QuoteSet for release in 2015, this sequel is to be directed by Snyder and written by David S. Goyer featuring two of WB/DC's most iconic superheroes and is certain to compete with Marvel.
Article (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/official-superman-sequel-feature-batman-203738998.html)
Time to drool.
Dare we dream for a Lex Luther-Joker team-up?
It's actually a good move. With other DC movie franchise attempts failing and the Justice League film not going anywhere, doing a Batman/Superman movie is the next best thing and is very much an old tradition anyways. I just hope they don't mess this one up.
Can we expect a brief Superman VS Batman tussle? I think so! Will Superman be absent a brain so Batman can "have a chance" during said tussle? Sadly, I know so.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 21, 2013, 05:26:33 AM
It's actually a good move. With other DC movie franchise attempts failing and the Justice League film not going anywhere, doing a Batman/Superman movie is the next best thing and is very much an old tradition anyways. I just hope they don't mess this one up.
This. I've always thought Superman/Batman movie was the way to go for the reasons you already listed. Hoping for a good Batman cast as well.
ohhhhh happy dance, happy dance
lets hope this starts the building blocks. and i will hunt down any body to do with the movie if this scene does not appear end of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F90nxOlsm1s
also is it just me or is it taken jimmies by WB to introduce a new batman in a superman movie. at least we wont have to deal with the origin again
Great news. I'll be very interested in who is playing the new Batman.
I really, REALLY wish I could be excited about this. I would LOVE to see a really great World's Finest movie. I love both these characters, and I really love the friendship that has defined them and their universe. It's always been really cool to me that the two flagship heroes of the DCU, despite being so different in their approaches to what they do, were still the best of friends.
Yet, WB has squandered any good will I had towards their movies. The fact that Snyder is attached to this has me considering just skipping it altogether. After what he pushed for in the Superman movie, I don't think I want to see any more of this films.
Cat is right, though, in that this is a less brain-dead move than WB has heretofore tried. It's a shame they can't get their collective acts together, though.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 21, 2013, 06:52:33 PM
I really, REALLY wish I could be excited about this. I would LOVE to see a really great World's Finest movie. I love both these characters, and I really love the friendship that has defined them and their universe. It's always been really cool to me that the two flagship heroes of the DCU, despite being so different in their approaches to what they do, were still the best of friends.
Yet, WB has squandered any good will I had towards their movies. The fact that Snyder is attached to this has me considering just skipping it altogether. After what he pushed for in the Superman movie, I don't think I want to see any more of this films.
Cat is right, though, in that this is a less brain-dead move than WB has heretofore tried. It's a shame they can't get their collective acts together, though.
Sadly, I'm in the same boat you are, Benton.
I'm not. I loved loved loved MOS as did my really hard to please wife so the we are doing the happy dance.
Not that I want to say I called it but...
QuoteShogunn2517
Hero Member
Posts: 754
He's Got Your Hero Right Here
Re: Justice League, assemble as well, or why Warner Bros should die in a fire
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2012, 06:04:59 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
To be perfectly honest, I don't want to see it. There's no way they are going to not be compared to The Avengers and if they don't do anywhere near as good, which they won't do, it'll be considered a failure.
I think because they'd have to introduce the characters, almost having to do prequel movies they'd be hard press to garner the interest on a long term basis. The Avengers, again, was unprecedented. We bidder our time because we didn't think it was possible until pretty much when the credits on Captain America rolled.
That said, I'd much rather see a "Worlds Finest" or Superman/Batman movie. They don't have to introduce the characters. They are two characters arguably bigger and more well know than any Marvel character. Both of them have a history of well performing films, they're indeed bankable characters. Not to mention the story lines they can take are endless. And it doesn't mean the movie HAS to be limited to just those two heroes. It almost make sense to open up the universe. That's one thing the Avengers did, but unlike the Avengers which melded 4 franchises into one, it's not even trying to scale itself n that level.
I called it.
Pure excellence:
http://youtu.be/3B96ctffVp8
Benton, that was freakin' hilarious.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/02/rumor-next-movie-batman-will-be-middle-aged-veteran-superhero
Jon Hamm is by far my favourite choice for Bats.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/man-steel-2s-batman-actors-598856
Sorry, Bats. No Hamm on this short list.
But look on the bright side. I remember when John Krasinski was a lock to play Captain America.
Batman: Arkham Origins : Batman Legends Skins Pack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5vqDi6bzEg#at=27)
Quote from: Midnite on August 07, 2013, 02:58:12 AM
Batman: Arkham Origins : Batman Legends Skins Pack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U5vqDi6bzEg#at=27)
Errr.... wrong thread maybe?
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on August 07, 2013, 01:55:33 AM
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/man-steel-2s-batman-actors-598856
Sorry, Bats. No Hamm on this short list.
But look on the bright side. I remember when John Krasinski was a lock to play Captain America.
Ya things change, so who knows :) . I really think Gosling would be a terrible choice though. Out of those guys, Brolin can pull it off IMO, but not sure they'll go with him after Jonah Hex, heh.
I can't see Don Draper as Batman. Yet at the same time I'd love to see him as Batman.
None of the guys on that list seem right. I think they should bring back George Clooney, he deserves a second chance.
Quote from: BWPS on August 09, 2013, 02:25:51 AM
I can't see Don Draper as Batman. Yet at the same time I'd love to see him as Batman.
None of the guys on that list seem right. I think they should bring back George Clooney, he deserves a second chance.
Maybe 20 years ago I would have agreed with that, but realistically, he what, in his mid-50's, could he really handle the physicality of the character?
Wait another couple of decades and he could play the role in a Batman Beyond movie. Other than that, yeah, his time's a bit past there.
Wow
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-dark-knight-reprises-christian-bale-reportedly-offered-50m-to-return-as-batman-in-man-of-steel-2-8760943.html
Wonder if he'll accept it? Some times actors say things like I won't do this anymore etc, but when offered lots of money many of them change their mind.
Tbh I'd rather they go with someone else this time, but Bale being there will def be good for the film's box office numbers.
Quote from: bat1987 on August 14, 2013, 02:42:13 PM
Wow
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-dark-knight-reprises-christian-bale-reportedly-offered-50m-to-return-as-batman-in-man-of-steel-2-8760943.html
Wonder if he'll accept it? Some times actors say things like I won't do this anymore etc, but when offered lots of money many of them change their mind.
Tbh I'd rather they go with someone else this time, but Bale being there will def be good for the film's box office numbers.
I find this to be a bad decision. Sure, he's the popular Batman right now and most people would rather see him return rather than see a new Batman, but as far as I'm concerned, Bale is done as the Bat. The Dark Knight Rises was supposed to be the final chapter, his retirement. The extents that The Dark Knight Rises to make it a point that Wayne's career as Batman was over was pretty obvious to me. If that's not what the movie was about, Wayne passing on his legacy after one final fight, then I don't know what Christopher Nolan was trying to do. Yes, Batman is an ever-vigilant hero in the comics, but in those films, his part is done and it is just shameful to see them reel him back in for profit.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing what could be done with a returning or new Batman, but as of now, I'm still against this idea.
Quote from: spydermann93 on August 14, 2013, 04:19:47 PM
Quote from: bat1987 on August 14, 2013, 02:42:13 PM
Wow
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/the-dark-knight-reprises-christian-bale-reportedly-offered-50m-to-return-as-batman-in-man-of-steel-2-8760943.html
Wonder if he'll accept it? Some times actors say things like I won't do this anymore etc, but when offered lots of money many of them change their mind.
Tbh I'd rather they go with someone else this time, but Bale being there will def be good for the film's box office numbers.
I find this to be a bad decision. Sure, he's the popular Batman right now and most people would rather see him return rather than see a new Batman, but as far as I'm concerned, Bale is done as the Bat. The Dark Knight Rises was supposed to be the final chapter, his retirement. The extents that The Dark Knight Rises to make it a point that Wayne's career as Batman was over was pretty obvious to me. If that's not what the movie was about, Wayne passing on his legacy after one final fight, then I don't know what Christopher Nolan was trying to do. Yes, Batman is an ever-vigilant hero in the comics, but in those films, his part is done and it is just shameful to see them reel him back in for profit.
Still, I'd be interested in seeing what could be done with a returning or new Batman, but as of now, I'm still against this idea.
I have to say that I don't agree spydermann93. To me your argument is like saying we shouldn't hear Kevin Conroy do the voice of Batman in any other DC movies outside of Batman TAS. However, Keven Conroy has done the voice in dozens of DC movies including Flashpoint Paradox in which the Batman he's doing is totally different from the one in Batman TAS. Like Conroy, Christian Bale is an actor and we should be careful not to associate his portrayal of batman to just those three films.
I understand this is a money move by DC and I don't have a problem with that as long as they deliver a good movie. I don't want to some second rate Batman when i can see a guy I like in the role. IMO there doesn't even have ot be much reference to the 3 Batman movies.
I'm sorry, but there's a very big difference between having a voice actor come back to do products as the same character, and having the same actor return to the same part. With Kevin Conroy coming back, you don't have to worry about people constantly questioning what happened to make TAS batman into flashpoint batman or Arkham Batman... mostly because the people who watch those videos and play those games understand that they are not supposed to be the same universe, and we can accept that they're separate entities.
Bale coming back as batman, within the same decade as the last film? Your normal, everyday filmgoer will go in assuming it's the same batman. And if it IS the same batman (this is the same audience that glorified Twilight and Transformers. The intelligence bar is not high), why is he batman? Did he come back? If he did, how did he get all his equipment and money back? Did he steal it from Robin? What happened to all the injuries and stuff he went through? What happened to Catwoman, did he dump her? Is he stupid? Has he just been working behind the scenes? If so, why wasn't he involved in the events of Man of Steel?
Or, is this supposed to be a Batman prior to his retirement? If so, it would have to be before TDK, because he wasn't batman between TDK and TDKR. If it is before, why does he look older than in TDK or TDKR? Why does he have a different costume, even though his TDK costume was established at the start of the film?
It just raises too many questions.
The Dark Knight trilogy is over. It said what Nolan wanted to be said, and it's done.
Geez, Tomato. You point out that the people watching the movie may have a low IQ, but you sure have them raising a lot of questions...why wouldn't they just say "Bale...whatta hunk!" Do kids say hunk anymore? :D
I'm just saying, at a minimum, you'll have a ton of fans who would be going into the film going into the film expecting this to be the same character they've watched for 3 films now... and logically, there is no way that it can be the same person.
It wouldn't bother me if Bale reprises the role, but I'm cool with someone new too. None of the live action Batman's have been perfect in my opinion.
I can see where you're coming from Tomato, there is a big chunk of the audience that will be thrown off, but I think this is a situation where they're going to be thrown off any way WB goes. Either way you have to explain that it's a different Batman (or how it fits into the old continuity), and if it's a new actor then the audience needs to get used to the new actor.
Personally I hope they just do it as "this is a story with a Batman in it" and not try to link it or unlink it to any new or existing continuity. We all know who Batman is, just tell the story.
Ben Affleck everybody, Ben Affleck.
Not too sure how this will turn out. Affleck has been killing it lately, and he might convince Snyder to allow some actual acting.
Well, you beat me to it, DM. My thoughts are...less hopeful than yours:
Well, this is an impressive feat. WB has ruined this movie before it even began production. I mean, I knew they were good at making truly, TRULY awful decisions, but this is really an impressive level of terribleness that they've reached. It must take great diligence and effort to succeed at failing so hard. I can only assume that this is the result of decades of hard work at being souless, money-grubbing empty suits, but I assume that there was also a great deal of blunt-force head-trauma involved somewhere.
At least they've taken away the suspense, that tiny, flickering, sputtering ember of hope that persists in the face of all past experience and common sense, that little voice inside your head that whispers, "but, it might still be good!" They've successfully managed to stamp that ember out entirely. I suppose I should thank them for that.
So yeah, I'm not excited. I don't despise Ben Affleck, and he's occasionally quite good, but he's 100% wrong for this on pretty much every level.
Mehhh...
On the one hand, Ben Affleck is a much more seasoned actor now, and he's far enough along now that he probably could pull off a solid Batman (maybe even better than Bale's, provided he doesn't do the stupid voice). On the other... Daredevil.
Edit: I just read Benton's post... and I do want to give credit where credit is due here. While I have serious reservations about this casting because of his previous performance as Daredevil, even I have to admit the Ben Affleck of today is a far different actor than he was when they gave him that role (he just wasn't ready for it yet). He's done a far better job in recent years both in terms of his acting AND his directing than many give him credit for.
My fear with regards to his performance lies more in terms of the director... Affleck's acting, while better, still requires good direction, and Snyder is not that good at bringing out the best in his actors.
This works for me. I'm an Affleck fan. Now I just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope they actually TRY to do something different with the costume.
Get these guys to make it!
http://nerdreactor.com/2011/10/25/realistic-looking-batman-arkham-asylumcity-suit/
Very interesting. Could be very good, but like all things I'll have to wait and see.
Yeah a suit like that would be pretty sweet, C6.
Holy crow, that suit is near perfect! I just think the ears are a bit long.
I couldn't resist...here's Ben sporting the Arkham City cowl. :P
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/ben_bat.jpg)
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 23, 2013, 03:27:17 AM
Well, you beat me to it, DM. My thoughts are...less hopeful than yours:
Well, this is an impressive feat. WB has ruined this movie before it even began production. I mean, I knew they were good at making truly, TRULY awful decisions, but this is really an impressive level of terribleness that they've reached. It must take great diligence and effort to succeed at failing so hard. I can only assume that this is the result of decades of hard work at being souless, money-grubbing empty suits, but I assume that there was also a great deal of blunt-force head-trauma involved somewhere.
At least they've taken away the suspense, that tiny, flickering, sputtering ember of hope that persists in the face of all past experience and common sense, that little voice inside your head that whispers, "but, it might still be good!" They've successfully managed to stamp that ember out entirely. I suppose I should thank them for that.
So yeah, I'm not excited. I don't despise Ben Affleck, and he's occasionally quite good, but he's 100% wrong for this on pretty much every level.
Isn't that what people said about Heath Ledger being chosen for the role of The Joker in The Dark Knight? :P
Quote from: Courtnall6 on August 23, 2013, 04:52:19 AM
I couldn't resist...here's Ben sporting the Arkham City cowl. :P
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v35/Courtnall6/ben_bat.jpg)
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :lol:
Quote from: spydermann93 on August 23, 2013, 04:54:59 AM
Isn't that what people said about Heath Ledger being chosen for the role of The Joker in The Dark Knight? :P
Err... Spyder? this is Benton here. He probably STILL thinks Heath Ledger was the wrong person for the role of Joker in The Dark Knight (and I'm sorry Benton, I'll back you on a lot of anti-nolan rants, but he did a great job in that role. Yes it was a different take, but the dude was pants-wetting scary)
Quote from: Tomato on August 23, 2013, 05:00:40 AM
Quote from: spydermann93 on August 23, 2013, 04:54:59 AM
Isn't that what people said about Heath Ledger being chosen for the role of The Joker in The Dark Knight? :P
Err... Spyder? this is Benton here. He probably STILL thinks Heath Ledger was the wrong person for the role of Joker in The Dark Knight (and I'm sorry Benton, I'll back you on a lot of anti-nolan rants, but he did a great job in that role. Yes it was a different take, but the dude was pants-wetting scary)
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that detail.
Haha, whoops :P
Ok I truthfully don't know what to think my first thought was the same as everyone's most likely
Wtf seriously
Like a lot of said he's grown a lot as an actor from the likes of mallrats or phantoms(though he was the bomb) watch stuff like argo, this I just don't know I was the biggest fan of man of steel it was alright but it was missing a hell of a lot of key elements of superman
As for past experience I still defend daredevil, the editing hurt the film more than anything seriously watch the directors cut yeah it still has stupid stuff like the playground but the whole arc of matt doubting himself and finding out the kingpins identity was added back in to make a more fluid film
Costume wise yeah I would love to see something like arkham but sorry isn't happening you could get the greatest designer in the world but it wouldn't make screen with the web producers. Maybe darken the tones down of arkham not to fully black but dark navy and grey and you may have a chance.
Quote from: BentonGrey on August 23, 2013, 03:27:17 AM
So yeah, I'm not excited. I don't despise Ben Affleck, and he's occasionally quite good, but he's 100% wrong for this on pretty much every level.
Pretty much how I feel about it. I knew the actor won't be someone I'd choose but sheesh, holy miscast Batman!
I would rather they brought back Bale. I have nothing against Afleck....well...I didn't like the romantic comedies I was forced to sit through (dating). It leave sour taste in my mouth. Before that I actually liked Daredevil. I'll just have to wait and see.
If anything I'd rather have Afleck as director on this. He's a much better director than actor.
I'm pretty open minded in general but never even considered Afleck. It could be worse though, when I heard Orlando Bloom was considered at one point, I died a little inside. But if previous films taught us anything is that actors can make you change your mind (Ledger), so we'll wait and see.
Oh and this :P
http://veja.abril.com.br/assets/images/2013/8/169519/ben-affleck-matt-damon-batman-robin-size-460.jpg?1377233428
Nope, 'Mato, I thought Ledger did a great job as the Joker...he just needed some white-freakin'-skin. No, my problems with The Dark Knight were almost all a matter of writing and editing (and Bale's voice).
I actually kind of like Daredevil, though I wouldn't defend it as a GOOD movie. ^_^ It's pretty flawed, but I still enjoyed it. Like I said, I don't dislike Affleck, per se, but I firmly believe he is a terrible choice for Batman.
Argo and The Town were both garbage, I don't understand the yea-sayers at all. This is wrong and I hate it.
I'm kinda disappointed but then I thought Robert Downy Jr. for Iron man was insane and Chris Evans just wrong for Cap. Man of Steel has given me lots of hope and faith so I'm OK but cautious about it. The wife on the other hand, who is also a huge MOS fan is not thrilled.
Quote from: Courtnall6 on August 23, 2013, 04:21:23 AM
This works for me. I'm an Affleck fan. Now I just have to keep my fingers crossed and hope they actually TRY to do something different with the costume.
Get these guys to make it!
http://nerdreactor.com/2011/10/25/realistic-looking-batman-arkham-asylumcity-suit/
I'm in total agreement. I too like Affleck and I think he is going to surprise a lot of people, just like Ledger did.
The difference, for me, between at the time controversial castings like Ledger as the Joker and Keaton as Batman, is that they were actors primarily known for playing a very different kind of role beforehand. Affleck, however, was repeatedly cast as an action movie leading man for years in largely bad or terrible movies, and even stank up the joint as Daredevil, one of the Marvel characters most tonally similar to Batman. He isn't an unknown or a potential surprise in the role - we've seen what he can do as this kind of character and found it wanting. He's a better director than he's ever been as an actor anyway.
Talavar, that's very well said. That's precisely what I've been trying to figure out how to articulate.
Quote from: Talavar on August 24, 2013, 12:50:18 AM
Affleck, however, was repeatedly cast as an action movie leading man for years in largely bad or terrible movies, and even stank up the joint as Daredevil, one of the Marvel characters most tonally similar to Batman.
People keep saying this, but tbh i think he was the least of that movie's problems.
Quote from: Talavar on August 24, 2013, 12:50:18 AM
He's a better director than he's ever been as an actor anyway.
This I completely agree with.
As for the costume I really think they should go with new52 suit, they can use it without any changes whatsoever.
see, I've gotten more positive the more I've thought about this, but maybe that's just because it can ALWAYS be worse. (http://www.watchcartoononline.com/thumbs/Phineas-and-Ferb-Season-4-Episode-13-Mission-Marvel.jpg)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/movies/bryan-cranston-cast-as-lex-luthor-in-upcoming-superman-movie/story-fni0bom0-1226703837218
I don't think this has been confirmed in any way, but it's enough to get me really excited.
Great actor. Would have been my number one choice for Gordon though :(
Quote from: bat1987 on August 24, 2013, 09:37:37 AM
As for the costume I really think they should go with new52 suit, they can use it without any changes whatsoever.
Arkham Origins costume looks would be nice. Alffeck looks good under the cowl.
(http://i.imgur.com/nMCVejQ.png)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/929441d0f0526085655b81e6cf5012d9/tumblr_mrzu9tniJP1r2kbs0o1_500.jpg)
Interesting fan made trailer. I think Cranston should play Lex, he would be great. http://www.nbcnews.com/entertainment/fake-man-steel-2-trailer-may-make-you-love-ben-8C11016482
Batman responds to Ben Affleck casting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YcOle0dahM)
Quote from: Tomato on September 05, 2013, 05:32:29 AM
Batman responds to Ben Affleck casting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YcOle0dahM)
Nice. For a bit, I thought you were posting this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klXbhilpXd0). :D
What do we make of this:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/09/04/either-this-is-real-ben-affleck-as-batman-concept-art-or-steve-scott-is-a-very-funny-guy/
What im questioning:
1) Is it Real?
2) Do I like it?
I hope that's not real. Basically its the Dark Knight suit with yellow bat symbol...meh
So, if folks like Afleck, they'll love Bieber . . .
http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/justin-bieber-hints-he-is-up-for-robin-role-in-batman/321170 (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/justin-bieber-hints-he-is-up-for-robin-role-in-batman/321170)
Personally, I think it a joke, or at least a foolish attempt to drum up support in order to influence the director. If nothing else it will be fun to step back and watch people's heads explode.
What the...It's just...they can't....I mean....why would they...dear lord. :doh:
Right before that, he apparently tweeted that he was "off to do something funny or die" which would indicate that he was filming a Funny or Die Video. Since the pic appeared just a couple hours after that, I'm guessing it's from a Funny or Die segment that he filmed.
Ha, that HAS to be a joke. I mean...please? :unsure:
Yeah, no. Bieber is a sexist twit, so if by some random fluke of hollywood this is real, I'm boycotting this movie.
I doubt it is, but seriously, I would. Eff Bieber.
its a fake, its been rumored to be a funny or die thing
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on September 14, 2013, 07:58:14 PM
its a fake, its been rumored to be a funny or die thing
So, if enough people vote it "not funny" . . .
no. everyone knows robin is:
(http://comicbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/matt-damon-as-robin.jpg)
Ok Ben, you have no freaking excuse to not get jacked for your Batman role. Don't tell me how hard it is because of your age. Take a look at Mel here who is 57 who got ready for Expendables 3.(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n301/captmorgan72/0819-mel-gibson-muscles-launch-3.jpg) (http://s115.photobucket.com/user/captmorgan72/media/0819-mel-gibson-muscles-launch-3.jpg.html)
Gal Gadot has been cast as Wonder Woman in the Superman sequel. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=49502) I'm not really familiar with her, so no idea if she's a good fit.
All I know is that this stinks of pure Hollywood. She's positively waif-ish, and she's supposed to be playing Wonder Woman. :(
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 05, 2013, 05:17:47 AMAll I know is that this stinks of pure Hollywood. She's positively waif-ish, and she's supposed to be playing Wonder Woman. :(
Everyone I have mentioned her name to today who recognized her from the
Fast and Furious movies or who looked her up has had the same reaction. Basically, "She's pretty and all, but she's a stick." Even people who aren't comic book fans understand that there is something beyond a tallish woman with pretty face required to play Wonder Woman. And I agree. She may be a talented performer (I haven't seen anything she has been in) and I understand that the role calls for good looks, but Wonder Woman should look like someone who could walk onto half of the athletic events in the Olympics and be a contender. To me, Gadot looks... well... skeletal. (http://www.stumpyanker.com/emoticons/lac.gif)
Whatever. Those are my initial reservations, but they aren't set in stone. It's entirely possible that the next several months of her life will include many long days strength training, many meals with above-famine-levels of protein, and lots of coaching on how to look like an athlete and move with the bearing of someone confident that her body can do physically impressive things. Or, the studio could spend millions on the CGI required to do the opposite for her of what they did for Chris Evans for the first part of
Captain America. Not holding my breath, but it could happen.
Guys, do you honestly believe that the actress, Gal Gadot, ISN'T going to bulk up and work out to play Wonder Woman? That, because she is a woman, she isn't going to have to go through a similar workout regime to every other superhero actor, from Christian Bale as Batman, Chris Evans as Captain America, to Robert Downey Junior as Iron Man? That Zack Snyder is going to spontaneously take leave of his senses and have a slim woman fighting alongside the hulking Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck?
Criticise her acting ability. She's an actress. But all the "skinny" comments on the internet really expose the casually misogynist underbelly of comic book fandom. I don't remember reading anything like it when an emaciated Christian Bale was cast as Batman after doing "The Machinist", or when an out-of-shape Chris Pratt was cast as Starlord for "Guardians of The Galaxy". Even the criticism of Adam Driver's looks when he was rumoured to be cast as Nightwing weren't as frequent.
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Quote from: Starman on December 05, 2013, 09:50:55 AM
Criticise her acting ability. She's an actress. But all the "skinny" comments on the internet really expose the casually misogynist underbelly of comic book fandom. I don't remember reading anything like it when an emaciated Christian Bale was cast as Batman after doing "The Machinist", or when an out-of-shape Chris Pratt was cast as Starlord for "Guardians of The Galaxy". Even the criticism of Adam Driver's looks when he was rumoured to be cast as Nightwing weren't as frequent.
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
I don't think it's misogynism here. Quite the opposite. People are starting to have a reaction against the sterotypical hollywood woman who is expected to be unnaturally skinny in order to succeed. Just look at all the incidents of female Olympians being made for of for being "fat" in the last Olympics because people are so used to an unrealistic picture of what a woman should look like from Hollywood that many can't tell a fit, muscular girl apart from an overweight one. If she does bulk up and train for the role, then fine, no problem. I really don't expert her to though, because Hollywood plain doesn't know what a fit woman looks like.
I'm actually with Cat on this one... I hold nothing against Gal Gadot (I'm actually in a "wait and see what she looks like in the role" mode, as I refuse to hold hollywoodness against any actress), but I am actually really tired of seeing the skinny model as being the only type of woman that can exist in hollywood. True, people can and have had massive changes for a role (Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2 would be a great example of what can happen) but the issue is that Hollywood execs don't support it: they want a cute love interest, nothing more. Wonder Woman, by her very nature, is a stand against that: it would be a shame of Hollywood just used the role to put in some eye candy.
(And FYI: People DID go after Christian Bale for being too skinny, just like they went after Heath Ledger because he didn't look like Joker, just like they went after Michael Keaton because he didn't look like Batman, and most importantly, just like they freaked out about Ben Affleck's Batman. This whole thing is no different, there's just nothing about her career that stands out for people to talk about.)
to be fair i was all for the woman who played sif to get the role, i'll wait and see, the rumors is that the same trainer that trained cavill and is now working with affleck is set to get her ready for the role. he also trained the woman who played faora in mos
i'm worried about her role in this, is it major, a cameo or dear god no simply a love triangle gimmick. also there are rumors of an apperance by flash and i quote " a load of dcu hero cameos easter eggs"
seems dc has finally woke up to the working marvel route
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on December 05, 2013, 10:39:06 AM
Quote from: Starman on December 05, 2013, 09:50:55 AM
Criticise her acting ability. She's an actress. But all the "skinny" comments on the internet really expose the casually misogynist underbelly of comic book fandom. I don't remember reading anything like it when an emaciated Christian Bale was cast as Batman after doing "The Machinist", or when an out-of-shape Chris Pratt was cast as Starlord for "Guardians of The Galaxy". Even the criticism of Adam Driver's looks when he was rumoured to be cast as Nightwing weren't as frequent.
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
I don't think it's misogynism here. Quite the opposite. People are starting to have a reaction against the sterotypical hollywood woman who is expected to be unnaturally skinny in order to succeed. Just look at all the incidents of female Olympians being made for of for being "fat" in the last Olympics because people are so used to an unrealistic picture of what a woman should look like from Hollywood that many can't tell a fit, muscular girl apart from an overweight one. If she does bulk up and train for the role, then fine, no problem. I really don't expert her to though, because Hollywood plain doesn't know what a fit woman looks like.
Exactly Cat, well said (and 'Mato too!). My objection stems from the fact that we have an incredibly unhealthy image of female beauty in this country. We're starting to see some reactions against it, but the unhealthy-skinny model type is still the standard for a lot of our media, and it is a pretty big problem with some grave consequences. I see it in my school, I see it in my classroom, and I saw it in my friends when we were younger and dumber. I'm not saying this young lady is unhealthy, but I am saying that she's so thin as to have little resemblance to a really healthy, athletic looking woman. Perhaps that's a healthy weight for her, but such would not be the case for a lot of women. If there is any role in which we should really have a woman who looks vigorous and healthy, it's that of Wonder Woman. As 'Mato said, she stands against just that sort of nonsense.
If this girl "bulks up," that's good, but like Cat I doubt that will be the case.
Starman, I don't read anything even vaguely misogynistic in the comments here about Gadot. There is a theme that she is too skinny to look like Wonder Woman and there is concern that, due largely to the way the movie business seems to accept "near emaciated" as "fit" for women these days, there won't be much effort to change things.
I know several women whose workout routine is focused on staying thin while not acquiring visible musculature. They barely see being "toned" as acceptable, which I find unfortunate. (And, no, there is no advocacy for a "muscle-bound" or "steroidal" look here. Just the healthy musculature that an athlete would have.) While plenty of men work out to avoid being fat, I don't know of any who are worried about adding some muscle in the process.
Meanwhile, actors like Evans, Affleck, and others have a proven history of being willing to muscle up for their roles. This isn't in any way to imply that male actors are superior or willing to do more physically to prepare for a role (honestly, I have no idea), but likely a reflection of the fact that there is no downside for men in Hollywood being muscular. (Actually, in Bale's case, the surprising thing is that he was willing to go so far in the other direction for his role in The Machinist. Whatever else one might think of him as an actor, it's hard to argue that he isn't willing to do whatever it takes to look the part.)
BTW, as I said earlier, it's certainly possible that Gadot will get the physical training corresponding to that of her male co-stars and she will look athletic by the time the movie is shot. IMO, an example that shows that to be possible is Hilary Swank. To my recollection, she was pretty thin before Million Dollar Baby, but she was looking much stronger in that movie.
I think this movie is going to be a train wreck. I hope it's good, it might be good, but I don't think it's going to be good.
Comments calling her "unhealthy" and "near emaciated" are ridiculous. You should always think twice before body policing no matter which direction it's in. Wonder Woman should be tall and muscular and I don't think Gadot is the right choice at 5'9" but she's a real person and her size isn't anyone's concern but hers and you can definitely be misogynistic while thinking you're doing the opposite.
I'm a little concerned by both her resume and her thinness. How many models have transitioned into being good actors? I'm not saying none, but it's a short list. Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck, whatever one's personal thoughts on them in the roles, were cast for more than just a look. I hope she's willing (and that the studio is willing to let her) get a little ripped for this role, but I also hope she can act.
Quote from: BWPS on December 05, 2013, 06:34:26 PM
I think this movie is going to be a train wreck. I hope it's good, it might be good, but I don't think it's going to be good.
Comments calling her "unhealthy" and "near emaciated" are ridiculous. You should always think twice before body policing no matter which direction it's in. Wonder Woman should be tall and muscular and I don't think Gadot is the right choice at 5'9" but she's a real person and her size isn't anyone's concern but hers and you can definitely be misogynistic while thinking you're doing the opposite.
Is it misandristic when male actors are derided for not being seen as muscular enough to play superheroes? Which has happened with almost every male actor to play one at one point or another, from Christopher Reeves onward. If not, then you're describing a ridiculous double standard. Hollywood has an unhealthy obsession with incredibly thin women, and calling the studios out on it in their casting decisions is not misogynistic.
Quote from: BWPS on December 05, 2013, 06:34:26 PMComments calling her "unhealthy" and "near emaciated" are ridiculous. You should always think twice before body policing no matter which direction it's in. Wonder Woman should be tall and muscular and I don't think Gadot is the right choice at 5'9" but she's a real person and her size isn't anyone's concern but hers and you can definitely be misogynistic while thinking you're doing the opposite.
Of course one can be unknowingly misogynistic. It had no role in my comment and I don't assume it in the comments of others I've seen here, but it's possible. No one here is "policing" Gadot's body. None of us has any (or claims any) authority to force her to look one way or another. However, people are free to make observations on whether they think her look matches the look they envision for the role in which she has been cast. And, yes, as the target audience for the movie and people generally interested in superhero-related silliness, it
is something about which we may chose to be concerned.
Meanwhile, IMO, in the pictures I have seen of her (like this one (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm450605056/nm2933757?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_evt_24)), she is very thin. While a description like "near emaciated" is obvious hyperbole and no one would mistake it for a medical opinion, it also isn't "ridiculous" in the context of someone who's supposed to look like Wonder Woman. At least, I don't see how it's more ridiculous than assuming that any negative observation or opinion about a female performer's suitability to portray a character based on her looks must be based on misogyny. To paraphrase your advice, you should always think twice before ascribing someone's observation to an unsavory moral failing.
Well-said Stumpy. Like I said, that may be a healthy weight for her, but I know women who have tried to maintain such figures to the detriment of their health. I don't presume to tell her how she should conduct her life, but I think it's far from immoral or unreasonable to say that she looks like the quintessential model-type that Hollywood loves, an image of woman-hood that, by its ubiquity (to the point that it crowds out all other body types), is detrimental to the vast majority of women who cannot be extremely thin and healthy at the same time. This is especially true in light of the role this actress has been cast to play.
If this is her natural weight (and for many hollywood actresses, it isn't, they have to starve themselves) then fine. In fact, it's really none of my business. It's her body and she can be in whatever shape she chooses to be. The role is what I am concerned about here. Wonder Woman is a warrior and is strong and physically powerful. The actress should look the part. If she doesn't get physical training to look the part then fine. Women don't tend to bulk up in quite the same way as men, so I'm not looking for anything like what was done for Thor, as long as she looks like a female athlete such as an olympian does.
Anyway, we can wait and see. Maybe they'll surprise us all.
speaking as someone who argued against this sort of thing when everyone was slamming Caity Lotz as being too supermodel-y(and to be fair, she did kinda rock as Canary, so :P ) for Black Canary, I think you're falling into the same trap I did and overthinking this. None of us are hating on Gadot here: I even explicitly stated that I'm waiting for something tangible like set photos or trailers before I make any judgements on either her appearance or ability. If anything, we're venting our frustrations at WB... who have consistantly made bad decisions when it comes to these films, and our fears that they are doing the same here. Our concerns are not limited JUST to Gadot (I refer you to the last page or so of discussion on Ben Affleck's inclusion) and I honestly don't think that claims of mysogyny are accurate. If anything, we've been far more open to an actress that doesn't look the part and doesn't have a ton of acting chops than the actor who does look the part and has acting and directing chops coming out the plothole.
It's not just the simple fact that she's skinny(which she very much is), but she doesn't have an "athletic" look. I don't think that is sexist. Christian Bale, before we saw him as Batman we saw him kicking@$% in Equilibrium and playing the rich playboy in Shaft and American Psycho. I mean, they didn't go out and get Andrew Garfield to play Bruce Wayne.
Her size isn't just about her gender. Its about her presence and command. Wonder Woman, for all intent and purposes would be pretty intimidating. She's physically imposing. She's 6'0. Toned. She's an AMAZON. We use that word in our language these days as a descriptive term for a reason. Someone describing an AMAZON today thinks of like a Serena Williams or Lucy Lawless, Kerri Walsh, Jenny Fench, etc.
There are also some actresses that are not physically big but can still project a physical presence. Those I'd been fine for too. I don't get that impression from her though. Again, she could surprise me.
Wow, some of these comments are a little on the nose. The attitude that picking on this woman's appearance is "a reaction against the sterotypical hollywood woman who is expected to be unnaturally skinny in order to succeed" is pretty rich. Body policing and tearing into a woman's appearance isn't doing feminism any favours and doesn't really seem like the type of thing Wonder Woman would endorse...
Quote(And FYI: People DID go after Christian Bale for being too skinny, just like they went after Heath Ledger because he didn't look like Joker, just like they went after Michael Keaton because he didn't look like Batman, and most importantly, just like they freaked out about Ben Affleck's Batman. This whole thing is no different, there's just nothing about her career that stands out for people to talk about.)
They didn't go after Christian Bale
that hard for his physique (if at all). And the problems with Ledger, Keaton and Affleck were based on their suitability based on previous roles/performances. Not the same.
QuoteIf this is her natural weight (and for many hollywood actresses, it isn't, they have to starve themselves) then fine. In fact, it's really none of my business. It's her body and she can be in whatever shape she chooses to be. The role is what I am concerned about here. Wonder Woman is a warrior and is strong and physically powerful.
QuoteIt's not just the simple fact that she's skinny(which she very much is), but she doesn't have an "athletic" look. I don't think that is sexist.
Like ... Lynda Carter? http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/7/10/1247232298952/Wonder-Woman-Lynda-Carter-001.jpg (http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/7/10/1247232298952/Wonder-Woman-Lynda-Carter-001.jpg)
QuoteHer size isn't just about her gender. Its about her presence and command. Wonder Woman, for all intent and purposes would be pretty intimidating. She's physically imposing. She's 6'0. Toned. She's an AMAZON.
If it's not about gender, why is this really an issue in a post-Hugh Jackman-as-Wolverine world?
QuoteI'm not saying this young lady is unhealthy, but I am saying that she's so thin as to have little resemblance to a really healthy, athletic looking woman.
:doh:
QuoteWhile a description like "near emaciated" is obvious hyperbole and no one would mistake it for a medical opinion, it also isn't "ridiculous" in the context of someone who's supposed to look like Wonder Woman. At least, I don't see how it's more ridiculous than assuming that any negative observation or opinion about a female performer's suitability to portray a character based on her looks must be based on misogyny.
:doh:
QuoteLike I said, that may be a healthy weight for her, but I know women who have tried to maintain such figures to the detriment of their health. I don't presume to tell her how she should conduct her life, but I think it's far from immoral or unreasonable to say that she looks like the quintessential model-type that Hollywood loves, an image of woman-hood that, by its ubiquity (to the point that it crowds out all other body types), is detrimental to the vast majority of women who cannot be extremely thin and healthy at the same time.
:doh:
QuoteAnyway, we can wait and see. Maybe they'll surprise us all.
:thumbup:
Until we see the actress in her costume, having prepared for the role, we don't have any idea what Gal Godat will look like as Wonder Woman.
Here are two things we do know:
* Zack Snyder has a reputation for making his actors work out and bulk up for his films, and he didn't cast weak female roles in Dawn Of The Dead, Suck Punch, Watchmen or Man Of Steel. There is NO reason to expect any different from Wonder Woman.
* Male actors in superhero films change their body shapes for roles. Chris Evans, Chris Pratt, Hugh Jackman, Live Schrieber, Robert Downey Junior, Chris Hemsworth, Christian Bale, etc didn't have huge physiques before they played superhero roles. Why doesn't anyone think Gadot can do this? She spent two years in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), completing combat training and serving as a fitness trainer. She also did all her own stunts for the "Fast and Furious" films. I doubt she's afraid of hitting the gym for the role.
I also stumbled on a blog that cited some choice selections from Gadot's Facebook page when she shared this news with her fans. "Most responses were positive. The negatives? Extraordinarily cruel."
Quote"Eat a sandwich."
"Oh noNo no no no r u kidding me Pls dont spoil Batman for me oh whom m i kidding its ben affleck there its already dead ...might as well ur boobs keep us busy."
"Where's the boobs of WW? Just sayin'"
"Aren't you a bit of a beanpole to be playing a commanding amazonian warrior woman?"
"Objective opinion: I like your work and you are a very beautiful woman, but you are not a Wonder Woman type.... We swallowed Ben Affleck as batman, because if he'd train and prepare like fe Heath ledger he might pull this off, but you, even with superior acting skills, just do not have the physique to pull that role off. No matter how hard you'd train, no matter how much you'd prepare....its like seeing a trainwreck before it happens."
I understand what people are trying to say about how film studios can be reluctant to portray athletic female bodies that are bigger than the Hollywood norm. About the way Wonder Woman, who is 6'0" and 130lbs comic book character, shouldn't be played by a slender 5'9" actress.
But come on. These conversations shouldn't perpetuate sexist body shame, pour scorn on her eating habits, pre-determine that she will be a failure, and assume that she won't achieve a superheroic comic-book look via weight training / costume design / direction / camera angles / etc.
Let's see the final product before we judge if she meets out expectations for the role or not.
Dude, I don't disagree with you, I just think you're overreacting. There IS a bad stereotype in hollywood about hiring women for their breasts and figure rather than acting ability. And this is JUST AS MUCH about her career, or lack thereof, as it is about her physical appearance. And be honest man, in comparison to the ranting and raving geeks have done with regards to inane nonsense like Hawkeye not having a Wolverine Mask or Cap not having his wingtips, being concerned that an actress with less than a dozen acting roles under her belt could possibly play such an important role (Wonder Woman is the quintessential female superhero and this is the first time she'll be seen in film. It's kind of important.) is a legitimate one. I'm certainly in the "I'll see how she does before I make any judgements" camp, but I do understand where everyone is coming from.
The only reason that this is becoming such an issue is because you are singling out one facet of the argument (and before you once again belittle my statement concerning males being objectified in iconic roles, I NEVER could have accepted Brandon Routh's Superman. That film could have been brilliant, and he'd still be this dorky looking dude with the chin that's 5 sizes too small to be Superman's iconic square jaw.) and MAKING it an issue. You are putting everyone here on the defensive, and all it's doing is fostering a fight that is going nowhere. They aren't hating on Gadot, they're hating on execs at WB... who, frankly, have earned that hate and mistrust.
Everyone here needs to take a chill pill, and go back to hating on Ben Affleck's Batman.
Can we all agree that Gina Torres would have been amazing as Wonder Woman?
also... since when is 5'9 short for a female?
Body image stuff aside, let's just remember that Gadot has been a part of one of the largest action franchises worldwide in recent years. She just might have the chops.
Has anyone considered that she may not even be referred to as "Wonder Woman" in the film, or that her origin may be changed and she may not be a full-on "Amazonian warrior princess" like she is in the comics? Just saying...
If the later were true, FF, that would just introduce a new set of problems. :P
Quote from: Figure Fan on December 10, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
Has anyone considered that she may not even be referred to as "Wonder Woman" in the film, or that her origin may be changed and she may not be a full-on "Amazonian warrior princess" like she is in the comics? Just saying...
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 10, 2013, 04:41:12 PM
If the later were true, FF, that would just introduce a new set of problems. :P
Yeah, she's going to be the new Alfred, not Wonder Woman! :P
Quote from: Figure Fan on December 10, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
Has anyone considered that she may not even be referred to as "Wonder Woman" in the film, or that her origin may be changed and she may not be a full-on "Amazonian warrior princess" like she is in the comics? Just saying...
Well... it's not like they very much referred to Superman AS Superman IN Superman so...
Yeah.
Now there's a rumor going around that the Amazons in this universe will be descended from the Kryponian expedition that came to Earth long ago. On other words, Wonder Woman will be a Kryptonian. This may or may not be actually true.
Urg...I hope that isn't true. If Thor can work on the big screen, so can the freaking Amazons.
Which they did by excusing the mythological elements are being aliens mistaken for gods. Presumably they would be going for something similar.
Mind you, I don't think it would work in this case.
While Thor had aliens mistaken for gods, they were still Asgardians. I really hope this rumour isn't true, because making Wonder Woman a Kryptonian is a deal breaker.
They hand waved the Asgardians being gods, but they were still, as Talavar said, COMPLETELY Asgardians. They were basically ripped from the comic pages, down to fighting with swords and spears and riding horses. Their "space ships" were flying viking craft. Audiences have proven they can accept fantastic realities. There's no excuse not to play Wonder Woman and the DCU in general straight. If they want to say they're a colony of aliens, somehow related to the Olympians who were also aliens, I can live with that, but only if its done as well as Marvel's adaptation. However, making them Kryptonians just makes Wonder Woman something other than what she should be.
In all seriousness here, I'm filing the "Kryptonian WW" rumor in the same file as the "Justin Bieber will be playing Robin" one: Until I see some hard physical evidence, I refuse to believe that they would be that stupid. And not just because it takes a dump all over Wonder Woman's backstory (and it really, really does) it would be disastrous for Superman as well. One of the core aspects of Superman's character is that he is the "Last Son of Krypton." Now, you can stretch that a bit (Supergirl and Krypto in the pre-n52 continuity were fine examples of this) but an entire island? All that will do is poke giant holes in one of the main points of interest with regards to this character. We can sit here and quibble as to how much Man of Steel did and did not get right, but a huge part of that movie was Superman being the last of his people.
But with regards to Wonder Woman specifically... I'll be honest, I don't understand the hesitancy with regards to Wonder Woman. I truly don't. Princess of the Amazons (either normal variety or Asguardian-esque alien hybrids) is bred for a life of royalty, but rebels and seeks her own path as a superhero (aka the same as almost every self-empowerment themed princess movie, just with superpowers). You don't need to bog it down with zeus and hades and all that nonsense, particularly in a movie that isn't about her. Have her show up, drop some hints that she's here in defiance of her mother, and lay the smackdown on the movie's villain.
I'm with Tomato on all points. 1) The rumor itself needs a lot more substantiating before I give it any credibility. 2) The "WW as a long-lost cousin" idea is screwing with both the WW and Superman mythos (and I'm not even that opposed to their being many other Kryptonians, e.g. Kandor, if it's done right). 3) The rebellious princess theme works perfectly for the character and there isn't really much need to give a deep backstory to the character. Save that for a WW movie.
On the other hand, as a story idea, I can see a plot where WW shows up and the people of Earth initially think that she is another Kryptonian. That's a particularly believable plot twist given that she is is super strong and comes from a warrior society, like the other Kryptonians they have seen. In addition, her initial encounter with non-Amazonian Earth (and possibly with Superman) might be tense or even hostile. Anyway, that might be a workable idea and it might also explain the rumor, if there is anything to it.
The latest rumor, which comes from a source that usually gets things right, is that her costume will be an armored version of her costume. Unlike the previous one, I have no problem like this, as long as they keep the design similar to her classic one with a Greek armor type look, I'd actually consider that a good thing.
Looks like we'll have to wait another year or two, depending on how you count the time, to see this movie The Big 'Batman Vs. Superman' Movie Delayed Until 2016 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-batman-vs-superman-movie-164500885.html). I hope the extra time is used to make it more awesome. I'm happy to wait for awesomeness.
Yeah, I think a delay is actually a good thing. More time to polish a script, and the summer of 2015 was shaping up to be a blockbuster movie deathmatch with all the major releases.
So Warner Bros has announced that Jesse Eisenberg will play Lex Luthor, and Jeremy Irons will be Alfred. (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=50634)
My first thought about Jesse Eisenberg was to say: "No, no no no, NOOOOOOOO!" on the grounds that he's too young and not intimidating enough, but upon thinking about it, I've been impressed by some casting choices in the past so I should probably give him the benefit of the doubt. But I thing I do know, is that this casting dashes all hopes of the awesomeness that would be Bryan Cranston as Luthor.
As for Irons, I'll fully admit he kinda looks the part in the enclosed photo (more so than Micheal Caine, for that matter), but I only know Irons for his snarling hammy villain roles so I don't know if he'll be good as Alfred. I do love me some Alfred though, so I hope he turns out good in the new movie.
It's going to be interesting to see if this movie will totally suck arse or totally blow chunks.
JLA movie on the horizon? (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/justice-league-movie-on-the-horizon/)
I'll believe it when I see it, and possibly not even then.
Holly Hunter, Callan Mulvey, Tao Okamoto join Supman/Batman Cast (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/holly-hunter-callan-mulvey-tao-okamoto-join-supmanbatman-cast/)
Ray Fisher to Play Cyborg, in Batman vs Superman (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/ray-fisher-to-play-cyborg-in-batman-vs-superman/)
I hope this movie and the new Avengers film have me leaving my seat wet.
Cyborg gets a big screen appearance before Aquaman. There is no justice in this world. :huh:
And just when I was really starting to like the idea of a tightly focused Superman-Batman team-up story in the name of character building. Heck, who ISN'T going to be in this movie?
Quote from: oldmanwinters on April 25, 2014, 02:41:51 AMAnd just when I was really starting to like the idea of a tightly focused Superman-Batman team-up story in the name of character building. Heck, who ISN'T going to be in this movie?
LOL. Who is slotted to play Captain Carrot? ;-)
Actually, I am not opposed to other DC characters making an appearance in the movie, or even having a significant role. As far as I am concerned, Falcon was a happy addition to CA2, even though he isn't necessarily a big name outside Marvel fandom. As long as the writers don't think they have to get bogged down in telling an origin story for every hero in the movie, additions from DC's heroes gallery can work well.
New Batmobile teaser.
Spoiler
(http://s13.postimg.org/qsopcucdz/image.png)
Looks a lot like its comic book counterpart.
First look at Batman!
http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/batman-and-batmobile-revealed/
Looks good so far. Need to see it in color in order to judge it, but it's promising.
http://i.imgur.com/FLQhzOF.jpg
brightened up image to see the detail.
It definitely looks cool.
Looks like new 52 meets Frank Miller. Was hoping he would have the lenses on at all times, but doesn't seem to be the case as far as I can tell.
I'll admit, there's a huge part of me that's still skeptical about this movie and is terrified they're going in the wrong direction... But as a toy collector, Batman and the batmobile are awesome and oh my god I want toys of them right the hell now.
Looks promising.
I didn't see MoS in theaters (I'm not much of a Superman fan and wasn't hearing great things) but as a big Batman fan I'll likely be taking a trip to the cinema for this one. Hoping for the best (not necessarily expecting it though).
This is me just guessing, but since Supes and Bats outfits look like the New 52 outfit, does this mean that WW will have the New 52 outfit as well?
Latest Rumor: http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/20995/20140502/batman-vs-superman-wonder-woman-costume.htm
If the coloring of the costume turns out to be grey/blue I would be beyond happy. Personally I hate the blue/grey color scheme but I know that the DKR books had that scheme. Having that scheme would just be neat.
I like the muscle suit but I hope that Affleck has built himself up to at least Bale's level of Batman physique.
I heard Ben Affleck is trying to LOSE weight because they're wanting a skinny Batman who gets enhanced strength, agility, and flight ability from the technology of the suit. The whole thing was Ben's idea and he's been making all sorts of demands like this and getting his way because he's such a big star because he wants to make sure Batman can go toe-to-toe with the Man of Steel.
Gah! These costumes need trunks! They look good, other than the big piece of the costume that is missing. :(
Trunks? You mean the undrewear Benton?
Benton is a gentleman. He'd never mention the "unentionables"
Benton, I've been thinking about the trunks issue since you made your post... and while I sympathise in the case of Superman (because the trunks add a balance of color I agree is missing from the modern Superman outfit) I don't think the same can be said for Batman, particularly since there has not been a single live action Batman film that's featured them since the Burton days.
That said, the reason the trunks were included in the first place was inspired by the Strong Men and Circus performers of that era. It made sense for these amazing characters to run around with outfits inspired by people who were doing similarly amazing things in real life. It served, in its own way, to make the outlandish abilities seem more real... and the fact that they were wearing outfits similar to real people gave their costumes a meaning beyond just being a normal outfit.
However, we've since moved away from that... Strongmen today are more likely characterized by Tank Tops and Shorts than by one piece spandex outfits, and circus performers... well, as they always have, they wear whatever grabs the most attention. It might have made sense for a Superman of the 1940s to design his costume based on these elements... hell, it could even make sense for one who appeared during the 1980s or 1990s to have created it because his parents (as seen in the Lois and Clark show) might have been inspired by the memory of those costumes the same way a Superman emerging in the 1940s might have.
But now, it's 2014. We've reached the point where most of a mainstream audience doesn't even remember when the trunks belonged to anything but Superheroes. The trunks have gone from being an element that ties superheroes to the real world, or even one that ties into the nostalgia people had for a bygone era, and has become something that ties them more to the fantastic. And don't get me wrong, that can be a good thing... but in the case of Batman, a character who is very much tied into realism and darkness... it doesn't make any sense.
Ben has been on a major workout and diet since he was first signed on to be Batman so he would fill out the costume. That costume you see in the photo is a fabric costume there is no "extra padding" in that suit at all. Ben is VERY insistent that his Batman be exactly what he is supposed to be.. the peak of physical condition with no cheats until he absolutely needs them to be able to take on Superman. Now the Batman in this movie is supposed to be one that has mostly retired from being in his costume and focusing more on his business until everything that happened in Metropolis that caught his attention, so maybe he is supposed to start the film with a less "pumped up" look but by the time he reaches his battle with Superman he has been training non-stop and looking for anything that might give him an advantage.
- CQ
CQ i don't want to rain on your parade but as Henry Cavill in Man of Steel i think Ben still wears a muscle suit underneath his bat suit. And that info comes from an insider in stunt indusrty who knows how this works :D
Annnnnnd we have a title.... Annnnnnnnnd it isn't "World's Finest".
(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/s851x315/10262220_10152415132729346_312359059377140095_n.jpg)
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/batman-superman-titled-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-1201188157/
Actually really pleased with Batman's look. I'm so over the armor plate look. With the crew helming this, I'm really hyped about this film.
I would like better a "World's Finest" movie than a Batman vs Superman, but I can understand WB's reasoning.
I still wary of the movie, but I really liked Bats costume and it will be great to see the League on a movie.
A little more info about the movie:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/21/new-batman-superman-film-officially-subtitled-dawn-of-justice-starts-principal-photography-today/
Why is the double-barrelled title necessary? Are they planning more than one Batman vs Superman movie or something?
The second title is a reference to it leading up to the Justice League, like Captain America was subtitles "The First Avenger."
The title is whack...straight up booty whack.
It took another look at the icon, and the Batman and Superman logos are completely different styles and do not blend well together, IMO.
The title's okay, but World's Finest would still have been my preference. Perhaps Batman/Superman: World's Finest, just for the legions of clueless moviegoers who don't know what World's Finest is.
I do find it amusing that Batman got first billing despite this technically being a Superman sequel. :D We all know who the more popular hero is.
The title is pretty blah but at least it's honest. That is what everyone has and will be calling this film forevermore.
Actually we should all step back a second, forget who's directing, the actors, past performances, the potential overfilled cast, and just think that we're actually getting a big screen Superman and Batman team-up. That by itself is pretty amazing.
Since I think I was just realizing two topics for two separate movies were bleeding(and derailing) one, I'm putting news of
BATMAN VS SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE here. Yahoo is reporting FOUR villains and a Superman pic. But in my opinion, I thought it was Ultraman for a hot second. But see for yourself:
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/news/batman-v-superman-first-look-supes-antagonist-rumors-155132879.html
Spoiler
So outside of the Kid Luthor, we have:
Victor Zsazs, a knife wielding killer
Morgan Edge, Lexcorp Publicist
David Cain, highly trained assassin
Amanda Waller, a powerful Senator(?)
Which begs the question: How many extra DC characters can you squeeze into a "Batman/Superman"/Superman movie sequel?
Hmm, I think you could tell a pretty excellent story with some of those characters, especially:
Spoiler
The Wall. Here's hoping they actually cast someone who can play the classic version rather than a waifish type like the New 52 version. It would be good to not have that negative aspect of comics show up in the movie.
Other than her and the obvious villain, the others don't really interest me, but I suppose they've got potential.
If their casting decisions so far is any indication, they'd likely get Nicki Minaj.
And before anyone starts, she's black, Nicki's black, I'm black = No racism here.
Move on.
Those 4 extra characters don't bother me as I thought they might when I saw the headline. (I was thinking "4 extra villains? Darkseid, Brainiac, Grodd, and Sinestro? yeah that'd be too much" :) )
Zasz and Cain are basically skilled people (for Batman?) to fight. He needs to so something after all and I appreciate when they go with a character from the comics for this rather than , "John Doe, excellent fightin' dude"
Morgan Edge is an established part of the Superman mythos, and though I don't normally think of him as a "villain" he was often antagonistic and I think there was a link to Intragang, no?
Amanda Waller is just what they need to get the JLA rolling, IMO. She is either their govt liason or will watch them and build up her anti_JLA countermeasure team. (they are just setting the groundwork with her)
I would personally love for C.C.H. Pounder, who voice her in Justice League Unlimited to play her. She looks right and can play that type of character perfectly. She might be a bit older than they are looking for though.
Yep, CCH pounder would be perfect casting, but you're right, probably not the way they're leaning.
Not that I'd be against CCH Pounder, and I know the movie wasn't well liked, but we've already seen Amanda Waller in a Hollywood feature. Would it be too much to ask Angela Bassett to reprise that role?
When did Angela Bassett play Amanda Waller? I'm genuinely drawing a blank on that one.
She did it in Green Lantern
And she was fine.
I had to look it up, actually. The Green Lantern. Which explains why I'd forget it. I also think she's too skinny. Waller is called "The Wall" for several reasons, physical size being one of them. She doesn't have to be grossly overweight or anything like that, but there is a certain look you'd expect. Again, Pounder is perfect in this aspect.
Maybe Basset could play the role very well otherwise, but in spite of having seen Green Lantern, I remember nothing about her in that role.
Vaguely recall she may have been a scientist in GL? (instead of a govt agt)
Yeah, the GL one was pretty forgettable, like pretty much everything else about that movie. CCH Pounder would, of course, be perfect. I'd KILL to see a live-action adaptation of (part of) the Cadmus arc from JLU. :D
Yes! The Cadmus arc is ideal fodder for a future JLA sequel.
re: the GL movie
- I'm a big GL fan (if you catch me in an unguarded moment, I would reveal things that might surprise about my fandom past with GL)
Surprisingly (given that), I didn't hate the movie as much as most seem to. Were there plot points/actors I would have changed, yeah, definitely. But it wasn't "Batman & Robin" or "Catwoman" levels of suckage. I also don't get bloggers who go on and on about how they can't have Green Lantern in a JLA movie due to that movie. Or that that it can't be Hal. Marvel's gone through 3 Bruce Banners and 1 unpopular Hulk movie and they're doing fine.
If I recall , Angela Basset was Waller, but she was in a scene or 2 (as a scientist or something) and didn't seem to have much to do other than be there. I remember thinking, what was the point in calling her Amanda Waller?
That being said, if she reprised the role (and it was more like the comic Waller), I wouldn't mind. It actually would help tie the DC movies a little closer together.
If that article is accurate then the most interesting thing for me personally is
Spoiler
The use of David Cain. As I huge Batgirl fan, the use of her father piques my interest, but I'd expect they just picked Cain as a minor foe for Batman. I doubt it's a sign of an appearance by Cassandra.
Alex, GL is certainly not on the same level as the worst comic book movies, but it's definitely one of the weak rank of DC movies. It's not bad, per se, just thoroughly mediocre.
Hey, guys!
They just released the first pic of Superman for "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"!
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7905/3935473-6389511208-10492.png)
:rolleyes:
I would take the above rumors about Zsasz and the rest with a heavy grain of salt. The news organization who broke the story is ALSO the one responsible for saying that Lex Luthor would be a tattooed up ex-gang member, and all on-set reports have him as a nerd who drinks 20 cups of coffee a day and is running the DC Universe equivalent of Google/Facebook.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olMzIbkB0nI -I've seen shots of the Old suit and new suit compared with each other, but this youtube video really breaks down the subtle differences between the two suits, there's a lot of smal details they packed into is that I appreciated.
Comparison of the two suits.
(http://i.imgur.com/mwxZd1S.jpg?1)
Here's another version of the BvS: Dawn of Justice Superman suit.
Spoiler
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BroNao8IAAEXdI8.jpg:large)
I would love to see CCH Pounder as Amanda Waller. What a great character. As a senator, she could be anything from an ally, interested observer, or behind-the-scenes antagonist in the first movie. And, like most people who have seen it, I think the Cadmus arc in JLU would make an excellent, compelling storyline for a future JL movie. Of course, whoever plays Amanda Waller (assuming that she ends up being a character in the movies), if she is to be a US senator, especially one of any stature, it will seem a bit odd if the actor is only 30 years old.
Quote from: spydermann93 on July 04, 2014, 04:06:49 AM
Hey, guys!
They just released the first pic of Superman for "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice"!
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7905/3935473-6389511208-10492.png)
It's okay Bruce, I'll be your friend..... :D
Quote from: stumpy on July 04, 2014, 05:56:05 PM
I would love to see CCH Pounder as Amanda Waller. What a great character. As a senator, she could be anything from an ally, interested observer, or behind-the-scenes antagonist in the first movie. And, like most people who have seen it, I think the Cadmus arc in JLU would make an excellent, compelling storyline for a future JL movie. Of course, whoever plays Amanda Waller (assuming that she ends up being a character in the movies), if she is to be a US senator, especially one of any stature, it will seem a bit odd if the actor is only 30 years old.
Not that something like that has ever stopped Hollywood in the past. :P
Yet another thing in favor of Pounder. She's just about the perfect age for a senior senator.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 04, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
Yet another thing in favor of Pounder. She's just about the perfect age for a senior senator.
Off topic and not really relevant, but the
senior in the Senior Senator title does not signify age. It's a matter of which of a state's two senators were elected first.
Sorry, don't mean to be too technical.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 04, 2014, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 04, 2014, 08:54:40 PM
Yet another thing in favor of Pounder. She's just about the perfect age for a senior senator.
Off topic and not really relevant, but the senior in the Senior Senator title does not signify age. It's a matter of which of a state's two senators were elected first.
Sorry, don't mean to be too technical.
If I had, in fact, been referring to the title "Senior Senator" when used to differentiate between the two senators of a given state, you would be correct. Since I was, in fact, referring to a Senator who is a Senior in the sense of having been around long enough to scour important chairmanships and be in charge of things--like Waller would have to be--then you are incorrect.
Same term, more than one meaning.
So.... you are just referring to her age? And not her office?
He's referring to the fact that she's theoretically been a senator long enough to have made the types of connections and gained the amount of power she supposedly has.
Again, I think this is all moot (the news source that revealed this is the same one that claimed we were gonna have a tatooed, ex-thug Lex Luthor, so they're not exactly the most accurate) but wevs.
As much as I would love to have CCH Pounder in the movie as Waller that would kill any chances of Arrow & Flash being in the same universe as Supes and Bats, unless they try to go the Nick Fury route and she has a daughter with the same name.
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 05, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
As much as I would love to have CCH Pounder in the movie as Waller that would kill any chances of Arrow & Flash being in the same universe as Supes and Bats, unless they try to go the Nick Fury route and she has a daughter with the same name.
I don't see that as a possibility anyway.
Quote from: Tomato on July 05, 2014, 02:38:48 AM
He's referring to the fact that she's theoretically been a senator long enough to have made the types of connections and gained the amount of power she supposedly has.
Exactly. Senators with power are typically in their 50's or 60's or even older. Power and influence takes time.
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 05, 2014, 12:39:51 PM
As much as I would love to have CCH Pounder in the movie as Waller that would kill any chances of Arrow & Flash being in the same universe as Supes and Bats
Which is probably for the best.
Noooooooooooooo! (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/07/arrows-stephen-amell-says-he-wont-be-in-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice) Oh well, c´est la vie.
I'm glad. I love Arrow and would hate to see it be forced to follow the rules of what I believe will be a disappointing movie universe. Now if only they'd let the Arrowverse have its own versions of Batman and Superman.
Look, it's BatAffleck.
Nice mask, I hope the rest of the costume looks so good.
(http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/batman-ben-affleck-600x901.jpg?9098e0)
More here:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/07/24/dc-gives-us-our-closest-look-yet-at-ben-affleck-as-batman/
Is this sculpt legit?
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ignore_jpg_scale_super/11111/111117100/3981787-7577842100-batff.jpg)
The caption says that it's just a guess based on descriptions they got, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Mask of the real one looks cool, though.
Quote from: Tomato on July 04, 2014, 04:36:21 AM
and all on-set reports have him as a nerd who drinks 20 cups of coffee a day and is running the DC Universe equivalent of Google/Facebook.
Seriously?
So he's LITERALLY Mark Zuckerberg as Lex Luthor.
*throws up hands* I give up people. We could have had Heisenberg. And we HAD Spacey last time, but his direction was all WRONG! Yaknow, I would really like to see at least ONE of these Superman movies have a TAS/modern comic style Luthor. How sad is it that SMALLVILLE had the best Luthor? I guess I'll have to settle for the inevitable animated movie of Forever Evil.
Those Batfleck pics looked consistently bada$$. So much so that I'm not entirely confident he'll look nearly that cool in the real movie.
I'd be all for Pounder as Waller. She's been been consistently great every time she voiced that character, and none of the live action actresses we've had before left much off an impression on me.
*edit* But seriously guys. This movie's casting so far has been going WAY to seamlessly. We need to....*licks lips*. Introduce a little anarchy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlT_lBYW8KE
*posts link to completely wild card casting choice* I'm a man of my wooooord. *laughs hysterically*
Quote from: Silver Shocker on July 25, 2014, 03:38:34 PMSo he's LITERALLY Mark Zuckerberg as Lex Luthor.
I'm pretty sure that's figuratively. ;)
I'd agree that Lex Luthor as an villainous Internet entrepreneur doesn't sound especially compelling. But, when the character is done well, it kind of doesn't matter what sort of professional background they give him. It does seem like the actor for that role should come across as smart, ultra-competent, and menacing. I haven't seen Eisenberg in that role yet, but I haven't seen much of him at all. I was intrigued by the earlier rumors that Bradley Cooper might get the role.
I loved that Bill Murray link.
Quick Change was an awesome movie.
Well, I guess that was hyperbole on my part. I just got a little carried I guess. I just don't see why the "Bada$$ Superman" movies need to have Hipster Luthor when the guy from the cartoons and comics was already pretty cool. And to fair, I am aware that Luthor was drinking energy drinks in Grant Morrison's New 52 issues. That kind of "hip new take" wasn't present in Forever Evil and I loved Luthor in that book.
I really would love to give Eisenberg the benefit of the doubt, but 1. They don't seem to be interested in making him Luthor to begin with. and 2. These DC movies that aren't Batman haven't built up the good will that Batman Begins and the Marvel movies had before Ledger, Evans and whoever else. I didn't really like anyone in Man of Steel (except Lawrence Fishbourne, and he wasn't doing anything special) and this movie's already got too many dudes on the dance floor, if you'll pardon the groan-inducing analogy.
QuoteI loved that Bill Murray link. Quick Change was an awesome movie.
I may have to watch that one day. It looks like it'd be extremely entertaining.
I'm not a fan of Eisenberg either , but re: hipster Luthor - as long as he's not living in Brooklyn and having brunch throughout the movie, it doesn't bother me too much .
Quick Change was a fantastic movie! So underrated.
Just saw the discussion about senator ages above .
Probably doesn't apply , but anyone else remember that the DC universe used to have a US law that allowed Barbara Gordon to be a Congresswoman at a young age?
(This was Pre-crisis )
Re:GL - agree it's not at the top of the DC movie food chain. Didn't like Hammond's role in it , parallax could have been handled better story-wise (essence of fear and all that ), not a big Blake lively fan, etc.
But fx were excellent, the GL origin was there , time on OA was great , Sinestro was good also, etc.
So yes, far from perfect , but for me anyway, a fun superhero flick .
Quote from: abenavides on July 26, 2014, 11:42:32 AM
Just saw the discussion about senator ages above .
Probably doesn't apply , but anyone else remember that the DC universe used to have a US law that allowed Barbara Gordon to be a Congresswoman at a young age?
(This was Pre-crisis )
Yeah, I actually just read that story as I was making my way through Detective Comics!
That version of Luthor really isn't that bad really. Modern Luthor is a corrupt buisinessman with his hands in everything. Once upon a time, that would be in industrialist, but who are the big buisinesses with their hands in everything that people look ominously at? Facebook, Google, and other tech giants, that's who. It makes perfect sense and could be a logical change if handled well.
Ehh, I don't know. Hippsters can't be intimidating, they can only be infuriating. ;) Ha, whereas folks may be a bit uncomfortable with the tech giants these days, they still don't seem quite as generically and frighteningly evil as the gigantic, heartless mega-corporation of fiction and reality.
People in my circles do. Recording folks private information as a matter of course, influencing the government which relies in its information to find terrorist and criminals, photographing and recording everyone's home and private life, controlling the most advanced tech of every kind. Now immagine an evil man like Luthor controlling a Google like tech giant like that. Can get anyone arrested his wants simply by giving the government fake digital records making them look like a pedophile or a terrorists. Blackmailing anyone he wants. Looking at anyone's home he wants to and having real time information on whoever he wants to control or intimidate. That's actually much more frightening that the heartless mega-corporation. One has a lot of power. The other simple controls everything.
I'm with Cat... the idea of something like Google or Facebook in the hands of someone like Lex Luthor is freaking terrifying. Facebook, for example, has software that can take photos from your profile, create a digital version of your face, and then automatically tag photos that you're in. And it's not just a guestimate either... the software is supposedly upwards of 90% accurate.
Compare that with the power these companies wield politically: People pat themselves on the back about how we stopped that horrible HIPPA bill, but the reality is, we did nothing. A bunch of idiot internet geeks mean nothing to the powers that be compared to the entertainment industry. But then Google and Facebook came in and then suddenly, no more HIPPA. The might of the entire entertainment industry was pushing for that bill and it was not enough to counter the will of Google.
Official Hi-Res Wonder Woman Photo and Description of Teaser Trailer (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/first-look-at-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman/)
I wish that I could make out the details of the costume a bit more, but it doesn't look half-bad as of right now.
Quote from: spydermann93 on July 26, 2014, 05:45:47 PM
I wish that I could make out the details of the costume a bit more, but it doesn't look half-bad as of right now.
Updated!
Awesome!
If they added a bit more color to it, I think that it will be perfect!
Costume needs a nit more color, but besides that, it looks great. She still doesn't look like Wonder Woman though. Does anybody know how good is her acting skills?
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 26, 2014, 06:47:41 PMDoes anybody know how good is her acting skills?
I don't. All I know is that she was in some of the "Fast & Furious" movies.
That...looks pretty great! A little more colour might be nice, but that could just be the lighting anyway. And a warrior version of the costume doesn't need to be bright and colourful now anyway in my opinion.
Anyway, very impressed with that image.
Not that I want to poo-poo anyone's opinion on the lack of color in GG's costume, but I can understand Snyder's decision to tone down the red, white and blue. She's from Themyscira, not Kansas. Perhaps he wants her to be seen as just a heroine and not an American Trademark.
I think she looks FANTASTIC. Actually much better than I could have hoped.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 26, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Not that I want to poo-poo anyone's opinion on the lack of color in GG's costume, but I can understand Snyder's decision to tone down the red, white and blue. She's from Themyscira, not Kansas. Perhaps he wants her to be seen as just a heroine and not an American Trademark.
Very good points. I'm not too engrossed in her being an "American Trademark", but perhaps some sort of accenting on the armor. Her armor is a bit too brown to me (but that could just be the image itself :P).
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 26, 2014, 08:57:29 PMActually much better than I could have hoped.
I definitely agree with you, there. While I still think that her armor could use a bit more color, I would not be upset if she kept this look. :P
Quote from: spydermann93 on July 26, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 26, 2014, 08:57:29 PM
Not that I want to poo-poo anyone's opinion on the lack of color in GG's costume, but I can understand Snyder's decision to tone down the red, white and blue. She's from Themyscira, not Kansas. Perhaps he wants her to be seen as just a heroine and not an American Trademark.
Very good points. I'm not too eqngrossed in her being an "American Trademark", but perhaps some sort of accenting on the armor. Her armor is a bit too brown to me (but that could just be the image itself :P).
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 26, 2014, 08:57:29 PMActually much better than I could have hoped.
I definitely agree with you, there. While I still think that her armor could use a bit more color, I would not be upset if she kept this look. :P
Noted. Honestly though, I think it COULD be the lighting.
She looks great.
At some point in her history , I think WW's story reason for red, white and blue was to appeal to the USA where she chose to make contact with man's world.
So maybe she gets a more colorful option later plot-wise.
But I'm perfectly fine with her looking like a warrior .
Regarding Lex: It's a good point that the tech giants of today are suitable results and targets of corporate empire-building, so it would be no surprise for Luthor to be at one's head. And, all of that data in the wrong hands could certainly be put to ill use. Of course, along those lines, the scariest thing might be for Luthor to be running the NSA.
(BTW, I was perfectly happy with the pre-Crisis Lex whose business machinations were centered around his role as a scientist who saw himself playing by an alternative set of moral rules. Of course, some argue that the "mad scientist" archetype is overdone in comics. But, Lex was an early example of the type and it would be fine if he kept it. The Lex from All-Star Superman pulled it off quite well. And, if being a simplistic stereotype or cliche is a problem, then there is hardly a bigger one than "evil corporate overlord.")
Regarding that pic: http://www.dcuopost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/BvS-Wonder-Woman.jpg: It's a good look for a warrior character. I think she would look more like a superhero if the costume had more color. Either way, whether because of the costume or the actor, she isn't immediately recognizable as Wonder Woman, IMO. But, it's early days.
BTW, I think the idea behind the red, white, and blue elements in the WW costume was that the princess was acting as an ambassador from Themyscira and wearing the colors of the host country was a sign of goodwill and respect.
(As an aside, while their may be some truth to the cracks about the WW costume being an "American trademark", there is also truth in the observation that downplaying that aspect of the character is a marketing decision, designed to improve branding and revenue outside the U.S.)
Please note, the official photo has a brown filter tint applied.
Here's a fan edit, I expect the costume to look much muted from this version.
Spoiler
(http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/659232y74HKHY1nofiltre.jpg)
I was coming here to post this very thing. Anyhow, I rather like the costume. I don't mind making it look less like an American flag. She isn't a patriotic hero, so it makes less sense for her anyway. It keeps a lot of the basic elements and I like what they did with the skirt thing. It loses the swimsuit look while keeping the same basic appearance. It looks very very armor like and folks are already comparing the costume to Xena, which isn't a bad thing in this case. I still don't think she has the right build for it, but at least the costume is cool.
(http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d123/redsoxfan333/Mobile%20Uploads/IMG_2547.jpg)
(http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg_imageupload/1/bvsleaked.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10574275_885152071498490_5470470751024807112_n.jpg?oh=ac69802dacb93ffd7d025e271ed4d67d&oe=5454256C&__gda__=1413660884_e770450a09aae49b50bb8343496e0168)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/1045085_885153291498368_6094645619650206623_n.jpg?oh=cef99851162df710e14b1bd310f9d4c0&oe=5454865C&__gda__=1413493269_dab0ad13555455ca934f5667c904d28c)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/1234663_885152264831804_8125711876666998740_n.jpg)
Interesting...
It seems like Batman will have to be plugged in the entire movie! :lol:
To a lamppost if memory serves ...
I wonder if that's the ending of the movie? You know how in the old Batman films they would show the bat signal....would be interesting
Quote from: abenavides on July 27, 2014, 12:22:42 AM
To a lamppost if memory serves ...
Talk about BATtery Powered!
...
Ok, I'll leave now.
Nice WW costume, like most of you guys I would like it better with a little more color, but since even Superman's costume have darker hues than the comic book version I don't think it will happens.
Watch it quick, don't know how long its going to last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOd8byxdjwQ
The setting is fine, Cat, but a hipster portrayal (if that is actually something they're doing) just seems like a terrible idea.
Well, I have news for everyone! Wonder Woman images have been released at Comic Con:
http://majorspoilers.com/2014/07/26/sdcc14-get-look-high-res-image-gal-gadot-wonder-woman/
I have to say, I am impressed. She looks pretty fierce. I can't really tell what the colors of her costume are, so assuming that they aren't really black and brown, that just being the filter of the image, that's a pretty good version of the WW costume. Gal Gadot has bulked up a bit, and she doesn't look out of place. Cool stuff. I'm impressed with how source faithful she looks.
... Benton, I'm sorry, but I have to do it...
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 27, 2014, 03:49:41 AM
The setting is fine, Cat, but a hipster portrayal (if that is actually something they're doing) just seems like a terrible idea.
(http://i.imgur.com/DyKNLtp.gif)
Wonder Woman images have been released at Comic Con:
http://majorspoilers.com/2014/07/26/sdcc14-get-look-high-res-image-gal-gadot-wonder-woman/
I have to say, I am impressed. She looks pretty fierce. I can't really tell what the colors of her costume are, so assuming that they aren't really black and brown, that just being the filter of the image, that's a pretty good version of the WW costume. Gal Gadot has bulked up a bit, and she doesn't look out of place. Cool stuff. I'm impressed with how source faithful she looks.
So, does that picture alleviate any concerns about Gadot in the role or is everyone still hating her? <_<
Tomato, that is awesome. Pretend I posted the picture with dog as I'm up late right now and don't feel up to it. Also I'm about to slightly disagree with you so hopefully that will put you in a good mood.
Ok, let me give you all my take lest I sound too much like Superboy Prime:
1. I have no problem with the Gene Hackman style Luthor. Hackman is good. I really like the first two Superman movies. But Superman the Movie was made in the 1970s, the modern version of Batman and Luthor didn't even
exist back then. Nolan has brought us a bunch of stuff we've had to wait years to see on the big screen and I think it's great that my dad and my friends who don't read comics and whoever else know who Ra's and Talia and whoever else are. I'd like to see the Superman movies given a similar treatment, but they seem to only be interested in doing Zod and Luthor each time. I really want to see a big budget Brainiac in one of these things.
2. I don't have a problem with Eisenberg as an actor. I don't know the guy. I never saw The Social Network, nor I am I in any hurry to do so. But I was hoping that like Ledger he would transform into the role rather than the people involved taking the kind of thing he was doing before and adding that in. It's kinda like how in Schumaker's Batman, EVERY villain was the Joker. Hamming it up, telling silly jokes, laughing like crazy people. Considering one of those guys was Mr. Freeze, and they seemed to referencing the TAS version....
3. I get what you guys are saying about the whole "control information" bit, but A. This seems like the wrong movie for that. and B. I've been wondering why this version of Luthor would WANT to get into villainy if he's the Facebook guy? He's already rich, he's probably not a weapons dealer or anything like that, if he's anything like a lot of those internet clowns the worst thing he's done is drop dox, post sensitive information and harvest people's personal info for marketing purposes. I don't see why that's a threat to Superman when he's usually going after dudes like Zod. Now, When Skyfall, or the tv show Bones do Evil Wikileaks guy, it makes sense because noone's got superpowers (except Javier Bardem's "super-planned for everything" powers ;) ) Superman could just fly into the guy's computer room and break his neck. Or melt his servers. Or use his powers to expose HIS shady business.
Might make a good reason for Lex to hate Big Blue. Might be an interesting story. Too bad this movie's got like 6 stories in it already.
Yeah, in case you guys can't tell, I don't have a faith in this thing. Wonder Woman looks really good. Better than I expected. Could use some color. Those shots of Batman just make me want to watch Dark Knight Returns again.
QuoteSo, does that picture alleviate any concerns about Gadot in the role or is everyone still hating her?
Costume looks good. I hope Gadot's good in the movie, and WW is good in it. Heck, I hope everything's good. We'll have to wait and see. I wasn't worried about her build or looks. It's all up to the acting, script ect.
Here's three questions:
1. Can she act?
2. How much cheesecake is going to be in movie?
3. Does she make out with Batman and or Superman?
4. Do Superman and Batman make out? :P
The reason that Lex hate Supes so much is because Lex likes the attention he's getting from the public and then here comes an alien and takes the attention away from him. It was setup that way in Superman TAS. If they can fins a way to put that in this movie, then they may have a good story or sub-plot.
You beat me to the post, Jeynyce.
That's exactly Luthor's motivation - jealousy of Supes taking his spotlight and the adulation he feels should be his.
This was actually established way back in Byrne's 1986 reboot of Superman, when Lex became the powerful business man (a Marvin Wolfman idea).
You're right, that is true.
Talking about the TAS version, I actually watched that AFTER Justice League. And after seeing how cool Lex Luthor was in that thing (and the number of plots from Superman that Justice League brought up) I was really looking forward to that. But while Darkseid was pretty good in it, as was Brainiac, Luthor was a little disappointed with. Don't get me wrong, Clancy Brown has always been an excellent Luthor, and the writing for him was perfectly fine, I just found myself disappointed by how few really big storylines he had compared to the business with Darkseid and the Brainiac episodes, which I really liked.
Not that I haven't been keeping track of this discussion with Lex Luthor, but as a response, I do like Smallville's take on Lex. He thinks himself great and heroic for not having any sort of powers and STILL standing up to a being who could level the earth if he had the notion.
Liking what I'm seeing so far. And wow Snyder sure is a big Miller fan. Cool stuff.
Meh. Personally, all the Miller references leave me feeling very frustrated. I personally detest Miller's Batman, PARTICULARLY regarding his relationship with Superman. It makes me less enthusiastic about the whole movie.
Ditto. Millar may have done some good stuff in the (distant) past, but I'd rather keep his influence out of it, thanks.
If Wonder Woman's going to have a sword, I think it's only fair that Superman start carrying around a battle axe. Batman, of course, should have a baseball bat, perhaps with a few nails stuck in it to show he means business.
That's silly. I know you're trying to make a point about giving characters weapons--but your just plain wrong here. Superman doesn't often carry around a battle axe in the comics. Batman doesn't often have a baseball bat (although he did used to carry about a gun and shoot people with it) Wonder Woman does use a sword. Not all the time, but it is something she's been known to do quite a lot. It's well within her established character. Not when super-heroing, but when acting like an Amazon warrior, all the time.
That's a fair point, Cat, but we are seeing a move in modern comics back towards lethal heroes, much to the detriment of the genre, in my opinion. Aquaman is gutting folks with a trident, Wonder Woman is slicing people up with a sword, and there are several "heroes" whose powers seem to be "guns." Yeah, Wonder Woman has an origin that makes her a warrior, but in general, her carrying a sword has become a more common occurrence, or so it seems to me.
Given Snyder and co's predilections, it seems reasonable that we might see a lethal WW in this film.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 28, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
Wonder Woman does use a sword. Not all the time, but it is something she's been known to do quite a lot. It's well within her established character.
Wearing a mullet is within Superman's "established character", but I'd still point and laugh if they put it in a movie. "Wonder Xena" is the first resort of clueless, lazy writers in all media.
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 02:08:16 AM
If Wonder Woman's going to have a sword, I think it's only fair that Superman start carrying around a battle axe. Batman, of course, should have a baseball bat, perhaps with a few nails stuck in it to show he means business.
Don't give Frank Miller any ideas in case he ever writes some more All-Star Batman and Robin. :P
I'm not really an expert on Wonder Woman, but I've heard people who feel very passionate about the character saying she should be kind and inspiring (like Superman). I think the Justice League cartoon is probably the best example of I think Wonder Woman is/should be, of the stuff I've been exposed to (which is mostly that, some of the animated movies and cartoons, JLA comics and event comics, ect). A lot of alternate universe versions (Miller's ASBAR being the absolute worst example) tend to play her up as a sword wielding warrior, who is aggressive and ill-tempered (I think the Injustice video game played up the "sword-weilding warrior" aesthetic). In the New 52 comics she has the sword, but I mostly only read Justice League so my knowledge of her is based on that. That mostly spent time on her relationship with Steve Trevor and Superman, neither of which is probably relevant to the movie. (those bullet points in my previous post were a joke at the expense of the modern comics, btw, in case people didn't get it)
Tomato, I think if the movie has a different reason for Batman to fight Superman that doesn't replicate Miller's politics or take on those characters, it'll probably be fine. A lot of adaptations put in familiar elements without telling the same story (Captain America: The Winter Soldier, for example, isn't really the same story as Brubaker's storyline in the comics). If you feel differently, that's ok. Personally I didn't even like the original Dark Knight Returns comic that much and the main reason I like the animated movie a lot better is because a few of the elements I
didn't like from the comic (notably the talking heads politics and Miller's inconsistent art) were either absent or downplayed in it.
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 28, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
Wonder Woman does use a sword. Not all the time, but it is something she's been known to do quite a lot. It's well within her established character.
Wearing a mullet is within Superman's "established character", but I'd still point and laugh if they put it in a movie. "Wonder Xena" is the first resort of clueless, lazy writers in all media.
Normally, I would agree with you, like when I went to see the Avengers with my non-comic-literate friends and they ask me "so that guy with the bow and arrow is Green Arrow right?"
But in this case, this is Wonder Woman and she has about a 40 year head start on Xena. Though there could be comparisons, in a movie with Superman and Batman, I think most will assume it to be Wonder Woman.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 28, 2014, 07:09:43 AM
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 28, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
Wonder Woman does use a sword. Not all the time, but it is something she's been known to do quite a lot. It's well within her established character.
Wearing a mullet is within Superman's "established character", but I'd still point and laugh if they put it in a movie. "Wonder Xena" is the first resort of clueless, lazy writers in all media.
Normally, I would agree with you, like when I went to see the Avengers with my non-comic-literate friends and they ask me "so that guy with the bow and arrow is Green Arrow right?"
But in this case, this is Wonder Woman and she has about a 40 year head start on Xena. Though there could be comparisons, in a movie with Superman and Batman, I think most will assume it to be Wonder Woman.
I think that JKC was referring to "lazy writers" making Wonder Woman use weapons in combat more than her actually trying to NOT kill her opponents, not so much people confusing Wonder Woman for Xena.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think that I personally know anybody that would mistake Wonder Woman for Xena, haha :P
Also on the same subject, my friends thought that Hawkeye was Green Arrow, too. Made me laugh :P
Again, this is just a promo photo for a character whose only appearance will be a cameo. Showing her wearing a sword makes perfect sense in that context.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 28, 2014, 07:49:49 AM
Again, this is just a promo photo for a character whose only appearance will be a cameo. Showing her wearing a sword makes perfect sense in that context.
It would be funny if all of these other characters (Cyborg, Wonder Woman, etc.) only appear for a brief second. Something like Batman doing research on Superman with his computer and images of "new" superhumans show up on screen for a few seconds each.
Since people are having trouble parsing my meaning:
Wonder Woman carrying a sword is a relatively recent "innovation", one that I think is dumb and inappropriate for the character. And I am disappointed to see they are going that route in the movie. Clear enough?
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Since people are having trouble parsing my meaning:
Wonder Woman carrying a sword is a relatively recent "innovation", one that I think is dumb and inappropriate for the character. And I am disappointed to see they are going that route in the movie. Clear enough?
It's just a promo shot. She may not even have one in the movie.
The thing about Wonder Woman as a warrior, is that it seems to have clicked more with modern audiences (myself included).
I have a hard time getting behind this super weird Amazonian embassador with all sorts of campy baggage (50's Betty Page bondagy covers, 70's disco, 80's invisible jets) so making her a straight up warrior with strong ties to mythology makes the character instantly click with people.
Honestly that is how Hercules (in Marvel) had a strong resurgence, by doing modern/urban fantasy heavily influenced by mythology.
So yeah, I'm all for giving her more metal on her costume (reminiscent of armor) and some real weapons. I'm not going to get into a debate about how awesome the lasso is, I'm just saying it is not as visually striking as when she is better armed.
Quote from: spydermann93 on July 28, 2014, 07:24:25 AM
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 28, 2014, 07:09:43 AM
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 05:09:25 AM
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on July 28, 2014, 02:11:41 AM
Wonder Woman does use a sword. Not all the time, but it is something she's been known to do quite a lot. It's well within her established character.
Wearing a mullet is within Superman's "established character", but I'd still point and laugh if they put it in a movie. "Wonder Xena" is the first resort of clueless, lazy writers in all media.
Normally, I would agree with you, like when I went to see the Avengers with my non-comic-literate friends and they ask me "so that guy with the bow and arrow is Green Arrow right?"
But in this case, this is Wonder Woman and she has about a 40 year head start on Xena. Though there could be comparisons, in a movie with Superman and Batman, I think most will assume it to be Wonder Woman.
I think that JKC was referring to "lazy writers" making Wonder Woman use weapons in combat more than her actually trying to NOT kill her opponents, not so much people confusing Wonder Woman for Xena.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think that I personally know anybody that would mistake Wonder Woman for Xena, haha :P
Also on the same subject, my friends thought that Hawkeye was Green Arrow, too. Made me laugh :P
Funny you should say that because I'm having the Wonder Woman/Xena debate with a friend on FB as we speak!
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Since people are having trouble parsing my meaning:
Wonder Woman carrying a sword is a relatively recent "innovation", one that I think is dumb and inappropriate for the character. And I am disappointed to see they are going that route in the movie. Clear enough?
I understand your point.
AS A SEPARATE POINT(JKC)...
I just pointed out to a friend of mine that Wonder Woman wearing a red and blue swimsuit makes as much sense as Batman wearing blue and gray spandex. It's just not practical. So with that being so, what SHOULD she wear? What would be authentic to THAT CHARACTER. It make sense for a vigilante prowling the night to wear black Kevlar. What about a Grecian Superwoman born from a few thousand years ago?
I think Gal Godot looks great and I never doubted that she would. She's a good-looking human being and, like Cavill and Affleck, she's been doing the superhero workout regime. I also like the costume.
Wonder Woman's modern depiction uses a sword and weaponry ... I never expected the classic tiara-throwing Wonder Woman in her stars n' stripes uniform to appear in a Zack Snyder film. In the context of the tone of Man of Steel, that would look out of place.
Quote from: lugaru on July 28, 2014, 05:41:27 PM
The thing about Wonder Woman as a warrior, is that it seems to have clicked more with modern audiences (myself included).
I have a hard time getting behind this super weird Amazonian embassador with all sorts of campy baggage (50's Betty Page bondagy covers, 70's disco, 80's invisible jets) so making her a straight up warrior with strong ties to mythology makes the character instantly click with people.
Well said. The only time I've ever had interest in her solo series is when it plays with the mythology elements (the current run seems interesting).
About lethal force, just because she has a sword does not mean she'll be killing people. However, my expectation right now is that Synder would go a lethal route. But we'll see, we've never really seen him handle superheroes like this. Man of Steel's Zod solution has been stated as the creation of Superman's anti-killing mantra, though we've yet to see if Synder will stick with that. The other franchises he's worked with used characters that wouldn't hesitate to kill so it's hard to say how he'll handle the League. I could easily see a conflict arise where Diana the warrior is all too willing to kill but Superman and Batman are dead against it. But that's pure speculation at this point.
Quote from: Midnite on July 26, 2014, 05:30:17 PM
Official Hi-Res Wonder Woman Photo and Description of Teaser Trailer (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/first-look-at-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman/)
Not sure how I feel about the sword, but that jet looks freaking sweet!
Quote from: JKCarrier on July 28, 2014, 03:25:49 PM
Since people are having trouble parsing my meaning:
Wonder Woman carrying a sword is a relatively recent "innovation", one that I think is dumb and inappropriate for the character. And I am disappointed to see they are going that route in the movie. Clear enough?
Not really an innovation if she has used it multiple times the past decad
es
Quote from: BWPS on July 29, 2014, 12:46:01 AM
Quote from: Midnite on July 26, 2014, 05:30:17 PM
Official Hi-Res Wonder Woman Photo and Description of Teaser Trailer (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/first-look-at-gal-gadot-as-wonder-woman/)
Not sure how I feel about the sword, but that jet looks freaking sweet!
Wait..... what Je, Ohhhh.
I see what you did there
Quote from: Podmark on July 28, 2014, 11:32:55 PM
Quote from: lugaru on July 28, 2014, 05:41:27 PM
The thing about Wonder Woman as a warrior, is that it seems to have clicked more with modern audiences (myself included).
I have a hard time getting behind this super weird Amazonian embassador with all sorts of campy baggage (50's Betty Page bondagy covers, 70's disco, 80's invisible jets) so making her a straight up warrior with strong ties to mythology makes the character instantly click with people.
Well said. The only time I've ever had interest in her solo series is when it plays with the mythology elements (the current run seems interesting).
About lethal force, just because she has a sword does not mean she'll be killing people. However, my expectation right now is that Synder would go a lethal route. But we'll see, we've never really seen him handle superheroes like this. Man of Steel's Zod solution has been stated as the creation of Superman's anti-killing mantra, though we've yet to see if Synder will stick with that. The other franchises he's worked with used characters that wouldn't hesitate to kill so it's hard to say how he'll handle the League. I could easily see a conflict arise where Diana the warrior is all too willing to kill but Superman and Batman are dead against it. But that's pure speculation at this point.
I get that. The way I see Wonder Woman is that she doesn't have the same value of human life as Superman and Batman does. Batman doesn't kill because killing is the one thing that makes them them and him him. Superman doesn't want to kill because he wants to do EVERYTHING possible to make himself seem as human as possible so that many more people can trust him. Wonder Woman at BEST believes in a female dominated society and at worse all too familiar with the destructive abilities of mankind. She's coming from a society of warriors. I would imagine violence and death is a concept she's all to comfortable with. In fact judging by the way she's dressed and armed, I'd be surprised if she wasn't willing to kill.
Moreover, and I know this is off-topic, but I just finished watching the last hour or so of MAN OF STEEL and I'm STILL really bothered by the movie. Tomorrow's headline across the world should have been "ALIENS OBLITERATE MAJOR AMERICAN CITY", not "SUPERMAN SAVES THE DAY". He pretty much appeared the same time Zod and the other Kryptonians appeared. For all the world knows, alien beings came to earth and had a battle in the middle of America. How would we know who's the good guys or bad guys? Before Smallville is decimated and Metropolis is devastated with a 9/11 x 10, there was no Superman. He never saved any reporters dropping like flies and gets a softball interview after. He never caught any jumbo jets falling from the sky. He's never stopped any rampaging robots in downtown Metropolis. Why would anyone in the world trust him as a good guy? Think about it, if two alien armies came from out of the sky and had a battle over the skies of L.A. would anyone care what it's about or would they care about all the damage being caused to the cities? Sorry, just getting it off my chest.
If I recall the modern comics, she mostly uses the sword the way Wolverine does in the cartoons - using it to kill monsters (such as Greek mythology style monsters), robots, giant plant things, ect. I don't know of her ever using it to kill a human being or even an human-like alien ect (though again, I haven't read her own books). If that was brought up in a post above mine and I managed to miss it, sorry.
Didn't she use lethal force against the Atlantians in the Justice League book? I remember a very casual approach to violence and death in general in most of the New 52 books.
I think the important part of Wonder Woman is for writers not to forget that she is on a mission of peace... so you can put a gun holster on her if you want, but once she is initiating agression then they are off the mark. I'm way behind on the comics but even in the hyper violent Injustice game, they did a good job of riding this line in the cut scenes... that she was sent to prevent wars, not lead them.
That's the key, Lu. The warrior heritage is part of the character, but she's supposed to be above aggression and the like. I'm reminded of the portrayal of Storm Shadow from the G.I. JOE comics, "the only rational purpose for mastering violence is to abolish it." That's the core of the character, and when you must turn her into Hercules in a tiara, you lose that. As others have said, JLU got her right, like it got most things right.
I think we're making this more than it really is. She is just doing a cameo. How long will does a cameo last? A few seconds?
Quote from: JeyNyce on July 29, 2014, 06:15:03 PM
I think we're making this more than it really is. She is just doing a cameo. How long will does a cameo last? A few seconds?
Well, I think the conversation has drifted a bit from her role in this particular movie to the question of her modern interpretation in general. A cameo can be a few seconds or a minor role. I have had similar reflections as someone else here, wondering if we'll only see these guest stars very briefly.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 29, 2014, 03:20:19 PM
Didn't she use lethal force against the Atlantians in the Justice League book? I remember a very casual approach to violence and death in general in most of the New 52 books.
You might be right about that. I totally forgot about that storyline when I made that post.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 29, 2014, 05:25:18 PM
That's the key, Lu. The warrior heritage is part of the character, but she's supposed to be above aggression and the like. I'm reminded of the portrayal of Storm Shadow from the G.I. JOE comics, "the only rational purpose for mastering violence is to abolish it." That's the core of the character, and when you must turn her into Hercules in a tiara, you lose that. As others have said, JLU got her right, like it got most things right.
Everything but the Flash.
I liked their version of the Flash, though they were too ham-handed with his being comic relief in the beginning, just like they were too heavy on the 'Batman is a jerk loner' thing. It all got better as the series went on.
Quote from: BWPS on July 29, 2014, 09:21:34 PM
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 29, 2014, 05:25:18 PM
That's the key, Lu. The warrior heritage is part of the character, but she's supposed to be above aggression and the like. I'm reminded of the portrayal of Storm Shadow from the G.I. JOE comics, "the only rational purpose for mastering violence is to abolish it." That's the core of the character, and when you must turn her into Hercules in a tiara, you lose that. As others have said, JLU got her right, like it got most things right.
Everything but the Flash.
Pretty hard to believe since Wally was a fan favorite of the show, I'd agree if this was Barry, cept he isn't, Wally has always been much more energetic and witty than Barry, this show just cemented that fact
A pic of Aquaman's costume:
http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/33318/20140815/jason-momoa-aquaman-costume.htm
yea.....I wouldn't want him mad at me.
Keeps the orange and green, gives a plate armored look--if that's what they end up using, it isn't bad.
I found this article rather apt and fairly entertaining. Be aware, it is a Cracked article, so it may have some language:
http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/4-signs-dc-comics-has-no-clue-how-to-make-superhero-movies/
I agree with them on all points, especially about handling Superman.
I should preface with: I have some hope that DC will release an enjoyable movie next year.
That said, thanks for the link, BG. Just about every criticism in that article was valid, at one level or another. Of course, Cracked doesn't spare the hyperbole in making its points, but I think a strong case can be made that 1) DC doesn't really understand what has made the Marvel movies so successful (or isn't willing to take the time to replicate the work behind that success) and 2) doesn't really understand its own flagship character or why people like him.
(Just to annoy any bipolar fallacy adherents out there: I have not said or implied 1) that the Marvel movies are flawless or 2) that DC has never made a good movie.)
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Marvel shattered the mold. What they did, combining franchises, not relying on a single actor or actress to carry an entire film and not to mention make a wildly entertaining film. They hit it real big and more importantly they hit it big FIRST. The next time general film audiences see a huge blockbuster summer movie with multiple heroes, across separate franchises, it will be hard to shake the impression the Avengers did. It will be hard for some to not see Batman vs Superman and Justice League as a knock off of The Avengers. I'm not saying it is, but I'm saying viewing audiences might see it that way. It will certainly be made worse if the quality of filmmaking is what it was in Man of Steel.
I think this is less DC and more WB.
Fair enough. I (and I would assume most people commenting in this movie thread) am using "DC" to mean the people behind the DC superhero movies (Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros.). I haven't read the comics that recently.
New Batmobile photos. It looks likes a new take on the "Dark Knight" tumbler.
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/09/10/the-batmobile-seen-on-the-set-of-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/
I was going to say it looks like the Batmobile from the Arkham series
I like it, but I think Bruce might want to stop by at the Bat-Car Wash.
Zack Snyder Tweets Batmobile Photo (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-official-batmobile-photo/)
Snyder tweeted a photo of the Batmobile. In response to the unofficial photos.
Batman gets around his no killing code by being all like "I won't shoot you. But my car totally will."
Quote from: BWPS on September 11, 2014, 11:50:14 AM
Batman gets around his no killing code by being all like "I won't shoot you. But my car totally will."
The comics often explained by saying he uses rubber bullets, so it's not really lethal, just hurts a lot
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 17, 2014, 05:30:52 PM
A pic of Aquaman's costume:
http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/33318/20140815/jason-momoa-aquaman-costume.htm
yea.....I wouldn't want him mad at me.
