is still gonna make money, it's not gonna stop the DC grimdark train.  We are at least getting 3 more movies, plus Afflecks Batman.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 26, 2016, 01:25:41 PM
Won't stop the train, but it definitely loses some momentum. I've been surprised how widely the media has spotted that this is a shit film, Man of Steel was generally well received for some reason.

That said I remain vaguely interested in any DC project that doesn't involve one or both of Zac Snyder and Superman (unless it is Dean Cain Superman).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: dd0029 on March 26, 2016, 01:52:19 PM
Won't stop the train, but it definitely loses some momentum. I've been surprised how widely the media has spotted that this is a shit film, Man of Steel was generally well received for some reason.

That said I remain vaguely interested in any DC project that doesn't involve one or both of Zac Snyder and Superman (unless it is Dean Cain Superman).

If you look at Man of Steel without knowing who and what Superman is, I can see why critics liked it. It's just when paired with the "big blue boyscout" thing that it starts to fall apart.

This, on the other hand, is a mess. The first two hours are about 30 different 3-4 minute shorts with no real common thread and immense unearned weight given to every goddamned second of it. You're clearly expected to FEEL every second, but you're never given anything to latch onto. It's dull. The only short I found interesting was that dystopian future dream, that might make for an interesting movie.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: K9 on March 26, 2016, 01:58:09 PM
Mark Kermode review, can be summarised as "I was bored".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1kyzE2We_8

 :heart: :heart: :heart:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 26, 2016, 03:10:37 PM
The question is: How many more films in this universe get made before they address their mistakes?

Yeah, not often we agree, but this IS in fact the question.  It's stupid that these guys can't get their shit together. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 26, 2016, 04:31:43 PM
All of the reviews I've read about this movie makes it sound like a movie made during a writer's strike that had to enter production without a firm script in hand because of it. The fact that it is not should make the writers of this movie hang their head in shame.

As for Zach Snyder, I think he should be limited to directing Frank Miller comic book movies as I quite liked his aesthetic when applied to the Watchmen but hated it for MoS and will likely feel the same with this movie when I get bored some night and watch it on cable.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on March 26, 2016, 04:40:31 PM
If you look at Man of Steel without knowing who and what Superman is, I can see why critics liked it. It's just when paired with the "big blue boyscout" thing that it starts to fall apart.
Maybe this is why I liked MoS. The only other Superman media I've seen is Superman Returns which was alright but not as good as MoS.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on March 26, 2016, 05:00:35 PM
Yeah, i have zero attachment to superman as a character, i found man of steel perfectly acceptable and would watch sequels (not this one though).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 26, 2016, 06:05:29 PM
So I would predict:

Big dropoff next weekend.
Slightly longer term: WB quietly finds a way to ease Snyder and maybe Goyer out. Maybe by giving them a side project in the WB-verse.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2016, 06:27:08 PM
Fuck's sake this movie was an utter fucking mess. It felt like "Screenplay by Bulleted List in a Powerpoint Presentation." Scenes just fucking happened at lightning speed with no connection to anything anywhere at any time with dialogue that could have been the highlighted parts in a college student's Cliff Notes of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." Everything was drab, dreary, despressing and dim without any weight to it whatsoever.

Zak Snyder is fine if he's making movies of other people's much more controlled and coherent works, but he's fucking awful at stringing together narratives of his own. There were like 4 movies crammed into this fucking thing and none of them were good. He tried adapting


and none of it had enough gravitas to make a shit's worth of difference.

Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor steps onto the screen and immediately makes me want to punch him in the face and never stop punching. His material is goddamn terrible and utterly ill-fitting on this character. His insanity has no setup even though it has a good reason (but you can only figure that out if you actually know who he's talking about at the end).

Wonder Woman and Bruce Wayne are the absolute best parts of this movie, and are quite good. The rest of it is a fucking train wreck of epic proportions and everyone involved in the conception and execution should be fired and never work in movies at their current levels again. Doomsday is LITERALLY the WETA cave troll from Lord of the Rings with lumpy bits sewn on.

EDIT: Also the Jimmy Olsen death - yes, he was in the credits as Jimmy Olsen. There was literally no reason to make that Jimmy Olsen, nor was there any sense in that scene whatsoever. Since we know there'll be a deleted scene where we might actually get to see that it's Jimmy Olsen, it just goes to show how much disdain the writers and director had for the entirety of Superman's existence. Maybe Jimmy dying is why Clark is such a mopey, angry shit the entire movie. Both Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are utterly wasted in this, as are Holly Hunter and Jeremy Irons. What little they have to do is terrible and could have been done by furniture. The addition of at least 4 or 5 real life journalists was also unnecessary - shit, give a struggling actor a fucking job instead of these gasbags.

Diane Lane's thing about Clark not owing this world anything made me cringe. God, there is just so much wrong with this movie the more I think on it. It's like a dissertation in how NOT to make a movie and it's going to make more money than it deserves. I think Warners' execs who believe this movie will make a billion dollars are on crack.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 26, 2016, 08:28:18 PM
So I would predict:

Big dropoff next weekend.
Slightly longer term: WB quietly finds a way to ease Snyder and maybe Goyer out. Maybe by giving them a side project in the WB-verse.


They aren't going anywhere soon cuz Justice League starts filming next month.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on March 26, 2016, 08:33:33 PM
Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor steps onto the screen and immediately makes me want to punch him in the face and never stop punching.
:Love_Letters:

Doomsday is LITERALLY the WETA cave troll from Lord of the Rings with lumpy bits sewn on.
*That's* why Doomsday (in the trailer) seemed familiar. That was tickling my brain.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2016, 09:55:06 PM
I think Warners' execs who believe this movie will make a billion dollars are on crack.

I dunno, it may have a chance and depends entirely on the falloff since it hit $82 Mil. on Friday. This is Easter weekend and I don't know how movies traditionally do this weekend but that's not a bad showing.

Comparatively, Deadpool did $47 mil on its opening day and Age of Ultron did $84 million its opening Friday and Jurassic World did $81mil its opening Friday.

Deadpool - $735 million WW/ $346 million Domestic
AOU - $1.4 billion ww/ $459 mil  Domestic
Jurassic World - $1.6 billion WW/ $652mil Domestic.

Even the widely-panned Spidey 3 managed to hit $890 mil. 9 years ago with lower ticket prices.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soln on March 26, 2016, 10:04:04 PM
So...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Goumindong on March 26, 2016, 10:31:02 PM
Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor steps onto the screen and immediately makes me want to punch him in the face and never stop punching.

Sounds like a great villain!  :drill:



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sky on March 26, 2016, 10:32:09 PM
The old lady surprised me by asking me if I wanted to go see Deadpool.

Wait, isn't that what this thread is about?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 26, 2016, 11:09:05 PM
They've crapped in the cake. Until they reboot, there is no way to make this be about the characters we know.  The crap does not come out. 

Given how good the DC animated universe once was, I am dumbstruck by how badly they messed this up.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on March 26, 2016, 11:09:54 PM
I dunno, it may have a chance and depends entirely on the falloff since it hit $82 Mil. on Friday. This is Easter weekend and I don't know how movies traditionally do this weekend but that's not a bad showing.
True, but it also opened EASTER FRIDAY.  You know, a day when literally 99% of everything else out there is closed (except for movie theatres), so the vast majority of people looking for something to do have very few options when it comes to going out.

If it had opened a week earlier, or later, it's friday numbers might not have been nearly as high.

Also, I really want to ask:  Did aquaman ever make an appearance in this thing, like, at all?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Morat20 on March 26, 2016, 11:38:45 PM
I've got to say, while I'm sure the people who get paid for (or do for free) movie reviews prefer to watch good movies, it seems they save their really inspired prose for the crap ones.

I can only imagine them sitting there in the dark, furious at the shit they're having to suffer through, mentally composing epic rants. They probably put in ten times the effort out of sheer rage and bile.

It does make for fantastic reading. (Restaurant critics seem to be the same way, although even more than film critics they seem to seek out offense).

Critics are always bitchy, but the snippets here ---- BvS was clearly very, very inspiring to a narrow group of people. :)

Thank god I never had my hopes up. (I think I used that all up on Deadpool, really).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 26, 2016, 11:39:30 PM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 26, 2016, 11:43:51 PM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.

Was he a sushi chef?   :awesome_for_real:
 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 27, 2016, 06:55:05 AM
I've got to say, while I'm sure the people who get paid for (or do for free) movie reviews prefer to watch good movies, it seems they save their really inspired prose for the crap ones.

I can only imagine them sitting there in the dark, furious at the shit they're having to suffer through, mentally composing epic rants. They probably put in ten times the effort out of sheer rage and bile.

It does make for fantastic reading. (Restaurant critics seem to be the same way, although even more than film critics they seem to seek out offense).

Critics are always bitchy, but the snippets here ---- BvS was clearly very, very inspiring to a narrow group of people. :)

Thank god I never had my hopes up. (I think I used that all up on Deadpool, really).

I think what inspires critics to write full-on hatescreeds is not just a bad movie but a bad movie that seems like a horrible wasted opportunity that is being heavily promoted by its producers. Nobody's going to work up too much over a disposable piece of crap that's being buried with a late January release. But when it's "important" to the studio and arguably to the culture, when the movie is likely to be seen by a lot of people, and when the critics can clearly see what made the movie bad and how it could have been at least decent--that's when the poison ink really fills the pens.

What I'm finding fascinating is also the die-hard Snyder fans and other fanboys really fighting hard in various geek forums to portray all the negativity as some kind of conspiracy.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 27, 2016, 08:16:48 AM
I dunno, it may have a chance and depends entirely on the falloff since it hit $82 Mil. on Friday. This is Easter weekend and I don't know how movies traditionally do this weekend but that's not a bad showing.
True, but it also opened EASTER FRIDAY.  You know, a day when literally 99% of everything else out there is closed (except for movie theatres), so the vast majority of people looking for something to do have very few options when it comes to going out.

If it had opened a week earlier, or later, it's friday numbers might not have been nearly as high.

Also, I really want to ask:  Did aquaman ever make an appearance in this thing, like, at all?

I don't know where you live, Surf, but everything was opened on Friday around here. Shit, things barely close for Christmas or Thanksgiving nothing's closing because it's Good Friday. Schools, entertainment, businesses. They were all operating like a normal business day.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Rendakor on March 27, 2016, 08:48:07 AM
Schools were closed here (and I had off work, yay small business run by christians!) but nothing else really was.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 27, 2016, 09:40:20 AM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.
From what I hear, we didn't really see Aquaman,  Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Batman or Superman. TheIR names were used, but not the characters.  At least, not a familiar version of te charcters.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 27, 2016, 10:59:43 AM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.
From what I hear, we didn't really see Aquaman,  Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Batman or Superman. TheIR names were used, but not the characters.  At least, not a familiar version of te charcters.

Don't worry we'll be all proven wrong when the DC Rebirth thing happens and all the comic characters miraculously match the movie characters!   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Mandella on March 27, 2016, 12:05:41 PM

If you look at Man of Steel without knowing who and what Superman is, I can see why critics liked it. It's just when paired with the "big blue boyscout" thing that it starts to fall apart.


This situation does set up the Catch-22 that I fall into. I have absolutely no love for the "real" comic book Superman, but that means that although I would theoretically be just fine with whatever liberties are taken with his character I'm also not likely to go to the trouble to watch the movie to begin with.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 27, 2016, 12:13:07 PM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.
From what I hear, we didn't really see Aquaman,  Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Batman or Superman. TheIR names were used, but not the characters.  At least, not a familiar version of te charcters.

I suppose, since the only character in this thing that WAS like its comic version was the Batman who was ripped directly off of the old Batman in Dark Knight Returns. No one else in the DC Cinematic universe is even remotely like their comic counterpart.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Kail on March 27, 2016, 08:01:11 PM
I've got to say, while I'm sure the people who get paid for (or do for free) movie reviews prefer to watch good movies, it seems they save their really inspired prose for the crap ones.
I think what inspires critics to write full-on hatescreeds is not just a bad movie but a bad movie that seems like a horrible wasted opportunity that is being heavily promoted by its producers. Nobody's going to work up too much over a disposable piece of crap that's being buried with a late January release.

