Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 02:06:10 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 39 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  (Read 282940 times)
Maven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 914


Reply #630 on: May 15, 2014, 02:18:37 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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 02:20:41 AM by Maven »
jgsugden
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3888


Reply #631 on: May 15, 2014, 07:20:54 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. 

2020 will be the year I gave up all hope.
dusematic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2250

Diablo 3's Number One Fan


Reply #632 on: May 15, 2014, 07:53:50 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.  

« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 07:56:56 AM by dusematic »
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #633 on: May 15, 2014, 08:19:04 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.

"Me am play gods"
dusematic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2250

Diablo 3's Number One Fan


Reply #634 on: May 15, 2014, 08:26:49 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.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2014, 08:28:31 AM by dusematic »
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #635 on: May 15, 2014, 08:40:48 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.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #636 on: May 15, 2014, 09:09:15 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?

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #637 on: May 15, 2014, 09:24:55 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?
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #638 on: May 15, 2014, 09:49:57 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.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
dusematic
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2250

Diablo 3's Number One Fan


Reply #639 on: May 15, 2014, 10:50:24 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.

Nobody thinks MoS is a "dark, gritty movie." It's just not campy.
Maven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 914


Reply #640 on: May 15, 2014, 11:49:21 AM

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.
jgsugden
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3888


Reply #641 on: May 15, 2014, 12:09:59 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.

2020 will be the year I gave up all hope.
Yegolev
Moderator
Posts: 24440

2/10 WOULD NOT INGEST


WWW
Reply #642 on: May 15, 2014, 12:40:44 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

Why am I homeless?  Why do all you motherfuckers need homes is the real question.
They called it The Prayer, its answer was law
Mommy come back 'cause the water's all gone
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #643 on: May 15, 2014, 04:08:24 PM

Lobo.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Samwise
Moderator
Posts: 19212

sentient yeast infection


WWW
Reply #644 on: May 15, 2014, 04:28:00 PM

Brainiac.  Luthor.  Uhhhmm....

"I have not actually recommended many games, and I'll go on the record here saying my track record is probably best in the industry." - schild
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10131


Reply #645 on: May 15, 2014, 04:31:50 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.

"i can't be a star citizen. they won't even give me a star green card"
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #646 on: May 15, 2014, 04:33:46 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.

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536


Reply #647 on: May 15, 2014, 05:04:53 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 smiley
jgsugden
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3888


Reply #648 on: May 15, 2014, 05:11:49 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.

2020 will be the year I gave up all hope.
Surlyboi
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10962

eat a bag of dicks


Reply #649 on: May 15, 2014, 05:20:42 PM

Lobo.

They ain't made a movie that can hold the Main Man.

Tuned in, immediately get to watch cringey Ubisoft talking head offering her deepest sympathies to the families impacted by the Orlando shooting while flanked by a man in a giraffe suit and some sort of "horrifically garish neon costumes through the ages" exhibit or something.  We need to stop this fucking planet right now and sort some shit out. -Kail
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10131


Reply #650 on: May 15, 2014, 05:24:35 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.

"i can't be a star citizen. they won't even give me a star green card"
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #651 on: May 15, 2014, 05:45:20 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.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Johny Cee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3454


Reply #652 on: May 15, 2014, 10:05:36 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.

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.
Maven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 914


Reply #653 on: May 16, 2014, 01:22:59 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".
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 01:25:15 AM by Maven »
Ironwood
Terracotta Army
Posts: 28240


Reply #654 on: May 16, 2014, 01:40:34 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.

"Mr Soft Owl has Seen Some Shit." - Sun Tzu
Tannhauser
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4436


Reply #655 on: May 16, 2014, 02:47:59 AM

I like the new Batman costume, even the little ears.  I'm going into the JL movie with an open mind, hopefully.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #656 on: May 16, 2014, 03:27:57 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.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #657 on: May 16, 2014, 05:49:20 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.
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449

Badge Whore


Reply #658 on: May 16, 2014, 06:18:25 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?

The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #659 on: May 16, 2014, 07:52:22 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?

Hic sunt dracones.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #660 on: May 16, 2014, 07:54:36 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.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 07:56:50 AM by Lakov_Sanite »

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #661 on: May 16, 2014, 08:06:17 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.

Hic sunt dracones.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #662 on: May 16, 2014, 08:23:37 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.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223


Reply #663 on: May 16, 2014, 08:33:16 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.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 08:43:22 AM by Sir T »

Hic sunt dracones.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #664 on: May 16, 2014, 08:48:31 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.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 39 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Movies  |  Topic: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC