Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice [Archive] - Page 4

Bry

07-18-2015, 09:52 AM

And that's fair. I get that. Superman doesn't need to change but the way I see it, he didn't. Sure, the film itself was darker and that's a huge turn off but in terms of character, I thought they nailed it. They captured a side to him that most people don't see and personally, I think it's for the best. Just like the misconception that Aquaman is useless, there's many out there who see Superman as this overpowered boring guy who never struggles and that's just not true. I agree that Man of Steel is nowhere near the definitive Superman film, but it's still good to know that many people out there have given him a chance and can now appreciate his character because of Man of Steel.

I can appreciate what they were going for, and yeah, he should be a character who struggles and has true depth. I definitely like seeing his human side. But even then, to me, they missed the mark of capturing "my" Superman. They dipped too far in the opposite direction for my tastes. I can understand the appeal to others, but I think it misses the point of Superman. He's supposed to struggle, but he's also supposed to rise above brutality and find a better way.

Also, there's nothing blinding about ignoring nostalgia. It just means your judgment isn't clouded by personal feelings towards something.

I think either extreme can be equally blinding -- ignoring nostalgia can mean completely rejecting anything "old", and that can mean ignoring or dismissing a lot of the essential elements that make something work.

I think it's best to have a healthy balance. Don't necessarily cling to everything from older/nostalgic versions, but don't completely throw it all out, either. Some of it still works. Some of it is necessary.

He was Superman for about 24 hours when he fights Zod. In Superman Returns he'd been Superman for years. Why is this ignored?

But even then, he should have similar priorities and have certain lines he won't cross. He may be inexperienced, but he should have the same character. He doesn't need to be flawless in the role yet by any stretch, but I think it's fair to say that Superman shouldn't be as aloof/oblivious to collateral damage or as willing to kill as he was in that movie. I guess your mileage may vary, but I don't think lack of experience alone can explain that away.

Bry: Returns has the best-shot and most dramatically exciting action scenes of any Superman film. People don't like to admit that, but it's true. Visually, there's very little wrong with the movie. It's my personal favorite film in the franchise for a lot of reasons; although it mostly squeaks by over the first one on points. It definitely had the best visual use of all his powers without flat-out breaking the rules and making up new ones, like all the earlier movies did.

Thank you. I actually really like Returns (or at least I really like parts of it). I could watch that sequence of him saving civilians and the plane rescue scene every day, honestly. :lol:

Spacey was a good choice for Lex Luthor, but the whole "land scheme" plot was pretty lame and nonsensical (though they get bonus points for Lex stabbing Superman with a Kryptonite shiv) and Singer really clung too closely to the Donner films overall. And Superman as a deadbeat dad was just... not a great idea, you guys. But I liked Routh, liked the style, and felt there was a lot of potential for a great sequel. Ah well.

One thing I don't think enough people are factoring in, that's almost assuredly deliberate, is that the visual tone of this series is "dark" for a reason. They're doing the same thing they did in Nolan's trilogy where each film gradually gets lighter and brighter as the hero "rises" from the darkness. In this universe, it's being used to help put over that this world, pre-Superman and pre-super-heroes, is a dark and uncertain place. Gradually, as we can see right away in this film, the color scale starts to change and get brighter, until the point where the JLA will eventually stand before humanity as its protectors. The heroes themselves are the "light" in this universe; as we get deeper into the films, the lighting and colors gradually change. The whole "It's Darkest before Dawn" thing. I don't have a link, but I definitely read something on it; the general feeling in doing it was, "it worked in the last trilogy, let's do it again". It may not be to everyone's taste but at least there's a reason for it. It's the entire idea behind calling the film "Dawn of Justice". They're not exactly subtle about that kind of thing.

Well, Zack Snyder's not exactly subtle about much of anything. :lol:

I mean, hopefully you're right and they'll get where I want them to be eventually. I'm open for that. But cribbing from Batman movies for a Superman series just doesn't work for me. I love that stuff in Batman stories, but that tone and those themes will never work for me applied to Superman.

Meanwhile, I *did* stumble upon a Spoiler that makes me a little bummed out. There's finally something I'm 100% against in this thing. It's related to the Robin costume, to give you a hint before you decide to click the tab or not...
So I saw a photo someone was able to grab from the trailer, that shows a large gravestone that reads "Richard John Grayson". So the Robin memorial in the Batcave isn't Jason Todd's, it's apparently Dick Grayson's. So in this universe, apparently there was only ONE Robin, Grayson, and he was the one killed by the Joker. Which means we won't be getting any Nightwing in this DC film universe. :ohwell:

I get it, I totally get it... "keep it simple" and all that, plus the fact they never ever want to even use any of the Robin stuff at all anyway... and it's not gonna kill things for me... but it would've been nice. :ohwell: Ah well, can't have everything.