Plenty of people do that (see also: half of Youtube dedicated to digging up and then eviscerating Z-grade garbage movies like The Room or Birdemic), it's just usually the smaller critics who get the chances because big budget movies are rarely so incompetent you can just flat out insult them (boring maybe, or disappointing, but rarely flat out disasters).  It's easier to point and laugh at the guy who just pooped his pants than say something meaningful about the guy who did his job.  You insult Bob for doing shit work, so you look smarter than Bob, audience feels smarter than Bob by agreeing with you, Bob isn't there to defend himself or elicit empathy, everybody laughs at Bob.  It's like the driving principle behind MST3K.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on March 27, 2016, 08:07:33 PM
I definitely have different standards for B movies than stuff like Batman vs. Superman. Bad B movies are often pretty charming in their badness. A 400 million dollar overly focused-grouped, produced by committee piece of garbage is usually just a piece of garbage that deserves whatever bad press it gets.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 27, 2016, 08:12:59 PM
I think critics are having such fun eviscerating this movie because it is just SO BAD at the fundamentals of movie making and storytelling. It's not that badly acted - the characters just have terrible, terrible, turgid, overwrought shit put in their mouths by the screenwriter and director. The very fundamental construction of scenes is so flawed and shoddy. I mean, you could criticize the movie for days on just basic shit that a first-year film student should know not to do and yet it continues to make the same basic errors from beginning to end.

Hell, the best scenes in the movie are the ones with Wonder Woman and the scenes where we see Wonder Woman looking at the videos of the other meta humans. Just behind those are the scenes with Batman when he actually has something to do or so.

The more I think about this stinker, the more insanely bad it is. If you combine this with Man of Steel, the character of Clark Kent might as well not be there. I could accept his quick hire at the Planet at the end of MoS as kind of a quick setup. None of that gets paid off in this one. Oh sure, we're told he's a reporter and he's got a desk and his editor is yelling at him, but never do we actually see him doing any kind of reporting. And he has no personality whatsoever as Clark Kent. It isn't that the actor is bad, it's that there is literally nothing for him to do with a character so thin, I'm not sure why they bothered even giving him a secret identity other than it's expected.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: luckton on March 28, 2016, 07:15:24 AM
Apparently WB is going with the "Kingdom of Heaven" play on this one.

- The Blu-Ray/DVD release has been moved up to July 16.
- "Ultimate Cut" will have all of the deleted scenes left on the cutting room floor.
- Will make the film 3+ hours long.
- Content that was cut will boost the rating from PG-13 to R. Not "Deadpool" hard-R, but enough to breach the rating barrier.

I may just wait for this.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sky on March 28, 2016, 08:56:13 AM
I could accept his quick hire at the Planet at the end of MoS as kind of a quick setup. None of that gets paid off in this one. Oh sure, we're told he's a reporter and he's got a desk and his editor is yelling at him, but never do we actually see him doing any kind of reporting. And he has no personality whatsoever as Clark Kent. It isn't that the actor is bad, it's that there is literally nothing for him to do with a character so thin, I'm not sure why they bothered even giving him a secret identity other than it's expected.
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clark-kent/2861360


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Polysorbate80 on March 28, 2016, 10:20:57 AM
Y'know, the wife and I didn't hate it.

It's got issues, but aside from Luthor being awful and incomprehensible, I can deal with it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 28, 2016, 10:49:53 AM
I am really fascinated by the people in my social media feed who are saying they kind of liked it. It's a really idiosyncratic bunch--people who normally don't agree about anything.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: BobtheSomething on March 28, 2016, 11:15:49 AM
My wife and I kind of liked it, too.  Kind of.  The first half was just so inept.  There were whole chains of scenes that were just nonsensical, where character dialogue and motivation felt unfinished and the plot had yet to engage.  The pacing and the overbearing soundtrack were grueling.  It felt a lot like TFA, where the pacing and directing robbed every scene of its weight and the character beats felt like cliff's notes, but where TFA was a lot of fun, BVS was joyless for two hours.  Where they differ is that TFA started strong and slowly went to shit as the movie progressed whereas BVS went to shit immediately after the MoS scene, although it got better at the payoff.  The fight scenes at the end were fun in a Dragonball Z kind of way, and Wonder Woman was fun as the only character who gets to smile.  Affleck was great as Batman and Cavill nailed Snyderman.  Eisenberg played a great crazy but a poor Lex Luthor. 

I'm not sure a longer cut is what this film needs.  Sure, the humanizing scenes should be restored to the film if they were ever shot, but most of the Luthorcorp bullet and White Portugese scenesshould be chopped.  Luthor's crazy book speech didn't do much for his character, and none of the others really reacted to it, so chop it.  Batman's dreams of bats and bleeding mausoleums?  Chop.  Half of the pseudo theology "What does God need with a democracy?" crap?  Chop it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 28, 2016, 01:33:41 PM
Yeah, adding another half hour to this film won't save it. All the dream sequences except the "Omega" sand fight scene added nothing to the thing whatsoever. The bullet being the trail that led Lois to Luthor was fucking pointless because in the end, Lex came and got her anyway and the bullet made no fucking sense whatsoever. The whole Africa fight seems pointless although supposedly that's what caused the whole hearings thing to commence which made no sense because the only reason we know that is the 1-minute testimony of the lady talking about the other warlord that came in. It actually made the whole hearings thing even more confusing because Congress doesn't have hearings on a major "Metropolis" IN AMERICA getting skullfucked directly by Superman and his opponent but they do have one on an African nation we don't even see getting skullfucked by yet another warlord because Superman took the last one out? No sense.

Fuck it, there's nothing that would make this movie make sense except it being another movie by competent screenwriters and directors.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: kaid on March 28, 2016, 02:32:52 PM
Yes, Aquaman showed up.
From what I hear, we didn't really see Aquaman,  Flash, Cyborg, Wonder Woman, Batman or Superman. TheIR names were used, but not the characters.  At least, not a familiar version of te charcters.

You see him clearly but its just a minute or two same with flash and cyborg. Wonder woman actually has a reasonable if small role in the film and gets a decent amount of screen time. I still think the actress they have playing wonder woman is a bit waifish for the role but she did a good job in the movie and is super hot so I can roll with it.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on March 28, 2016, 02:40:31 PM
Read it again, you missed the joke. Don't feel bad I did the same thing and almost responded the way you did.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on March 28, 2016, 08:53:37 PM
Ok, that wasn't as terrible as i expected.  Also it's nice to see the cave troll from lord of the rings getting some work.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on March 28, 2016, 11:56:17 PM
Every time a superhero is bad the fanboys claim that studio interference is the reason, and that if only they had allowed a longer cut the movie would be better. It's delusional - if anything these bad, overstuffed movies need things trimmed, not things added.

I watched Man of Steel last night. I didn't hate it, but it wasn't good either. I kind of feel like taking back what I said about Snyder having a good visual sense - while some of the shots and visuals are cool, others are awful - very much a mixed bag. (For example Superman fighting the nano-tentacle things looked terrible)

It feels to me like Snyder's best stuff is cribbed. For example in MOS the last fight scene is based on one from Birdie the Mighty. Superman flying by leaving the ground at warp speed rather than just floating away seems taken from things like The Dark Knight Returns. I don't have a problem with these things being "inspired" by other things, but the things Snyder is inventing himself don't seem nearly as good as what he is borrowing.

That said - boy the script for MOS if awful. Not only is the overall concept kind of bad, but the lines of dialogue are just atrocious. For example when Zod takes his helmet off for the first time and Superman spells out exactly what is happening - "my parents taught me to focus. Without your helmet you're taking in everything. It's painful isn't it?" Why does he need to say any of that, the film makes it obvious.

Zod is fucking terrible. The guy playing him speaks like he has marbles in his mouth, and his presence is just so slight. Rather than being the main bad guy he should be the pathetic, sniveling sidekick of the main bad guy. He has a defeated, downtrodden aura to him, and not presence at all.

These are things that can't be hung on Snyder, other than the role the director has in the script and casting.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Abagadro on March 29, 2016, 12:23:12 AM
Did you just say that Michael Shannon has no presence? Ooooookay.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 03:29:53 AM
Yeah, I'm not sure I agree either.  Of all the things I hated (and, dear God, there were a lot) about Man of Steel Shannon doing Zod wasn't one.  I honestly thought I would hate it, but I didn't.

It takes a lot for me to like another Zod.  The one from Smallville was AWFUL, for example.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 29, 2016, 05:27:44 AM
I didn't have an issue with any actor in MoS. In fact, I think it was the best live action performances of Superman, Lois, and Zod that anyone has given us.

I don't even have an issue with an imperfect superman. I can't see any reason a dark Superman story has to be bad.

The problem is that this particular story was boring. The film asks a question about how humans react to kryptonians and vice versa  but then instead of exploring answers it just admires its premise through the medium of ever bigger explosions. The story is self indulgent and boring.


From the reviews it seems like BvS is the same.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Jeff Kelly on March 29, 2016, 06:35:18 AM
Frank Miller's paranoia and political views is what permeates "The Dark Knight Returns". An invulnerable and immortal alien working for one country that by its mere existence causes WW III and opresses humanity.

Batman is basically the idolized libertarian vigilante. Iindependently rich, self-made and willing and able to enforce law and order where the government - and even the demi-god being from Krypton- are unwilling or unable to do so, what with all the pesky rules and laws. A vigilante willing to fight the Übermensch. An Übermensch who's nothing more than a government goon and who sees humanity like a human sees an ant farm. Batman is the stand in for Miller and his political views while Superman is basically the avatar of "Government" as he sees it. Superman has a god complex, sees humanity as nothing more than half-animals that need to be "protected" from themselves (even by taking their freedoms away from them), has given himself the task of watching out for the people even though he doesn't really care and he causes a shitload of problems including a nuclear war between the US and the USSR. Basically government is incompetent even when they have a literal god on their side.

In that universe a confrontation between Batman and Superman makes sense because Superman is already the villain and has been established as one. The comic also argues that a being like Superman can't help but become the villain by its mere existence. I don't like the political world view depicted in Dark Knight returns but at least it's consistent and well established why Batman and Superman have to clash. It also has a point in that Batman reminds Superman that he is in fact mortal and can be killed and Batman also reminds him that the only reason he didn't get killed is that a human has shown 'mercy'. This somewhat shifts Supermans mentality towards humanity and his own "invulnerability". Miller is alos self-aware enough to see that Batman himself can't be a hero and a public persona and has to 'die' because according to DKR the mere existence of the superhero begets chaos and anarchy.

BvS by comparison is simply the paranoid delusions of billionaire Bruce Wayne who preemptively wants to act against Superman because he might turn evil at some point. DKR works because it establishes Superman as the villain and so doesn't have to work against the preconceptions of the audience that have largely known Superman as the "big blue boyscout". Snyder on the other hand doesn't give either Batman or Superman any sort of intrinsic motivation at all which goes so far that he can't even decide if one or both of them should be the hero or the villain of the story. So the confrontation works out more like a playground fight between two man-children fighting over who can have the bucket and shovel next.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 06:35:46 AM
. In fact, I think it was the best live action performances of Superman, Lois, and Zod that anyone has given us.

Whoa, hold up.  No.


(But you were right about the rest.  To be honest, I suspect just adapting Red Son would have suited this guy a lot more.  Then you can do what the fuck you like and, frankly, I remember a LOT of explody boom boom in that.  Also, killer Batman.)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 29, 2016, 11:04:39 AM
Wow, the other production teams for DC movies can't scramble away fast enough from the Snyder aesthetic. The directors of the Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Suicide Squad movies have all gone out of their way in the last two days to stress that their movies will be "fun". Even *Snyder* is saying, "Oh, Justice League? That will be a more fun movie."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2016, 11:12:23 AM
Synder does fine when he's adapting someone else's story and bringing the visual impact of comics art to the screen - a la Watchmen and 300. Anytime he has to break away from that and create his own stuff is an utter fucking disaster - see Sucker Punch. He's trying to adapt about 4 stories into one movie and doesn't have any idea how to glue them together visually. And fuck David Goyer with a rusty spoon and his shitass script.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 29, 2016, 12:04:43 PM
Frank Miller's paranoia and political views is what permeates "The Dark Knight Returns". An invulnerable and immortal alien working for one country that by its mere existence causes WW III and opresses humanity.

All true, but where DC/WB aren't wrong is that there is nothing wrong with the Frank Miller setting if you want to tell your story there, it doesn't have to be about fatalistic tedium, and it doesn't have to be bad even if it is fatalistic - though you need better filmmakers. The Nolan films demonstrated this.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 29, 2016, 12:09:03 PM
. In fact, I think it was the best live action performances of Superman, Lois, and Zod that anyone has given us.