...ew.
I don't like that one bit. Doesn't read as Aquaman to me at all.
Quote from: Midnite on September 11, 2014, 05:21:49 AM
Zack Snyder Tweets Batmobile Photo (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-official-batmobile-photo/)
Snyder tweeted a photo of the Batmobile. In response to the unofficial photos.
If it makes you feel any better Unko, this don't read as Batmobile to me.
Zach Snyder is seriously starting to make me wonder if knows who these characters ACTUALLY are or going off what someone told him.
Gotham City is becoming too dangerous, even for Batman:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/09/12/has-the-batman-vs-superman-batmobile-been-stolen-in-detroit/
I hope Bruce had insured it.
Quote from: UnkoMan on September 11, 2014, 04:37:14 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on August 17, 2014, 05:30:52 PM
A pic of Aquaman's costume:
http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/33318/20140815/jason-momoa-aquaman-costume.htm
yea.....I wouldn't want him mad at me.
...ew.
I don't like that one bit. Doesn't read as Aquaman to me at all.
I'll wait for the official costume design.
Bats vs Supes producer Charles Roven said to Newsarama why they chose Affleck for the main role:
"We knew that we wanted a very mature Batman, because we wanted to juxtapose him with this very young Superman," explained Roven. "So we wanted a guy who was tougher, rugged, who had signs of life, who had lived a hard life, and we wanted the guy to have chops, for sure."
"We also wanted a guy with big stature," Roven continued. "Ben is 6' 4". Henry [Cavill] is 6'1". We wanted Batman to tower over Superman. Not hugely, not like a basketball player. Superman needed to 'look up' to Batman. We wanted that dynamic, and Ben could do that, easily."
So, Affleck will be a great Bats because he's 3 inches taller than Cavill?! And why Batman's height is so important? Or it's just a way to show (again) how Batman will be "wiser, tougher and better" than Supes in the movie? Wouldn't be more interesting portray Batman and Superman as equals?
And this is supposed to be a prequel to a Justice League movie?
So they are going for Bats being the old dog who shows the new dog Supes on how to be a hero...... Does this make sense to anybody else? Why couldn't they just be heroes who have different ways of doing something. Why can't it be like a buddy cop movie? They don't like each other at first but then find a way to work together and at the end become best friends?
Quote from: JeyNyce on October 14, 2014, 02:14:59 AM
So they are going for Bats being the old dog who shows the new dog Supes on how to be a hero...... Does this make sense to anybody else? Why couldn't they just be heroes who have different ways of doing something. Why can't it be like a buddy cop movie? They don't like each other at first but then find a way to work together and at the end become best friends?
Bud, I don't know how to tell you this but....... Buddy Cop Movies has been way out of style for a decade now.
Trebean, they are still making them nonetheless. ;)
Seriously though, there's room for a better version of the Superman/Batman story that we've gotten in recent years, something in-between the 'happy-smiling-always-friends' and the 'barely-contained-contempt' of some modern interpretations. I think a buddy-cop dynamic is a pretty fair way to describe what they should have. Like with most things, I look to the Timm-Verse for an example of this done right. The Superman:TAS Batman crossover, though not perfect by any means, does a pretty decent job with the characters' relationships/personalities. They don't trust each other at first, but eventually they come to respect and even like each other. By JLA time they are friends. It's a good arc.
New news:
Spoiler
Wonder Woman is going to be the daughter of Zeus and Batman is going to "tower over Superman... where Superman needed to look up to Batman."
I'm fine with the change in Wonder Woman's origin, but why does Batman need to be taller than Superman!? Superman and Batman are only one inch apart, with Superman being taller. This stinks of Batman needing to be the more likable one.
It would be more understandable if this were a Batman movie, but it's a sequel to "Man of Steel", a SUPERMAN movie!
Gah, all of this Batman favoritism is making me want to see this movie less and less. Why does it always have to be about Batman with DC? I like Batman, I really do, but sheesh do they really need to readjust their priorities. I want to see all characters shine, not whimper in the shadow of the Master of Brooding.
Full interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyJvBNTMGLw
I don't understand why is so hard to DC/WB give some spotlight to their "minor" stars like Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman... Everything DC is so Bat Centric they are watering down the other characters. Batman is a great character and he's DC/WB's flagship guy now, but wouldn't be better for business if the other heroes were more popular? If the JLA prequel becomes a "Batman and the JLA" movie it will alienate fans of the other characters and make harder for these characters support their own franchises.
Well JJ, this is what happens when the folks running a company don't understand or care about their characters.
Making Wondy a demi-god isn't a big deal and still respects the Greek mythology that she is based on. That's fine and simpler than the whole clay doll thing.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 15, 2014, 02:29:33 AM
Making Wondy a demi-god isn't a big deal and still respects the Greek mythology that she is based on. That's fine and simpler than the whole clay doll thing.
Yeah, this doesn't particularly bother me, though it makes me wonder what else they'll change.
Batman being taller than Supes and Clark needing to "look up to Batman" sounds really strange to me. Shouldn't Superman be the more physically imposing one? (Although maybe I should check their official sizes before I make statements like that).
They are making Batman the older, experienced hero and for some reason want to make the looking up to Batman thing literal.
This is sounding more like a Batman fanboy film. If I remember correctly Supes is 6'2" and Bats is 6'1". I'm 6'6", put ME in the movie and let them both look up to me!
Quote from: spydermann93 on October 15, 2014, 01:11:39 AMWhy does it always have to be about Batman with DC? I like Batman, I really do, but sheesh do they really need to readjust their priorities. I want to see all characters shine, not whimper in the shadow of the Master of Brooding.
I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the recent Batman movies were basically Warner's biggest positively received movies based on popular DC characters in the past 20 years? I mean, perhaps
MoS did well in theaters, but there really wasn't nearly the positive reaction to it that there was to many of the recent Marvel-based movies, and Superman is DC's flagship character who everyone on the planet instantly recognizes versus characters like Iron Man and Thor who many people (outside of comic fans) have only vaguely heard of before their movies. Not to mention that the end of
MoS left many actual fans shaking their heads.
BTW, I am not against major characters who have different approaches and motivations for their actions butting heads in a movie. That sort of friction can add an interesting dynamic to the story and provide an opportunity for the writers to explain why the heroes do what they do. It worked well in
The Avengers, to take the obvious example. But, in this case, it would be appropriate (by which I mean "consistent with the underlying characters of both") that any disagreement over methodology be set against a backdrop where each hero treats the others with the respect that they have earned.
Unfortunately, that snippet doesn't make it sound like that's the approach being taken with this next movie. Both Affleck and Cavill are old enough that both characters should be played as grown-ups. Playing one as the young pup learning the ropes while the other is the grizzled veteran will just be weird for two well established characters. Too much of a Batman-and-Robin feel. And, though I can't be sure exactly what Roven meant, if the implication of Affleck "towering" over Cavill is supposed to be that Superman will be intimidated by Batman, then they are totally losing me. Batman is an impressive hero, but Superman isn't going to be intimidated because someone else is tall or has a scary persona. He wasn't intimidated by Zod and he wouldn't be intimidated by Batman, even if Batman knows his secret ID or has kryptonite or whatever other crutch they will be using to make that dynamic seem reasonable to the apologists.
Anyway, I agree that far too little of what I am hearing about this movie excites me to see it. I am not predicting disaster or anything. Despite things I didn't like about it, I saw
MoS, I had fun watching it, and I am planning to watch this next installment as well. But, it would be sort of nice if more of the little tidbits they are leaking about it left me thinking, "Excellent! It sounds like that are getting it right." rather than, "Sigh. They should have hired people who actually understand the characters."
DC/WB announced their future movies:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/10/15/jason-momoa-is-aquaman-and-green-lantern-will-be-a-reboot/
Your last statement is spot on, Stumpy.
Interesting, JJ.
Well, supposedly Aquaman is getting a solo movie, and once again, if you had told me that a decade ago, I couldn't have imagined not being excited about it. Now...not so much. Also, the guy they've supposedly cast as Barry Allen looks...well...interesting.
The lineup seems optimistic. I mean, it might workout, but there's no guarantee that the DC's attempt at a movie universe will do well enough to justify such a push. Marvel started out a bit more slowly. They are shoving them out the door now because the Marvel Movieverse is a proven thing, to the point where people are willing to watching something they've never heard of (Guardians of the Galaxy) because they trust the brand--and they come out the theatre not the least disappointed with that decision.
DC's planning this all branching off a single film that was received as okay but not all the good (although it did make money) without the brand reputation that Marvel has and with plenty of disappointments behind them. It could all go horribly wrong, easily. It might not, but I'm not as hopeful as they apparently are.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on October 15, 2014, 10:20:58 PM
It might not, but I'm not as hopeful as they apparently are.
That's because the folks in charge at WB are demonstrably idiots. :P
Good points, though Cat. On the other hand, I can't imagine a Superman/Batman film will tank, and as long as it makes unholy amounts of money, it won't matter how bad it is. *looks at everything Michael Bay touches*
And even if Batman v Superman fails on some level they just cancel/downsize their plans. Planning doesn't really hurt WB, unless they don't leave themselves proper flexibility.
I imagine WB is feeling a lot of pressure to build something that can compare to Marvel.
Quote from: Podmark on October 15, 2014, 02:47:51 AM
Batman being taller than Supes and Clark needing to "look up to Batman" sounds really strange to me. Shouldn't Superman be the more physically imposing one? (Although maybe I should check their official sizes before I make statements like that).
Supes IS taller in the comics. Gaah, I saw some signs of it and ignored it but gaashdaamniit they're totally making Superman into Batman Lite Extra Powered.
Um, guys i am not a DC expert but does the guy playing Arthur has anything in common with the comic version. Because this isn't how i remember Aquaman :huh:
He's vaguely reminiscent of the bearded, bedraggled loser version of Aquaman with the hook hand, but in general, I agree, Jim.
Quote from: Jimaras8 on October 16, 2014, 02:19:54 PMUm, guys i am not a DC expert but does the guy playing Arthur has anything in common with the comic version. Because this isn't how i remember Aquaman :huh:
First thought: Bilateral symmetry? (I almost can't hear a "something in common" question without thinking of that quote (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0618137/quotes?ref_=tt_ql_3) from the great
Justice League animated series.)
:P
Second thought: I am pretty sure part of the traditional Aquaman backstory is that he marries a woman given to him by her evil/insane brother. She attempts to bear his child, but instead gives birth to three dragons. Classic Aquaman. Totally.
:P :P
Seriously, I don't know anything about that actor really, but he might be fine as Aquaman. I think I am basically giving up on Hollywood coming up with actors who I will think "look" like the comic book character they are supposed to play. At the end of the day, I just don't think that's even what they are trying to do when they cast these roles. And, really, maybe they don't need to. I doubt that I would have thought that Christian Bale really seemed much like Batman before the recent run of movies. But, despite other issues with his portrayal, I think he pulled it off. Anyway, my point is that I don't think the studios are
trying to match the comic book image of the characters (except in an archetypal way), or what a comics fan might think they'd look like in real life, or choose actors whose earlier roles remind us of the character or make us think the actor could also play the character.
Some news on Batman's potential side kick:
Spoiler
It's been reported that an extra on set claims that Jena Malone will be playing Carrie Kelly/Robin in Batman V Superman.
http://www.newsarama.com/22482-weird-report-rumor-jena-malone-to-play-female-robin-in-batman-v-superman.html
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand I don't mind using a female Robin (we might have one in the regular comics soon), but on the other hand I don't like how they are tying this version of Batman to the old man of Dark Knight Returns. That works great for an Elsworlds one shot, but it's not what I would want for the ongoing DC movie verse. Then again Ben Affleck is playing the character and he's not that old so I guess it's more inspiration than anything else.
I really hope that's not true, as it's asinine.
Spoiler
I like that story for what it is, but there's only one character that deserves to come to the big screen as Robin. And don't tell me he already has. No. He hasn't.
I suppose I can't have much
less interest in this project at this point, so it doesn't really matter.
On the topic of the Superman/Batman height difference, it recently struck me just how stupid this is, and in fact, how much it messes with the entire archetypal dynamic between the two characters. I was watching JLU, and Superman and Batman were arguing about something. Supes stalks up to Batman, looming over him by a few inches, and shoves his finger in Batman's face. Batman stands stock-still, completely unmoved by the anger of the man in front of him. It's the same moment we've seen in tons of movies and TV shows, but here it's a subtle emphasis of the dynamic between these two figures. The thing is, Batman SHOULD be moved by Superman's anger. He should flinch, he should shrink, he should blink, because Superman is a freaking sun-god out of mythology, powerful enough to literally annihilate Bruce with a look, burn him right to ash. The power differential is communicated visually without Superman doing a thing. Just the height difference drives home that the one is more powerful than the other, and yet the other is unmoved. Their heights, like the rest of their appearances, is all symbolically a reflection of that relationship. The really cool part is, comic writers got this so long ago that they made it canon that Superman is taller.
Hrm.
... Yeah, I really don't know what to say anymore. My reaction to every bit of news, every casting decision, every poster or trailer about this movie or the ones following it is... Hrm. I'm at the point where every time something new pops up I just start chanting "at least it should have good action figures, at least it should have good action figures" to myself in the vain hope that it somehow makes up for the storm of utter garbage I've heard about these films.
At least whats-her-name looked pretty good as Wonder Woman...
Something amusing just occurred to me... they went out of their way to make a Batman that Superman would have to look up to, yeah? Well... Jason Momoa (Aquaman's actor) is 6'4" tall, making him taller than both Superman AND Batman, meaning they both have to look up to the King of the Seas.
Quote from: Tomato on October 18, 2014, 07:25:00 AM
Something amusing just occurred to me... they went out of their way to make a Batman that Superman would have to look up to, yeah? Well... Jason Momoa (Aquaman's actor) is 6'4" tall, making him taller than both Superman AND Batman, meaning they both have to look up to the King of the Seas.
Heh. I rather enjoy that.
It's all downhill from here. In the next movie, they'll to a time-traveling crossover and get someone 7'1" to play Gim "Colossal Boy" Allon and it will be all over. :P
Although I'm pretty sure it was said already and not sure if this is the proper thread for it, but this is further confirmation:
Spoiler
The DC television and cinematic universes are completely separate. And it's stupid.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/18148/20141019/warner-bros-casting-ezra-miller-as-the-flash-proves-tv-and-film-universes-are-separate.htm
Ezra Miller will be playing the Flash in a stand alone film. Not sure if he'll be in BvS, though it's likely since they're announcing his casting NOW. But by all accounts, Grant Gustin is killing it as Flash. Just as Stephen Amell has nailed Green Arrow. But it's all for naught because they are separate. Speaking of getting things right, Marvel's cinematic universe has not only Agents of SHIELD, but have also added the Defenders series' to the Cinematic universe as well. That's five separate series that greatly expand and give better scope to what we know to be a large universe. Why DC feels the need to go completely against the grain is beyond me.
You know, I think these two will be way better than the movie, specially the last one...
http://www.newsarama.com/22598-batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-teaser-trailer-as-animated-by-a-fan.html
JJ, I have complete confidence in HISHE's ability to outdo Snyder any day of the week. They're pure genius! ;)
First look at Aqua man
http://i.imgur.com/F7ppP1U.jpg
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 20, 2015, 01:36:07 PM
First look at Aqua man
http://i.imgur.com/F7ppP1U.jpg
Aquaman finally looks cool. (Don't fight it, Benton. Just let it happen.)
Urg....well, it's no worse than I expected. Let's see, I'll start with the positive, I guess...
He doesn't have a hook...that's good, I suppose?
His pointless shoulder armor is somewhat goldish...
He's got a trident; that is definitely cool.
He looks super fierce, so at least they seem to be taking him seriously (even if in the wrong way). That is probably a good thing in the long run, as there is a chance that even the Namor-lite version of the character showing up on the big screen will help get rid of the Aqua-hate he experiences.
I do really like the "Unite the Seven" slogan. If I had the slightest amount of respect for the powers behind this movie, that would really excite me. Of course, chances are that "the Seven" aren't really the Seven.
As for the bad, well, he doesn't look right for the part, and he's basically got the 90s era Aquaman look going on, with tattoos...for some reason. It definitely looks like they're going for the Namor-lite angry Aquaman version, which is a thoroughly dislikable character.
I understand the reasoning for the choices revealed here, and they are more or less what I expected. Sadly, that doesn't mean I'm not still disappointed. I would be a lot more so if I had any hope for these films. Hopefully they will be good for the character in the long run, even if they have nothing for me.
^Like Benton said,at least they are taking him seriously.
Its better then I expected.And definitly not the weirdest thing DC did with their upcoming cinematic universe.
I'm surprised there aren't more complaints here considering the previous passionate dislike for Jason Momoa's casting :rolleyes:
IMO, Momoa looks cool ... as expected, they went with the Peter David-era warrior king Aquaman and Snyder's team didn't drop the ball. You can always rely on Snyder for visuals.
It's still kind of amusing that Aquaman is going to be the "tough guy" of the Justice League, though ;)
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 20, 2015, 01:36:07 PM
First look at Aqua man
http://i.imgur.com/F7ppP1U.jpg
This isn't supposed to be anything official, is it? Judging by the site it is hosted on, I would hope not. It looks like a bad Photoshop job done by a fanboy.
It's as official as it gets, I'm afraid. The picture was posted by Snyder, himself, on his Twitter.
Personally, I'm not disappointed in the design that much. It fits the design style of the MoS universe (at least, I think so), so I have to give it credit for fitting in.
While I'm glad that they're taking Aquaman seriously, I hope that they aren't trying to take him too seriously. You know, like trying too hard to make him bad*** and "cool".
I just hope that they let his actual character make people like him, not try and force us to like him.
It was tweeted by Snyder, according to what I saw.
:EDIT: Ninja'd by Spider. :ph34r:
Yeah Spyder, 'trying too hard' seems to be the watchword of current DC adaptations.
... When I can say with complete seriousness that the costume from smallville was better looking, you need to fire your costume designer.
Thanks for clarifying that info, guys. I think the design looks pretty cool, as well. It's the poorly-accented-colors-on-a-black-and-white-photo look that came across as amateurish to me. The flesh tone they decided to accent his skin with is uneven and inconsistent. Just look at his top right forehead as an example. I'm also concerned, like you all, that they may be trying too hard to make him a bad***. They could have used a full color photo and he still would have looked pretty nasty.
Tomato i think this is a stretch. I personally wouldn't want to see the green gloves and the leotard. Guys, we have to face that some things can't be translated to live action. When Momoa was casted i was picturing an Aqumana like this, Peter david ear. I just hope they don't neglect that Aqumana is a character of two worlds and a very interesting one. if we see just "Khal drogo" with trident that cuts things and stis in a cool manner in his throne THEN i will be disappointed.
Leotard? What are you talking about, Jim? Aquaman wears armor, and that's one of the things that can be pretty easily translated to live action. :P They could definitely have done golden scale mail and some form of his classic costume.
They could have easily done an armored/military uniform look perhaps make the orange more of a golden color which would have very much the look of his classic costume and still look quite nice for a movie. This one look like someone hit him with a bag of flour or something. Too much white.
If the Marvel movies have taught me anything, it's that there are ways to make even the most ridiculous seeming outfits from the comics, and making them look decent. Aquaman's gone through several periods wearing different outfits, but they always eventually bring him back to the orange and green outfit. And I'm not saying it HAS to be the same shades of orange and green either... you could do something more bronze-ish like they already did with Wonder Woman's costume, or do something in more of a gold color like with the alex ross interpretation.
That said... it's growing on me... sort of, but I stand by my statement about Smallville being a better adaption for now(at least that design doesn't feature the stupid dark hair with bleached highlights... either make him blonde or don't, giving him random bleach blonde highlights just makes him look silly). I suspect I'll like it more when I see a shot of it where the person photoshopping it isn't leaching all color from the upper torso.
The sad thing is, I think the best part of the outfit might be cut off. You can barely see them in the picture, but there's definitely a muted green to the pants. But again, it's hard to tell how appealing it is with how they leached all color from the bloody thing.
Absolutely Cat. A professional version of something like this would DEFINITELY work!
http://project-nerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aquaman-Cosplay-SDCC-2013-3.jpg
Or this:
http://petelabrozzi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/20121013_NYCC2012_Cosplayers_236-Edit.jpg?1e5719
Tell me that doesn't look good in real life! Of course, it would still need some tweaking (pants and gloves), but I think the basic concept looks pretty darn awesome since it's basically just armor.
'Mato, that was the substance of my argument a while back. His definitive costume, through most of his 70 years of history, is the orange and green.
I am talking about his lower body trousers. It does seem like leotard or spandex. Benton sorry but those two pictures would look horrible in the big screen. They look cheesy as hell. I get what you mean that they could alter the colors a little and i would love to see the scales in a manner similar to Thor armor but the grren trousers needed to go. At least in the manner that they are in the comics. The latex green gloves two. I kinda like the scaled bracers he has now.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 21, 2015, 06:17:59 PM
Of course, it would still need some tweaking (pants and gloves), but I think the basic concept looks pretty darn awesome since it's basically just armor.
*Ahem* Anyway, yeah, I agree, the tights and gloves would need to be somewhat different, and I don't see why pants like (we assume) this movie costume has wouldn't work just fine for the traditional orange and green look, if only WB wasn't terrified of color. Also, you have to assume that a major movie studio, with all of its resources, could easily create something that keeps the same idea but looks much more professional than what a random fan whipped up in his garage. Yes, parts of this costume looks amateurish here, but that's probably because it was made by an amateur. ;)
But are we really so impoverished in imagination that we can't see how some pretty minor changes could adapt this look to the big screen?
How about gloves more like these?:
http://namtab.com/aquablog/staffordMEGACON1.gif
How about pants more like these?:
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/11/110502/2438411-830523_510436989008921_607785655_o.jpg
It isn't hard to figure out how to tweak the classic design for a movie. Heck, fans have already done most of the work. Obviously you don't just take it directly off the comic page, but Marvel has proven, over and over again, that people will embrace these characters when they stay close to their roots, even when their costumes actually have color and look pretty much comic-accurate. Heck, they put Captain America in what was effectively his classic comic costume, and that movie made more money than the GDP of several small countries!
Jim, I think a leotard is an entire body thing, though I could be wrong.
I see no problem with keeping the green. Green is a military color. Make it a bit darker and more like part of a military uniform and bam.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on February 21, 2015, 08:19:15 PM
I see no problem with keeping the green. Green is a military color. Make it a bit darker and more like part of a military uniform and bam.
:thinkingidea
Yeah, if Spider-Man's red and blue can work or Cap's red, white, and blue, there's no reason green, which is, as Cat says, a perfectly natural color for real-world uses, shouldn't work.
That's the thing though... His pants are already green in the current design. Hell, cut his hair and put a scale shirt on him, and the design is probably just fine.
They probably just wanted to go with Kal Drogo vibe.And speaking of costumes,isnt Wonder Womans very Xena?
Quote from: Spade on February 22, 2015, 05:51:07 AM
They probably just wanted to go with Kal Drogo vibe.And speaking of costumes,isnt Wonder Womans very Xena?
Well, at least it has classic elements of the costume. The three things i wanted to see in her was the eagle, the lasso and the double W. They put all three, so yeah i am satisfied about that.
Benton about the leotard you know better than i do. I just have seen in some sites that it is called leotard but they could be joking. Anyway overall i agree with most of your points in some degree. Completely personally i would want the green and orange only if they changed the material and the color a bit. I still believe that in their comics state it would look horrible.
QuoteAbsolutely Cat. A professional version of something like this would DEFINITELY work!
http://project-nerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aquaman-Cosplay-SDCC-2013-3.jpg (http://project-nerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Aquaman-Cosplay-SDCC-2013-3.jpg)
Or this:
http://petelabrozzi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/20121013_NYCC2012_Cosplayers_236-Edit.jpg?1e5719 (http://petelabrozzi.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/20121013_NYCC2012_Cosplayers_236-Edit.jpg?1e5719)
Tell me that doesn't look good in real life!
:huh:
That does not look good in real life.
Starman's disapproval only encourages me that I'm on the right track. ;)
I've never had any particular love for the classic Aquaman look, but I've seen and can imagine ways to do something cool based on it.
As for this look...I really want a full properly coloured picture, but I think it's okay. I'm not big on the tattoos but the armor and what we can see of the belt and pants look good. I've never had a problem with the bearded look or hook. I kinda liked the water hand though.
I saw this pic featuring Aquaman's various costumes the other day. Thought it was neat seeing them all beside each other, reminded me of C6's skins:
http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/279/e/6/evolution_of_aquaman_by_boybluesdcu-d5gzcz2.jpg
You know, Aquaman's classic costume is really one of the most practical and real-world effective of all standard superhero costumes. After all, he wears a real-world style of armor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_armour
It isn't like this is something from fantasy; it is an actual ancient technology. If you assume its made out of some fancy Atlantean metal or something so it would be stronger than steel, it would make sense for it to be worn by a superhero.
Here's a reproduction of a scale-mail tunic:
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/320/e/b/scale_short_sleeves_by_drazhan-d32zzke.jpg
And a real historical version:
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121201203408/darke/images/f/fc/Scalemail.jpg
And here's a more subtle one that shows what Aquaman's could look like:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2474/plumatalight.jpg
So an adaptation of his classic costume could easily be well grounded in reality.
http://i15.tinypic.com/4tyzhbo.jpg
So... I may not be sold on the design, but I found this article (http://screenrant.com/jason-momoa-aquaman-armor-tattoos-meaning-explanation/) about the significance of some of the tattos rather interesting, and I'm not as dead-set against it as I was before. I'm still not that happy about it, but I'll conceed that it's an interesting take.
While the idea of a hero who is an 'embodiment of Polynesian culture' is an interesting one, it seems an...odd choice for Aquaman, given his Grecian roots. I can see the logic of it, and I appreciate Momoa's desire to honor his heritage. Still, it seems as if they are co-opting the character for something other than what he is.
You know that none of this will matter if:
1- The movie ends up being a bomb
2- He can't act like Aquaman
This is why I haven't said anything about how he looks because to me it doesn't matter if his acting can't convince me that he's Aquaman.
The Polynesian aspect really does make sense for a guy who rules the oceans and they still managed to link his image closely to the Peter David-era Aquaman look ... pretty clever stuff. Even the fan coloured version of the picture in the article Tomato posted looks good.
I'm really curious to see what Ezra Miller is going to look like as The Flash now.
QuoteThis is why I haven't said anything about how he looks because to me it doesn't matter if his acting can't convince me that he's Aquaman.
Jason Momoa has already played a few sensitive warrior-type characters ... I think that's why he was such a lock for this role, particularly if the film's Aquaman is going to be similar in tone to his appearance in the Justice League cartoon.
Is it too early to say I already like Grant Gustin better than Ezra Miller?
I had some issues with the fan color (namely that they made the armor segments orange, when they're clearly gold) so I did my own.
(http://i.imgur.com/MwgovVR.jpg)
For the most part, I just tried to bring out the color already present in the image. It's a tad on the sloppy side, but... eh, I'm not trying to win any awards with it. I just wanted to see what it'd look like without the stupid photoshop job they did to it.
Thank you, Tomato. This is how you properly recolor an image. They didn't even put the flesh color on the entirety of his head in the original. There is a large spot on his right forehead at the hairline that is still gray and the area between his bottom lip and his beard isn't done well, either (on the original). The overall quality was why I questioned if it was official or not. Yours, on the other hand, is very well done and the colors certainly "pop" better; giving it more of an impact.
QuoteIs it too early to say I already like Grant Gustin better than Ezra Miller?
Yes. Ezra Miller is, IMO, the most talented actor they've announced so far to play a superhero in the cinematic Justice League. I'm just interested in seeing what they do with the costume and his overall appearance.
Cant be worst than the cast of Suicide Squad,right? XD
I like the costume, pretty much what I expected when they announced Momoa in the role. Really want to see it in full color though.
Quote from: Starman on February 21, 2015, 01:18:15 AM
I'm surprised there aren't more complaints here considering the previous passionate dislike for Jason Momoa's casting :rolleyes:
IMO, Momoa looks cool ... as expected, they went with the Peter David-era warrior king Aquaman and Snyder's team didn't drop the ball. You can always rely on Snyder for visuals.
It's still kind of amusing that Aquaman is going to be the "tough guy" of the Justice League, though ;)
Well, I could complain, but you would probably insult me more.
That said, I still agree with Benton. What's been said, has been said. It look like they just put Khal Drogo in a Superman movie. If the dude ain't treading water, it'd be hard for anyone to readily recognize him to be Aquaman.
Like everything I'm seeing here is like the Superman Reborn footage and rumors we've seen.
But, whatever. It'll happen. What will be, will be.
Zack Snyder leaked a 20 sec tease.
https://twitter.com/ZackSnyder/status/588528448827621376
Batsuit looks great! Can't wait to see the full trailer.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Official Teaser Trailer (http://www.dcuopost.com/multiverse-news/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-official-teaser-trailer/)
Minus the "Do you bleed" line, I liked this a lot.
False God premise is an interesting one. Affleck might be the coolest looking live-action Batman yet. Seems that he's using voice modulator of some sorts. Might be just for the DKR armor he's wearing. Also don't mind the darker tone of it all. Let Marvel do their own thing, and DC theirs.
Bat-armor kinda reminds me on the one Bane wore in Arkham War.I am getting a bit bored with everything being darker,edgier and more realistic,however.
I'll be getting the action figures for this for sure, Batman looks epic and I'm fond of most of the others. As for the premise... Ehhhhhhhhh... We'll see. I'm willing to give it a fair shake, but I've never cared for TDKR, which is where Snyder is getting much of his input.
I'm thinking that people are seeing Supes as a God and Bats is going to knock him down a bit, but if I could give this movie another title, it would be Grumpy Old Men.
If that's the case, I'm wondering why Batman needs to do anything to Superman.
Superman never seemed like he let power get to his head in the Man of Steel movie. I guess in this movie, it seems like that the power does get to his head (which is BS), or he's trying to stop a certain somebody and gets played as a 'villain' and Batman thinks that he needs to step in to stop him.
Perhaps Superman will be working with the government? I could've sworn that it was said that the government sees Batman as a terrorist, so if Superman is working with the government, it would make sense for him to be sent to go deal with Batman, but that's not what I'm getting from these trailers.
Even if people are worshipping Superman as a "God" and some others are calling him a "False God", why would Batman care? Isn't he just concerned about keeping the people of Gotham safe? Is he fighting Superman just to convince everybody that he's not a god just so people stop causing anarchy in Gotham? What's is the point of having these two fight? I don't get it.
ALSO:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQPYAhcEhlo
Awesome trailer that makes some sense. It doesn't matter how much good superman would do, because his very existence would cause mass controversy.
How many Superman stories have there been where he just makes one mistake in a press statement and suddenly it's used against him? I'm guessing this movie plays off of one of those stories.
Quote from: JeyNyce on April 18, 2015, 10:07:41 PM
I'm thinking that people are seeing Supes as a God and Bats is going to knock him down a bit, but if I could give this movie another title, it would be Grumpy Old Men.
Better yet...
NO COUNTRY FOR GRUMPY OLD MEN.
(http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDCm5aPW4AAVTv5.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/b1udBe0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/MAJ1Ro1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/vuBwJu1.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/aZ6z8h6.jpg)
(https://igcdn-photos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11084697_885470171510655_1323810560_n.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDC8Uw0VIAANP_q.jpg)
Wilkinson is a genius!
DeAndre Jordan Gets Sneak Peek at New Batmobile (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2429156-deandre-jordan-rolls-out-new-batmobile)
All 3 of them look fantastic! Superman's outfit is a way better modern take on the costume than new 52 (not that big on the belt though), WW is a nice take on the comic look now that we can see the color of the battledress as well. Batman is by far the best looking live-action batsuit IMO (if I had to nitpick, I'd slightly alter the symbol and have lenses on the cowl at all times).
Great work on the costumes really .
Zack Snyder tweeted this:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDFWkrwVAAAJcmB.jpg)
Close up of Wonder Woman, Superman Batman costumes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eVc8iBEDvg)
Another great HISHE short!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QFPuyDrIIk
Hi-Res shots of Wonder Woman's costume.
Spoiler
(http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2015/04/screenshot-2015-04-21-143622-132773.jpg)
(http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2015/04/screenshot-2015-04-21-143723-132769.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/4w1xVDj.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/hU1JZpx.jpg)
So, I guess it should be no big spoiler that Lex Luthor is the main antagonist of this movie. However, there is some recent news...
Spoiler
Apparently Doomsday will be the "muscle" in this film much like Darth Vader was in the original Star Wars.
http://comicbook.com/2015/05/17/batman-v-superman-details-on-doomsday-a-dream-sequence-/
Does he kill Superman? Probably not. Does it sound like what Nolan did with The Dark Knight Rises and mesh two or three storylines into one movie? Possibly. There are a LOT of moving parts to this movie so far. A lot.
Green Lantern Corp movie was announced at SDCC WB Panel
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - Comic-Con Trailer [HD] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WWzgGyAH6Y)
:faint
Looks a lot better than anything we've seen so far, it might be a fun movie after all.
My only problem is that I can't take Eisenburg seriously.
All I can think of is "Zombieland". Great movie :P
I got a question.
Paying careful attention, we see Bruce Wayne telling someone (Alfred) 20 years of fighting how many good guys are left. Then we are shown a close up of Robin's costume with "Ha Ha Ha Jokes on you Batman". Which means or tells me at least sometime over the last 20 years the Joker (Leto) has killed Robin? Which might have been a reason for Batman's retirement?
I am wondering about any timeline issues going on? Did the Joker just kill Robin? If so how long did Batman stay away? Did he kill him years ago? If so how old is Jared Leto's joker supposed to be?
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on July 11, 2015, 09:11:02 PM
I got a question.
Paying careful attention, we see Bruce Wayne telling someone (Alfred) 20 years of fighting how many good guys are left. Then we are shown a close up of Robin's costume with "Ha Ha Ha Jokes on you Batman". Which means or tells me at least sometime over the last 20 years the Joker (Leto) has killed Robin? Which might have been a reason for Batman's retirement?
I am wondering about any timeline issues going on? Did the Joker just kill Robin? If so how long did Batman stay away? Did he kill him years ago? If so how old is Jared Leto's joker supposed to be?
I'm guessing that the suit belonged to Jason Todd. Dick Grayson has already grown up and moved on, I'm guessing.
Somebody was wondering if those messages were even real and if Bruce is going insane. Probably not, but it would be interesting.
What made me super happy is the fact that we see Superman doing actual Superman things like SAVING PEOPLE! He's actually being Superman! And what's with Ma telling him that "he doesn't owe the world anything?" Even if it is true, she would not be the type of person to say something like that. I'm glad that it seems like Superman just ignored that statement. I want to see a hopeful Superman. One that is willing to go the distance to do what's right. We caught glimpses of that in Man of Steel, and I want to see that expanded upon.
Jared Leto is 43, about the same age as Affleck, so its not unreasonable to assume they've both been at it for awhile. I'm sure we'll get a bit more from the film.
That said... Hrm to dead Robin. Another thing to throw on the "plot points I don't care for" pile this thing is amassing.
Wow! I didn't really think that I could have less interest in this movie. They're really creating the Anti-Benton film here. :(
Great trailer, but my only gripe is Bruce is retired and was fighting way before Clark became Superman. Sure make him more experience, but 20 years worth? Why couldn't they meet up like in the animated series "World's Finest"? I'm still going to see it but with Bats being so "advance" it feels like he has a timer on him. "I'm getting too old for this crap Clark!"
Ohh, and Eisenburg as Luthor is just...it seems like a bad fan film. He's utterly wrong for the character.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 11, 2015, 11:17:19 PM
Ohh, and Eisenburg as Luthor is just...it seems like a bad fan film. He's utterly wrong for the character.
Batman is too old and Lex is too young. I wonder how the rest of the JL will play out?
The trailer looked alright and half baked to me at the same time if that somehow makes any sense? I cared about Wonder Woman more than anything else going on in it. Agreed about Eisenburg here. Like his presence, loathe him already as Luthor.
There's lots to say about that trailer. But, regarding just one part of it, I think the following would be a better version of that clip of the Senate hearing.
<after highlighting the destruction shown in MoS at a hearing in which Superman is the subject target>
[...]
Committee Chair, Senator Blowhard: Let the record show that this committee holds him responsible.
Superman: So, let's summarize the facts of recent events and this committee's findings. Hostile beings of unimaginable power came to Earth with a terraforming machine to transform this planet in a way that would essentially wipe out the human population. I put my life at risk to aid Earth's forces to stop their apocalyptic scheme and then fight them off, eventually killing their leader. Now, this committee says that that it holds me responsible for the damage?
Committee Chair: Yes. During that fight - which took place in a densely populated city - thousands of lives were lost and property damage in the billions of dollars was done.
Superman: I agree that that was tragic. But, are you claiming that my intentions were to endanger lives or cause property damage?
Committee Chair: No, but fighting in that area was irresponsible.
Superman: I agree. But, unless you are mistakenly under the impression that I chose the venue, I am not sure what your point is. If you want to dig up Zod's body and berate him for his actions, I won't stop you.
Committee Chair: But, you chose to fight Zod here!
Superman: No. I chose to fight Zod, period. He was bent on destroying the Earth. Did you think he would have responded to an engraved invitation to fight him in the desert or on the moon, so as to avoid thousands of casualties when he was clearly ready to cause billions?
Committee Chair: No, but...
Superman: So, what was the suggestion for a better alternative that you put forth at the time of that battle? At the time that it mattered?
Committee Chair: Well, I wasn't involved in that fight. I couldn't...
Superman: Exactly, Senator. When the decision needed to be made, you weren't there. You here now to turn tragedy into votes. You are the ringleader in a political circus designed to blame me for something I didn't do. Something in which my involvement was entirely and inarguably on the side of saving humanity. You are participating in a political stunt whose message is, "Senator Blowhard wants to take down the guy who fought to save us." Quite frankly, I would think your handlers could come up with a better campaign slogan.
Committee Chair: This is outrageous! We are here to find the truth. We summoned you here to answer questions about the destruction of mid-town Metropolis and...
Superman: No, you "summoned" me here to make yourself look good and I am supposed to sit still and look contrite while you pretend that some exercise of political authority could have prevented the tragedy of that day or will prevent a similar one in the future. But, I am not some automotive executive hoping to get billions in taxpayer money if he meekly accepts your accusations and self-righteous proclamations. I am here as a courtesy, but you have no hold on me. I don't have to pretend that this hearing is anything other than the farce that it is.
Committee Chair: That's not what's going on here.
Superman: That's what it seems like to me and I think the American people will see it pretty much the same way. My pa once told me, "If you're trying to get out of a hole, stop digging." So, let me ask: Are we done here, Senator?
Committee Chair: ...
Superman: Fine. Then I will show myself to the door.
Wellllll, that's one interpretation....
http://io9.com/the-most-important-scenes-from-man-of-steel-as-i-remem-516405346
OR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjSNLmb0Ndw
:P
*Warning, there's some salty language in the first one.
LOL. Both of those were pretty good, Benton. I especially agree with the points made by the first one.
BTW, I am more willing to overlook weak plot points when their lameness mostly serves to give the movie a reason to continue but it doesn't actually undermine the character. For instance, the bit where Jor tells Lois how to make a phantom zone device but not Kal was admittedly pretty braindead. It served little purpose except as an excuse to give Lois more poorly justified screen time. But, it didn't really undermine the character basis for who Kal, Lois, or even Jor. In contrast, the scenes with Jonathan Kent in the tornado and Kal and Zod at the end were both dumb and showed that the movie either didn't understand or didn't care about the central character in a pretty fundamental way.
Though I am not betting on it, this Batman versus Superman movie could turn out to be okay. Of course, the trailer doesn't add much hope. It's too vague to be certain, but it seems to be setting us up for a movie where the basic conflict between the two characters is "Batman blames Superman for being in a movie made by and for destruction porn junkies." In other words, it sounds like Batman's motivation is to take Superman to task for the collateral damage from the Zod-Superman fight in MoS. But, it's a bit too meta for my tastes, since that damage was more the result of the movie's director than by anything justified by the plot. Despite what my spoof dialogue said above, the reality is that Zod wasn't actually interested in killing any humans. He was more than willing to, but that wasn't his goal. He wanted Superman's DNA so that he could restart Krypton. If Kal had flown to the desert, there is little reason Zod shouldn't follow him there. So, a new movie taking Superman to task for something that the first movie got wrong is a little too cute, IMO.
More to the mechanics of Batman versus Superman, it will be annoying if the premise of any physical confrontation is that Superman is an idiot who is constantly surprised by kryptonite or who fails to use his speed, vision, or other powers. Those sorts of fights don't really work for me. Not that Batman couldn't surprise Superman once or twice. But, the reality is that Superman isn't a moron and he is going to be cautious around someone who is very clearly not an ally at that point. And, assuming whatever trick Batman uses works the first time, Batman's choice then becomes whether to permanently disable Superman somehow or to resign himself to never beating him again once he recovers.
Even more to the point, any "lesson" that Batman teaches Superman about minimizing harm to innocents will undermine the characterization even further. After all, Superman doesn't avoid collateral damage because Batman kicked his butt and warned him about collateral damage. Superman avoids collateral damage because he's freaking Superman and he finds a way to win without sacrificing innocents. It's something he does because of who he is, not because someone gave him a beatdown over it.
Not a fan of Luthor here. But i find the premise interesting and it looks pretty epic. Ww looks great in action, so does Batman.
Quote from: stumpy on July 13, 2015, 05:46:31 AM
Though I am not betting on it, this Batman versus Superman movie could turn out to be okay. Of course, the trailer doesn't add much hope. It's too vague to be certain, but it seems to be setting us up for a movie where the basic conflict between the two characters is "Batman blames Superman for being in a movie made by and for destruction porn junkies." In other words, it sounds like Batman's motivation is to take Superman to task for the collateral damage from the Zod-Superman fight in MoS. But, it's a bit too meta for my tastes, since that damage was more the result of the movie's director than by anything justified by the plot. Despite what my spoof dialogue said above, the reality is that Zod wasn't actually interested in killing any humans. He was more than willing to, but that wasn't his goal. He wanted Superman's DNA so that he could restart Krypton. If Kal had flown to the desert, there is little reason Zod shouldn't follow him there. So, a new movie taking Superman to task for something that the first movie got wrong is a little too cute, IMO.
More to the mechanics of Batman versus Superman, it will be annoying if the premise of any physical confrontation is that Superman is an idiot who is constantly surprised by kryptonite or who fails to use his speed, vision, or other powers. Those sorts of fights don't really work for me. Not that Batman couldn't surprise Superman once or twice. But, the reality is that Superman isn't a moron and he is going to be cautious around someone who is very clearly not an ally at that point. And, assuming whatever trick Batman uses works the first time, Batman's choice then becomes whether to permanently disable Superman somehow or to resign himself to never beating him again once he recovers.
Sure, Zod wanted to restart Krypton, but once Superman destroyed the world engine and the birthing pod ship, that wasn't happening, and I think Zod was pretty interested in killing humans from that point on.
As to kryptonite, this version of Superman has never encountered it yet, right?
Haha, glad you enjoyed them, Stumpy.
You've got a lot of good points there. My wife asked me the other day, "why doesn't Superman just, you know, rip his head off?" I laughed and told her that I didn't know.
Now that we have a longer trailer that gives a good scope of the movie I'm liking it a little more, but honesty, I can't get very excited about this thing other than Affleck (I just watch Gone Girl recently, and he's great in that). Wonder Woman looks great in action but we still haven't seen her talk. The display case thing is intriguing.
But man, Eisenberg as Luthor. What the heck happened here? He just doesn't work as Luthor for me at all, and actually reminds me a bit of Hackman and Spacey in the previous movies. That "red capes are coming" bit is like something out of a cartoon. And not like the DCAU, like a crappier cartoon.
Just didn't get much of anything out of Man of Steel, and I imagine this will be a lot of the same other than Luthor and Bats, so I can't say I'm excited about it. But it is looking like it'll delivering on some live action Batman/Superman action if that's what you're looking for. I imagine it'll make a killing at the box office just based on that.
Quote from: Silver Shocker on July 17, 2015, 06:02:47 AM
I imagine it'll make a killing at the box office just based on that.
And this makes me very sad. :( Even if this movie is terrible, it's going to make more money than any three small countries.
Well having seen the long trailer, I'm glad that their addressing the collateral damage issue, which seems to be one of the major things behind the opposition to Superman and what he's trying to overcome. The setup works okay for Batman vs. Superman as it's understandable that Batman would not like a guy that destroyed half a major city and is now being practically worshipped. There's also a line that his experience in Gotham has taught him to expect that good guys will turn bad eventually, so it's understandable that with this viewpoint the very existance of Superman would make him very, very worried.
So all in all the new trailer has me feeling a bit better about the movie, although still sceptical. Really, really hate this version of Lex though.
Extended trailer is awesome. A bit CG heavy, but maybe WB went with a bad overseas post production studio (Hollywood outsources everything) and will fix that up before the release. I'm excited about seeing this movie.
I knew Zod wasn't dead.
Anyone else think Wonder Woman looked a tad out of place?
Quote from: thalaw2 on July 25, 2015, 12:50:32 AM
Extended trailer is awesome. A bit CG heavy, but maybe WB went with a bad overseas post production studio (Hollywood outsources everything) and will fix that up before the release. I'm excited about seeing this movie.
I knew Zod wasn't dead.
Anyone else think Wonder Woman looked a tad out of place?
Spoiler
I'm pretty sure Zod is, in fact, dead, and that was his corpse, probably being preserved for research and leading to Doomsday or the like.
Quote from: BentonGrey on July 25, 2015, 12:54:10 AM
Quote from: thalaw2 on July 25, 2015, 12:50:32 AM
Extended trailer is awesome. A bit CG heavy, but maybe WB went with a bad overseas post production studio (Hollywood outsources everything) and will fix that up before the release. I'm excited about seeing this movie.
I knew Zod wasn't dead.
Anyone else think Wonder Woman looked a tad out of place?
Spoiler
I'm pretty sure Zod is, in fact, dead, and that was his corpse, probably being preserved for research and leading to Doomsday or the like.
That makes sense. Spoiler
I just still can't wrap my mind around him dying from a broken neck. Would that really kill Supes?
Yes, yes it would.
Spoiler
The problem is doing it in the first place.
Viral marketing has begun.
https://twitter.com/alexanderluthor
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-mw9qZ9THFs
It's like they're trying to make an epic movie and I want to be excited about it.... but...
I dunno. I mean, they seem to be doing everything right and I will watch it but just... I dunno. Gotta wonder though...
Spoiler
What in the hell did they do to Doomsday?
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on December 03, 2015, 05:31:27 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-mw9qZ9THFs
It's like they're trying to make an epic movie and I want to be excited about it.... but...
I dunno. I mean, they seem to be doing everything right and I will watch it but just... I dunno. Gotta wonder though...
Spoiler
What in the hell did they do to Doomsday?
"Everything right" is a biiit of a stretch. I like elements of this, but I'm not a fan of Frank Miller's Batman work (particularly with regards to the Batman/Superman dynamic), which this movie draws heavy inspiration from. Still, it's a much more promising trailer than the last one, and the opening scene of the trailer is something I can't wait to see in full.
Spoiler
As for Doomsday... ehhhhhhh. Like... let's be honest, Doomsday's design was never exactly the most original thing ever, and I can understand wanting to differentiate it from the Hulk a bit more post-MCU. I could do without the noseless 2014 TMNT face, but the heat vision effect on it looks kinda cool.
It mostly looks good, but I'm really. really HATING this portrayal of Lex so far. That isn't the Luthor I know and hate.
EDIT: And I'm not the only one. After reading the feedback, it seems like that ad has backfired hugely. There's a fair amount of backlash against the two things already mentioned--the portrayal of Lex and the way Doomsday looks.
Doomsday looks like the Abomination from the Hulk movie, Lex is a bit over the top, but he was always like that in the movies, but what gets me the most is that from the trailer, you pretty much know what the whole movie is about. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to see it when it comes out.
Quote from: JeyNyce on December 03, 2015, 01:49:43 PM
Doomsday looks like the Abomination from the Hulk movie, Lex is a bit over the top, but he was always like that in the movies, but what gets me the most is that from the trailer, you pretty much know what the whole movie is about. Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to see it when it comes out.
Everyone says this and I'm not even going to watch the trailer. Why do movies do this? I hate spoilers and love reveals. In this case it makes even less sense since they're basically guaranteed that everyone is going to see this no matter what so they can hold back some surprises. It's like they want trailers these days to just be a miniature version of the whole movie. Do people really want that?
Worst incarnation of Lex Luthor Ever.same could be said for Batman.And Superman.And Doomsday.
Quote from: Spade on December 03, 2015, 02:35:51 PM
Worst incarnation of Lex Luthor Ever.same could be said for Batman.And Superman.And Doomsday.
So you like Wonder Woman in this film?
I think it's going to be a good movie with a lot of destruction, just like the first one. Now I'm hearing rumors that Doomsday will change throughout the movie like he did in the comics so to quote DBZ "This is not even my final form!" or something like that :lol:
Quote from: JeyNyce on December 03, 2015, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: Spade on December 03, 2015, 02:35:51 PM
Worst incarnation of Lex Luthor Ever.same could be said for Batman.And Superman.And Doomsday.
So you like Wonder Woman in this film?
I think it's going to be a good movie with a lot of destruction, just like the first one. Now I'm hearing rumors that Doomsday will change throughout the movie like he did in the comics so to quote DBZ "This is not even my final form!" or something like that :lol:
We see her for only a few seconds,I cant really judge.Thou that costume is still more Xena then WW but who cares,right?Still better then the Suicide Squad costumes.
Does anyone else feel like they know the whole plot already?
Quote from: Reepicheep on December 03, 2015, 04:39:12 PM
Does anyone else feel like they know the whole plot already?
Yep and I think that was done on purpose. I'm guessing that the end of the movie will be a setup for the Justice League movie.
:( This could be such an awesome movie...this trailer is the first time I've really felt that. Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman, standing shoulder to shoulder...why can't they give us that, but with some joy, heroism, and just a little color (and infinitely less Batflack)? This could really be a great movie. They've got the technology, they've got plenty of talent, but instead, we're getting something that depresses me each time I hear more about it.
I couldn't agree more with those of y'all saying that Lex Luthor's portrayal here is terrible. Saying he's always been over the top in the movies is all the more reason we should get an actual decent portrayal of him in their uber-serious film, but no. Even if I was enthusiastic about other elements of this movie, their version of Luthor would give me pause.
Ahh...I'm sorry, I didn't set out to be so negative when I started writing this post, but my goodness, this movie just breaks my heart. I love these characters and this universe so much, and I would leap a tall building in a single bound if we could get an interpretation of them that has HALF as much joy and love as the Marvel movie-verse. The fact that it's going to make more money than the GDP of Europe just makes it worse, as this is what the DCU will be for the next few decades.
I guess I'll just go home and watch my JLU DVDs. :P
Recently Mark Millar(that guy) went on a rant how Man of Steel traumatised him and how it was too dark,and his movie Huck will be so much better...Point being-Mark Millar is an idiot,but when HE tells you your movies are too dark,you have a real problem.
I would like to see something more in tone of All Star Superman and less in tone of All Star Batman.
It's funny in a way that they made the movie dark, but yet Lex is still over the top, unless he's the "mad with power laughing type crazy person". I also think they are going the way of the alternate justice league (Vamp Bats, Zod's my dad Supes, etc). Those guys were very dark and they are the founders for the JL. I'm starting to think they took a little bit of everything from the DCU and put it in this movie.
Hey Tomato,
https://twitter.com/DailySuperHero/status/672451843302293504?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
This one fits perfectly
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/tmnt/images/b/b4/TMNT_Slash_IDW.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130212182946&path-prefix=de
Quote from: Spade on December 03, 2015, 05:47:50 PM
Recently Mark Millar(that guy) went on a rant how Man of Steel traumatised him and how it was too dark,and his movie Huck will be so much better...Point being-Mark Millar is an idiot,but when HE tells you your movies are too dark,you have a real problem.
I would like to see something more in tone of All Star Superman and less in tone of All Star Batman.
This delights me to no end. :D Yeah, if even Mark Millar is telling you you've gone too far, it's time to reassess.
Jey, Shogunn, those are hilariously apt! Slash!
Hehe. That made my morning
I suspect this trailer was tailored for the general audience. A drastic change of tone from the last two trailers we seen so far. They were trying to show the light hearted and humour side of the film. For those people who thought DCCU is all dark and serious. But I find it was poorly executed with the edits and choice of soundtrack.
Someone fixed the trailer, so much better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMVugzohlwA
From the opening scene, I think Lex knows Bruce and Clark are Bats and Sups. In fact, I bet all three of them know who each other are. Which is why that scene is so great to me. Clark is playing dumb, Bruce is playing hard, and Lex is just trying to stir up s***. Love banter between Bruce and Clark. As for Lex being being goofy/campy, pretty sure its his public face.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Ai7c14cs--/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bdrzt2mtmeegqtrz16do.gif)
"Wow that is a good grip! You should not pick a fight with this person."
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--3wVgI1aO--/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xa4qwbo4o6nv9q7wff7r.gif)
As for Fakeday, I believe its Lex tried cloning Zod and created a Bizzaro like character. You see him using a recovered Kryptonian statis pod in one scene. Ben Affleck's Batman voice sounds pretty good, less cancer throat compare to Bale.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--JffOv-xZ--/c_fit,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ylylamqkb3xomzkp4v9j.gif)
Are these Parademons from the nightmare scene?
That was supposed to be humorous and light-hearted? Am I the only one who saw it as just more doom and gloom? You may be right, Midnite, but I'm wondering if they just have no real spark of life to fan for the trailer or if I've just got such a jaundiced view of the film that it never even occurred to me that's what they were going for.
Interestingly, that last image looks like something from Superman: Red Son.
Quote from: Midnite on December 03, 2015, 08:55:53 PM
From the opening scene, I think Lex knows Bruce and Clark are Bats and Sups. In fact, I bet all three of them know who each other are. Which is why that scene is so great to me. Clark is playing dumb, Bruce is playing hard, and Lex is just trying to stir up s***. Love banter between Bruce and Clark. As for Lex being being goofy/campy, pretty sure its his public face.
I agree with this. Especially given a scene later in the trailer that I feel comes from an earlier sequence in the film.
Quote from: BentonGrey on December 03, 2015, 09:11:23 PM
That was supposed to be humorous and light-hearted? Am I the only one who saw it as just more doom and gloom? You may be right, Midnite, but I'm wondering if they just have no real spark of life to fan for the trailer or if I've just got such a jaundiced view of the film that it never even occurred to me that's what they were going for.
Interestingly, that last image looks like something from Superman: Red Son.
Yeah, that and the teaser earlier in the week makes me think Bats is cooking up this idea of what Superman will turn out to be. In a possible future. Much like the scene of skulls with Zodiac from MoS.
But they do look like Parademons though.
(http://www.theouthousers.com/images/jce/sdsichero/2015/12/batmanbvsposter.jpg)
Poster for new Lego Batman game...I mean BvS.
I should point out there are actually three posters, one for each of the trinity.
(http://www.theouthousers.com/images/jce/sdsichero/2015/12/supermanbvsposter.jpg)
(http://www.theouthousers.com/images/jce/sdsichero/2015/12/wonderwomanbvsposter.jpg)
More viral marketing for the movie.
Wired has an "exclusive interview" with Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luthor from the upcoming Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. (http://www.wired.com/brandlab/2015/12/lexical-analysis-lex-luthor-on-disrupting-the-vigilante-industrial-complex/)
www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=129155&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=129155&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook)
Movie will have "epic running time" of 151 minutes.I guess it was a slow news day.
So for those Aquaman fans out there (AKA Benton) who wanted a non-gray version of Aquaman's color scheme in BvS... here's an abomination of plastic (http://static1.squarespace.com/static/53dd1afbe4b0b84c71f80ab2/5661b90de4b0a5d9e26bb58c/5661b90ee4b0bcbe081f5bd2/1449244945024/aquaman.jpg?format=750w) for you to enjoy.
But no, seriously, don't panic yet. That Aquaman is from the more "kid friendly" toy line and is clearly not accurate to the films (If you don't believe me, here's some pics of other figures in the line (http://news.toyark.com/2015/12/29/batman-v-superman-figures-begin-hitting-stores-186235). That Batman cape is AWFUL) What it does prove (and is the only reason I'm showing it) is the green-gold color scheme of the figure, as well as our first glimpse of the character below the torso... And while I do hope there is some more detail to the boots then what Mattel has shown, I'm happy to at least have the green pants confirmed.
Edit: I did a little musing about an upcoming toy wave (http://freedomreborn.net/forums/index.php?topic=57300.msg793145#msg793145), and it lead to some musings about the BvS trailer and how it may not have revealed as much as we initially thought.
New Promos for DC's Legends of Tomorrow and Dawn of the Justice League Special (http://www.superherohype.com/news/362821-new-promos-for-dcs-legends-of-tomorrow-and-dawn-of-the-justice-league-special#/slide/1)
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Lgsl77QJ--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/o8nf3rzmwj7tphgre9vk.png)
Our First Look at the Justice League Is Here, and It's Damn Rad (http://io9.gizmodo.com/our-first-official-look-at-the-justice-league-is-here-1753776320)
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2lu7wy1.jpg)
I want that Wonder Woman, she is so freaking cute!!
Cool! It seems like all of the male superheroes have frowny faces. I am guessing poorly fitting suit bottoms... :wacko:
BTW, who is the first person in the second row?
Lex, then Lois and then WW
After watching Dawn of the Justice League, I have high hopes for DC/ WB. It looks like they want to do right by the fans and bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen is the first step. 2016 is going to be a good year for Super Heroes movies
(http://www.theouthousers.com/images/jce/sdsichero/2016/01/batmanvsupermanfinalposter.jpg)
Another poster.
Bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen is about the only thing I find remotely positive about this era of WB/DC movies. I'm glad that they are finally putting a superheroine on screen, but I don't have much faith in the end result being as positive as it should, since I'm sure we'll see another unstoppable, murderous killing machine in place of the morally constrained heroes of yesteryear. At least it's likely she'll be a strong female character. Yay?
(http://cdn1-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/batman-vs-superman/czzjx6nueaaalwr.jpg)
(http://cdn3-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/batman-vs-superman/czzk9gtuyaavti6.jpg)
(http://cdn1-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/batman-vs-superman/czzkwrovaaaacu7.jpg)
(http://cdn2-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/batman-vs-superman/czzl0dyucaa82j.jpg)
Spoiler
(http://cdn2-www.superherohype.com/assets/uploads/gallery/batman-vs-superman/czwcbfsusaebdli.jpg)
Quote from: BentonGrey on January 25, 2016, 07:35:06 PM
Bringing Wonder Woman to the big screen is about the only thing I find remotely positive about this era of WB/DC movies. I'm glad that they are finally putting a superheroine on screen, but I don't have much faith in the end result being as positive as it should, since I'm sure we'll see another unstoppable, murderous killing machine in place of the morally constrained heroes of yesteryear. At least it's likely she'll be a strong female character. Yay?
I should point out that they are at least addressing this issue with Superman in the new movie. Apparently Gotham and Metropolis in this version are right next to each other on opposite sides of a river or other body of water. A good chunk of Gotham got destroyed in the fight in Man of Steel. One of the trailers even shows Bruce Wayne with debris falling around him and him recounted the thousands dead from Gotham.
So that's why he think Superman's so dangerous. Superman's entire conflict with Batman is based around his carelessness that led to so many deaths. While I am no fan of Man of Steel, I am hoping that this movie will cause him to become the Superman we are more familiar with.
Cat, I see that, and I can understand their move. If the movie were to just start over again, put that ugliness behind them and actually give us heroes, I'd be okay with that, but this approach just strikes me as so utterly disingenuous. 'Hey, everyone really hated how Superman was so utterly cavalier about fighting in the middle of Metropolis and how we gave no attention at all to the thousands of people that must be dying in those scenes. Well, we'll just pretend that this was totally our plan. See, we're deep and thoughtful! We're making a whole movie about how punching an alien sungod through a building and killing your enemy is a bad thing!'
The original still galls, and them trying to capitalize on the worst aspects of that film just rubs the wound raw. That's my take on it, and your mileage may vary, of course.
Also, apropos of othing, I really don't like the look of Affleck maskless. He just doesn't look right to me as Wayne.
Quote from: BentonGrey on January 28, 2016, 11:04:10 PM
Also, apropos of othing, I really don't like the look of Affleck maskless. He just doesn't look right to me as Wayne.
I hate to play devil's advocate here, but shouldn't one's acting ability take precedence over their physical appearance? Isn't whether or not Affleck is able to play Wayne more important than whether or not he looks like him? I mean, I'm pretty sure that Mark Ruffallo looks nothing like Bruce Banner from the comics or even the cartoons, yet you don't really see anyone complaining. (Of course, that's even assuming Affleck can actually play him, but I digress. ;))
Kk, I wasn't talking about his ability to play the role or even his suitability for the part. I was talking about a specific personal reaction, and I didn't follow it with 'so he is obviously wrong for the part.' I happen to think Affleck is a passable actor, but since you brought it up, that doesn't necessarily make him right for the part. I think a big part of my problem with him is that he's just so darn recognizable. I've got no problem with Affleck in general, but when I look at him, I don't see Bruce Wayne, I see Ben Affleck. That's part of the reason I always like it when they get relatively unknowns for these roles. On top of that, he doesn't LOOK like Bruce Wayne to me.
Now, in terms of "look," as I've said many times, comics are a visual medium, and characters are partially defined by their appearances. Thus, a blonde guy playing Superman would really not fit the character, no matter how good an actor he was (aside from hair dye, of course). This is a sliding scale, and a good actor can still really bring a character to life (Idris Elba as Heimdall being a good example, just because Elba is so freaking awesome), but there is certainly an element of "fit" in how appropriate the actor is for the role. If they don't look the part, they'll stick out in every scene they're in, which will, at best, be distracting, and at worst really break the spell of the story. The same thing can happen with a voice, etc. It's all part of an actor's "presence" and fits into their portrayal.
For example, I was just watching the classic John Wayne Alamo, and I was reading a bit about it. Wayne played Davy Crockett, but he actually considered playing Jim Bowie and having Bowie's actor, Richard Widmark, play Crockett. Both of those guys are big, larger than life western characters, but growing up, Crockett was one of my heroes. So, I was thinking about how strange that would have been, because Wayne towered over Widmark, and it would have been really odd to have Crockett be dwarfed by Bowie in my mind, though they're both great actors and have plenty of presence.
Of course, Affleck isn't an obvious square peg or anything. It isn't like he's a different race or hair color than the character, so your mileage may vary. In this case, I'm speaking entirely for myself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cle_rKBpZ28 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cle_rKBpZ28)
Final trailer.
I do like that Batman fight scene in the beginning.
good trailer.
I'm cautiously optimistic.
No one doubts that Zach Snyder can do action scenes. I wonder if there is any irony intended in the idea of answering those who criticized Man of Steel as too much destruction porn by making the sequel more of the same? Not that that's my criticism. A superhero movie should have plenty of action and I understand that anyone making this movie would be more than slightly aware that 2006's Superman Returns was criticized for being too slow and too much of an homage to the campy 70s/80s movies.
But, there is some contradiction in the attitude shown, intended or not, by one of the finest minds in the DC universe. If what we are told of the movie is correct, Bruce's attitude is supposed to represent the older, experienced counterpoint to Clark's brash, tyro approach to heroism. But, his "if we believe there is even a 1% chance he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty!" line sounds pretty much indistinguishable from rushing pell-mell to a destructive conclusion based on minimal information. That's not exactly how I think of Batman. Could be just me, I suppose. And, of course, the movie could be very enjoyable to watch even if, at the end of the day, Snyder & Co. get the characters wrong, again. It's just that, if this is to be the start of DC's (Warner's) expansion of their own cinematic universe, it would be kinda nice if we could leave the theater thinking, "These guys really get the characters. That really felt like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc. They nailed it."
Nevertheless, I still have hope that there is a fun movie to see. Trailers have specific purposes and catching all the nuances isn't really among them.
I post this mostly because Benton will get a kick out of it.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-zack-snyder-gets-modern-superman-wrong/
Ha! That is perfect! What a wonderfully concise illustration of the problem!
I don't see the movie version of Superman. Just an explosion and the boy falling to his death? :blink:
Edit: Sorry, yeah saw him bust through that building. :doh:
For those wondering about the R-rate cut, Snyder talked about that and explains that it was some of the actions scenes that were deemed too violent and were cut. They just put them back in. There's nothing like you'd normally think of.
This makes me feel better about the whole thing.
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-r-rating-explanation-zack-snyder/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awVNGfmCQsg -came across this while I was catching up on my youtube subs, made me giggle.
The review embargo has just been lifted, and the overall tone is...less than stellar. Will this impact the film's box office? We'll find out soon.
Wow...that's a lot of negativity showing up on Rotten Tomatoes. It sounds like this is pretty much exactly what I was expecting out of this film. Well, here's hoping this thing goes down in tremendous flames so it DOESN'T end up defining the next decade of DC comics movies as grim, gritty, and joyless. If this could crash and burn as badly as the latest Fantastic Four disaster, maybe the powers that be would finally wake up to what superheroes are supposed to do and fire the heck out of Zack Snyder and Nolan.
Quote from: BentonGrey on March 23, 2016, 04:47:34 AM
Wow...that's a lot of negativity showing up on Rotten Tomatoes. It sounds like this is pretty much exactly what I was expecting out of this film. Well, here's hoping this thing goes down in tremendous flames so it DOESN'T end up defining the next decade of DC comics movies as grim, gritty, and joyless. If this could crash and burn as badly as the latest Fantastic Four disaster, maybe the powers that be would finally wake up to what superheroes are supposed to do and fire the heck out of Zack Snyder and Nolan.
Liked!
The fact that this seems to be as underwhelming as MoS, though expected, it's still unfortunate.
IMDB has it at a 9.1.
Curious.
Yeah, but I'm curious how much of that is pre-release support? Like a "Oh, of course this is gonna be awesome, I'll vote 10/10 before I even see it" kinda thing. Because Metacritic is more in line with rotten tomatoes.
That being said, I don't know if it's going to bomb like Benton wishes. I don't know that it'll do Deadpool levels of success, but it's getting a fair amount of preorder sales going into the release. And, honestly... while I think it shouldn't do well, I also don't want it to bomb. Doing mediocre will still hurt the studios (who threw something like 500 million into the movie) enough to maybe rethink putting Snyder at the helm going forward, but not so much that they won't reboot the DC filmverse plans yet AGAIN like they did after Green Lantern, or worse, give up entirely (which is a possibility given how much the studio would stand to lose if this flopped as badly as Benton suggests).
Personally, my hope is that it does ok... maybe enough to recoup the studio's loss, but not much more than that.
I saw a few reviews and they range from "like being in a rolling car accident" to "lets wait for the next Marvel movie".On the other hand,they all say Wonder Woman is the best part of the movie.I guess its a silver lining.
Quote from: Tomato on March 23, 2016, 05:42:20 AM
Yeah, but I'm curious how much of that is pre-release support? Like a "Oh, of course this is gonna be awesome, I'll vote 10/10 before I even see it" kinda thing. Because Metacritic is more in line with rotten tomatoes.
That being said, I don't know if it's going to bomb like Benton wishes. I don't know that it'll do Deadpool levels of success, but it's getting a fair amount of preorder sales going into the release. And, honestly... while I think it shouldn't do well, I also don't want it to bomb. Doing mediocre will still hurt the studios (who threw something like 500 million into the movie) enough to maybe rethink putting Snyder at the helm going forward, but not so much that they won't reboot the DC filmverse plans yet AGAIN like they did after Green Lantern, or worse, give up entirely (which is a possibility given how much the studio would stand to lose if this flopped as badly as Benton suggests).
Personally, my hope is that it does ok... maybe enough to recoup the studio's loss, but not much more than that.
But if it doesn't do better than Deadpool, it will still be seen as a failure. Deadpool is a tertiary character and was made for a (comparative) song. Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are DC's A-list, and as you say, a ton of money has been spent on this. Studio hopes have to be more Avengers territory than not. Still, I think international audiences will help bolster the box office, even if it tanks in North America.
These are all very good points guys, and, sadly, I think it is still on track to make unholy amounts of money because people are stupid. Yet, 'Mato makes a particularly good point. Even if this thing does alright, it's not going to be considered a success unless it brings in piles and piles of money.
I haven't read through all these posts so far, but the problem I see is this: Snyder must have loved the Superman/Batman smackdown in The Dark Knight Returns, and didn't want to wait the 50 years to develop the dysfunctional relationship that series displayed (or do an "Elseworlds" movie). So, he decided to start his series with it. He made Supes a killer (stacking the deck against him so that it seemed like he had to do it), and gave Batman the resources to take him down.
Y'know, it's not that I don't like a little violence and destruction (I read reprints of The Spider), but this just doesn't seem to be the way to take this series. Superman is NOT Wolverine (and neither is Batman). Your heroes should be better than you are, not worse. This sounds more like the secondary antagonist in a Steve Ditko story, insisting that decent, altruistic, heroes somehow demean the average man.
The scary thing is, if the movie makes Big Bucks, it may affect the way the comic is done. If that happens, this child of the Silver Age will mourn the passing of an icon.
Quote from: daglob on March 23, 2016, 03:45:13 PM
I haven't read through all these posts so far, but the problem I see is this: Snyder must have loved the Superman/Batman smackdown in The Dark Knight Returns, and didn't want to wait the 50 years to develop the dysfunctional relationship that series displayed (or do an "Elseworlds" movie). So, he decided to start his series with it. He made Supes a killer (stacking the deck against him so that it seemed like he had to do it), and gave Batman the resources to take him down.
Y'know, it's not that I don't like a little violence and destruction (I read reprints of The Spider), but this just doesn't seem to be the way to take this series. Superman is NOT Wolverine (and neither is Batman). Your heroes should be better than you are, not worse. This sounds more like the secondary antagonist in a Steve Ditko story, insisting that decent, altruistic, heroes somehow demean the average man.
The scary thing is, if the movie makes Big Bucks, it may affect the way the comic is done. If that happens, this child of the Silver Age will mourn the passing of an icon.
Very interesting that you brought up Steve Ditko. Snyder's dream project is apparently a big budget adaptation of the Fountainhead. He's a Randian Objectivist, and if there's a character more directly juxtaposed to Rand's espoused philosophy than Superman, I don't know who it would be.
Quote from: daglob on March 23, 2016, 03:45:13 PM
Y'know, it's not that I don't like a little violence and destruction (I read reprints of The Spider), but this just doesn't seem to be the way to take this series. Superman is NOT Wolverine (and neither is Batman). Your heroes should be better than you are, not worse. This sounds more like the secondary antagonist in a Steve Ditko story, insisting that decent, altruistic, heroes somehow demean the average man.
:kingbethumbup
Talavar, is he really a Randian? Wow, he's a grown man who still thinks Ayn Rand has anything useful to say...no wonder.
I already see Millars Superior being a way better Superman movie.
I've been reading some of the reviews on the net. And i'm not really surprised that many didn't really enjoy the movie. Comments like the movie was overstuffed, convoluted, and incoherent were the kind i was expecting from this movie. It just seems forced to me, the way they wanted to make Batman and Superman fight each other. Like they were in a hurry to follow in the footsteps/success of the Avengers movie, trying to introduce a lot of characters to build up a Justice League movie.
What i was surprised to read/hear is that people thought Ben Affleck did a good job as Batman in the movie. I haven't watched the movie, but like the majority, i didn't think Ben was a good fit/choice for Batman. Maybe he did his best to prove his critics wrong.
Gal Gadot role as Wonder Woman is also being praised by reviewers. Can't say the same for the actor playing Lex Luthor.
Quote from: Talavar on March 23, 2016, 03:59:27 PM
Very interesting that you brought up Steve Ditko. Snyder's dream project is apparently a big budget adaptation of the Fountainhead. He's a Randian Objectivist, and if there's a character more directly juxtaposed to Rand's espoused philosophy than Superman, I don't know who it would be.
Makes me think about Watchmen. Rorschach was supposed to be a take down of Ditko's Objectivist views (kinda like the video game Bioshock I suppose) but it kinda makes me wonder if Snyder was rooting for him (admittedly, Rorschach, crazy as he is, is pretty cool).
Reviews aren't sounding good. Glad to hear Batfleck is apparently good (A reviewer I watch said Batman was the best thing about the movie) along with Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Apparently there's MORE destruction in this than in MOS (I'm not sure that's possible).
Not planning to see this in theaters, and none of the people I go see movies with seem to be interested either, especially now the bad reviews are pouring out. I'd give it a digital rental down the line, and will probably enjoy Affleck and Batman and Superman fighting.
Quote from: BentonGrey on March 23, 2016, 04:03:40 PM
Quote from: daglob on March 23, 2016, 03:45:13 PM
Y'know, it's not that I don't like a little violence and destruction (I read reprints of The Spider), but this just doesn't seem to be the way to take this series. Superman is NOT Wolverine (and neither is Batman). Your heroes should be better than you are, not worse. This sounds more like the secondary antagonist in a Steve Ditko story, insisting that decent, altruistic, heroes somehow demean the average man.
:kingbethumbup
Talavar, is he really a Randian? Wow, he's a grown man who still thinks Ayn Rand has anything useful to say...no wonder.
Apparently. The Fountainhead part is definitely true, that he's an Objectivist is partially supposition.
Quote from: daglob on March 23, 2016, 03:45:13 PM
I haven't read through all these posts so far, but the problem I see is this: Snyder must have loved the Superman/Batman smackdown in The Dark Knight Returns, and didn't want to wait the 50 years to develop the dysfunctional relationship that series displayed (or do an "Elseworlds" movie). So, he decided to start his series with it. He made Supes a killer (stacking the deck against him so that it seemed like he had to do it), and gave Batman the resources to take him down.
This has been my take on what's going on as well. And, beyond the particular jonesing for the the fight from The Dark Knight, Warner Brothers is rushing the development of their DC movie universe in an attempt to catch up to other comics archetypes that Marvel has successfully brought to the big screen. Marvel has successfully integrated their characters into a universe where team stories and crossovers are organic and seamless. So, WB turns the second of its latest generation of movies into a multi-hero movie, ignoring that Marvel started most of their heavy hitters out with solo movies.
Then, having successfully gotten those heroes onto the screen together, Marvel integrates another great comics theme into the mix: The clash of heroes. In only its second movie, WB is trying to get the same thing going in SvB that Marvel will (likely successfully, if recent history is any guide) pull off in Civil War. But, Civil War didn't emerge newly minted from the forge with no antecedents; there has been a history of these characters working together, despite some friction between them. There have been many movies in the MCU at this point, so Marvel isn't just throwing these guys together for a cage match in the second movie. How odd would it have seemed if Iron Man 2 had introduced Thor and Captain America and then been half about them fighting one another?
As flawed as the fight between Superman and Batman was in the Dark Knight story, it was pretty clear that these were two characters who already had a history with one another and who split some time ago because of their differences. Starting them out as foes, well, I guess we'll see how it turns out.
The sad thing is that my gf and I both have Friday off and were thinking to take in this movie as part of our day. Sigh.
Quote from: spydermann93 on March 23, 2016, 05:18:32 AM
IMDB has it at a 9.1.
This brings two points to mind. First, there seems to have been a general upward shift in user ratings over the past 5 years or so. I don't know if that's because moviegoers are getting more generous or less discerning or what. Or perhaps movies are getting better on average. I do think there is more of a tendency for moviegoers to be extremists in their reviews. E.g., there may be more reviewers who think "
San Andreas kicked butt! Booyah!" and give it a 10/10 and fewer who think, "The movie was lots of fun to watch, but wasn't really told in an exceptional way, didn't have an interesting theme or philosophical point to make, etc. and wasn't really as good as some of the best movies I have ever seen." and give it a 7/10.
Second, the IMDB ratings for new movies are typically inflated. I would speculate that this is a natural consequence of who goes to the theater to see movies: people who are already inclined to like the movie. This leads to a bifurcation in the ratings. Some get enough of what they expected to confirm their pre-existing biases (e.g. "This character, actor, director are awesome! The thirty bucks I just spent for me and my SO to see this movie and have a couple sodas was well spent!") and some are disappointed because they went in with high expectations and the movie fell short of them (e.g. last year's
Fantastic Four). These reactions don't represent the "here's what I thought of the movie, having gone in without too many expectations or wild fan enthusiasm about what the movie ought to be" perspective that a lot of people might expect of ratings. I would expect the ratings to even out over time, as more casual moviegoers see the movie. But, even that doesn't always seem to happen, since there tends to be an avalanche of reviews when the movie is released and then fewer and fewer as time goes on. If the first 30,000 ratings are from the early viewers, it may take a
long time before enough later reviewers have any impact on the average. However, one can see that the ratings for
Batman v Superman have already fallen to 8.8 and I wouldn't be surprised if they continued to drift downward for a while.
Quote from: Spade on March 23, 2016, 05:50:15 AM
I saw a few reviews and they range from "like being in a rolling car accident" to "lets wait for the next Marvel movie".On the other hand,they all say Wonder Woman is the best part of the movie.I guess its a silver lining.
Funny, what I've been hearing about WW was that she might have been done well but completely unnecessary for the film overall.
So if anyone is curious about a extremely and brutally honest review of BvS?
Just FYI, major, major, major, MAJOR spoilers inside.(seriously do not view unless you want major plot points, characters and ending revealed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTKDtoBR-2M
This reminds me of he Conan movie: they took parts of "Tower of the Elephant", "A Witch Shall Be Born", "Queen of the Black Coast", and a tiny bit of "The Thing on the Throne", combining them with the background of "The Shadow Kingdom" (Kull) and made a movie. While I liked the movie well enough, I wondered what was left to make into a film when it was through. Part of the reason was, of course, that they didn't know if there would be a second or third movie, so they wanted to get in all the "good parts" on the screen.
I've seen comments that some feel that Superman is a villain in these movies (at least once attributed to Henry Cavill), because big blue boy scouts are soooo boring, and everyone loves the bad boy. Someone finally pointed out that this Superman's costume looks hauntingly like the one Earth-3(?) Ultraman has been wearing lately.
Also, when the reviewer said that the goofy looking kid was Lex Luthor, I wondered just what comic Snyder had been reading. Minor Spoiler:
Spoiler
I love the observation that Lex acts like both he and the Joker were originally in the movie, but they cut Joker out and mashed the characters together and didn't change the story.
I could probably go on for hours, but I'll stop for now.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on March 24, 2016, 04:26:24 AM
So if anyone is curious about a extremely and brutally honest review of BvS?
Just FYI, major, major, major, MAJOR spoilers inside.(seriously do not view unless you want major plot points, characters and ending revealed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTKDtoBR-2M
"As a comic book fan I suddenly feel old and tired"
I know that feeling. <_<
In my opinion she was one of the better parts of the movie, actually a few of her lines really made me excited for her movie when it comes out.
Other than that I'm fine with the Zach Snyder movies being Elseworlds tales in my headcanon.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on March 23, 2016, 07:55:36 PM
Quote from: Spade on March 23, 2016, 05:50:15 AM
I saw a few reviews and they range from "like being in a rolling car accident" to "lets wait for the next Marvel movie".On the other hand,they all say Wonder Woman is the best part of the movie.I guess its a silver lining.
Funny, what I've been hearing about WW was that she might have been done well but completely unnecessary for the film overall.
Quote from: Spade on March 24, 2016, 12:29:20 PM
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on March 24, 2016, 04:26:24 AM
So if anyone is curious about a extremely and brutally honest review of BvS?
Just FYI, major, major, major, MAJOR spoilers inside.(seriously do not view unless you want major plot points, characters and ending revealed)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTKDtoBR-2M
"As a comic book fan I suddenly feel old and tired"
I know that feeling. <_<
Same here. <_< (And I'm not even that old!)
My optimism still burns bright!
I'm seeing it tonight with a bunch of my friends.
I will report back with what I found.
Quote from: spydermann93 on March 24, 2016, 05:51:53 PM
My optimism still burns bright!
I'm seeing it tonight with a bunch of my friends.
I will report back with what I found.
Have a good time. :)
As for me,I think I will wait for Civil War.Never thought I would say that...
I'm optimistic, but honestly if you compare the Avengers critic reviews to this film I am terrified I'm about to waste 2.5 hours of my life. Either way, tickets paid and will be seeing it in less than 7 hours.
Guys, don't worry about what critics say. If you want to see this movie, go see it. If you like Man of Steel, then see this movie. If you have doubts, wait for it to hit Redbox or Netflix.
Yeah, if you've already bought your tickets, I hope you have a good time, but if you haven't, there certainly seems to be good cause to reconsider going to see it. Remember, you vote with your wallet.
I should point out that while critic review has been very negative, feedback from fans who saw it early has been very good.
So I wouldn't pre-judge it quite yet.
I'm looking forward to it. I'm one of the ones who liked Man of Steel, so I feel I will enjoy this. I'm going in with no expectations except for who the main characters are. I feel it's a disservice to both Marvel and DC to compare their film franchises. Marvel has always been about more relatable characters anf their worlds. DC has always been on a more epic scale. I feel that DC characters are our American mythology, much like the myths of the Greeks, Norse, and Egyptians. The characters were created at a time when we, as a people, needed something to cheer about. Anyway, I think the DC Cinematic Universe will be a fun ride.
Going tomorrow afternoon (got my tix a while back)
A bit worried that the reviews seem to confirm my fears that it's more Man of Steel than Avengers (and I liked Man of Steel more than most).
Wow. A couple of friends of mine(from two separate walks) have resorted to live tweeting during the movie to express their disdain for the movie... and their reviews are actually HARSHER than the above link.
"Minute 25 of the new Superman/Batman movie and I wished I would have stayed home and watched Daredevil. Or, like, slammed my hand in a door."
"I would rather fight off an ebola fever with Flint tap water than watch that movie again."
"If you really love a person, you will stop them from watching this film at gunpoint, if necessary."
Those were just the non-spoiler, non-profanity laced ones.
See, I trust things like that more than the critics.
But yeesh, that is bad.
Really interested in what our own members have to say. I've always found reviews from people you know or at least have similar interests to you to be the most reliable.
Haven't seen it, but hearing some spoilers and...
Spoiler
it sounds like DC character assassination. As in, how can Zack Snyder demonstrate he understands these characters less well than the ending of Man of Steel?
Quote from: Talavar on March 25, 2016, 04:32:25 AM
Haven't seen it, but hearing some spoilers and...Spoiler
it sounds like DC character assassination. As in, how can Zack Snyder demonstrate he understands these characters less well than the ending of Man of Steel?
I think that's exactly what I'm afraid of.
It was long, dragged in places, lots of plot holes, but it was OK. Wonder Woman was the greatest part.
Quote from: AfghanAnt on March 25, 2016, 05:24:28 AM
It was long, dragged in places, lots of plot holes, but it was OK. Wonder Woman was the greatest part.
Pretty much, this.
Personally, I think that Man of Steel was a better movie, and while there were a few parts that I liked in Batman v Superman, a lot of it was "Why?" or just mediocre. It's nowhere NEAR the mess that Fant4stic was. Not even close. Was it a good movie? Eh. But it certainly wasn't unwatchable.
Spoiler
Batman was ok. His martial and physical prowess showed a lot more in this movie than it did in Nolan's franchise, which I liked. He played a bit of a detective, sniffing out gang members and stuff. But other than that, he did some pretty non-Batman things, like straight up murdering people using his Batmobile and Batplane. He clearly didn't have his "no kill" policy (the "no guns" policy is very debatable), and that is displayed rather bluntly when he's in his vehicles.
His visions are oddly placed at times, and often take me right out of the mood that they're trying to establish. The biggest example is at the beginning of the movie, we get a montage of his parents being shot in the alley, their funeral, Bruce running into the woods and falling into a bat cave. It was all very well done and emotional. And then, as the bats surround him, Bruce begins to levitate off of the ground being carried by the "bat vortex." That part was then explained to have been a dream to him, but man, does it look silly. There was no clear distinction between what was real and his dreams/visions. Obviously, that's a point to his character in the movie, but when it starts interrupting the flow of the movie, that's a problem.
Wonder Woman was great in her fight scenes. Very strong, skilled, and all around bad***. Other than that, she wasn't really around too much for me to form a solid opinion on her, but I certainly didn't have any problems with her.
Superman is still learning what it means to be Superman, and you can definitely see that from time to time in the film. I really did appreciate the scenes where he went out of his way to save somebody. One scene, he sees a girl in Mexico is trapped in a burning building on TV, flies over and saves her. That's the Superman I want to see. In his fight with Batman, he tries talking to Bruce before actually fighting, despite the fact that his mother (Ma Kent) is being held hostage by Lex's goons. I liked that. It's just a blasted shame that...
Spoiler
THEY KILLED HIM OFF!!! They frickin' killed him! Why!? Why did they have to kill him before the first Justice League movie? Agggh! Doomsday grows a bone spike hand thing and impales Supes, killing him. And what's even worse is that they reverse that not five minutes after the fact! Why stick it in the movie if you're just going to cop-out within 5 minutes? Bologna, that's why.
Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Yeah, if you liked the Lex Luthor from Superman: TAS or Justice League: TAS, you probably won't find Eisenberg's version very compelling. He just felt.... awkward. He lacked any of the charisma Lex usually possesses and he seems like a joker, and I mean that in more ways than one. At least he hates Superman. He has that going for him, which is nice.
Oh, and in the movie, Wonder Woman was trying to get a file back from Lex Luthor that he captured, and Batman kind of intercepts her in that regard. In the files, there are videos and photos of various metahumans, more specifically the Flash, Cyborg, Aquaman, and, of course, Wonder Woman. When Batman sends Wonder Woman her picture, he also sends the footage of the other heroes, which, as Movie Bob said, definitely felt like 5 post-credit scenes smacked right into the middle of the movie.
Doomsday was a bit better than what the previews make him out to be. He has brute strength, the ability to adapt to various forms of damage, etc., but they also gave him the ability to shoot lasers out of his face Destroyer Armor style, and to fly (kind of). He was gargantuan. Think the cave troll from Fellowship of the Ring and that's Doomsday. Throughout the fight, he adapts and grows, eventually getting all of his bone spikes and things like that. He definitely gets better looking as the fight goes on.
The fight against Doomsday was fun. Wonder Woman and Superman were kicking some serious butt, but they were still having a rough go of it, as it should be. Supes and Wonder Woman were tag-teaming like the best of them. Wonder Woman would set him up; Supes would knock him down. Superman tries to end the fight early by taking Doomsday into outer space. The military tried nuking them both while they were out of reach of any inhabited locations which only ends up back-firing (makes Doomsday stronger). I liked that Superman tried to keep it away from Gotham. It shows that he has learned quite a bit from Man of Steel. It was funny to see Batman there as he knew that he was out of his league in trying to fight Doomsday. Luckily, he still had Kryptonite smoke bombs to weaken the big lug when the timing was right.
I'd say I'd give it a 6/10. A little better than average, would probably sit and watch it if it were on TV, but other than that, I wouldn't go out of my way to see it.
So, and please spoil the hell out of me those who've seen it...
Spoiler
they kill Superman? I assume he gets better--this being Doomsday storyline and all--but does that also happen here? Or is that being left for later?
Quote from: Talavar on March 25, 2016, 01:24:11 PM
So, and please spoil the hell out of me those who've seen it...Spoiler
they kill Superman? I assume he gets better--this being Doomsday storyline and all--but does that also happen here? Or is that being left for later?
Spoiler
They strongly hint at Superman coming back to life when Lois walks away from his grave.
Yeah, one source I saw said that the plot was a mash up of several epic DC storylines...
First off I would like to say sorry to Gal Gadot. When I first heard that she was going to be Wonder Woman, I cringe. After watching the movie, I wanted more of her. She was one of the best parts of the movie. No for my short review:
Spoiler
To fully understand the Batman v Superman movie, you need to read the following books: The Dark Knight Returns, The Death of Superman and Injustice (comic or game). They pretty much crammed 3 storylines into one movie. I figure they did this to catch up with Marvel and the Avengers. Again they showed a brief of Bruce parents getting shot (this is like Spidey's origin, over and over). Anyway, while the JL cameos were kinda cool, it felt like it was force upon you like See! We have more heroes to show you! From what I'm read from the reviews so far, nobody liked Lex. I though he was ok and they did the transformation arc with him that he's starts off silly, but in the end he becomes the Lex that we were expecting.
Best review so far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkD4S3KdaYA
No Spoilers
Just got back from seeing Batman v Superman. I've heard a lot of negative things about it from "critics". However, this was a movie for the audience. i found that everything fit my expectations and even exceeded some. The movie definitely establishes a larger world, which it handles pretty well. The heroes were portrayed perfectly by the actors. Luthor was a different type of Luthor than we've seen before, but once a Luthor always a Luthor. All in all, i give it an 8.75 out of 10. It's a fun ride but definitely NOT a kids' movie.
I gave it about 6/10. I'd estimate that my gf gave it about a 4.5/10. In the post-game discussion, we concluded the difference was largely that I was being kinder because I had read most of the stories that they were trying to cram into the movie and understood how they fit in. But, in retrospect, she is mostly right about that - lots of those bits are semi-easter eggs for comics fans, but don't make that much sense in the movie itself.
Some non-spoilery comments:
- Once again, Amy Adams is an okay Lois Lane, but some of her scenes felt tacked on to give her something to do.
- I agree with others about Wonder Woman. She was fun in this movie and they teased an origin story for her without dragging out an already-long movie with an actual origin story (which wasn't needed). And, though I still think Wonder Woman should have a bit more of an athletic look, Gal Gadot (or the special effects/CGI crew) pulled of the action scenes without a hitch. I had no trouble believing Gadot's Wonder Woman as a heavy hitter.
- Eisenberg has some talent as an actor, but this Luthor was really not compelling. Luthor is best when he isn't babbling at the edge of sanity. He is either not a wacky character (which is not to say he doesn't exhibit psychological issues), or he keeps things pretty tightly under control. If there was a desire to have a character like the one he played in this movie, they should have cast him as the Joker. Or possibly the Psycho Pirate...
- Batman 1: I actually found Affleck's Batman to be fine. I know lots of people were prepared to hate him and I had some concerns about the casting. But, he pulled it off. We are talking about acting here, not what happens in the story.
- Batman 2: Batman's portrayal in the story was weak. He is easily manipulated by Luthor, quick to jump to (erroneous) conclusions, overly emotional, etc. Batman is best portrayed as a brilliant detective, tactician, and technologist (as needed). His "super" power is that he's one the the smartest and most clear-headed people on the planet. He is two steps ahead of most smart people and, while he might not be two steps ahead of another genius like Luthor, he is at least canny enough to be aware that Luthor is working an angle and to be doubly-suspicious of anything connected to Luthor.
- I like Superman and I am getting used to Cavill's Superman, occasional wooden moments and accent slips aside. But, I am less of a huge fan of the portrayal of Superman as menacing. Batman is menacing; many of his opponents are intimidated because they can't face the wrathful demon. Superman is confident; many of his opponents are intimidated because he's freaking Superman and there is zero chance of beating someone who might have flown through the sun to dry his hair that morning.
The plot holes were trouble in this movie. Some things that bugged me (spoilers)
Spoiler
- After Luthor's ultimatum regarding Martha Kent, there is no way that Superman makes so little effort to communicate with Batman before (and early during) the fighting. "I am not here to fight you. I need your help." Remember those perfectly natural, reasonable lines from that scene? Neither do I. The lack of something like that just doesn't work for me. It's too contrived. Maybe Batman doesn't believe him or is too frazzled to listen, but Superman would at least try to tell him why the heck he is there.
- Perry White is treating Clark as a sports reporter and is clearly annoyed at Clark for looking to do some hard news journalism. I have lots of problems with this. First, Clark has never been a sports reporter and, if they are going to re-cast him as one, they might let us know. Second, Perry is right that no one (especially in Metropolis) cares about Clark Kent versus the Batman. But, Perry should be smart enough to see that a story about the role of vigilantes is a good story, particularly with the obvious potential for side-by-side comparisons, since Superman is also a vigilante. (I know that in many comics, Superman is deputized and so on. But, in this movie, a pretty major story arc is that Superman is a free agent with no official government sanction.) Third, Clark Kent does his *bleeping* job! If he's asked to write a sports story on the Metropolis Jockstraps or whatever, then he writes the story. If he goes to cover and write 20 column inches on some society event held by Lex Luthor, then he goes and writes it up. At the point in the story where Perry is holding up a pre-print page with Clark's missing columns, I was left thinking, "So, how does hard-nosed, no-nonsense Perry White not just fire Clark right there?"
- I mentioned this above, but Batman was way too easily duped. When watching the scene where Bruce has dreams/visions while he decodes Lex's data, I was thinking, "Oh, they are going to reveal that Lex implanted some sort of hypnosis software or subliminal suggestion trap in that data and that will explain why Bruce is so easily convinced that Supey is a bad guy." But, no. They never went there and just left us to believe (mostly) that Bruce has some bad dreams about Superman and decides he's justified in killing him.
Random observations:
Spoiler
- The meta-human files seem to confirm that they aren't using TV's Flash as the Movie Flash. Just more hinting that WB is keeping the TV DCU separate from the movie DCU. Kind of a shame.
- The ending left me wondering if there is to be a Reign of the Supermen aspect of the next movie. It seems ill-advised and unlikely that WB would spend much screen time on several fairly minor DC characters. But, it would certainly work from a plot perspective and they will need something to show the passage of time as Superman heals.
- So, next movie... Darkseid? Awesome, if they nail it.
BTW, all that having been said, I pretty much enjoyed the experience. Possibly a result of low expectations, but all the same.
[EDIT: Fixed indentation and a poorly worded sentence.]
Just a quick thing about you and your GF's reviews. I had a pretty funny thing happen that was a little similar. After my wife and I saw it and got home, I was checking outthe reviews on the CGV app (it's the movie chain here in korea, and people post reviews, you can buy tickets, etc.) I was reading through them (barely, my Korean is horrible), and asked my wife about some vocabulary, especially one comment about the utter lack of a cohesive story. after talking about that review for a while, I looked at the user name. It was my wife's!!! she was a little surprised i didn't notice it was her review at first when i had no idea.
LOL! That's hilarious! :lol:
At least you hadn't criticized the review itself without noticing the author. That would have been awkward. :ph34r:
Batman V Superman: The Theory of a Waking Knightmare (http://nonsensicalramblings.com/think-pieces-unlinked-2/2016/3/25/batman-v-superman-the-theory-of-a-waking-knightmare)
I give you, the exact moment that Ben Affleck realized this movie was no good:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-affleck-batman-v-superman-reviews_us_56f54583e4b0a3721819b4da
:lol:
Quote from: BentonGrey on March 28, 2016, 01:44:23 PM
I give you, the exact moment that Ben Affleck realized this movie was no good:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ben-affleck-batman-v-superman-reviews_us_56f54583e4b0a3721819b4da
:lol:
That went viral pretty fast. :)
Best comment I saw this far:
-Alien vs Predator is a better movie
-BvS,The Showgirls of superhero movies. :lol:
I'll tell ya this, I haven't even seen the damn thing and I guarantee you the Supergirl/Flash crossover that was on this week was better. Seriously that thing was every bit as great as I thought it'd be. :thumbup:
On a much less positive note, I saw this online and thought I'd like to share it with you. From David Goyer, writer of Man of Steel and Batman v. Superman:
Quote"How many people in the audience have heard of Martian Manhunter?" Cheers and applause. "How many people that raised their hands have ever been laid?"
And keep in mind, he said that garbage at a
Con Panel directly to DC/WB's fans and consumer base.
Yeah, between this and that vile crap he said about She-Hulk a year ago he can screw right off. Where do they
get these people? The insane asylum?
DC pays hundreds of people to deal with PR.WB pays thousands...He should let those people do their jobs,he doesnt have to say the first dumb thing that comes to his mind.Just saying...
I'm not sure if you're addressing me or Goyer. Either way, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
Even a cursory glance at say, IGN a few times a month will reveal that most of the time, it's specially fan backlash that leads to them changing stuff for the better or going back on controversial policies. I just saw such an article regarding the game Overwatch.
I'm not even all that offended at the cheap shot at nerds. That's old hat, we were used to that kind of talk (and often joined in the fun, which I most certainly do when I'm hanging out with my friends) back when The Simpsons was still good. I'm more miffed at the suggestion that J'onn J'onzz isn't considered worth putting in the movies when Cyborg and Shazam are. He's been a notable supporting character in no less than 6 major DC super hero shows. Two of which had Batman in the title and one of the others is actively on tv right now. And even if he was too obscure to mainstream audiences, that's why you put him in there, so they can learn who he is.
Oh sorry,I meant Goyer.He doesnt have to say everthing that comes to his mind.Bad phrasing.Terribly sorry.
I dont see why he considers MM obscure,seeing that hes been an integral part of Justice League in almost every incarnation.
Quote from: Spade on March 29, 2016, 12:32:52 PM
Oh sorry,I meant Goyer.Bad phrasing.Terribly sorry.
'Sall Good, Man. ;)
But seriously, why not J'onn? I'm not saying he needs his own film, but a supporting role, sure. He's an awesome character, and certainly better than lame ol' Aquaman (Oh snap shots fired Benton! ;))
Did Marvel ever say anything like that when pitching,
literally anyone after Phase 1?
I'd also like to point out that DC's next movie is
Suicide Squad, featuring the first proper live action introduction to Harley Quinn. The only reason anyone outside the comics even knows what that is because DC/WB has been
throwing em in there for the last three or four years (more if you count their appearance in the Justice League cartoon)
[Edit] Oh me oh my, so far I say Rob Liefeld of all people had the best diss for this movie. I don't know if I should post it though, it's a little off-color.
Maybe for some future phase,if they make it past phase 1...
Fun fact,according to Wikipedia,the movie did broke a record.Viewer "decay" from day 1 to day 2 was 58%.Thus beating Fantastic Four.
For this fanboy, watching Batman v. Superman is like hearing an incompetent children's choir singing a favorite tune.
Just so, I liked the movie not because it was well-done---though it is not nearly as bad as its worst detractors say---but because I know how the notes they got wrong sound when they go right. I am able to make excuses for the movie literally as I am watching it.
(Also, on the part of this lifelong DC Comics partisan, there's an element of "That's my boy!")
Note that the concerns about its dumb obviousness are completely accurate. If you'd like to immerse yourself in the themes of this film, you may replicate the experience by having a slightly quirky nerd recite William Blake poems sing-song while death metal in the background screams, "UP UP ANGEL GOD, DOWN DOWN DEVIL MAN."
As a matter of fact, I agree with basically all the criticisms everyone has given, with the exception of the Minneapolis-St. Paul quip---it's obviously a San Francisco/Oakland distance, which like the Luthor thing is a bolder and and more interesting choice than people give credit, though I'm not sure they work.
Quote from: Spade on March 29, 2016, 01:01:19 PM
Maybe for some future phase,if they make it past phase 1...
Fun fact,according to Wikipedia,the movie did broke a record.Viewer "decay" from day 1 to day 2 was 58%.Thus beating Fantastic Four.