Ugh. What? No. Awful.

DC & WB seem to have a huge chip on their shoulder about Robin, don't they? DC's been teasing or trying to kill off Dick Grayson for years, and WB basically refuses to use him in most Batman movies. Which is fine - if you don't want to use him, then just don't use him. But this just seems needlessly unpleasant, especially for that version of the character.

I despise that as well. I want there to be a legacy of Robins, so we can see all four of the boys. But no...

Yeah, I'm with you. Going with an established Batman is such a great way to bring in Nightwing and Tim Drake and maybe even Damian Wayne. They're all great characters to deserve to be done justice on the big screen.

I've been seeing this idea pop up lately but Bryan Cranston would have totally made a great Commissioner Gordon.

I thought he was a pretty great Gordon in this:

lcEMFte9-ag

sdp

07-18-2015, 03:28 PM

I'll keep the Nolan trilogy in continuity in my headcanon until big contradictions arise. They give us a great origin and a few adventures when he was "new". Counting how successful TDK trilogy was I doubt they'll contradict it outright, they'll just ignore it since they don't want to be bogged down by its continuity for future films. Same with the new Green Lantern Corps movie and the GL movie we got not too long ago. Movie was fairly decent, it just tried too hard to be like a Marvel movie. We won't be getting a new Hal Jordan origin movie so to me that is going to be Hals origin, doubt it'll be contradicted. Similar to The Incredible Hulk keeping a loose continuity with the Universal Hulk film.

Talking about GL, I remember the SDCC panel when asked about a DC Cintematic Universe, they mentioned they'd just be exploring characters individually without crossing over because simply "DC characters are bigger[well known]", we all saw how that turned out haha..If GL had done fairly well we would've gotten a Flash film after it and eventually a JL film that followed the Marvel cookie cutter formula. At least that bomb made DC re-think their strategy and jump straight into their "multiverse".

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-18-2015, 06:10 PM

It's ignored because few people think Superman returns when they Think Superman.

I agree with your opinion in the spoiler.
The countless deaths that evolved Doomsday is a rather unique idea. I also liked that he just kind of showed up out of nowhere, this mysterious unstoppable force. Luthor getting involved waters it down.

I wasn't talking about Superman Returns being ignored. Someone mentioned they wanted to see Superman saving people as he was in Superman Returns. I am simply stating that the Superman in MoS and the Superman in Returns are drastically far apart in experience being Superman. MoS Superman has literally just put on that suit learned to fly when he is thrown into the fight with Zod. Returns Superman, had been patrolling the city for years. He knows what to look for, listen for etc...

And I agree with you about Doomsday, that's the reason why I don't want him to be created by Luthor. I think if he just shows up like he did in the comics, it actually helps Batman cope with Superman being there. Doomsday is basically a natural disaster. The world NEEDS Superman to defeat it. I just think it cheapens it if he's created in a lab.

Some people want Superman to be a regular joe, someone they totally relate to. I've never looked at it that way. When i read him in the comics, I don't read him that way. Superman should be better, in every way, than we are. It's his perfection that drives the conflict in his life. He is constantly chanllenged by the fact the the world isn't built with him in mind. He's too strong, so he needs to be gentle - he's to fast, so he must slow down. you get the jist.

A good writer doesn't need to de-power him, or use Kryptonite, or alter the character to fit the story; they should instead write the story that fits the character.

But It's symptomatic of your generation - everything needs to be about you, a representation of you, how you feel, what you want who you are. If you can't identify with the character then it's wrong. if you don't see a 100% inclusive cast of all ethnicities, it sucks. Every thing must be a representation of everyone all the time.

It's sad actually. With so many restrictions to the type of story's that meet the criteria of the moral police, it's no wonder every film is exactly the same.

You might be happy they changed Superman - and that's fine, but recognize that they are changing him, and tweaking it to mirror Gen Z's hopeless narcissism.

Well...I think it's silly to think Superman is perfect morally and physically. He was raised in America, this alone leaves room for him to be morally corrupt in some ways. He is from another planet, and that gives him powers on earth, but it certainly does not just make him morally perfect.

I might be completely off base here, and it's just something I choose to believe when I watch anything with Superman, or read anything with him. I am an Atheist, and I believe Superman is one too. He fights for good because he can. He does not use religion, although a lot of people latch onto the religious undertones of his stories, Superman himself does not preach a religion. So to me, that is more impressive than say, "well I'm going to be good, so I can get to heaven". He is essentially saying "I am going to be good because I have the power to, and it's the right thing to do.". Again, I could be wrong about this, but it's the way I interpret it.