Whoa, hold up.  No.

Who was the best superman/lois then? Because there have been a few and they were all pretty bad as actors.

I'm pretty sure that after Cavill/Adams comes Cain/Hatcher...

Leaving this here in case anyone doesn't really remember what Reeve/Kidder was like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaF0QKtY0c


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 29, 2016, 12:10:42 PM
Christopher Reeve was miles away the best Superman/Clark Kent, but he did *not* have a Lois to match.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 29, 2016, 12:38:48 PM
The best isn't that relevant when none of them are good.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on March 29, 2016, 12:42:58 PM
Christopher Reeve was good.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Teleku on March 29, 2016, 12:48:12 PM
I was never really a big of a fan of any of the superman movies, even as a child.....


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 29, 2016, 01:11:57 PM
Movies have never been great, but there have been actors who get the character right. Heck, Routh did a good job with the character (largely by following Reeve's lead), it was just the plot and other characters that really failed.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 02:00:27 PM
Christopher Reeve was miles away the best Superman/Clark Kent, but he did *not* have a Lois to match.

Yeah, this.  Also, Routh was good even though the film was gash.  Dean Cain was better than this current fuckstick.

MoS pretty much comes last on my list.  Perhaps I'm missing someone.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 29, 2016, 04:13:17 PM
As I watched this movie something was nagging at me. Zack Synder really fails at making me believe that Superman or Batman is on stage. I think he mostly does this by channeling Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan. In fact this movie echoes watchman more than it ever does the DCU. From the nonsensical plan to remove Superman from the not Ozymandias/Lex Luther, to the unhinged not Rorschach/Batman your suppose root for as the movie is mostly told from his perspective. Even Alfred comes off less like a pseudo father figure for batman and more like defanged Night Owl who kind stuck around with Rorschach instead of abandoning him once the no more heroes bill was passed.

Like watchman the movie spends an unhealthy amount of time discussing the nature of heroes and why they exist or should they even exist with the general discussion revolving around a detached alien blue god that is Dr. Manhattan. What ends up boring people is that 1. in movie it reads like a college lecture from a class you avoided because your major was engineering not art history, and 2. unlike watchman this discussion goes nowhere, as no actual decisions are made beyond some weak premise that superman needs government oversight but no no that's silly.

Ultimately its up to the heroes, who don't really call themselves heroes to decide for themselves who they are in this world... ultimately to decide their not heroes. It just takes Superman 2 hours to come to this conclusion. Not that even that matters. Superman is really just a detached alien, who despite living on this planet for 3 decades just now understanding that humans suck. The fact that Lois is the singular reason Superman even bothers putting on the tights makes their relationship the unhealthies healthy relationship (cough*just like Dr.Man and Specter*cough). Batman thirst for vengeance and paranoia makes very little sense for batman. I mean zero. I mean never in the history of that character would Bruce Wayne hold Superman personally responsible for that fight with Zod. The fact that this is what drives this character for again 2 hours is what makes me question how many actual comic book readers were apart of this movie. Something resembling batman shows up at the last 10 minutes of this movie but this is way after you already watched Dr. Man and Rorschach blow throw half of Gotham.  

And if you find it odd that very few people are talking about Wonder Woman, well, there isn't much to talk about. Despite being very much apart of the big showdown at the end, her extended cameo throughout most of the movie is just that, an extended cameo. Maybe its because so little, beyond the last 20 minutes of this movie, is worth sitting through her catwoman impression doesn't really stand out, beside the fact that she is basically interchangeable with catwoman. Wonder Woman as Diana can easily be mistaken for Seline Kylie. Let that sink in.

I can probably go in depth about the fight itself, but if you really came to theater with intentions of watching a Screw Attack Death Battle, than sure the movie delivers on that premise if your willing to wade through two hours of nothing of consequences happening or any sort of a plot of any kind of or even a sense of awe and wonder. If the characters mean very little to you and their depiction as fluid as Bruce Jenner's gender, than yes this movie has found an audience among that crowd and will continue to do so. However if you want Batman to act like Batman and Superman to resemble Superman, go watch the animated series, look up "World Finest" and weep for the quality of DC movies.


Anyway since no one is using spoilers there is something I'm a tad bit interested in. Lex Luthor was a major sore spot in the movie, but maybe that was accidental on purpose because in this universe Lex actually meets Darkseid, which have undoubtfully driven the tech-geniuses philanthropist insane. I'm guessing, since this is the only interesting theory this movie can actually produce, that Darkseid is aiming to get rid of the meta-humans in order to ease in the invasion of earth. The whole plot to kill Superman is mostly Lex following Darkseid instructions with whats left of his brain cells.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 29, 2016, 04:20:42 PM
Anyway since no one is using spoilers there is something I'm a tad bit interested in. Lex Luthor was a major sore spot in the movie, but maybe that was accidental on purpose because in this universe Lex actually meets Darkseid, which have undoubtfully driven the tech-geniuses philanthropist insane. I'm guessing, since this is the only interesting theory this movie can actually produce, that Darkseid is aiming to get rid of the meta-humans in order to ease in the invasion of earth. The whole plot to kill Superman is mostly Lex following Darkseid instructions with whats left of his brain cells.

That WOULD make sense. However, WB just released a deleted scene showing Luthor's first discovery of Darkseid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s)

You think, ok that makes sense, Luthor is driven a bit bat shitty by the presence of Darkseid and hatches crazy plot to kill Superman. However, this scene happens right before the Lex shaving scene in prison, which means Luthor didn't know diddly about Darkseid until after he created Doomsday and unleashed that on the city. A good director/screenwriter/editor puts that earlier in the movie and shitcans stupid scenes like the whole "special bullet" subplot.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 29, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
Anyway since no one is using spoilers there is something I'm a tad bit interested in. Lex Luthor was a major sore spot in the movie, but maybe that was accidental on purpose because in this universe Lex actually meets Darkseid, which have undoubtfully driven the tech-geniuses philanthropist insane. I'm guessing, since this is the only interesting theory this movie can actually produce, that Darkseid is aiming to get rid of the meta-humans in order to ease in the invasion of earth. The whole plot to kill Superman is mostly Lex following Darkseid instructions with whats left of his brain cells.

That WOULD make sense. However, WB just released a deleted scene showing Luthor's first discovery of Darkseid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s)

You think, ok that makes sense, Luthor is driven a bit bat shitty by the presence of Darkseid and hatches crazy plot to kill Superman. However, this scene happens right before the Lex shaving scene in prison, which means Luthor didn't know diddly about Darkseid until after he created Doomsday and unleashed that on the city. A good director/screenwriter/editor puts that earlier in the movie and shitcans stupid scenes like the whole "special bullet" subplot.

Even if the movie wanted to be decent it couldn't  :awesome_for_real:

Like ok the first thing I said before my brain finishing thawing itself out of sheer boredom as this movie came to a thank god its over end, "ok ok, maybe this just needed an editor to go in and take a weed wacker to this shit." Than my gf pointed out that this is the edited version and I'm like well fuck this.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 29, 2016, 04:42:29 PM
Hahahahaahahahahahhah.

Shitty movie is shitty.  Stop wasting your time on analysis and just relax and look forward to Suicide Squad.

I'm sure it'll be all kinds of awesome.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 29, 2016, 04:45:32 PM
relax and look forward to Suicide Squad.

I'm sure it'll be all kinds of awesome.


 :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on March 29, 2016, 07:07:55 PM
It will hinge on who is hotter Margot Robbie or Gal Gadot....


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 29, 2016, 09:32:56 PM
It will hinge on who is hotter Margot Robbie or Gal Gadot....

Margot... thats barely a competition.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Soln on March 29, 2016, 10:38:01 PM
Anyway since no one is using spoilers there is something I'm a tad bit interested in. Lex Luthor was a major sore spot in the movie, but maybe that was accidental on purpose because in this universe Lex actually meets Darkseid, which have undoubtfully driven the tech-geniuses philanthropist insane. I'm guessing, since this is the only interesting theory this movie can actually produce, that Darkseid is aiming to get rid of the meta-humans in order to ease in the invasion of earth. The whole plot to kill Superman is mostly Lex following Darkseid instructions with whats left of his brain cells.

That WOULD make sense. However, WB just released a deleted scene showing Luthor's first discovery of Darkseid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-MUzvASr8s)

You think, ok that makes sense, Luthor is driven a bit bat shitty by the presence of Darkseid and hatches crazy plot to kill Superman. However, this scene happens right before the Lex shaving scene in prison, which means Luthor didn't know diddly about Darkseid until after he created Doomsday and unleashed that on the city. A good director/screenwriter/editor puts that earlier in the movie and shitcans stupid scenes like the whole "special bullet" subplot.

That demon was supposed to be Darkseid?

Edit: I finally remembered the last badly strung together and edited film this franchise resembles: PROMETHEUS
Another film that feels like 2/3 of it was missing (and probably was not great, but could've helped explain things).


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Riggswolfe on March 30, 2016, 12:03:07 AM
. In fact, I think it was the best live action performances of Superman, Lois, and Zod that anyone has given us.

Whoa, hold up.  No.

Who was the best superman/lois then? Because there have been a few and they were all pretty bad as actors.

I'm pretty sure that after Cavill/Adams comes Cain/Hatcher...

Leaving this here in case anyone doesn't really remember what Reeve/Kidder was like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIaF0QKtY0c

Sorry but that link you posted actually proves you wrong. Watch Christopher Reeves when he takes off the glasses and briefly debates telling Lois he is Superman. His entire body language changes and he literally looks like two different people. Hell, he visibly grows a few inches taller as he stops slouching. To date he is the only actor to sell me on people not catching on to the whole Superman and Clark Kent thing. It really is a masterpiece of acting.

Margot Kidder just got off of a "date" with Superman and is playing it as her being very distracted and barely even "there". In general though she is a very feisty Lois. And when you watch them you realize the movie was basically aiming for the kind of zany news room antics that were popular in movies around that time.

And really, no one has beaten Terrence Stamp as Zod. Not even close.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 30, 2016, 12:34:25 AM
I like how the general consensus online is shifting to "Well if your a casual fan of DCU of course you don't like BVS. This is hardcore only"

Yes yes your movie about how clark kent gives two shits about is job is completely faithful to the DCU.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 30, 2016, 02:21:41 AM
Fanbois gonna fan.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on March 30, 2016, 03:53:28 AM
So, finally got around to watching this after work.  Pretty much  anything I want to say about it has already been said, but honestly, I sincerely hope that whoever in DC is responsible for giving Warner the rights to their movies gets promptly fired, and then beaten to death with stacks of DC comics.  Cause watching this this thing was like watching someone systematically destroy something you ejoyed right in front of you.   I swear, if anyone responsible for this movie actually read a DC comic pretaning to either of the main characters, it would be a goddamned miracle.

Random  spoilersh question that as far as i can tell nobody has asked yet:
Can someone clue me in on exactly what happened in the one dream sequence Wayne has, where you get a vision of him in an "other-world" type setting, where Superman has his own personal army.  There was something wierd going on in the background: giant fountain of lava / burning stuff, something that may or may not have been very large spacecraft hovering over a destroyed city, and the thing with the flying mantid/alien creatures.  The whole thing smacked of a DC flavoured "Days of Future Past" glimpse into a possible future gone bad, especially with the unknown guy trying to warn Bruice about something as he fades out of his spacial distortion.

That whole sequence just struck me as one of those things that you figure should be monumentally important to what is going on, only to be almost immediately forgotten as the movie trudges on with its thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 30, 2016, 04:16:32 AM
DC is a subsidiary of WB.

As for the dream sequence, it looks like a premonition that Darkseid (Thanos, but DC) will conquer earth and superman will help him because of reasons. Probably Lane related reasons.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 30, 2016, 05:59:59 AM
Folks are saying the thing in the dream sequence appears to be not Darkseid but a stylized version of one of two other Apokolips "New Gods": Steppenwolf (one of Darkseid's generals) or Yuga Khan (Darkseid's dad).

I am also seeing that people say that the Omega symbol is seen on the ground during the dream sequence in the film--that's pretty classically a Darkseid thing. The lava in the background is what Darkseid brings to planets he conquers--a firepit that brings the core of the world to the surface so it can be used for power but also just generally to communicate that he's a fucking badass who likes planets to look like trash fires.

From what I'm reading about it, that dream sequence strikes me as riffing off of a Grant Morrison Justice League story that had two parallel plot lines: in the present, the Justice League faces the Injustice League (Luthor, Joker, Ocean Master, Circe, Dr. Polaris, J'emm Son of Saturn) but Luthor has his hands on a magic MacGuffin that is the only thing that keeps Darkseid from conquering Earth. When Superman destroys the MacGuffin to beat Luthor, he inadvertently allows Darkseid to conquer Earth. In the middle of the story, Green Lantern, Aquaman and Flash get sent into the future that Darkseid rules, discovers just how terrible it is, and desperately try to get back to the present in time to stop Superman from destroying the MacGuffin. It was a good story, in particular in making Darkseid's threat way, way more cosmic and evil than it had been even in the early Kirby versioning of the New Gods. A lot of the imagery from that future Earth sounds to me like the stuff in that dream sequence in the film, just clumsily delivered in narrative terms.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Jeff Kelly on March 30, 2016, 07:18:30 AM
For someone who is ostensibly a comic book fan Snyder really doesn't seem to be that informed about characterizations or plot points. Compare him to a pop culture savant like Joss Whedon and he comes off as even less adept. It's even worse because Snyder and his script authors basically copied a plot point from Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron and completely messed it up. Iron Man - and by proxy the audience - saw what could happen if Thanos ever encountered Earth in Avengers and the Scarlett Witch gave everyone visions of what can or could have been in AoU - which was also shown to the audience. Avengers: AoE sets up everything you need to know to get why these story beats are very important to the indicidual members of the Avengers, even if you don't know who Thanos is or in fact have no clue about most stuff of the Marvel comic book universe.

By comparison the scenes involving Darkseid seem like the psychotic visions of a mentally deranged person and are presented entirely without context.

DC really has two issues. Firstly that they rely on people who don't seem to "get" comics and who don't know how to relate the dense and somewhat bonkers comic book universe stuff to a large audience. Secondly that they want to replicate the success of Marvel's cinematic universe without having even the slightest clue why Marvel's approach worked.

Marvel has a coherent strategy for all movies set in their cinematic universe. Their movies work as stand-alone movies. They acknowledge the inherent silliness of comic book stories without that silliness necessarily compromising the tone and content of the movie. They acknowldge that a movie can have more layers of tone and character than just dark existential grimness projected by middle aged men and filmed with digitally added chromatic aberation. They use multiple movies to set up larger story lines and to introduce characters and they do the "team up" movies last. I could go on but Marvel treats its films as one coherent universe that is still accessible to people that are not hard core comic fans and it has a wide variety of tones and styles. They also hire people that are familiar enough with their universe and characters and who know how to communicate that to layman audiences.

DC does the Justice League set up movie first and gives audiences no context whatsoever why any of this matters.

It also wasted a perfectly good Batman because Affleck is actually not bad as Bruce Wayne and as the Caped Crusader. He sells the somewhat psychotic single-mindedness and grim demeanor of Batman better than Christian Bale in my opinion. Once you get over the fact that it's Ben Affleck.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on March 30, 2016, 09:36:17 AM
Folks are saying the thing in the dream sequence appears to be not Darkseid but a stylized version of one of two other Apokolips "New Gods": Steppenwolf (one of Darkseid's generals) or Yuga Khan (Darkseid's dad).

I am also seeing that people say that the Omega symbol is seen on the ground during the dream sequence in the film--that's pretty classically a Darkseid thing. The lava in the background is what Darkseid brings to planets he conquers--a firepit that brings the core of the world to the surface so it can be used for power but also just generally to communicate that he's a fucking badass who likes planets to look like trash fires.


Also to Jeff's post. It sounds like there's a Darkseid subplot in this mess of a film that is basically delivered the same way Marvel delivers their fan service easter eggs i.e. it's shown on screen but there's no real attempt to explain to the audiences what it is and no real indication whether its important or not. Except in Marvel's case with those bits it isn't important. Marvel have built up Thanos as a threat consistently and slowly. Avengers was the culmination of step 1 where they showed the danger of alien invasion, Earth is vulnerable to threats from beyond the stars and heroes are needed to save it. Thor builds up Thano as a character by tying him into the Asgardians, although fairly obliquely. GotG finally actually presents Thanos himself as a threat beyond just Earth and what's happening there. Teasing his involvement in AoU brings us what, to film fans by now, is a known threat with the stakes established.

DC seem to have taken similar beats and even some similar plot elements but they've misjudged how to tie it together or explain it to the audience. MoS could be said to build up the threat of extraterrestrial attack, after all Kryptonians are coming from outside to fuck with earth. The problem is that they are tied so closely to Supes that all it does is establish that Superman, if he wanted to be, could be a real and extreme danger to earth and BvS focused on this and lots of 'he can still do harm even trying to save people' stuff. The result isn't to get people thinking about extraterrestrial threats but the moral position and potential danger of Superman. That's an interesting theme potentially but they're trying to stick it into a story about Darkseid plotting to invade earth and Superman being the one being who can save us. I feel like DC has an overall vision they would like their universe to go in and gave a couple of metaplot points to directors that they needed to include and then just let them make their individual movies without further reference or oversight.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2016, 09:59:08 AM
The entire Darkseid dream sequence is a great example of what's wrong with the movie. It's actually a pretty damn good sequence if you have ANY clue that it's a vision of future earth conquered by Darkseid. Or in other words, if you have ANY context whatsoever about what it is. Unfortunately, it's stuck in the middle of a movie about something else entirely with absolutely no context to the scene and no relation to the rest of the movie other than Bruce Wayne's fears about Superman's unchecked power coming true. Hell, I am a HUGE comics nerd and I didn't even recognize that it was Darkseid and his parademons behind that whole thing, nor did I get that it might actually be one of the New Gods who appears to Bruce Wayne in the boom tube at the end of the sequence (I think it's either Mister Miracle, Orion, Lightray or Takion - unless it actually is the Flash but it didn't look like the Flash). I didn't piece that all together in my head until Luthor's speech to Batman at the end - and I am intimately familiar with a shitton of DC Universe continuity, including the very good Grant Morrison Justice League story Khaldun mentioned. When I looked at the parademons in that sequence, I didn't place them until I put it all together later - I knew they were familiar-looking, but didn't recognize them and quickly forgot about it seconds later as we got back to the actual fucking story.

That sequence was an Easter egg made by a team that doesn't understand how to do Easter eggs. Or subtle, for that matter. It bore no relation to anything that had gone before and its importance only made sense much later in the context of another movie entirely. It was way too long for an Easter Egg. Most of the Avengers' Easter Eggs have been quick hits, short glances, mentions of names and that's about it. They don't break up the flow of the story. This sequence, like all the rest of the movie, just felt like another disjointed scene like all the ones that preceded it, and for fans who don't know Darkseid, which should be a lot of people, it won't make sense until we see that future Earth again (if we do). Bad filmaking is bad.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 30, 2016, 10:34:08 AM
The general consensus is that it's the Flash appearing to Batman at the end of the dream. But again, yeah, vague.

What's clear to me is that they're keeping it vague because they don't really have a plan, so they want to be able to scrub over and change anything they did in BvS. You can feel the inner lack of confidence and managerial clarity radiating off of WB. And no wonder--the suits don't know anything, the two guys nominally in charge don't even like comic books and one of them is more or less taking more credit for the Nolan films' success than he's entitled to (Goyer), and the people making the comics are also in a state of terminal creative confusion at the moment and have been for five years. Nobody's driving the bus and nobody really knows where the bus is going except, they hope, to piles of money.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on March 30, 2016, 12:19:16 PM
DC comics been sucking for an exceptionally longer time than 5 years. The only reason the general trash bin that is mainstream comics haven't seeped entirely is because Marvel writers cherry pick from the entire history of characters while DC movie writers are pretty much obsessed with the Dark Knight Returns and refuse to write or do anything that doesn't circle back to that graphic novel.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Trippy on March 30, 2016, 12:31:58 PM
So, finally got around to watching this after work.  Pretty much  anything I want to say about it has already been said, but honestly, I sincerely hope that whoever in DC is responsible for giving Warner the rights to their movies gets promptly fired, and then beaten to death with stacks of DC comics.  Cause watching this this thing was like watching someone systematically destroy something you ejoyed right in front of you.   I swear, if anyone responsible for this movie actually read a DC comic pretaning to either of the main characters, it would be a goddamned miracle.
Nobody is getting fired over this since you assholes are giving them money hand over fist.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 30, 2016, 12:39:13 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on March 30, 2016, 01:34:17 PM
420 million worldwide (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4171&p=.htm), whatever lesson you hoped they would learn is going to be pretty much the complete opposite.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: 01101010 on March 30, 2016, 01:38:46 PM
Looks like P.T. Barnum is still correct.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on March 30, 2016, 02:17:29 PM
I think someone thought Watchmen wasn't a story about what a real superheroes/superman would be like. But instead was a guide to how all superhero stuff should be.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on March 30, 2016, 02:20:19 PM
On the bright side I had a taxi driver the other day comment about how this was one of the worst Marvel movies, Deadpool was far better. He then proceeded to keep referring to superheroes as Marvels (as in, when I was a kid I always had a favourite Marvel) so I'm not sure how badly this is going to affect DCs reputation in the wider population because there's probably not insignificant body of people who aren't even aware this isn't related to the Avengers and the X-Men.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 30, 2016, 02:23:12 PM
Actually the drop I predicted apparently already started to show up by Sunday of last weekend. If the movie has a bigger drop this weekend than a "normal" blockbuster would have, then I think there are going to be changes in how the company handles the comic-book films going forward. They don't just want to make their money back on this, they want to be able to print crazy money hats from it, and there is still reason to doubt that they're going to be able to do that. I would guess that if the internals end up painting the film as an underperforming property (the relative yardstick here probably being Marvel/Disney's performance from their franchises) that Goyer will be quietly given some kind of compensatory non-superhero project and paid off otherwise to terms of his contract and that Snyder will be given a producer who keeps him on a very very tight leash. Plus there will be smaller less-known execs who get the guillotine, more or less.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2016, 02:25:26 PM
I think someone thought Watchmen wasn't a story about what a real superheroes/superman would be like. But instead was a guide to how all superhero stuff should be.

Just most of the comics creators of the '90's and early '00's.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 30, 2016, 02:40:12 PM
The thing is, you can even make a Watchman-lite or Miracleman-lite that's for somewhat less sophisticated readers who still iike superheroes in a relatively traditional style. That's what Mark Gruenwald did over at Marvel with the Squadron Supreme limited series--it was a much more comic-book friendly version of the same question (what would happen if superheroes actually took political power and tried to fix the world)?

But the thing to understand is also: that is a HUGE mistake to do that with an established, familiar character that has a long history of other prior interpretations that many people really like. Because to Watchmenize a character is to significantly take a big smelly dump over all other possible versions of that character. You can shift Batman gritty, you can shift him crazy, you can shift him light and funny, you can shift him 'pulp-realistic' but if you shift Batman into "What if a millionaire in our world started dressing up in fetishwear and beating up criminals on the logic that 'criminals fear fetishmen dressed like bats' and 'if they fear me, I can stop crime in my city" you almost can't do anything but expose the ridiculousness of the whole thing. It's a move that only permits you to express distaste for the entire idea of the superhero. (Which is what Alan Moore was doing in Watchman and even in Miracleman.) 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2016, 03:02:49 PM
It's funny you say that, because Watchmen was originally pitched to Alan Moore because DC had all these Charlton characters they wanted to modernize and do something with, like Blue Beetle, Captain Atom, Peacemaker and others. Moore came up with the Watchmen concept, and when he pitched it, DC got cold feet about doing that to heroes with established (albeit less successful) characters. They liked the idea and told him to run with it but on new characters, and DC added the Charlton characters to the DC Universe, some more successfully than others.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on March 30, 2016, 03:51:37 PM
http://imgur.com/gallery/gHZLO (http://imgur.com/gallery/gHZLO) I saw this on Reddit today, thought it showcased what makes a good superman.

I liked the animated episode where he got angry when all his attempts to cure cancer were failing.

How many more years of crap are we going to get from DC/WB? We have the suicide squad, the wonder woman and justice league films coming?  Maybe they can sneak in a Red Son of Krypton and reboot the darkness? Where it turns out WE WERE KRYPTON ALL ALONG!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 30, 2016, 04:23:21 PM
That is a good example of a quality Superman story (although saving her and staying by her while she hung out there... how many people died elsewhere that he could have saved?).  That is the character we don't see on the screen...


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 30, 2016, 05:18:06 PM
That's kind of the problem with Superman on screen in these two movies. We don't really see him being much of a good guy other than that one save in Mexico in BVS and the tanker crew in MOS (though he was a part of that crew so it's not like he was going out of his way to save people) and of course saving Lois multiple times (but again that's his girlfriend so not entirely selfless). Other than that, all we see of him is HULK SMASH fights with the Kryptonians, Batman and then Doomsday. We're told he's a hero who saves people but we aren't really SHOWN that. And all of the Clark Kent characterization is with his dad telling him that humans will fear him and attack him.

I thought MOS was a decent setup for an interesting take on the character, but then instead of giving us another movie where he can be Superman and show that he's a hero, they give us a Batman movie with Superman as the villain. It's amazing how many layers of rotten onion you find as you start picking these movies apart, both from the creative execution and the strategic plan.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on March 30, 2016, 06:55:21 PM
So, finally got around to watching this after work.  Pretty much  anything I want to say about it has already been said, but honestly, I sincerely hope that whoever in DC is responsible for giving Warner the rights to their movies gets promptly fired, and then beaten to death with stacks of DC comics.  Cause watching this this thing was like watching someone systematically destroy something you ejoyed right in front of you.   I swear, if anyone responsible for this movie actually read a DC comic pretaning to either of the main characters, it would be a goddamned miracle.
Nobody is getting fired over this since you assholes are giving them money hand over fist.
They got no money from me.  I work at a movie theatre.  I get to watch  this shit for free.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 30, 2016, 07:33:30 PM
So, finally got around to watching this after work.  Pretty much  anything I want to say about it has already been said, but honestly, I sincerely hope that whoever in DC is responsible for giving Warner the rights to their movies gets promptly fired, and then beaten to death with stacks of DC comics.  Cause watching this this thing was like watching someone systematically destroy something you ejoyed right in front of you.   I swear, if anyone responsible for this movie actually read a DC comic pretaning to either of the main characters, it would be a goddamned miracle.
Nobody is getting fired over this since you assholes are giving them money hand over fist.
They got no money from me.  I work at a movie theatre.  I get to watch  this shit for free.

Still sounds like you got ripped off.   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 30, 2016, 07:50:35 PM
I think this has been said before in the interminable discussions on this site of Superman as a character. He is not, never interesting unless he's given something to choose over. Save mom or save Lois. Save Metropolis or save Peoria. Save a woman who is being beaten by her husband or a person being attacked by a terrorist. Those are interesting problems as long as you don't say, "Fix this by taking authoritarian power and fixing everything". Every good iteration of the Superman character (including some that are all but him in name like Samaritan in Astro City) are riffing off this problem. What would create a funnel that makes it so you can't fix everything, or save everyone, that doesn't turn out to be purely tragic, that doesn't make the character a failure?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 30, 2016, 09:39:32 PM
So apparently Affleck's contract only obligates him to do Justice League 1 and 2 and doesn't have anything about a stand alone Batman movie.  Word is he has a script finished for a Batman movie, but the question is... after the way BvS got raped by critics will he just ride out his contract and leave?  If he's gonna be under Snyder's thumb I think he may, even though this is said to be a dream role for him.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Abagadro on March 30, 2016, 11:35:08 PM
He wants to direct it too.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: BobtheSomething on March 31, 2016, 12:45:32 AM
He wants to direct it too.

I'd watch that.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on March 31, 2016, 01:09:21 AM
Quote
Can someone clue me in on exactly what happened in the one dream sequence Wayne has, where you get a vision of him in an "other-world" type setting, where Superman has his own personal army. 

The worst thing in many of these newer superhero movies is how much they feel the need to set up future movies in very inorganic fashion.

I've always thought the idea of setting up sequels is silly to begin with - if you make a hit movie that people like they'll be interested in a sequel, even if you don't tease sequel plot threads in the movie. But these super hero movies now don't just have occasional teases, they have significant chunks devoted to tangents that have nothing to do with the movie you're watching.

I read some reviews of Age of Ultron that said "the best part of the movie is how it sets up future movies like Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok". What? The best part of the movie is that it teases another movie?

The more you tease future movies the worse the current movie gets, so it's a cycle of "boy this movie sucked, but the next one sure looks great!" Both Marvel and WB would be better off making good movies, rather than setting up future movies.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2016, 03:54:16 AM
I read some reviews of Age of Ultron that said "the best part of the movie is how it sets up future movies like Civil War and Thor: Ragnarok". What? The best part of the movie is that it teases another movie?

That reviewer is a fucking moron then.  Enough said, really.

The best part of the movie was the way Spader delivered the line 'Oh For Gods Sake' as The Hulk threw him out the Quinjet.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 09:36:12 AM
Why do we assume a tease can't be executed well? I think it is about as hard to execute as a good season finale cliffhanger - which is rare, but when done well can be amazing. This just sounds like crappy execution.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on March 31, 2016, 11:54:56 AM
Of course. But the idea that a tease could be the major attraction or pleasure of a film or episode seems to me intrinsically crappy. If there is nothing fun or excellent in the thing you are watching now, save for the promise of something you will get to watch later, that is a failure. It's like a bad MMO. "I know the levelling experience now in this place is really boring, but once you level up you'll be able to have a different levelling experience somewhere else! So keep going!"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 12:44:57 PM
A tease can be *A* significant attraction or pleasure of a film.  It can't be *THE*. 

I can imagine a BvS film where I walked out amazed at the story, the characterizations, and the teases of what is to come when Darkseid finally arrives.  However, it doesn't seem like this film has any chance to be that film... and I have to stretch my imagination to conceive of such a film.  The DCU characters are so much harder than Marvel to put on film.  They are so dated, have so many abilities, are so powerful, have so many 'cosmic' origin elements, etc... that making relatable characters that we can get behind in 150 minutes is very, very hard even when you don't make all the wrong choices.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on March 31, 2016, 01:11:23 PM
TV seems to be doing a pretty decent job.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 01:57:58 PM
TV seems to be doing a pretty decent job.
Yeah - but they have more than 150 minutes.  The link to the Superman story Furiously posted a few posts up is a great example of something you could do on a Superman TV show that would be very hard to pull off in a movie due to time constraints.  Marvel manages to do some of this type of stuff, but the amount of it in Captain America MCU action is much less than in Captain America comics.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 31, 2016, 02:11:34 PM
There is nothing fundamentally harder to pull off about Superman or Batman on film than any other character - in fact, it should be easier since the iconic status of the characters makes certain explanations unnecessary. I mean, Iron Man had to be explained because only comics nerds really knew him. Fuck's sake, THOR of all characters had zero iconic status other than from mythology and there's a huge leap between the mythological Thor and what the MCU has done with him. Goddamn Ant-Man or Guardians of the Galaxy even... nothing about those characters was even remotely known by the general public before the trailers.

The only fundamental difference is Marvel has good creators working on their stuff and DC has Zack Snyder and David Goyer, King McFucksticks of the Superheroes are Dumb school of thought.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: TheWalrus on March 31, 2016, 02:25:39 PM
Speaking as someone who loves superheroes, but has never picked up a comic book, (thanks mom n dad) the difference for me is the obvious care between the two divisions. Marvel people, though getting some of the comic translation wrong, clearly love the characters and story. The DC stuff is just watered down crap in comparison. (Though part of me would like to see a Batman movie where the villian is in Hollywood doing movies about Batman making him watch his parents die over and over. Comedy!)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on March 31, 2016, 02:31:39 PM
Blame Goyer.  That dude is a fuckstick of the highest caliber.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2016, 03:44:39 PM
There is nothing fundamentally harder to pull off about Superman or Batman on film than any other character - in fact, it should be easier since the iconic status of the characters makes certain explanations unnecessary. I mean, Iron Man had to be explained because only comics nerds really knew him. Fuck's sake, THOR of all characters had zero iconic status other than from mythology and there's a huge leap between the mythological Thor and what the MCU has done with him. Goddamn Ant-Man or Guardians of the Galaxy even... nothing about those characters was even remotely known by the general public before the trailers.

The only fundamental difference is Marvel has good creators working on their stuff and DC has Zack Snyder and David Goyer, King McFucksticks of the Superheroes are Dumb school of thought.

Just in case anyone missed this post !!!


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 04:36:15 PM
There is nothing fundamentally harder to pull off about Superman or Batman on film than any other character - in fact, it should be easier since the iconic status of the characters makes certain explanations unnecessary...
We've had this discussion.  Go back if you want to reread all the reasons why DC, as a universe, is harder than Marvel to put on film.  Nothing has changed. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2016, 04:37:19 PM
We've had this discussion ?  Really ?

'Cause I have issues with the conclusion.  Especially considering we, you know, had good Batman and Superman movies ?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on March 31, 2016, 04:46:40 PM
Good superman movies, plural?

But yeah, hire a decent writer and director and any issue around how terribly hard it is to make a Batman film goes away.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on March 31, 2016, 04:59:18 PM
Superman may be a little harder, but that's only if you assume that "Truth, Justice and the American Way from a nigh-indestructible alien" is a bad premise. If you make that assumption, you have a fundamental problem with Superman as a character and shouldn't ever be writing him. That's who the character is and there's nothing wrong with it. As a matter of fact, other than the indestructible alien part, that's EXACTLY what people always said about Captain America as a reason for not liking the character. And yet, the two Cap movies are some of the best. Good actor, really good screenplays and good directors made that character one of the most popular. They started with the assumption that there's nothing wrong with this character other than anachronisms.

Superman, OTOH, has been treated by Synder as his version of Dr. Manhattan. And he and Goyer have no idea what to do with that other than make him moody, distant and unrelatable. And they started with the idea that "Clark Kent is a stupid mask that everyone should see through" and as a result, their Clark Kent has no personality, no morals, no ethics and no empathy. The difference is literally night and day with Christopher Reeves' Clark/Superman because he does both characters extremely well. For all its flaws, Superman 1 & 2 really nailed what makes that character great. Superman 2 and the fights with Zod were EPIC despite the effects being from the '80's and the rest of the movie deals with all the weighty topics Superman can without resorting to drab, dreary, cynical shit.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 05:38:48 PM
We've had this discussion ?  Really ?

'Cause I have issues with the conclusion.  Especially considering we, you know, had good Batman and Superman movies ?

Yes.  We mentioned that Batman (and Green Arrow - pretty much all Street Level DC) is an exception, but that the majority of the DC universe has power levels that far exceed Marvel (which is more difficult to put on film and make reasonable - see the powering down of Thor and Hulk from comic to film - two of the most powerful Marvel characters who are a fraction of the power levels of Superman), DC characters were made earlier in time and have far more outlandish elements, and they don't contain the humanizing elements that were a hallmark of Stan Lee and Marvel.  There are a lot of 'scholarly' articles and books written on the differences between DC and Marvel - and a lot of them address why Marvel is easier to move to film media. 

And the first Superman movie was good for the time, but does not hold up to modern standards.  Compare Winter Soldier and Superman I.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: TheWalrus on March 31, 2016, 05:57:26 PM
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12512226_10153833496766998_2984492796944343355_n.jpg?oh=ab021f92c879a92eaadd70bd4ce48a00&oe=5793A22A)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on March 31, 2016, 05:58:10 PM
lol


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on March 31, 2016, 10:16:28 PM
Honestly... That I would see.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on April 01, 2016, 05:20:50 AM

Yes.  We mentioned that Batman (and Green Arrow - pretty much all Street Level DC) is an exception, but that the majority of the DC universe has power levels that far exceed Marvel (which is more difficult to put on film and make reasonable - see the powering down of Thor and Hulk from comic to film - two of the most powerful Marvel characters who are a fraction of the power levels of Superman), DC characters were made earlier in time and have far more outlandish elements, and they don't contain the humanizing elements that were a hallmark of Stan Lee and Marvel.  There are a lot of 'scholarly' articles and books written on the differences between DC and Marvel - and a lot of them address why Marvel is easier to move to film media. 
[/quote]

Thing is that starts out with the assumption that the movie creator wants to take the comic character as is and just transplant them into film. In the same post where you mention how Marvel altered their characters to get their power levels to better fit the MCU. :uhrr: They didn't take the comic character to put in the movies though, the DC team deliberately took what you argue is the least film friendly aspect of the character (his power level) and decided to frame their character around that. That's what people mean when they say Snyder and Goyer don't like or care about the characters, they see heroes as power sets and seek to put those powers into 'real life' and craft a character they think would arise out of that.