Yeah, the audience drop-off on Sunday was big enough that they had to revise their weekend box office estimates downward. It'll be interesting to see what happens next weekend.
I enjoyed the movie. Definitely not the kind of movie I expected to see. But I look at it as an elseworlds tale. Affleck was really good as Bruce/Batman (possibly my fave big screen Batman) and so was Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. Lex was miscast IMO.
I think the critics are too harsh. I enjoyed it more than Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 thats for sure.
I was not expecting that steep dropoff. That is not good. It could actually turn into a flop if this keeps up.
The interesting thing is that they've already committed to other movies in the universe. Suicide Squad is about ready for release itself and Wonder Woman has already been filmed or maybe is still filming.
I would be interested in knowing if these movies can succeed even if the universe launch film fails. Suicide Squad looks like it might actually be good. Grim and gritty is actually appropriate for this one, but it looks like they nail Harley's humor at least. Wonder Woman with the historic setting (and one rather rare at that) might also be good.
I would find it very interesting if one or both succeeded, but Batman v Superman failed. It would do interesting things to the franchise. Not sure what.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on March 29, 2016, 09:39:02 PM
I was not expecting that steep dropoff. That is not good. It could actually turn into a flop if this keeps up.
The interesting thing is that they've already committed to other movies in the universe. Suicide Squad is about ready for release itself and Wonder Woman has already been filmed or maybe is still filming.
I would be interested in knowing if these movies can succeed even if the universe launch film fails. Suicide Squad looks like it might actually be good. Grim and gritty is actually appropriate for this one, but it looks like they nail Harley's humor at least. Wonder Woman with the historic setting (and one rather rare at that) might also be good.
I would find it very interesting if one or both succeeded, but Batman v Superman failed. It would do interesting things to the franchise. Not sure what.
Exactly why the damage control is happening. On top of the critical lambasting, word of mouth--barring a few outliers--is damning with faint praise at best. That's why we've already had Zack Snyder saying that Justice League will be lighter in tone, and the director attached to Aquaman has also been saying his movie will be fun and swashbuckling. If the second weekend dropoff is severe, expect more of that, but also maybe someone joining Snyder in charge of this ball of wax. It's too late to remove him entirely as the Justice League director.
Quote from: Talavar on March 29, 2016, 10:27:52 PM
Exactly why the damage control is happening. On top of the critical lambasting, word of mouth--barring a few outliers--is damning with faint praise at best. That's why we've already had Zack Snyder saying that Justice League will be lighter in tone, and the director attached to Aquaman has also been saying his movie will be fun and swashbuckling. If the second weekend dropoff is severe, expect more of that, but also maybe someone joining Snyder in charge of this ball of wax. It's too late to remove him entirely as the Justice League director.
Too little too late, Snyder. I don't think he'd know light, joyful adventure if it came up and buckled his swash. He had his chance, twice, and he made empty, hero-less disaster porn instead of superhero movies.
Ultimately, here's what I feel about Batman V Superman: Despite the mess it apparently is (and I add the apparently because I haven't yet seen it, more on that in a second) I still think it's a SALVAGEABLE mess. The hate is squarely aimed at Goyer's script and Snyder's direction. The actors they have are apparently great in their roles, and the poor reviews and box office drop off make it likely the problems the film series have will be fixed. I'm actually quite hopeful going forward.
As for this film... yeah, I dunno. I'm debating even seeing it right now. See, normally, my dad (who got me into comics in the first place) goes with me to these films, to the point where I don't think I've seen a MCU film without him IIRC. He wants nothing to do with this movie... he doesn't like the reviews, doesn't like the tone, doesn't like any of it. And since I'm in a similar boat, I really can't blame him for that... the ONLY reason I want to see this movie is because I do actually want to see it for myself so I can form my own opinion... I've bucked popular trends before (I actually like Green Lantern and XMO Wolverine) so even though everything I've heard indicates I'll hate this film... I may be surprised.
I agree with Mato. I really want to see the movie but the reviews make me not wanna pay full price.
If I ever see it, it will be on Netflix where I'm not paying money directly for it.
Quote from: BentonGrey on March 30, 2016, 05:57:51 PM
If I ever see it, it will be on Netflix where I'm not paying money directly for it.
Agreed.
It passed 500 mil in spite of the dropoff. Looks like the studio is happy with it, so all the 5 billion doom and gloom sequels are still on.
Although WB actually wants to give its producers and directors more freedom to set the tone they want, so we may get more of a variety. We will see.
Bah.
Cancelled BATMAN V SUPERMAN Original Script Re-Upload (Batman VS Superman 2003) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V_rZuekW3U&feature=youtu.be)
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on March 30, 2016, 09:47:11 PM
It passed 500 mil in spite of the dropoff. Looks like the studio is happy with it, so all the 5 billion doom and gloom sequels are still on.
Although WB actually wants to give its producers and directors more freedom to set the tone they want, so we may get more of a variety. We will see.
Everything I've read suggests this coming weekend is the real test. 500 million isn't enough for this movie--if it doesn't beat Deadpool, for instance, it's going to be seen as a financial failure.
It needs 800 million to break even. It's already at 500 million at one week. I see no way it won't make it, even if it slows down to a craw.
The empty suits won't consider breaking even good enough, though, so that's something.
It depends on whether they consider this a money maker in its own right, or merely a launch vehicle for the real moneymakers. My feeling is the latter.
I don't know, if their two marque characters can't bring Avengers-level profits, then they will HAVE to worry about the solo films.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 01, 2016, 01:56:49 AM
I don't know, if their two marque characters can't bring Avengers-level profits, then they will HAVE to worry about the solo films.
You're thinking about it the wrong way Benton. It's on track to make 800 million. Almost no movie ever makes that much. They deliberately spent 550 million in promotion. Think of that. If they wanted profits, they just had to hold back on promotional stuff. They'd be raking in the dough then. Avengers it looks like spend maybe half that much. Avengers cost less to make too. Of course they made more profits.
They aren't doing this to make money on this movie.
Stop stamping out my hope, Cat. :P
Well, the good news is, the studios do seem to have gotten the message at least a bit. The apparently are rushing the stars of Suicide Squad back to film new scenes to make that film lighter. Mind you, that's a bit stupid since it's one film where it's okay to go dark. It's about a bunch of villains. No one's suprised if they kill people and hit puppies. Although some of them probably like puppies. I mean who doesn't like puppies?
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 01, 2016, 02:01:44 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 01, 2016, 01:56:49 AM
I don't know, if their two marque characters can't bring Avengers-level profits, then they will HAVE to worry about the solo films.
You're thinking about it the wrong way Benton. It's on track to make 800 million. Almost no movie ever makes that much. They deliberately spent 550 million in promotion. Think of that. If they wanted profits, they just had to hold back on promotional stuff. They'd be raking in the dough then. Avengers it looks like spend maybe half that much. Avengers cost less to make too. Of course they made more profits.
They aren't doing this to make money on this movie.
True, cat, but it's also about perception. Deadpool has already made $750 million--Deadpool. If the perception is that Batman v. Superman underperformed, that perception has real effects. Man of Steel made about 670 million, and was seen as underperforming, so they brought in the cashcow of Batman to shore up those numbers rather than doing a straight sequel. The Amazing Spider-man 2 made $700 million, and derailed all of Sony's plans for building a Spider-man shared universe of films, not even getting a sequel.
It's not just about making profits (which it's always partially about); it's about being seen to build on success. Critical success is out of reach already, so at least bragging rights of financial success would help, and the jury is still out in that regard.
Edited to add: Well, the weekend estimates are in, with Batman v. Superman projected to have earned 50 million dollars. That's already reduced from Friday's prediction of 58 million, and a fairly precipitous drop, particularly given the lack of competition. A lot of big summer movies drop less, or similar amounts, and they face competition from the next weekend's big release. International box office may be this film's saving grace, at least when compared to other superhero movies, but domestically, I think Warner Bros has good reason to be concerned.
Well that was weird. I actually typed a bit more in depth review of the film pointing all pros and cons (there's quite a bit of both), and then I accidentally deleted it, and there's no way I'm typing all of that again (maybe when I have nothing better to do lol)
For now I'll do a rather short summary of it
Spoiler
Affleck looked, acted and fought better than any other Bruce/Batman before him on the big screen. Was definitely more brutal than I'd like, but I'm open minded when it comes to movies. It's an interpretation of the mythos IMO. Dead Robin could have been a turning point in his carrier. Would like to see it adressed in future films. People seem to be forgetting how Michael Keaton Batman was. Really want see Affleck go against Leto's Joker.
Gal Gadot was great WW, eventhough there wasn't a lot her in the movie, what was there was great. Really want to see her solo film now.
Cavill was pretty much like he was in MoS. The tone of both this movie and MoS was darker than what I'd like to see in a Superman film.
Lex was miscast, and acted nothing like the character, have no idea what they were going for with him. Too eccentric and Joker like.
Doomsday was servicable as a plot device, pretty much what I think of the villain in the comics as well.
They crammed way too much stuff in the film. From Bruce's origin to BvS conflict, WW, people's perception of Superman, death of Superman, dream sequences. They wanted to setup everything in one film. Big flaw IMO. The epilogue felt way too long too
JL cameos were nicely done. Not sure about The Flash. Did like Aquaman and Cyborg, from what I've seen.
Parademons!
Seeing trinity together at the end was worth the price of the ticket. For me anyway. There' a lot of DC easter eggs and refferences, so there's a lot to like in that regard. Any DC fan should see this film and then form an opinion. Don't tear the movie apart without seeing it. If you like it, cool, if you didn't that's cool too.
It is a very dark and gloomy film, which is its biggest flaw along with the amount of stuff they packed into it. I don't mind dark and gloomy, but they need to dial it back in future films. Looks like they got the message though and its something they are gonna work on in future films.
So apparently Friday's sales were 19% of what they were opening weekend. To put that in perspective, the recent Fantastic Four movie made 21% from opening friday to the following friday according to Box Office Mojo, and it made significantly less to start with. That's gotta hurt the WB execs.
What's really weird is that they are also saying the people watching the movie a second time is 30% higher than average. So those that do see it are more likely to see it a second time, but fewer people want to see it in the first place once they hear from those who have seen it. The only thing I can make out of that is that there is a minority of rabid fans out there.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 03, 2016, 03:51:39 PM
What's really weird is that they are also saying the people watching the movie a second time is 30% higher than average. So those that do see it are more likely to see it a second time, but fewer people want to see it in the first place once they hear from those who have seen it. The only thing I can make out of that is that there is a minority of rabid fans out there.
Yeah, I find that really interesting. For the people it works for, apparently it really works for them. Like I predicted earlier though, the user ratings on sites like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB keep dropping. The people who are liking it are not enough any more to hold back the votes of the majority who aren't liking it.
What's bizarre to me is that I keep hearing about this imaginary "critics vs fans" debate that is apparently happening... and I honestly just don't see it. The best response here is "meh," the best I've heard from friends who've seen it is "meh" and generally speaking most comic fans I know dislike this film more than casual viewers. So I totally buy that there is this small section of the comic fan base that LOVES this movie because they get to see batman and superman fight and it's got some really great shots of the trinity and all that... but this myth that it's only the critics that dislike this film and "true" fans love it is just absurd.
Quote from: Tomato on April 03, 2016, 06:49:56 PM
What's bizarre to me is that I keep hearing about this imaginary "critics vs fans" debate that is apparently happening... and I honestly just don't see it. The best response here is "meh," the best I've heard from friends who've seen it is "meh" and generally speaking most comic fans I know dislike this film more than casual viewers. So I totally buy that there is this small section of the comic fan base that LOVES this movie because they get to see batman and superman fight and it's got some really great shots of the trinity and all that... but this myth that it's only the critics that dislike this film and "true" fans love it is just absurd.
I honestly think this movie's biggest fans aren't really comic book fans either. They're the people who loved the Dark Knight but thought Batman wasn't violent enough, then made fan films where Batman uses guns and kills people--hey, just like BvS! I don't mean everyone who likes Batman v. Superman are those people, just the people who absolutely love it, and there are a few of those out there.
In other news, the international box office slumped hard as well, particularly China, where BvS is on track to do about Ant-man numbers. Domestically it's on track to earn about 360 million, so this scuttles pretty much any chance of BvS cracking a billion dollars, which was a hypothetical target at one time.
Music to my ears.
Yeah, I'm hearing, at best, very faint praise ('it wasn't as bad as I thought,' etc.) or very mixed positivity. Every single thing I hear about this movie, and I just listened to a spoiler-rific round table about it, makes it sound even worse than I imagined. A gun-totting, murderous Batman? Wow, just when I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of this film or the people involved.
Some news you might be interested in Benton. Word is they are planning on introducing Aquaman for his own movie--by having him go to war against the rest of the world. Apparently they are under the impression the superhero try to kill each other every time they meet or something.
Well of course, what could be more heroic than flat out murder? Heroes certainly never try to find non-lethal solutions. Even suggesting such a thing is down-right un-American.
You know, when I get some time in the next week or two, I'm going to write a blog post listing some of the many, many, MANY reasons that the DC Universe just shouldn't be a grim and gritty place, on the whole. I think I'll start the list off with Gorilla City, because a city of technically advanced science-apes just doesn't lend itself to joyless violence and naval-gazing.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 04, 2016, 12:20:48 AM
Some news you might be interested in Benton. Word is they are planning on introducing Aquaman for his own movie--by having him go to war against the rest of the world. Apparently they are under the impression the superhero try to kill each other every time they meet or something.
I think they have him confused with another water breathing prince of the realm.
Actually, what I think is that they believe that this is what we want; miserable, super so-called heroes that feel killing is the best solution.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 04, 2016, 12:42:24 AM
Well of course, what could be more heroic than flat out murder? Heroes certainly never try to find non-lethal solutions. Even suggesting such a thing is down-right un-American.
You know, when I get some time in the next week or two, I'm going to write a blog post listing some of the many, many, MANY reasons that the DC Universe just shouldn't be a grim and gritty place, on the whole. I think I'll start the list off with Gorilla City, because a city of technically advanced science-apes just doesn't lend itself to joyless violence and naval-gazing.
What about Paradise Island? I bet what they give us is an island of constant fighting and war.
DG, I imagine you're entirely right on both counts.
Yeah, given that their Amazon ambassador is almost certainly going to be a killing machine in her first movie.
Sorry. Just happened to watch this video clip and just found it funny that's all. :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdcBjwrkl4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZdcBjwrkl4)
I want to say, thanks to you guys, I liked it. I viewed it as a fan film, with an odd perspective, and was able to really enjoy it. It's simply an elseworld. Everyone knows the real superman is Reeves.
Chris or George? ;)
Outcast, that is delightful! Thanks for sharing it. Ohh, if only!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was great!
Quote from: daglob on April 05, 2016, 04:56:50 AM
Chris or George? ;)
Exactly!
Actually, as a young child I had some confusion about George being Chris' super father, or something like that.
Ditto.
Did he seriously say he was a comic book guy?
Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...
I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.
Quote from: Kommando on April 05, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: daglob on April 05, 2016, 07:07:13 PM
Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...
I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.
I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves. :)
That's more than a little awesome.
Quote from: Kommando on April 05, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: daglob on April 05, 2016, 07:07:13 PM
Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...
I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.
I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves. :)
I remember because I used to watch George Reeves Superman at 5:00 every afternoon. This was around 1957-58.
Quote from: Kommando on April 05, 2016, 10:12:15 PM
Quote from: daglob on April 05, 2016, 07:07:13 PM
Yes, but what's an "S" between friends...
I remember when "Superman: The Movie" came out, the similarity of the two names was pointed out.
I remember because the only Superman skin I ever made was based on George Reeves. :)
where are your skins? I'd love to see your Reeves.
Much as I'm sure we rather wouldn't, back on topic...
So I finally saw the film, at least the chunks I wanted to see. The way I saw it I was able to skim through it, which is good because I get to maintain my record of never walking out of a theater during a film. Because believe me, I likely would have
Why would you want to return to such a painful topic? :P
Yeah, 'Mato, I imagine that is probably good. I've only walked out of one movie, though I came EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY close with Man of Steel. I probably would have, if we weren't already at the end. As is, I can't imagine I'd have made it through this one.
Maybe fans should start demanding their money back? :lol:
Because that's what we're technically talking about.
Speaking of funny videos involving BvS and George Reeves... I guess Ben Affleck actually played George Reeves in a documentary, so someone on youtube compiled a "Affleck Superman vs. Affleck Batman" video based on one of the trailers. Wish I had a link, but I'm at work and can't look it up.
As for the film... let's be honest Benton, you and I were NEVER going to like this movie, though admittedly for different reasons. This movie is a love letter for Batman/Superman fight from The Dark Knight Returns... and I have been pretty outspoken in how much I HATE that book and everything surrounding it. I HATE the depiction of Superman as nothing but a tool of the government, I HATE Frank Miller's Batman in all his "Gosh Darn" idiocy, I HATE the relationship between the two in that book and Frank Miller's nonsensical assertion that they could NEVER get along (because god forbid two people with different political views find things in common) and I HATE the depiction of Wonder Woman (which is admittedly more from DK2 and from All Star Batman, since she doesn't appear in TDKR) and the Superman/WW ship that I feel originated from those stories. There is very little I dislike MORE than TDKR, and the fact that this movie clearly LOVES that story was always going to turn me off to it in a big way.
That's unfair to the characterization in that book. IMHO probably the greatest story ever told in comics because it has a great deal more subtlety than you're letting on. (Better than Sandman, Watchmen, Maus ... I'm serious.) I mean, there's no accounting for taste, but there is accounting for what the story actually does, or tries to do.
BvS, on the other hand, is a love letter to that story, and a love letter that doesn't get that story other than how some of the events propel the characters from point A to point B. The comment I heard is to guess that, apparently, Zack Snyder reads comic books by staring intently at the pictures.
I never said it wasn't subtle nor that it wasn't a good elseworlds Batman story. What I said was that it has many problematic elements that I do not like seeing adapted to the mainstream DC Universe, and that I *personally* did not enjoy the book as much as other people did. I am not a fan of Frank's art, his writing, or of Frank Miller in general, and I have been outspoken in that dislike many times on these boards. Thus, my point about *me* being biased against this movie from the start.
Beyond that, let's just leave the whole conversation where it is, ok?
While I think Baley is mistaken about that book being the best ever, I don't think he's wrong in it being better than 'Mato gives it credit for. It is, really, a good book, especially taken in context of its time. It's amazing when you're 16, a perfect encapsulation of a growing understanding of the world that is still quite simplistic and angsty, but it doesn't hold up as well for later, more sober readings. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Not every story is perfect for every stage of life. I definitely understand why 'Mato has issues with it.
Still, it has a lot of good qualities, but here's where 'Mato is correct: the Batman/Superman relationship is a sour note. Admittedly, there's much more to their dynamic in Miller's story than in Snyder's, in part because they actually HAVE a relationship, along with years and years of history. Yet, Superman's characterization is one of the failures of that story, though there are some great, iconic moments in their interactions. In the end, Superman is no-one's hired thug, not even the President of the United States. I vastly prefer the implied tale from New Frontier, in which Batman and Superman staged a fight for the same purpose, so that no one would try to pressure Superman into going after him. It's a really wonderful moment, and it illustrates how well Cooke gets those characters, especially in comparison to Miller or, much worse, Snyder.
Baley, I think that's exactly right. Snyder's love letter to DKR is more akin to the disturbing, rambling manifesto in magazine-letter-collage of a deranged fan than a sincere paramour. He takes Miller's Batman, who though extreme and problematic in his own ways, is still trying to do the right thing and who, in the midst of everything, in the midst of his fascist overtones, STILL holds on to the no-kill code! That whole glorious speech about guns being the weapons of cowards is apparently lost on Snyder, because 'guns are cool, guys!'
http://comicsalliance.com/files/2013/01/guns01.jpg
Bruce's tortured grappling with the fate of the Joker, knowing that he has every reason to kill him, and yet knowing that this is a line he cannot cross, completely gone, replaced by a murderous sociopath willing to snuff out human lives as if they are nothing more significant than flies. This is the man, the hero, who in every decent incarnation holds life so precious, so valuable, that he risks his own every night. That is a failure of comprehension that makes my dullest student seem like Sherlock Freaking Holmes.
In the narrative as presented, I disagree with you, Benton.
Spoiler
Most of the killing by Batman was done in a dream sequence. Later, he sort of uses other people's guns. I'm trying to see it as symbolism, but what I'm really doing is attempting to get lost in the iconography of the creator. I take Batman losing his faith as tragic, and part of the story, it is mentioned. Also, I think some of the Batman no killing stance has been watered down in most of the movies by his usage of Batmobile missiles, lasers, and wasn't there a batarang launcher? There should have been regret scenes, however.
What struck me even more than the drive by's was the fact that Superman killed Zod. Again. To me this was a breaker. It's like Snyder is snubbing the fans even more. Cause really, Batman desperately using more and more lethal force is more believable than Superman ever.
Bearded:
Spoiler
I see your point, and I absolutely agree with you about MoS. Yet, a Batman who loses faith is no longer Batman. I agree that he is more likely to take more extreme measures than Superman, but his dedication to the sacredness of life is just as central to who he is as it is to Superman. I remember, there's a moment in Batman Beyond that really nailed this, for all of that show's flaws. The aged Dark Knight takes on a gang of criminals, but his heart begins to give out, and he is only able to protect himself by picking up a gun, an incredibly symbolic gesture tied intimately to the willingness to take a life. He isn't willing to do that, though. He manages to scare the thug, and that moment, that choice he faced, is enough. He retires, because he is unwilling to face such a choice again. If you're going to tell that story, you have to do a heck of a job, and that story has to be the focus of your efforts because it requires exceptional development since it takes the character entirely away from who he is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmfnK6XDiA
(this and the next video)
You say most of his killing is in a dream sequence, okay, but I've heard that he's using lethal force in the car chase, and he flat out murders the fellow at the end, another one of Snyder's bogus 'no other way' scenarios that misses the entire point of the superhero, since they ALWAYS find another way.
Spoiler
Batman straight up murders people by using their car as a wrecking ball to murder even more people. ugh. They were just dudes working for a logistics company transporting some minerals.
I'm pretty sure my adult moral compass owes a lot to george reeves and adam west.
Spoiler
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/711/21199413238_5d4555eca2_b.jpg)
I actually found a youtube video by googling reeves vs west that is pretty good.
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-adam-west-george-reeves-lynda-carter/
You know Benton, I want to agree with you, and I do, but I look at other reasons for why Batman is who he is.
Spoiler
I point to the Nolan Duology, specifically Batman Begins, as the best reasoning for why Batman doesn't kill. Thomas Wayne spent his life healing and making people whole and to kill someone, he would not only be repeating the same cycle that took his parent's life, but he'd be going against everything that his father was. It's the perfect explanation why Batman would NEVER kill someone. It counter-acts every reason why there IS a Batman to begin with. That said, I honestly didn't put much stock into the dream sequences because they weren't reality. However, the other kills he did, I actually took it like when Keaton Batman's killed. Unfortunately, Batman killing was maybe like reason #389 of why this movie failed.
In regard to the Batman vs Superman, as it relates to TDKR, I agree with Frank Miller's reasoning, but to be perfectly honest, this movie doesn't really follow his logic at all. Miller says philosophically Superman and Batman wouldn't see eye to eye, which would cause them to go about being heroes in separate ways. Like why a Daredevil and Punisher wouldn't get along. But ultimately, they have the same goal and to achieve that goal for 70 years now, they do get along. But this movie actually had Superman trying to kill Batman to save his mother. That's not Superman. And Batman... I'm still not entirely sure why Batman wanted to kill Superman.
In fact, strike everything I said earlier. Batman was trying to kill Superman. For some un-Godly reason. That's the entire crux of the movie and there's no reason for it. At least Miller put a reason behind their fight. The reason for this movie is baffling.
Since we are sharing-Kevin Conroy is THE Batman IMHO. :)
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on April 06, 2016, 06:25:52 AM
Spoiler
In fact, strike everything I said earlier. Batman was trying to kill Superman. For some un-Godly reason. That's the entire crux of the movie and there's no reason for it. At least Miller put a reason behind their fight. The reason for this movie is baffling.
I think that about sums it up, Shogunn.
Spade, that's not opinion, that's fact. ;)
The reason for the fight has been discussed, and the whole thing boils down to "'Cuz Snyder wanted them to." I've seen it remarked that the whole purpose of these first movies is to show us flawed, failed human beings (that includes Superman), who slowly become something more. The problem, is, instead of creating his own characters and giving us a story which we can see develop and grow, he uses two (or three) character that have long histories and decides to totally re-write it.
There is quite a bit of this going on in the comics, however, so we can't really blame Snyder for just going with the flow. Now, turning out a turkey like this seems to be, we can blame him for that.
We'll just chalk it up to being an Elseworlds story, taking place in the same universe as Universe of Evil or maybe Fant4stic.
Still makes me think that Snyder is one of the secondary antagonists from a Steve Ditko story. Where is the Silver Age Vic Sage when we need him?
Off-topic,but I have to ask.Wasn't Steve Ditkos theory that there is only good and evil,black and white and nothing in between?Isn't that kinda un-Randian?
Also,that kinda reminds me:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/ (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/)
Quote from: Spade on April 06, 2016, 03:37:49 PM
Off-topic,but I have to ask.Wasn't Steve Ditkos theory that there is only good and evil,black and white and nothing in between?Isn't that kinda un-Randian?
Also,that kinda reminds me:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/ (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/)
Not exactly. What Rand would have called 'good' would differ from many definitions, but Objectivism is about concrete values and properties that are unchanging (ie. A is A), which is what gives the school of thought its name: according to Objectivists, these properties are objectively true, rather than subjective. Everything is black and white, no shades of grey.
This is getting a little off topic (unless Snyder is an objectivist), but...
What I was talking about is that in some of Ditko's stories (Spider-Man, The Question, and Static, for sure, and I can remember a similar situation in Dr. Strange) there is a primary antagonist, and a secondary antagonist. The secondary antagonist goes around saying that the hero (usually Vic Sage instead of The Question) should compromise his morals, or altruists are psychologically sick, or that great deeds demean the common man, or that breaking the laws a little is okay, or that beauty shows the inadequacy of the average man, that everything bad that happens to someone is not their fault, or all of the above. From what I read, the idea is that the hero is trying to do what is right and NOT compromise his ethic just to make it easier for himself. The secondary antagonist tries to set up a situation where he feels that the hero MUST give in, and then walks around smirking until the hero doesn't give up, after which he is furious. Justification varies, but he is basically shown up as a schnook (or something), and can't stand it. This happens in just about every Question story.
The three such antagonist I remember are the art critic in the last Blue Beetle story (the one that ran over into the Question story), the guy Static's girl friend idolized, and the Silver Age J. Jonah Jameson.
The absurdist peak of this are the villains who claim that Killjoy is unfairly denying them their right to commit crime. ;)
Trying to tie it back in topic here... I think Frank Miller has always used 'The Media' as a kind of secondary antagonist in his comics, especially Dark Knight Returns. Think of all those talking head pieces discussing Batman, the psychologists that 'reform' Dent and Joker on live TV. They all questioned the sanity and actions of Batman, bringing enough public attention on him for Reagan-Bot Superman to come in to 'take him down'. Maybe theew is something to it?
This is somewhat of a side point, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Miller's TDKR Batman v. Superman dynamic is set against the backdrop of (and as a commentary on) a particular Superman incarnation. At the time, John Byrne's Superman had been introduced with great fanfare (and great retconning) and had begun its slide into what many would see as such a commercial failure that the whole "Death of Superman" story would be needed to revive it. Byrne's Superman had earned a bit of a reputation as an extreme "paint within the lines" boy scout archetype character that was an easy target for some sneers and jibes by those with a "grittier" world view. IMO, Miller took that Superman to the further extreme of supporting what was, in many way, a Superhero Registration Act. Whether anyone thinks Byrne's Superman got the character right or not or whether the critique of the character was fair, I would say that it was that incarnation of the character that Miller was tearing into (both directly in the story and metaphorically) in TDKR.
And, I have some respect for what Miller did in TDKR. But, Snyder makes a mistake in thinking that the Superman Miller presented as an ideological foe for Batman in TDKR is the Superman that Snyder presented in MoS or that Miller's TDKR Batman is the Batman Snyder presents in BvS. They are not the same pair of characters and the rationale for them as foes isn't nearly as believable, IMO. I mean, just scratching the surface, BvS starts out with Superman being the whipping boy of the government, not its ally against other vigilante types. And, Snyder's Batman doesn't see Superman as the behind-the-scenes lacky of an authoritarian regime, but as a reckless (and possibly malevolent) third party who had duped the public.
Argh! There is too much here to really dig into, because someone could easily do a term paper on how flawed the parallels between Snyder's characters and Miller's are. But, IMO, any notion that Snyder's BvS has anything in common with (or was even a spiritual homage to) TDKR starts to fall apart pretty much as soon as gets past the superficial "Batman fights Superman" splash page.
Quote from: stumpy on April 07, 2016, 03:13:46 AM
This is somewhat of a side point, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Miller's TDKR Batman v. Superman dynamic is set against the backdrop of (and as a commentary on) a particular Superman incarnation. At the time, John Byrne's Superman had been introduced with great fanfare (and great retconning) and had begun its slide into what many would see as such a commercial failure that the whole "Death of Superman" story would be needed to revive it. Byrne's Superman had earned a bit of a reputation as an extreme "paint within the lines" boy scout archetype character that was an easy target for some sneers and jibes by those with a "grittier" world view. IMO, Miller took that Superman to the further extreme of supporting what was, in many way, a Superhero Registration Act. Whether anyone thinks Byrne's Superman got the character right or not or whether the critique of the character was fair, I would say that it was that incarnation of the character that Miller was tearing into (both directly in the story and metaphorically) in TDKR.
And, I have some respect for what Miller did in TDKR. But, Snyder makes a mistake in thinking that the Superman Miller presented as an ideological foe for Batman in TDKR is the Superman that Snyder presented in MoS or that Miller's TDKR Batman is the Batman Snyder presents in BvS. They are not the same pair of characters and the rationale for them as foes isn't nearly as believable, IMO. I mean, just scratching the surface, BvS starts out with Superman being the whipping boy of the government, not its ally against other vigilante types. And, Snyder's Batman doesn't see Superman as the behind-the-scenes lacky of an authoritarian regime, but as a reckless (and possibly malevolent) third party who had duped the public.
Argh! There is too much here to really dig into, because someone could easily do a term paper on how flawed the parallels between Snyder's characters and Miller's are. But, IMO, any notion that Snyder's BvS has anything in common with (or was even a spiritual homage to) TDKR starts to fall apart pretty much as soon as gets past the superficial "Batman fights Superman" splash page.
That's completely right... and I think that might be the essential piece where the movie falls apart. Aesthetically speaking, Ben Affleck didn't do a bad job as Batman. In fact, if anything, this was not a bad
Batman movie. Wonder Woman was done well(if not terribly necessary). And as a setup for more, for Justice League, I see the makings of it...
But you're right Stumpy. The movie is Batman
VS Superman. Frank Miller did follow the model set by Byrne of what exactly Superman is: the ultimate do-gooder that will follow the rules to a fault. And Miller followed the formula set by the archetype that Batman is, on the same page daglob was going with The Question, a vigilante that will be willing to break the rules to do right, so Miller took the ultimate extension of where those two paths would lead. Someone who will ALWAYS
follow the rules vs someone who will
break the rules. Authority vs chaos.
Snyder didn't do any of that. He sets an excellent narrative of a Superman or a super power that's not restricted by the rule of democracy/majority in a utilitarian approach. And Superman has been and is acting OUTSIDE of that approach. Which is EXACTLY where Batman is. There is no logical extension. Why are they fighting again?
Popcorn.
A bit of language at this link, but it sums up the problems pretty well.
http://www.dorkly.com/post/77697/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman
Superdickery The Movie?
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 08, 2016, 03:06:51 AMA bit of language at this link, but it sums up the problems pretty well.
http://www.dorkly.com/post/77697/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman
That was a compelling critique. The article touched on several things we've discussed in this thread and a few others on which we haven't really focused.
BTW, I know that we live in an era where it's commonplace to use an article (or other media) to stitch together clips (or quotes or whatever) to prove a point that may or may not really be there. But, it's a little sad just how easily the article made Snyder look a bit silly with the whole "I rely on cannon" thing. (Apparently, the cannon of all trees and no forest.) And, it's kind of disturbing just how easily it made him look a bit sociopathic.
Once again, I don't have anything against Snyder, really. Sometimes, his movies' casual use of brutal violence works well to tell the story. It worked well with a movie like
300. I'd say it worked well in
Watchmen. IMO, it really fails in a Superman movie.
Snyder apparently revealed a cut scene. He had a scene in there that shows that Superman's senses allow him to hear plenty of crimes and people in need--which he routinely ignores since he can't help everyone after all. Now that scene could have been cast in a better light, but Superman agonizing over the fact that there's all these people who need help and he can't help them all, but that is not the angle Snyder wanted to show. His Superman is so pragmatic that he'll ignore people in need just because he can't help everyone.
I am reminded of a scene in a comic where Superman sits down to read his fan mail. Lois (they were married at the time) the mentions how much she hates it when he reads his mail, because they are full of request for help and Superman will rush off and spend all his time trying to help people, then get home and feel guilty over all the people he couldn't get to in time or couldn't help. That's the Superman I want to see.
Wow Cat, every time I think I can't hate this movie any more....
Yeah, what you described actually sounds like Superman. I think Zack Snyder should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch All-Star Superman and Superman Vs. The Elite on an endless loop until it sinks in.
That article got a lot right, and they successfully illustrated just how completely and utterly wrong-headed Snyder is about these characters and this universe. He shouldn't be allowed within a football-field length of any comic properties that aren't dystopian and awful already. Yet the article also got something profoundly wrong. They said that there is nothing wrong with a murderous Batman, but that just goes to show that they also don't get it. Yeah, Michael Keaton's Batman may have killed some people in his first on-screen appearance in the modern day, but the thing is, bad stories do not justify more bad stories. In that film, with just a little editing, that problem goes away entirely because it was never about Batman intentionally taking lives. In fact, he goes out of his way to SAVE lives, even trying to save the Joker. Even that film, as crazy as it was, got Batman better than Snyder. Yet, more importantly, whatever stories have been told or will be told, the core concept of the character is one that does not sit comfortably with killing. The man who has seen the most profound of losses, who has experienced the power of redemption, this is not a man who would consent to take a life. A Batman who kills is no longer Batman. He is the Punisher.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 09, 2016, 08:09:44 PM
A Batman who kills is no longer Batman. He is the Punisher.
And yet, I don't doubt that there are people who'd be perfectly happy with that. <_<
Quote from: kkhohoho on April 10, 2016, 03:50:31 AM
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 09, 2016, 08:09:44 PM
A Batman who kills is no longer Batman. He is the Punisher.
And yet, I don't doubt that there are people who'd be perfectly happy with that. <_<
In fact, I have heard many people on the internet, who think that is great and that it isn't even going far enough.
Obviously people who missed Knightfall.Thou,even Azrael didnt kill.
Btw,I guess thats where the Bat-branding comes from.
I have no doubt, and I've heard similar things. That's because people are morons. :P
There are also people that are happy to see Superman kill. There are always those who want to tear down heroes because there is that within us that wants to see heroes fall. We want our heroes to be worse than us so we can feel better about ourselves. Yet, what we want and what we need are often different things. We need heroes who are better than we are, and that is something that Batman and Superman both offer. This becomes all the more true and necessary as our culture darkens.
That's one more thing that Snyder and people defending this film don't get. I've heard about how characters need to evolve with the culture, and to a certain extent that's true. The exact same portrayal used in 1950 obviously won't be accessible today, yet we shouldn't change art just because culture changes. Art, literature specifically, is supposed to be edifying as well as entertaining, and not all cultural change is positive. Just because something is does not make it good. If we've become more violent, cynical, and callous, that's all the more reason to create stories that try to turn that tide backwards.
To be a devils advocate here...maybe they were going for that.Maybe they wanted to show that the world without Justice League would be really bleak.Maybe the next movies will be reconstructions of sort.All a big maybe...
On a different note,I really think DC and WB should make a Kingdom Come movie.
Even within the context of the film series they're constructing, Batman killing doesn't really make sense. If Batman feels justified to kill people extra-judiciously sometimes, how does anyone explain the Joker being alive?
Quote from: Spade on April 10, 2016, 05:02:27 AM
To be a devils advocate here...maybe they were going for that.Maybe they wanted to show that the world without Justice League would be really bleak.Maybe the next movies will be reconstructions of sort.All a big maybe...
On a different note,I really think DC and WB should make a Kingdom Come movie.
Kingdom Come could only be done justice after a regime change at DC/Warner Bros. Then they could adapt it to show what had been so wrong with the previous approach. I wouldn't trust Zack Snyder or the current powers that be at Warners to understand the point of Kingdom Come at all.
Spade, I think you're giving Snyder WAY more credit than he deserves. I think it's clear he doesn't understand the concept of heroism.
I don't want anyone involved with WB within a 1000 miles of Kingdom Come, but yes, a Kingdom Come movie should be made eventually. It's one of the best comic stories of all time and one of my favorites. I'd way rather that get an animated film than the Killing Joke.
:EDIT: :ph34r:
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 10, 2016, 01:33:38 PM
Spade, I think you're giving Snyder WAY more credit than he deserves. I think it's clear he doesn't understand the concept of heroism.
I don't want anyone involved with WB within a 1000 miles of Kingdom Come, but yes, a Kingdom Come movie should be made eventually. It's one of the best comic stories of all time and one of my favorites. I'd way rather that get an animated film than the Killing Joke.
:EDIT: :ph34r:
Well maybe the next one.But yeah,as of current date,I would rather have it as an animated movie.
I did say maybe,but again,I doubt they had so much foresight. Thou,Flash and Shazam are supposed to be lighter in tone,but those are years away.
Quote from: Talavar on April 10, 2016, 01:32:58 PM
Even within the context of the film series they're constructing, Batman killing doesn't really make sense. If Batman feels justified to kill people extra-judiciously sometimes, how does anyone explain the Joker being alive?
Or half the cast of Suicide Squad for that matter. That thought came to me yesterday that this basically implies that Batman only slaughters regular criminals but spares supervillains. Which makes no sense whatsoever.
Good points. If Batman does decide to start killing, Gotham's supervillain population would be the very first on the chopping block!
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 10, 2016, 04:22:44 PM
Good points. If Batman does decide to start killing, Gotham's supervillain population would be the very first on the chopping block!
Wait,wasnt there a What if/Elseworld story with that premise?Im only 40% sure at that...
It would be weirder if nobody explored that idea.
Quote from: bearded on April 05, 2016, 04:34:47 AM
I viewed it as a fan film, with an odd perspective, and was able to really enjoy it. It's simply an elseworld.
That's how I viewed it as well, and the reason I liked it (mixed positive as someone mentioned, would pretty much sum up my opinion of the movie), and can overlook some of the flaws. Same way I watched the Nolan trilogy.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 09, 2016, 08:09:44 PM
They said that there is nothing wrong with a murderous Batman, but that just goes to show that they also don't get it. Yeah, Michael Keaton's Batman may have killed some people in his first on-screen appearance in the modern day, but the thing is, bad stories do not justify more bad stories. In that film, with just a little editing, that problem goes away entirely because it was never about Batman intentionally taking lives. In fact, he goes out of his way to SAVE lives, even trying to save the Joker. Even that film, as crazy as it was, got Batman better than Snyder. Yet, more importantly, whatever stories have been told or will be told, the core concept of the character is one that does not sit comfortably with killing. The man who has seen the most profound of losses, who has experienced the power of redemption, this is not a man who would consent to take a life. A Batman who kills is no longer Batman. He is the Punisher.
He killed the guy who gave him a hard time during the battle in the Belltower. He did try to save the Joker, but he also killed him by strapping his leg to the gargoyle. He dropped the bomb from his Batmobile and killed Joker's thugs in front of Ace Chemicals etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I remember it. That being said I liked the first Keaton film and I agree with you Benton that bad stories don't justify more bad stories.
I really think this movie has a lot of issues, but I also don't think is as bad as people make it out to be. Really want to see them readjust the tone for the Justice league movie. Also would like to see Batman's brutality explained in
his solo film. How it wasn't his usual MO, but that something happened that made him change his ways (already mentioned this in my previous response in this thread). That would make feel a bit easier about the way he acts in BvS.
I'm going to go on record as saying this was a bad movie. The bad was so bad that it can't be saved. The story had good concepts but the execution was terrible. Absolutely terrible. Bats killing people was far and a way not the problem with this movie IMO. It was plagued with bad acting and bad story telling and that's what made it bad. Wonder Woman was a terrible actress. I've seen better acting from Tough Actin Tinactin. There was no chemistry between Afflac and Cavill. These guys probably hung together for maybe half a minute before the shoot. The best performance I saw was Lex Luthor. In fact, his performance was the only thing making the movie worth watching. It just sucks that Synder or whomever doesn't know the difference b/t Lex and the Joker.
I wonder if the "cannon" Snyder is talking about is the very early Golden Age versions of Batman and Superman, when they were more bloodthirsty. I don't think they were ever THAT bloodthirsty, though. I can't remember when it was exactly, sometime like the '70s, the idea was proposed that Robin was a moderating influence on Batman. Thus, no Robin, Batman becomes a dark and edgy character, even brutal and uncaring. So, perhaps Snyder is using parts of comics he liked as a basis for the movie, or he is just making them more "adult". You know, if you make something more adult, you adulterate it.
I'm sure you're right, Bat. It's been some years since I saw the movie. Apparently it had more issues than I thought, but yeah, it still feels better to me. The bomb was the part I was talking about, which at least is less direct than straight up shooting a guy. You could no-prize it (which indicates a failure in the film, I know) that he dropped the bombs and gave them time to scram. Still, either way, Batman shouldn't be killing, regardless of what has happened in the past. The no-kill code for superheroes is a good thing, an important counter-point to the violence in our culture.
Quote from: daglob on April 10, 2016, 07:57:37 PM
I wonder if the "cannon" Snyder is talking about is the very early Golden Age versions of Batman and Superman, when they were more bloodthirsty. I don't think they were ever THAT bloodthirsty, though. I can't remember when it was exactly, sometime like the '70s, the idea was proposed that Robin was a moderating influence on Batman. Thus, no Robin, Batman becomes a dark and edgy character, even brutal and uncaring. So, perhaps Snyder is using parts of comics he liked as a basis for the movie, or he is just making them more "adult". You know, if you make something more adult, you adulterate it.
Nice. I love that, DG.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 10, 2016, 09:22:08 PMThe no-kill code for superheroes is a good thing, an important counter-point to the violence in our culture.
Believe it not, I'm going to disagree with you here. The no-kill rule is not one that makes sense in real life and not one that I would hold all superheroes too. I'm a fan of both the Red Panda audio stories and the Wearing the Cape book series and in both the heroes try to avoid killing anyone but will if it's the only way to protect people. They take basically the same route as real law enforcement, although in Red Panda's case he's does so an unrealistically low amount of times.
However, when we are talking specific heroes, the matter changes. Superman never kills. Batman has his one rule. I consider those essential parts of those characters. Anyone that doesn't get that doesn't get those characters.
I LOVE the Red Panda series, and will happily defend it as some of the best superhero fiction of the 20th and 21st Centuries combined. He only kills one person, outside of war conditions, if I recall, and he regretted that deeply, for multiple reasons. :P
Those are good points, Cat, but two responses:
First, superheroes aren't real life, and if you're dealing with a universe that has a flying, death-ray shooting sungod on the same team as a guy who fights crime by shrinking to six inches tall (for example), realism, as a genre, goes out the window. As long as you've got logical consistency WITHIN the setting, that's enough to make it work. These are, essentially, fantasy settings, and that's something important to keep in mind. These are stories about exceptional people, in more ways than one, and that is an important element in the success and impact of American superheroes. They inhabit worlds that are and should be better than ours, in regards to Marvel and DC.
Second, I don't think the no-kill code applies or SHOULD apply to all superheroes. For example, it makes perfect sense that Captain America is willing to kill in certain situations. He is, after all, a soldier. In the same vein, Thor, Black Widow, and many of the other Avengers have similar backgrounds that account for a different attitude. They should still highly value life, but their perspective is naturally going to be different. I actually had this conversation recently with someone was complaining that people were holding the DC characters up to a higher standard than Marvel, which is true if you don't consider context and craft. There is room for characters like the Punisher and Captain America, and those differences have been and can continue to be the fodder for great stories that wrestle with these questions.
I won't disagree with you there. You just said no-kill rule and left it out there as if it was an absolute thing. That was apparently not your intention.
But I agree that one thing that a lot of people just don't seem to get about superheroes is that they are fantasies. Yes, in real life, Superman would be justified in killing Zod in that situation he was in in Man of Steel--but it isn't real life, it's a fantasy. Part of that fantasy is that Superman is a better man than we ourselves could ever really be. It's a fantasy on what we wish the good guys could be like. Deconstructions and reconstructions of the genre are fine and good. There are several that I really enjoy, in fact, but those should not be done as the flagship movies for the flagship characters.
As for the Red Panda, they show willingness to kill on multiple occasions--they just usually find a way to avoid it.
Spoiler
I can recall one direct Red Panda attempted death, although the bad guy in question lived, the Flying Squirrel orders her agents to kill a villain for her. The Red Panda is also perfectly willing to throw a villain into the death trap Harry's in knowing he might die, although he picks the one most likely to survive it. (which he does) The Red Panda, Flying Squirrel, and their agents also slaughter thousands of invading Draxites at one point.
Right Cat, your response was perfectly appropriate given what I said. I was happy to expand on it.
Precisely. Well said.
Red Panda:
Spoiler
Von Schlitz, the first one, is who I was talking about. I'm not sure I remember the next two. As for the Draxites, there is always a fuzzy line with non-human, demonic types. The Flying Squirrel is also generally less merciful than Gus (which is one of the many reasons the two remind me of me and my wife :lol:).
About that
Spoiler
There's only one Von Schlitz. RP tried to have him killed, but he survived. He doesn't really regret it. He said that he felt bad about doing it, but would still do it again.
So I've been thinking about the whole no-kill thing as well, because I agree completely with Benton's assertions about several of the Marvel characters... I don't mind Captain America killing an enemy, because he's a soldier. He shouldn't go out of his way to do so, but if he has no other option, he'll do so. But again, it's on a case by case basis... and it's done with an overall respect for human life.
And really, I don't think it's unfair to criticize BvS for that exact reason: There is a difference between killing a person to service the greater good, and mowing people down in the Batmobile. Rooster Teeth recently did a video (basically a rebuttal to BvS) about a henchman who constantly got beaten up by Batman... he wasn't an unrepentant monster, he was just a dude who took a job guarding some drug shipments because that's what he had to do to survive in Gotham. And in the comics, we see this ALL THE TIME... Batman might rough them up to stop the shipment or whatever, but he'll make jobs available for them as Bruce Wayne. Heck, that's a major plot point in "Old Wounds" from the DCAU. But BvS Batman doesn't care about that. He'll just gun down people for being in his way. It doesn't matter if they could be redeemed.
Yes, there ARE people who should be killed. Unrepentant monsters like the Joker, or Zsasz, or a dozen others. And even if you think Batman should kill those people (and I'd argue even that, since I believe that's up to an impartial Justice system) that's not what we're shown. He doesn't kill the man responsible for hundreds of deaths at the end, he only kills random dudes who happen to be around when his batmobile comes around the corner. That's not only immoral, it's inconsistent to the story's own internal logic. THAT is the biggest sin of all this.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 11, 2016, 12:51:13 AM
About that
Spoiler
There's only one Von Schlitz. RP tried to have him killed, but he survived. He doesn't really regret it. He said that he felt bad about doing it, but would still do it again.
Cat:
Spoiler
That's what I meant, and the 'multiple ways' was about how much trouble it caused him later. Von Schlitz never stopped trying to get revenge until he finally died, for real.
Great points, 'Mato. Right, if you're willing to kill 'for the greater good,' then Luthor should totally be taken out. Clearly this guy is too dangerous to live. Yet, there's nothing even remotely just or moral to this character's actions in regards to his stance on lethal force. He kills for convenience, it seems, rather than for any "good" reason.
Of course, this cuts in more than one direction. This is why you can't make your villains TOO evil in comics and let them live, because if you do, the end result is just too awful to accept. This was the problem with Aquaman when Black Manta killed his son. To have his son's murder just running around out there...that take things too far.
Two points that this last page or so of discussion has brought to my mind.
First, I agree with the "inconsistent internal film logic" issues and I will add another example. If Batman thinks it's okay to kill because he needs to or because it's a dark world or whatever ends-justifies-the-means excuse he was allegedly holding to, then it totally undermines his criticism of Superman at the beginning of the film. After all, Superman's goal was to stop enemies (Zod & Co.) who were definitely going to kill billions of humans by terraforming ("kryptoforming"?) the planet to be generally unsuitable for human life. If one thinks that the ends justify the means, it's hard to do better than that. If Superman is a poor hero when he (unintentionally) levels parts of Metropolis to stop planet-wide genocide, then what does that make Batman when he runs over random thugs for... expediency?
I also accept that comics are fantasies and there's nothing wrong with holding some of our comic heroes to a standard that might not be attainable in the real world. This goes to my oft-repeated point that portrayals of some superheroes that focus too much on making the hero "accessible" tend to undermine the essence of the character. Many superheroes are who they are because they do things that we would not do, even given their abilities. I really wish Mr. Snyder understood that the fact that I might have killed Zod is a weak, weak, weak rationale for Superman doing it. If, at some point in the movie where Superman (or Batman) has to do something morally unpleasant, if Snyder expects the viewer to think, "I guess I might have done that", then it's an indication that the superhero would have found a better way out of the situation. The fact that a random person (even a good person) might feel "justified" in doing X does not mean that X is what a superhero would do. "Justified" is a low bar. "Heroic" is a better standard for the genre.
BTW, I haven't followed Cap in comics for some time, but my understanding (and pretty much my expectation) is that Cap is okay with killing soldiers in a wartime situation. And, IMO, he, being someone who has been in a real war, isn't one of those folks who defines pretty much any violent situation as "war" or who sees the various rhetorical "wars" (e.g. "The war on bogeyman-of-the-week") as excuses to kill.
I like the comparison to law enforcement.Thats kinda how I would explain the whole thing.IIRC for a while JLA was licenced as a gov. Agency.Which made Trial of Green Arrow pretty pointless.
Ehem...there are dozens of stories about heroes who were not emotionaly fit for the job.Superman and Batman should not be counted in those.
I personally enjoyed it. It is at least not the anti-christ of a movie that everyone else on the internet thinks it is...
Apparently, it's been revealed that every memeber of the suicide squad was captured by Batman.
So yeah, slaughters thugs but spares supervillains.
Jerk.
Somebody probably said it by now but: Worst.Batman.Ever.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on April 16, 2016, 05:32:28 PM
Apparently, it's been revealed that every memeber of the suicide squad was captured by Batman.
So yeah, slaughters thugs but spares supervillains.
Jerk.
Lol
That's an an interesting downside to a superhero not having a code against killing. If he kills sometimes, then every time he fails to kill some baddy, it invites a criticism about his lack of proportionality. Of course, in theory (except for characters like the Punisher) he isn't killing to exact justice/vengeance anyway; he kills because it seemed expedient or it met some sort of utilitarian goal (he killed one to save another, etc.). But, that won't stop the comparisons about who got killed and whether or not they "deserved" it as much as someone who didn't.
The Joker is on that list. Few villains NEED killing more than him.
Stumpy, thus the inherent flaw with characters that violate the no-kill code and who are not named "Punisher." The impossibility of justly weighing one life in proportion to another, a judgement that is quite beyond the capacity of anyone, is key to the no-kill code. That's what folks like Superman and Batman realize.
DG, ha, I'd argue that NO villain needs killing more than him, at least no earthly villain.
I wouldn't call this is a problem with superheroes that kill, but rather a problem with this particular case. It's simply inconsistent. For the sake of the story, they need all these villains alive, so it creates a strange case of Batman only killing the relatively harmless. The only case where this might make sense is if they reveal that these were only the lucky ones and that he slaughtered dozens of other supervillains. Which would be problematic in a different way but would at least be logically consistent.
Perhaps he caught them before he began to kill criminals? They might have been in prison for a while, maybe longer than he's been killing goons.
We don't really know how long it has been since the Joker killed Robin (the most likely cause for Batman switching over), so I don't quite buy the "Kills normal people; keeps supervillains alive" argument just yet.
Quote from: BentonGrey on April 17, 2016, 01:33:14 AM
Stumpy, thus the inherent flaw with characters that violate the no-kill code and who are not named "Punisher." The impossibility of justly weighing one life in proportion to another, a judgement that is quite beyond the capacity of anyone, is key to the no-kill code. That's what folks like Superman and Batman realize.
DG, ha, I'd argue that NO villain needs killing more than him, at least no earthly villain.
Which is pretty impressive considering this universe also has Black Manta,Major Force,Dr. Light,Felix Faust,Anton Arcane,Vandal Savage;Joker even manages to stand out in Batmans rogue gallery.Which includes Victor ZsasZ,James Gordon Jr,Black Mask,Deacon Blackfire...and that's not even counting cosmic and universal threats.
It speaks volumes that Joker is the only Bat-villain without any redeeming qualities in the DCAU.
I had sort of a long post criticizing some of the other aspects of Snyder's Batman-kills portrayal in this light. Let's face it, Batman didn't seem all that new to the policy when he ran down that thug or used pretty-clearly-lethal weapons on others. He wasn't shocked or upset at what he had done. So, it would seem unusual if he has only recently decided that killing is okay. Meanwhile, both BvS and Suicide Squad are movies set in the present-day. And, the Suicide Squad characters aren't 50-year-olds who Batman put away decades ago, so these terrible killers (who are often really vicious, homicidal, and remorseless) somehow escaped Batman's ultimate judgement in the not-too-distant past. I think it's a legitimate criticism to point that out and to point out a pretty serious moral incongruity, at least without some pretty serious backpedaling.
(And, yes, I admit that there are several potential loopholes here, arguably in the classic comic book tradition. Batman might have been brainwashed by the Luthor/Darkseid video. We don't know how many of the Suicide Squad characters are part of Batman's rogue's gallery in this movie universe. Etc.)
But, part of the problem in discussing this is that the portrayal of Batman vis-à-vis killing in BvS is just not very consistent. As noted before, despite the scenes where it may seem pretty clear that he is just straight up killing low-level baddies, there are other parts of the movie where it totally seems like that must not be what Batman does. The most obvious example of this is Clark's confrontation with Bruce at the Luthor party. There is no way that that Clark would have limited his criticism of Batman to "civil rights violations" if Batman was actually killing people. I mean, that would be ignoring the mountain to complain about the mole hill.
So, Snyder has presented a character who kills and seems not that bothered about killing. At the same time, he presents a character who must not really be killing. Why? Because an in-movie critic who would clearly have pointed out that killing as an egregious flaw ignores it, instead highlighting a serious-but-unquestionably-lesser issue.
BTW, this isn't at all to let Snyder off the hook. To my mind, presenting a character who isn't coherent within the framework of the film is a serious problem. I think the framework itself is likely flawed, but we can't even definitively discuss it because there isn't a consistent portrayal of what the character is really doing.
People working on Suicide Squad recently stated that every single member of the squad was captured by Batman. Which also means the police, military, and all other superheroes are basically incompetent if no one else in the entire country can manage to capture even one of them.
Well, it means that Batman caught them before anyone else who was trying did, not necessarily that Batman is the only person who ever would have caught them.
But, even if the latter were the case, I would not be terribly bothered by it. Batman is traditionally way better at catching the bad guys than ordinary people (police, etc.) and at least on par with most superheroes. Additionally, many of Batman's rogue's gallery don't normally come up on the radars of other superheroes, so most superheroes wouldn't have tried to catch them. On top of all of that, the premise of BvS seems to be that there aren't that many superheroes active yet, at least who are operating with a public profile, which is why Lex's video was news to Batman.
I finally saw this last night. Sadly, I can't un-see it.
As I watched the credits roll down I pondered how something so horrendous like this was made. Then I saw the words "Frank Miller" littered around. Everything suddenly made sense.
I still haven't seen it. In large part because based on the things I've heard/seen combined with how I feel about these characters, there is almost no chance I won't hate it :( Still, I'm willing to give it a shot eventually.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/You-Can-Now-Explore-Batcave-Through-Google-Maps-120877.html
<_<
I should probably let this just die down, but I saw part of an interview with Zack Snyder:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565932/zack-snyder-justice-league
It makes me wonder who in their right minds would ever think he was the proper director for a Superman movie.
What in the.... :blink:
Are we sure that Zack Snyder isn't just Lex Luthor trying to end the Justice League once and for all?
Well, at least he's getting people talking, that's for sure.
So he wanted to do Watchmen 2,but WB wouldnt let him?Thats the message Im getting.
Ugh. He's one of those guys who looks at superheroes and thinks "wouldn't it be better if they killed people." Get this man away from DC as fast as possible.
That's quite telling. You know, it's understandable to have that point of view when you're 16 and stupid (I did to a degree, and I was), but to still have it when you're 50 is something else entirely. That speaks volumes.
Quote from: daglob on May 03, 2016, 04:37:22 AM
I should probably let this just die down, but I saw part of an interview with Zack Snyder:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565932/zack-snyder-justice-league
It makes me wonder who in their right minds would ever think he was the proper director for a Superman movie.
[Orange emphasis mine.] I am hoping that it's someone who had not seen that interview.
I was never a huge fan of the Superman movies of the 70s and 80s. But, I liked them and at least didn't feel like they were portraying a character I didn't recognize. Then, the 2006 Superman film came out and I cringed a little. Sure, the pacing was too slow and the plot of Lex basically running the same scam that he did in Superman (I) were problems, but that really wasn't the real flaw. The flaw was in the character. Superman as someone who left a pregnant Lois to explore his past didn't really work for me. (Whether he didn't know that she was pregnant when he left or left anyway doesn't really matter. Neither works.) Superman as someone who stalks Lois and undermines the stable life she has built for herself and her child didn't work for me. The character was
off.
Then Man of Steel comes out and the technical parts of the movie are great. Awesome special effects, Superman's flight and powers looked like they were brought totally up-to-date with today's impressive special effects. And, I can ignore dumb plot devices like Jor-El basically being alive and Lois being involved in things for essentially no reason except that the actor needed to be on screen long enough to justify a kiss later on. But the characters were still off. And, way more off that even the 2006 film. Jonathan Kent telling Clark that, given a choice between letting his secret out and standing by why people die right in front of him, maybe he should let them die? Really, Mr. Snyder?
That's who you think raised Superman? And, of course, Clark takes his "revenge" on some bonehead trucker by destroying his truck (and his cargo) in a way that definitely
definitely would have ended up on a thousand Facebook walls and at least the local news. Yes, a cool visual and I can forgive the secret identity plot hole that creates. But, that's who Snyder's Superman is? Someone who can't let go of a petty confrontation in a bar?
I am getting old. I don't want to wait another ten years for Warner to reboot the DC movie universe and "get it right".
I don't want a generation growing up thinking that Superman would be a cooler hero if he killed more people. Or the same of Batman.
I don't want a Justice League with a Cyborg who makes peoples' eyes explode with his sonic attacks or a Flash who snaps peoples' necks at super speed or an Aquaman who swims the baddies down 30 meters while their eardrums burst and leaves them there to drown. Does Zack Snyder think those things would be okay? Can anyone say "no" with any confidence?
Not that all comics characters should be decent or even have a code against killing. Here's an idea for WB: Ease Zack Snyder out of the driver's seat by putting him in charge of the Suicide Squad franchise and let that be it for him. His brand of "heroism" works in that group. Where, notably, most of the characters aren't really heroes.
Nothing to add that hasn't been said already, except to joke that DC hired 90's Kid from Atop the Fourth Wall or the overzealous violence-obsessed fanboy from Shortpacked to direct their movies.
Superman is supposed to be about wonder (as in, "You'll believe a man can fly") and hope and inspiration and optimism ("Truth, Justice, and the American Way", "The Man of Tomorrow"). The sequence where Clark first takes flight in Man of Steel definitely delivered on the wonder, but the rest doesn't really seem to be much of an element in the new movies.
Zack Snyder reminds me of Jennifer Garner in 13 Going On 30. A young teenager who overnight gets to live out his dreams of being a grown up but he can't actually do it right because he lacks any kind of maturity.
Back to an earlier theme-Batmans whole justification for killing Superman is that hes not human so that makes it okay.Kinda racist?
Having grown up with Loebs Superman-Batman,I never really considered them enemies.People tend to forget DKR is an Elseworld story.Just wanted to say that. :-)
Actually I find it ironic (and kind of refreshing) that the comic given away for free to promote Batman V Superman? Jeph Loeb's Superman/Batman #1. And I quite enjoyed it to be honest (I read the first two arcs or so about a decade ago and back then Ed McGuinness' art had yet to grow on me). I've personally never jumped on the Loeb sucks bandwagon. There's a camaraderie and mutual respect between Bats and Supes in that book, that amusingly, the webcomic Shortpacked joked was homoerotic. A nice counter to their animosity here and in DKR.
The whole idea of Batman beating the other heroes seemed to really balloon in memetic popularity due to Mark Waid's JLA arc Tower of Babel, and the rise of internet culture. That, and every other Batman event and DC event having Bats as a paranoid jerk only helped fuel this take on the character. Now Batman being this kind of uber-perfected human who can beat anyone but is also really untrusting is a really prominent interpretation.
There's an arc of the Justice League cartoon in the first season, where Batman defeats the entirety of the Injustice Gang in about a minute or two, by himself, including Solomon Grundy, without taking a single hit until he fights the two characters introduced for that arc. It's awesome, but utterly ridiculous. Yet in another arc featuring the team it's a group effort, while Joker sneaks up on him and knocks him out with a bag of rocks.
The characterization of Batman kinda differs that way, sometimes within the same canon.
Remember Young Justice,when Clayface is wrecking the whole team and Batman just walks in and tases him?
His record isnt actually 100%.He couldnt touch Swamp Thing,Prometheus beat him up(because its Prometheus),and in Lex Luthor,Man of Steel-Superman kicked the crap out of him.I think thats the only win for Superman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__GUjaaBng -Ben Affleck is taking over as executive producer of the Justice League movie, where he will be "fine tuning" the script, and will be overseeing and have final say on post-production for the film. Which is to also say Zack Snyder does not have final say on those things anymore.
Probably a good thing?
Well, it could hardly get any worse...
Quote from: BentonGrey on May 10, 2016, 03:33:38 PM
Well, it could hardly get any worse...
Don't tempt fate, Benton! It could always get worse!
True Talavar, true.
Quote from: BentonGrey on May 10, 2016, 04:35:48 PM
True Talavar, true.
True indeed. Just imagine if they got Frank Miller to direct it and Mark Millar to write the script. 'Miller and Millar's Justice League.' Better yet, 'Miller and Millar's Aquaman.' I'd say they'd definitely be worth watching, but not necessarily for the right reasons. ;)
To be fair,Mark Millars movies work out better then his comics.Seeing he writes for a movie,thats to be expected.
And his works for DC were pretty good.Granted,Grant Morrison was involved in some.But Mark would still be a better choice then Snyder IMHO.
For some crazy reason, I went and bought this movie. As I have yet to see it and it includes the extended version, I will be watching both (theatrical first) and reporting back.
Yeah, I'd really like to hear how the Ultimate Cut (or whatever it was called) stacks up to the Theatrical Cut.
The movie was as terrible as I heard. It wasn't great, but it wasn't that bad either. Still outclassed by pretty much everything Marvel has done. A few tweaks here and there and a different Luthor and it could have been good.
Jesse Eisenberg was a fantastic villain very good. I can see why non comic book fans loved him so much he's fantastic--just not as Lex Luthor. He isn't Luthor at all.
Killer Batman still bugs me, but there's indications that this is recent and he wasn't always that way. Still not an excuse.
I'm okay with Gal as Wonder Woman. She isn't the greatest physical fit, but I like the accent and can play the role pretty well. Batflek isn't bad, just needs a better script and to lighten up a bit.
Some thoughts I wrote as I watched it.
Spoiler
So I decided to write things as I watched it. A few minutes in and I am utterly bored. The originas of Batman are quite well done, but I've seen this all several times before just as well done. They could have done a 30 seconds recap of it. I really don't need nearly 5 mintues of something we've already had like 10 different versions of boring.
The redo of Superman vs Zod is better. You don't often see the collateral damage from the perspective the ordinary folks on the ground. They should have opened up directly with this.
Terrorist scene--no idea what the shooting and fighting is about. Also, Superman apparently kills someone by putting him through a wall. No one could survive that.
So did the witness just say Superman killed a bunch of bad government soldiers, cause that's what it sounds like she is saying. Ah, next scene explains the last two questions.
Opening scene with Batman was cool, although I don't like the branding. So Batman has only done the branding thing twice. Recent thing.
That's definitely not Luthor.
Why's Wayne doing Batman stuff as himself? They could have put Matches Malone instead. Never seen Batman this careless with his identity.
I'm kinda liking this Alfred.
Clark leaving the party and letting Bruce go to save the little girl was at least in character. The reaction afterwards at least make sense.
I actually like the first meeting between Bruce and Diana.
Only 1 definite death in the chase scene. Still bad, but not as bad as I'd heard.
Okay, now it looks like killer batman, judging by all the stretchers, only it's likely mostly innocent LexCorp people. Yesh. That's ever worse.
Why did they let them so easily figure out the wheelchair bomber did it? And how does "he didn't stop it" equal to him being party of it? Better that they didn't know it was a bomber and assume he used his heat vision or whatever. That would at least explain why Batman goes after him.
The Martha thing's still sudden, but not so bad as I thought.
Batman finally gets to do what he does best. After a slaughters a few grunts. But after that, it's good.
Why'd Superman just level a block? I know Batman said the area was abandoned, but that was only afterwards.
Of course Lois is hanging out in the "abandoned" area. For no apparent reason. With enough time for her to have gotten the spear someone safe. Sigh.
Batman is clearly outclassed again Doomsday, but he managed to just barely stay alive. Good that they aren't portraying him as perfect at everything.
I will watch the extended version in a few days probably and report back.