Superman as an isolated and lonely figure, fundamentally separate from humanity is a potentially interesting theme of the character but it only works as an enjoyable element when combined with believable empathy and connection. You can't base an origin story around that (which was a major focus of this Superman's origin movie) because it starts off making the character unrelatable. You concentrate on the aspects of the character that really define it, 12 year old boys think of superman as his powerset, for anyone vaguely adult he's the quintessential superhero do-gooder type. DC is only more difficult to adapt to film if effects are a challenge (and based on the existing movies, that is far from the issue) or the writers are utterly incapable of writing a character with any depth or humanity.

If Marvel had given Snyder and Goyer Cap II we would have had 30 minutes of Cap being isolated and moody, probably acting racist and homophobic (because he's from the 1940's and that's how people were then) followed by 90 minutes of Hydra assassinating people in SHIELD, Cap torturing suspected Hydra agents, the Helicarriers devastating several US cities and anihilating huge swathe of SHIELD and US military personnel before Cap blew the final one up and rode it into the Twin Towers. Also everything would have been grey. I guess then you could come in and tell us that Captain America as a character is just more difficult to handle than Iron Man because he's old fashioned and doesn't translate well to modern sensibilities what with being created for WWII.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Mac on April 01, 2016, 05:27:58 AM
Friend demands I go see this with him (he made me go to all the Transformer movies). Is the movie really bad or is it comicbook neckbeards complaining?

 I'm sort of getting tired of all this superhero shit and I might just go see this on shrooms or something.




Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2016, 05:31:37 AM
Yeah, sorry JG, but you're talking mince.

You can't say that 'DC is harder to do except when Marvel had the same issue and changed things to make it easier to do and was kinda massively successful'.  Well, you can say it, of course.

But then you'd sound like a right cock.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: eldaec on April 01, 2016, 06:27:00 AM
Batman aside you have to change more stuff to do DC. But it is nothing a halfway capable writer should have difficulty with.

If they concentrate on making a good film they can take any liberty they want with the characters and stories. The value of the IP is name recognition not literary content.

I'd happily watch a good Dr Manhattan film rebranded as Superman. I give no fucks about the lore so long as you set my expectations going in.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on April 01, 2016, 08:30:50 AM
Friend demands I go see this with him (he made me go to all the Transformer movies). Is the movie really bad or is it comicbook neckbeards complaining?

 I'm sort of getting tired of all this superhero shit and I might just go see this on shrooms or something.




It's not as bad as the complaints make it seem.  Its just super mediocre when by all rights it could have been good.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 01, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
It is like you folks never learned to read.  I have addressed all those points over and over.   You can think I have no idea what it takes to make a good comic movie (although when I go back and look at my opinions over the past several years and see how my predictions played out...) but how about what Joss Whedon thinks?

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/joss-whedon-explains-why-dc-comics-movies-dont-work/ (http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/joss-whedon-explains-why-dc-comics-movies-dont-work/)

Nah, he must be clueless, too.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 01, 2016, 10:00:53 AM
Sure, Whedon could be wrong. He sometimes has been, even.

But also, let's get a bit of a grip here. It's not as if "DC comics properties are harder to make into movies" is a proposition like "At 32 degrees Fahrenheit, water freezes". It's an opinion! It can be defended or disagreed with but it's not something to get all ragey about as if any view on that assertion is QED.

I do think there's a long history of people saying that a particular novel or other prior work (in all sorts of genres) simply cannot be adapted into a successful film and discovering that they were wrong later on when a smart director or scriptwriter figured out a way. Equally I think there's a long history of people saying that a particular novel or other prior work was naturally suited for adaptation and discovering they were wrong because a bad adaptation is always possible with the right lack of talent or insight. That says nothing about whether some things are really or genuinely hard-mode for adaptation and other things easy, but it does suggest that everyone with an opinion on that subject might want to lug around some grains of salt.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
Friend demands I go see this with him (he made me go to all the Transformer movies). Is the movie really bad or is it comicbook neckbeards complaining?

It's not the comic neckbeard complaining - more like film school student neckbeard level of complaints. The problems with this movie aren't that it's a comic book movie, it's that it is a badly executed, badly written, expensive mess that fails at almost all facets of film making and is only saved from MST3K levels of derision because the characters are iconic and the budget keeps it from looking like Manos: The Hands of Fate.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on April 01, 2016, 10:11:58 AM
Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2016, 10:24:23 AM
It is like you folks never learned to read.  I have addressed all those points over and over.   You can think I have no idea what it takes to make a good comic movie (although when I go back and look at my opinions over the past several years and see how my predictions played out...) but how about what Joss Whedon thinks?

http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/joss-whedon-explains-why-dc-comics-movies-dont-work/ (http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/joss-whedon-explains-why-dc-comics-movies-dont-work/)

Nah, he must be clueless, too.

Ok, I've read that ;  yeah, he's clueless too.  That quote is utter wank.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 01, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Nobody said, "cannot be adapted".  I, personally, said harder to adapt.  This is an opinion in the same way that one might have the opinion that 50 lbs of rocks feels heavier than 5 lbs of rocks.  

However, I am not NOT saying that DC couldn't have the right people with the right approach nail a DU that worked.  I even proposed a solution that I'd think had a chance (which I say not to suggest that I know the right way - but merely to note that I would not suggest a plan if I thought no plan would work). I am just saying that it is ridiculously harder.

Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?
No, I don't think he did in 2009 explain why a good, but not great, 2015 movie was messed up when he was forced to change elements of his story that he did not want to change.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2016, 10:25:50 AM
I mean it's not like we've seen movies that dealt with Gods being good before....

Oh wait.  We have.  Fucking tons of them.

Also, American Gods is coming soon !  Not related to the point, but fucking exciting.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2016, 10:28:43 AM
Also, for the triple post, that fucking quote is from 2009.  Get the fuck out of here.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 01, 2016, 11:39:41 AM
Also, for the triple post, that fucking quote is from 2009.  Get the fuck out of here.
Seriously: Why would it make any difference if he'd said it in 2006, 2009 or 2015?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on April 01, 2016, 11:53:11 AM
Ahem

 :oh_i_see:"The character Thor is a mythical being from Viking lore who is trapped as a crippled surgeon on earth. It's incredibly difficult to adapt such a character to MCU because you'd have to introduce magic as well as creating the issue of the existence of actual gods and the veracity of Norse mythology. On top of that how do you deal with a character who needs to spend half their time crippled a punishment (enforcing stereotypes of physical disability being some sort of punishment for something). It's just really not an easy task"

 :drill: I am a hyper-advanced alien from a culture your would recognise as that of Norse mythology. I have a giant hammer and can hit things really hard. That is all.

You can make any character difficult to put across properly and all I've seen from the Snyder DC stuff so far is that he either doesn't understand the core of the characters that makes them likeable or he just doesn't like the idea of super heroes. And he's not very good at making movies outside of storyboarding dramatic stuff.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 01, 2016, 12:40:25 PM
If you see no difference between Superman and Thor, I can't help you.

If you can't see that the problem is not about a single character, but about the entire universe of characters (excluding street level so people do not bring up Batman for the 100000th time despite it being well addressed), I can't help you.

I've said all I have to say on this topic. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Ironwood on April 01, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
Good.  'Cause you're shit ass wrong.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 01, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Good.  'Cause you're shit ass wrong.


(http://i.imgur.com/AhstM.gif)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on April 01, 2016, 01:56:47 PM
Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Mac on April 01, 2016, 02:31:31 PM
Friend demands I go see this with him (he made me go to all the Transformer movies). Is the movie really bad or is it comicbook neckbeards complaining?

 I'm sort of getting tired of all this superhero shit and I might just go see this on shrooms or something.




It's not as bad as the complaints make it seem.  Its just super mediocre when by all rights it could have been good.

Ok, thanks. Mediocre I can handle with just beer.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 01, 2016, 02:40:04 PM
Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon


To be fair Whedon did butt heads with Marvel when it came to cuts and stuff.  Which is why the whole Thor thing seems half assed.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on April 01, 2016, 03:11:18 PM
Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon


To be fair Whedon did butt heads with Marvel when it came to cuts and stuff.  Which is why the whole Thor thing seems half assed.

You're right. I should amend:

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon
Kvetched, to anyone who would listen (and especially publish), about the bullies who kidnapped and enslaved him, and then ran roughshod over his vision for the movie: someone whose name rhymes with Foss Kneadon


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on April 01, 2016, 05:11:01 PM
Avengers  2 was a mess, but it was a fun mess at least.

And frankly, all this talk about it being hard to make a DC movie. Who cares? It's hard to do lots of things right and we still don't put up with garbage.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 01, 2016, 05:46:43 PM
Didn't read the link but does Whedon also explain why avengers two was a mess?

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon


To be fair Whedon did butt heads with Marvel when it came to cuts and stuff.  Which is why the whole Thor thing seems half assed.

You're right. I should amend:

Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)
Written By: Joss Whedon
Directed By: Joss Whedon
Kvetched, to anyone who would listen (and especially publish), about the bullies who kidnapped and enslaved him, and then ran roughshod over his vision for the movie: someone whose name rhymes with Foss Kneadon


I am pretty sure Edgar Wright would like to have a word with you about who really controls what at Marvel.  Even if you are the writer and director.  Remember after AoU is when Feige managed to get the "creative committee" ousted and banished to TV only land.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on April 01, 2016, 06:09:18 PM
Yeah no. You can definitely make these characters compelling

Superman The Animated Series
Justice League
Justice League Unlimited.

It takes good, not half asses writing and understanding of what these characters mean not just how hard they should hit things. Generic DC movie writer can't do it because their too busy rewriting the dark knight returns and masturbating to the watchmen. On an intellectual level they know what these characters are capable of but that's not makes them interesting.

Just fucking let Bruce Tim direct every DC movie being made from now on and call it a day.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Evildrider on April 01, 2016, 06:45:29 PM
DC animated has always been better than the live action movies.  Although the switch to the New 52 versions was a mistake imo.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 01, 2016, 08:44:40 PM
Even the DC stuff that Bruce Timm didn't have a hand in was good, or at least fuckloads better than BVS. I mean, Brave and the Bold was straight up camp with a serious comic book edge, it had goddamn B'WANA BEAST, for fuck's sake, and it was still miles better than this movie. And it was done in 22 minute chunks, and it set up Justice League.

I'm not even sure it's about competent writing (because Goyer has actually written decent scripts) so much as attitude. Goyer fucking hates superheroes and superhero fans. HATES THEM. He can't relate to the characters or the people who like those characters and it shows. That contempt and distance is in the script and is amplified by a director who clearly cannot make more out of a script than there already is in terms of getting actors to act and staging anything but action scenes.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on April 01, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
That Thor to Superman comparison is interesting. I have to agree that Thor is more complicated. He's a god, kind of, he has a magical space bridge, he is a normal person who is like...possessed by the spirit of Thor and can transform into him or some shit...what?

Superman is a super powerful alien who came to earth, and his powers are the most generic super hero powers possible. There's really nothing complicated.

It's also really fucking easy to humanize Superman. He is adopted by earth parents, and grows up loving mom, the flag and apple pie. Oh wait - that's already his story! Spiderman's uncle is killed off and that helps humanize him - well in the new Superman movies his dad is killed off, for basically the same reason. This isn't rocket science. The problem that DC heroes are unrelatable is only maybe a problem if you have a slavish devotion to the comics.

What's hard about Superman is that he's invincible to everything. That's where people run into trouble and need clunky solutions. (Although the solution could be "make him super tough, but not actually invincible")

What's hard about Green Lantern is that his powers are goofy as shit, and it's hard to write about a guy who can do anything he imagines but for some reason only imagines ping pong paddles. So I'll grant that Green Lantern is hard.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: NowhereMan on April 02, 2016, 03:13:32 AM

What's hard about Superman is that he's invincible to everything. That's where people run into trouble and need clunky solutions. (Although the solution could be "make him super tough, but not actually invincible")

What's hard about Green Lantern is that his powers are goofy as shit, and it's hard to write about a guy who can do anything he imagines but for some reason only imagines ping pong paddles. So I'll grant that Green Lantern is hard.

That would work with Superman. I've really always considered him basically a wish fulfillment superhero in that he's an everyman who discovers he has incredible powers and uses them to... fight crime and save people. Superman is meant to be what people imagine themselves like with great powers and not in a 'dinner part chat' way but in 'your private moments you don't really believe' kind of way. Confronting people with collateral damage, focusing only on the alienation and inhumanity that may come with those powers doesn't sell that to us, it tears apart why people enjoy Superman and just points at you going, 'Now do you see what it's like you little child? Not so great is it? Where is your god now?'

Green Lantern is doable but it's just a case of ignoring the goofy uses if it's going to be a solo thing. Goofy powers like that can work as occasional bits but not if it's everything a character is doing. What's really challenging is fitting the constructs in with the character, if everything he's doing is goofy then you have to play the character as goofy, which doesn't make for a great protagonist in an action movie generally (Deadpool accepted but the dark murdering all the time helps tone it down). Green Lantern also has the magical plot macguffin of 'Willpower' so he can be as weak or powerful as the writer wants him to be and has the perfect excuse for power ups in dangerous situation thing.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on April 02, 2016, 07:29:39 AM
Another issue with Green Lantern is that his powers not only have to almost necessarily be goofy CGI shit, they have to be goofy neon green CGI shit. Visually it's getting into The Mask territory.

Maybe I just hate Green Lantern. I've always thought that pretty much everything about him is dumb as hell.

Quote
That would work with Superman. I've really always considered him basically a wish fulfillment superhero in that he's an everyman who discovers he has incredible powers and uses them to... fight crime and save people.

In a way it's like Harry Potter, but instead of "you're a wizard Harry" it's "you're an alien."

I think superman can be used well in two ways. As a main character that way works - he is a great guy who also has superpowers and uses them to help people. He can also work as a side character to contrast against others. Portrayals that make him seem like more of a god, a story where a mediocre super hero struggles with not being perfect like superman, etc.

The Snyder movies kind of split the difference.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 02, 2016, 08:06:27 AM
I think that's generally right--Superman is a more interesting team player/straight man than a solo character. Often the same for Captain America, actually--when you have a guy who is stipulated to be the basically decent, right-choosing, middle-American guy when he's played to his usual image, it's hard to give him a dramatic arc.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MediumHigh on April 02, 2016, 09:18:54 AM
I think that's generally right--Superman is a more interesting team player/straight man than a solo character. Often the same for Captain America, actually--when you have a guy who is stipulated to be the basically decent, right-choosing, middle-American guy when he's played to his usual image, it's hard to give him a dramatic arc.

Superman TAS.

Its all about not making him a god. Let him get as much as he gives. Show that he actually cares about people as people not as a alien god who takes pity on us peons.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Jeff Kelly on April 02, 2016, 10:01:15 AM
Superman is basically a paladin and no one wants a paladin in his group.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Malakili on April 02, 2016, 10:27:23 AM
Except they've decided to play him as an emo paladin in this iteration of the DC movies, which is the whole problem.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 02, 2016, 03:29:49 PM
Supergirl has roughly the same power level as Superman, and yet the TV show (as cringeworthy as it can be sometimes) does a remarkably good job of showing that power level without making her unbeatable. It also manages to give her emotional depth beyond just her feelings of inadequacy in the light of being Superman's cousin. It does just about everything MOS/BVS has failed to do with the character with less budget, on a weekly timetable with TV actors and various directors and screenwriters. It really is just all about the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the talent in charge.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Furiously on April 02, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
Supergirl has roughly the same power level as Superman, and yet the TV show (as cringeworthy as it can be sometimes) does a remarkably good job of showing that power level without making her unbeatable. It also manages to give her emotional depth beyond just her feelings of inadequacy in the light of being Superman's cousin. It does just about everything MOS/BVS has failed to do with the character with less budget, on a weekly timetable with TV actors and various directors and screenwriters. It really is just all about the capabilities (or lack thereof) of the talent in charge.

It helps that 1/2 the show focuses on her non-superhero life and her struggle to fit in and help her friends and family. Not on her ability to flatten a city.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Hutch on April 03, 2016, 09:19:24 AM

I am pretty sure Edgar Wright would like to have a word with you about who really controls what at Marvel.  Even if you are the writer and director.  Remember after AoU is when Feige managed to get the "creative committee" ousted and banished to TV only land.

What I'm saying is that Whedon took their money, and then bitched and blame-shifted, in public, about the state of the end product. Maybe Edgar Wright would like to have a word with me, although I'm not even a pretend journalist, so probably not.

Since you bring up Wright, I thought that Ant-Man was a better movie overall. Was this because Ant-Man had a dozen fewer characters to write for? Was it because Wright's original vision was simply better? Was it because the writers and director who finished the movie somehow found a way to cooperate with the big bullies at Marvel?

Who can say? If we lived in the MCU, maybe we could invent a machine to view alternate timelines.

edit: his name is not spelled "EdgeGear"


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: kaid on April 05, 2016, 02:39:31 PM
Another issue with Green Lantern is that his powers not only have to almost necessarily be goofy CGI shit, they have to be goofy neon green CGI shit. Visually it's getting into The Mask territory.

Maybe I just hate Green Lantern. I've always thought that pretty much everything about him is dumb as hell.

Quote
That would work with Superman. I've really always considered him basically a wish fulfillment superhero in that he's an everyman who discovers he has incredible powers and uses them to... fight crime and save people.

In a way it's like Harry Potter, but instead of "you're a wizard Harry" it's "you're an alien."

I think superman can be used well in two ways. As a main character that way works - he is a great guy who also has superpowers and uses them to help people. He can also work as a side character to contrast against others. Portrayals that make him seem like more of a god, a story where a mediocre super hero struggles with not being perfect like superman, etc.

The Snyder movies kind of split the difference.


I actually thought the last green lantern movie pretty much was about as good as green lantern will ever get. Guy whose power is his imagination and in general comic book cannon he has the imagination of a 12 year old. So having giant glowing green neon shitty CGI looking constructs is pretty much true to the source material.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sir T on April 06, 2016, 11:13:13 AM
Plus the Green Lantern character has in most cases been a dumb immature asshole that the audience is supposed to be mostly rooting against, so "being true to the comic" would be commercial suicide.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: jgsugden on April 06, 2016, 12:08:35 PM
Plus the Green Lantern character has in most cases been a dumb immature asshole that the audience is supposed to be mostly rooting against, so "being true to the comic" would be commercial suicide.
Hal Jordan was originally a cocky jerk, but I would not call him immature. As I understand it, that is a more recent development.  Tony Stark was the dumb immature party heavy asshole that was designed to be a character the audience should hate -  a weapons manufacturer pretty boy in that era? The Downey version is different than the original, but it shows that an otherwise unlikely character with Charisma can be well received.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on April 06, 2016, 08:06:05 PM
Stark was a bland character with not particularly interesting motivations for his first 100 + issues. He was a weapons designer, but Stan Lee was at his most aggressively anti-Communist agit-prop in writing that part of Stark--there was not even the remotest hint of there being anything wrong about it. He visited Vietnam as a heroic weapons designer, got wounded by the Commies, worked with a fellow scientist to secretly build the armor and escape so he could go on building weapons to crush the yellow peril Commies. He wasn't even particularly a playboy at first--he pined for his secretary, was painfully earnest, did a lot of anti-Commie stuff for SHIELD in particular, and whined endlessly about his wounded heart and his breastplate and will-I-be-normal again. Somewhere about five or six years in, he started getting more flamboyant and playful, but he still had reversions to being Very Serious Industrialist. When the Marvel writers decided to have him stop making munitions, it became a big deal that created tons of controversy.

Hal Jordan was originally just bland, honestly. A fighter jock, but he was a fighter jock in the era when that was played straight--patriotic, upstanding, courageous guy. He was straight out of the Mercury 7 propaganda. Again, it wasn't until much later that this got any kind of dimensionality to it.

This is true for most superheroes, even Marvel ones. The only characters who had some real dimensionality from day one that's stayed with them is Spider-Man and the Fantastic Four. (guilty teenager; bickering family).  Edit: ok, also Dr. Strange: guilt-ridden adult who has found new spiritual meaning. Everybody else in the Marvel canon has travelled pretty far from their beginnings, even if you can see vague hints of it early on.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Threash on April 06, 2016, 09:08:50 PM
Cept for the black ones, who all start as criminals. (http://www.cracked.com/article_22756_5-terrible-messages-hidden-inside-every-superhero-story.html)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Sir T on April 08, 2016, 01:25:32 PM
So, anyone for a good conspiracy theory?

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/2/11348262/batman-v-superman-conspiracy-critics

Quote
Popularity has nothing to do with quality. There are plenty of movies, like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise, that haul in mountains of money but are still pretty awful. I don't think Batman v Superman is Michael Bay-level bad, nor do I think the piles of money it's earned so far necessarily prove critics were wrong about its many plot holes, the flaws in its editing, or director Zack Snyder's shortcomings.

But what's fascinated me about the collective response to Batman v Superman is how deeply invested fans have become in its success — and just how far fans will go to convince themselves that critics have unfairly targeted their movie for doom.

Some fans of Batman v Superman believe Marvel paid journalists to write bad reviews

Batman v Superman is a DC Comics/Warner Bros. property, and the best conspiracy theory currently floating around online is that film critics were paid by Marvel, the biggest company in comics, to trash the movie. If you look at the comments accompanying certain reviews or survey fans' posts about Batman v Superman on social media, you'll find many fans who wholeheartedly believe this is the case.

BuzzFeed and the Daily Dot have both compiled great collections of these responses.

(https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/X5bdwamjiXpVEcMXbvEjo4Q82qk=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6276245/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-01%20at%202.30.59%20PM.png)
(Twitter via BuzzFeed)

What's the going rate for a bad review? What, exactly, does Marvel stand to gain from Batman v Superman getting a poor review? Doesn't Marvel have anything better to do? The conspiracy theorists don't answer any of these questions.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Mac on April 13, 2016, 12:59:15 PM
Saw it yesterday, this wasn't bad at all.

It was mediocre, but so was Age of Ultron.



Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on April 13, 2016, 08:34:42 PM
So,  appearently Warner has greenlit the Affleck directed Batman movie


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: BobtheSomething on April 13, 2016, 09:30:48 PM
So,  appearently Warner has greenlit the Affleck directed Batman movie

What took them so long?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on April 13, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
David Goyer was writing the meeting agenda.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on June 22, 2016, 08:02:20 AM
Somebody really, really does not get it.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/06/zack-snyder-set-justice-league.html


I love the quote on Wonder Woman's costume--she's allowed to have a bright color because it's the "congealed blood of thousands of her victims".

More importantly, you can just see in this piece and the others that have been filed about this set visit that Snyder is struggling to understand unfamiliar things like "humor" and "fun". (In the io9 piece on the set visit, they quote one of the other people working on the film saying that they learned that people don't like to see heroes "deconstructed": meaning it's our fault for not understand the great man's Art.)


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Jeff Kelly on June 22, 2016, 08:21:37 AM
He just has a real boner for Watchmen and thinks that every piece of comic book content has to follow its template.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on June 22, 2016, 09:20:56 AM
The red in Wonder Woman's costume comment and the shit about deconstructing heroes makes me want to punch that fucker right in the face all over again. You didn't fucking deconstruct the characters, you fucking made them into grimdark alternate reality versions that bore almost no likeness to the fucking characters they were based on. It had nothing to do with deconstructing characters. Get tae fuck with that.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MahrinSkel on June 22, 2016, 10:03:02 AM
“The demons must have caught the scent of the Mother Box,”

“The demons must have caught the scent of the Mother Box,

The demons must have caught the scent of the Mother Box,”

“The demons must have caught the scent of the Mother Box,”

What a brilliant line of dialog. There's no way to parse it that isn't incredibly stupid. That takes real talent.

--Dave


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on June 23, 2016, 01:24:24 AM
The red in Wonder Woman's costume comment and the shit about deconstructing heroes makes me want to punch that fucker right in the face all over again. You didn't fucking deconstruct the characters, you fucking made them into grimdark alternate reality versions that bore almost no likeness to the fucking characters they were based on. It had nothing to do with deconstructing characters. Get tae fuck with that.
Indeed.  It's almost like they went "these are all the things that DONT make Batman Batman, so lets make a movie about Batman being those things.  Oh, and there will be a brooding guy with a giant S on his chest in it too."


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Velorath on June 23, 2016, 05:59:09 AM
Inbetween spending 38 pages and counting discussing a movie that has been well established to be bad, you guys are all going out there and supporting good movies right?


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: SurfD on June 23, 2016, 06:53:26 AM
Inbetween spending 38 pages and counting discussing a movie that has been well established to be bad, you guys are all going out there and supporting good movies right?
I  get to watch all my movies  for free, so good or bad, I cant really say i am "supporting" them, but hey, cant complain.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Bunk on June 23, 2016, 08:01:34 AM
Inbetween spending 38 pages and counting discussing a movie that has been well established to be bad, you guys are all going out there and supporting good movies right?

I went and watched Warcraft last night, does that count? :P

I was going to watch this movie at some point. Had planned to at my local theatre a few weeks after it came out. Except it wasn't playing there anymore. Zootopia was still there though, a movie I'd seen a month prior


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on June 23, 2016, 11:59:20 AM
I am very glad to spend money on good movies, and do so with pleasure. I also don't care about most bad movies. I care only when: a) I'd like to see a good movie version of a particular character or story and b) I can readily see how a movie could have and should have been good.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on July 07, 2016, 08:19:25 PM
So I finally watched this, but as the director's cut version on iTunes, not the theatrical one.

tl;dr: Nothing here none of you haven't been saying since March, except maybe some things the extended cut seemed to include that smoothed things out.

Reading Merusk's writeup a few pages back, I think there's a number of things the extra 30 minutes included that helped the movie. Not nearly as much as, say, The Abyss Theatrical vs The Abyss Director's Cut (the "cut" part gotta be history's worst cut sequence). But some of the disjointed shit Merusk outlined plus what my oldest tells me she saw in the theater makes me think they shoulda gone with the longer version and said screw the seat turnover beancounters or whoever set the hard time limit.

Basically, the extra 30 seems largely to be additional pieces of content that blend between sequences. For example, in the theatrical release it sounds like Superman saves Lois from Luthor throwing her off the tower, confronts Luthor, is given the threat and time limit, and then flys off to fight Batman, only making some minor "Bruce we gotta talk" before getting pissed off to fight back. There's an additional piece that happens though:

.

There were lots of bits like this. Another one that jumps out:


The thing the extra 30 doesn't do is justify at all Luthor's motive. he doesn't seem to want to rule the world. If The Joker is basically Batman without rules, then Luthor still comes off as Bruce Wayne without self control. The impression I got, which is really just me overthinking the movie and not reading any of the studios' or Director's retconning or whatever, is that as Wayne didn't trust an all powerful being enough to want to kill him, Luthor didn't trust him either and didn't trust above-the-law-and-obvious-about-it Batman.

What is never established is what Luthor thought he'd do with Doomsday about it killed Superman or Batman, whichever showed up from the fight.

So, no motive, no foresight, terrible writing, and acting only justifiable if you understood the motive and had good writing, overall Luthor to me was the hugest fail. And I mean a huger fail than Superman once again having no problem killing anyone, and Batman using fucking guns (and also not having any problem killing anyway).

Also:

My sense is that the longer version made this a story of redemption, specifically Bruce's. Luthor was just a trigger for what Bruce wanted to do anyway (get rid of the above-all-humanity alien). But in realizing Superman wasn't actually a bad guy, and instead always tried to do the right thing even if it didn't help him, Bruce realized he'd gone too far down the whole into criminality. He was perpetuating the bad because he first fought fire with fire and then branded them to let the dogs tear them up.

Ultimately, I don't know they could have done this another way. Yea they coulda gone bright-color light-humor cheery like Avengers, but then everyone would bitch that BvS didn't live up to the grimdark of the source material. That was not a happy graphic novel. In fact, and maybe this was obvious in the theatrical cut, but they reversed the bad guys between the GN and the movie and added that redemption arc resulting in sequels to come, something the GN didn't really have.

But they totally wasted both Luthor and Doomsday. The fight broken up by WW with Luthor-damning data woulda been enough to set up Justice League. Then a movie establishing that. Then a movie about Darkseid. Then the Doomsday movie where he kills or nearly so most of anything that gets in his way before the most powerful of them all also goes down.

That's a universe. This was just trying to cram too much into one movie because they're probably still  not sure how many more they'll get funding for.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 07, 2016, 09:37:40 PM
Part of their problem was basing too much on Dark Knight Returns, including the 20 years of enmity between Bats and Supes without the 20 years of resentments that caused it. They tried to establish the fight without earning the justification.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Merusk on July 08, 2016, 09:11:22 AM
Much like the new ST movies.

Most of these reboots are relying on the tropes and character-beats of an old series while wanting you to accept the, "No it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT" lie. No, it's just a bad story and you're using brand-loyalty to shore it up.

At least make it obvious and use the beats to set-up new characters like TFA did. Instead they want us to believe that after 2 hours of hating each other Spock and Kirk will sacrifice their lives for each other due to their deep bond of trust. Or that Bats and Supes will be best buddies after they bond over mom having the same first name.

Fuck some of these stories are awful.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Venkman on July 08, 2016, 08:31:42 PM
I dunno. I think the callbacks are fine, but we're talking 30 years ago. Not only were we different as people, society was different.

Plus, format. I only read the Graphic Novel. But whether you read that or were reading the four comics in realtime over the months, they had a lot of page to establish the background. You could pick it up, not know anything about each protagonist, but learn along the way the origins of the enmity (including side stories about Green Arrow, etc).

I think earlier in this thread or somewhere else I said something about how this movie needed more setup. I still believe that. But (at least in the one I saw), I think they did the best they could to cram a new origin story for both (Affleck as Batman at all, Batman as aged, Superman as a god figure) and then push through the narrative. I only think Luthor's motives were really undefined.

Also not sure where you're going on NuTrek. In the first one, Kirk and Spock had different motivations that aligned. In the second one, they established the quid pro quo of saving each other's lives. Though I did not like the "Khaaan" moment in particular, that was just because it was a gimmick appropriation.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: HaemishM on July 08, 2016, 09:37:11 PM
Kirk and Spock in Wrath of Khan had not only 1 3/4 of a movie of established continuity and relationship, they had YEARS of TV shows even though the shows didn't last a long time by network standards. People grew up seeing Kirk and Spock in this relationship. Similarly with Batman and Superman in Dark Knight Returns - there was literally years of continuity that those books played off of and the contrast between the World's Finest Batman/Superman team-ups of the '70's and '80's and the hostility they had towards each other in Dark Knight was one of the things that gave that such focus.

You're right in that there was not nearly enough setup for this - that's my point. Before becoming best buds at opposite ends of a kryptonite lance over their mothers having the same name, they had no history. They had met all of twice. They had no friendship and no rivalry. Things just HAPPENED because the plot said it should. The extra 30 minutes may have given some weight to it but it couldn't have been much. We really didn't even have much of a read on Superman, since the first movie was basically an origin story and Clark Kent the reporter was an epilogue to that movie, and was barely a participant in BVS. None of the relationships in the movie were earned at all by time. It was just really bad writing that was only partially saved by the iconography of the characters, giant set piece battles and explosions and Wonder Woman.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: MahrinSkel on July 10, 2016, 04:09:40 PM
Even with the extra scenes, the "Martha" scene makes no god damned sense. You've been obsessively planning to kill Superman, you've got him on the ropes, about to deliver the coup de grace, and he says your mother's name...so you turn 180 degrees because you both have mothers named "Martha"?

WTF? And then Supes decides that he's okay with Batman taking point on saving his mom, you're going to completely trust the guy who was literally just trying to kill you, with your mother's life? When you were going to kill him to save her?

That whole scene is a fucking mess, apparently because they wanted to set up the final battle and had run out of story beats. And it's supposed to be the epiphany, when all is made clear to the protagonists. The intellectual denouement moment of the whole plot. But they just pull it out of their ass.

--Dave


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 10, 2016, 10:19:00 PM
Pretty much this was what folks predicted would not work about the movie back when they announced that the big Dark Knight Returns scene would be an inspiration--that it would require some kind of awkward, unconvincing set-up to put characters who don't know each other into a situation that is premised on a long, intimate relationship that has gone from friendship to enmity. I would think that any screenwriter even remotely competent would see the same thing. So this says two things: 1) Snyder likes visuals, so he liked the visual of DKR and didn't care about the characterization; 2) the suits liked whatever they were told was likeable. Which means 3) Goyer wrote what he was required to write and probably ended up convincing himself it was great. 


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Margalis on July 11, 2016, 01:41:47 AM
So this says two things: 1) Snyder likes visuals, so he liked the visual of DKR and didn't care about the characterization; 2) the suits liked whatever they were told was likeable. Which means 3) Goyer wrote what he was required to write and probably ended up convincing himself it was great. 

Snyder's whole schtick is to create individual scenes that look cool or have some "meaning" or symbolism (messiah imagery ahoy!), often inspired by previous work, without regards for how they piece together.

Batman fighting Superman is a cool scene. But it only makes sense in context.

Quote
Most of these reboots are relying on the tropes and character-beats of an old series while wanting you to accept the, "No it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT" lie. No, it's just a bad story and you're using brand-loyalty to shore it up.

The thing is, Batman and Superman being at odds to this degree isn't even really an old trope or character beat.

I think it's fair for movies to assume the audience knows the characters and to rely a bit on previous knowledge that may not be technically canonical. For example we can skip an origin story for Spider-Man because we all know it.

I don't think, in a new Superman movie, you need to belabor that Superman has heat vision or x-ray vision, or try to explain it. People know that's part of Superman. But Superman and Batman being at odds isn't to me part of a well-established canon. It's not part of any other movies, it's not really part of the cartoons. If you casually follow comics you see that they are often on the same team, and maybe at most have some philosophical differences.

To get the idea that Superman and Batman have serious enough disagreement to want to kill each other you have to have read DKR, which is essentially a possible-future what if story. And even in that story it's less that Batman wants to kill Superman and more that he wants to knock some sense into him and/or fake his own death.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 11, 2016, 08:25:21 AM
Basically it went like this:

Batman-Superman until 1985: best pals, almost indistinguishable in personality and attitude, hang out together to an almost unwholesome degree. Stories of them sometimes tease the idea of a rivalry or opposition but it is always a trick or twist, usually them playing at something to trick an enemy.

Batman-Superman 1985: John Byrne reboots Superman and makes him and Batman uneasy allies because of some really strong differences in personalities and mission. Batman works in the dark, with fear; Superman works in the day, with trust. Metropolis is a shining city of hope; Gotham a gloomy city struggling with depression and crime. etc. Kind of smart, actually, to use the obvious visual and thematic differences more effectively. But they still work together.

Batman-Superman 1986: Dark Knight Returns comes out and the Batman-Superman conflict in the final issue ignites a thousand fanboy imaginations. From this point on, "what if" stories in DC comics will frequently replay a variation on this scene, typically somewhat incompetently. 

Batman-Superman 1980s-1990s: They're re-established as friends, but the stylistic and philosophical differences remain and are often references. Superman gives Batman a piece of kryptonite and instructs him to use it if he's ever taken over by a villain. The TV cartoons also play up the rivalry/alliance angle (and add a fun twist, when Bruce Wayne romances Lois Lane...) 

So I think most people who think of the characters are not probably thinking of the way-back version where they were just buddies in that Golden Age way, but instead the friendship with big differences/tension version, which seems pretty natural even if you just have a casual familiarity with the characters.

But that's what drives me nuts--if they wanted to work with that, they could have. There's even a good comic-book template in the early reboot of the relationship--Batman decides to investigate Superman, Superman is worried about what he hears about Batman, they find out each other's identities, they discover they have to come together to deal with an immediate menace, they build a wary trust. But Snyder just had to have the full DKR visuals and that's terrible--they require a history between them to be worth a damn.


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Fordel on July 11, 2016, 02:07:30 PM
But that's what drives me nuts--if they wanted to work with that, they could have. There's even a good comic-book template in the early reboot of the relationship--Batman decides to investigate Superman, Superman is worried about what he hears about Batman, they find out each other's identities, they discover they have to come together to deal with an immediate menace, they build a wary trust. But Snyder just had to have the full DKR visuals and that's terrible--they require a history between them to be worth a damn.

So the DCAU version? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F90nxOlsm1s


Title: Re: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Post by: Khaldun on July 12, 2016, 10:50:23 AM
Well, exactly--that was a beautifully executed version of "they meet, they almost-kind-of-fight, they work together". And then