But even then, he should have similar priorities and have certain lines he won't cross. He may be inexperienced, but he should have the same character. He doesn't need to be flawless in the role yet by any stretch, but I think it's fair to say that Superman shouldn't be as aloof/oblivious to collateral damage or as willing to kill as he was in that movie. I guess your mileage may vary, but I don't think lack of experience alone can explain that away.

Again, in MoS he had been Superman for 24 hours, never been in a fight before, had been struggling with how he was going to use his powers, also struggling with trusting humans or a fellow Kryptonian. He'd lived on Earth his whole life, and knew how humans can react.

And you may see him as aloof/oblivious...I see it as an inexperience man trying to stop an out of control soldier with equal power. And "as willing to kill" you people act like he defeated Zod, walked up to him and snapped his neck for no reason. Please, someone, tell me how was he going to stop Zod? Pick him up and fly him to outer space? Zod can do exactly what Superman can do, he'd just fly back. Again, he'd been Superman for 24 hours. There were no prisons set up to hold Zod, no Kryptonite to stop him. He knew in that moment he HAD to end Zod's life to save the lives of others. He immediately regretted it too. That is not someone who just willing to kill someone. Maybe I just enjoy the realism of these situations more than others. I think it's unrealistic for him NOT to kill Zod.

Commenter 42

07-18-2015, 09:06 PM

Well...I think it's silly to think Superman is perfect morally and physically. He was raised in America, this alone leaves room for him to be morally corrupt in some ways. He is from another planet, and that gives him powers on earth, but it certainly does not just make him morally perfect.

I might be completely off base here, and it's just something I choose to believe when I watch anything with Superman, or read anything with him. I am an Atheist, and I believe Superman is one too. He fights for good because he can. He does not use religion, although a lot of people latch onto the religious undertones of his stories, Superman himself does not preach a religion. So to me, that is more impressive than say, "well I'm going to be good, so I can get to heaven". He is essentially saying "I am going to be good because I have the power to, and it's the right thing to do.". Again, I could be wrong about this, but it's the way I interpret it.

Ok, I don't understand why you brought up the morality, because that wasn't my point, but I guess?

My point is that when I think of Superman, he's perfect, to a fault. His Perfection, in an imperfect world is a handicap. It makes him an outsider.

As I've said before, I'm also an Atheist. You might even call me an Antitheist ( Hitchens would be so proud!) so I think I understand your point, but I think this might be what's driving our disagreement.

I don't want Superjesus. I don't like the numerous Christian references shoved into MOS. I feel, Snyder demonizes science throughout. It's my biggest gripe. I'm not interested in giving Superman to the Christian Right. They can't have him.

"From my cold, dead hands!"

Donners films didn't resort to such heavy handed analogies. No doubt, you can draw some parallels, but they sure as hell didn't decide the villain of the film was evolution.

As far as Super morality, well, I agree. But I don't agree that being Superman is difficult for him, as far as doing the right thing, or being generally super. The people around him make his superness hard (some, not all). And, even if it is hard, he'd never let you know.

He puts other people before himself, in big ways and little ways. The good in him should make you smile.

He was raised by a decent family, not a perfect family, sure. But the odd morals of MOS Ma&Pa are...odd.

But here's the thing-he shouldn't mope. He shouldn't indulge in self pity. He shouldn't be reckless. He shouldn't inspire fear. That guy is a different character.

As for the 24 hour thing, well, he had his powers since he was a boy in MOS.
Snyder wanted him to be lost, lonely, confused, depressed and angry. He wanted a mirror of post 911 America, coupled with teen angst. He started there, so he would have somewhere to go, so 3 movies later, he could complete the journey from Everyman to superman. To bring us onside, he decided to make the character like any one of the teens in the theater seats. He thinks that superman is a character you should relate to, not admire. It's a cheap way to draw a character arc, and more importantly, cookie cutter, and who the hell wants that?

I can't argue that the big blue hasn't undergone change over his 82 year life, but I can stamp my feet in protest. Perhaps I am a dinosaur as my eloquent friend put it, or maybe Leo's right, and Superman is just a normal guy who can breath in Space an punch through mountains.

For me, he's an Ideal, not a peer. He's the hero I wish was, over the man I am. I refuse to allow that idea to fade, or be replaced by a pandering imposter. No. Not Superman.

...."trash"....

WTF.

Xiewin

07-18-2015, 09:30 PM

I am an Atheist, and I believe Superman is one too.

Why exactly would superman be an atheist?

Commenter 42

07-18-2015, 09:37 PM

Why exactly would superman be an atheist?

Lol.

Great. Here. We. Go.

Xiewin

07-18-2015, 09:40 PM

Lol I'm not trying to start any type of argument, just being curious here.

Commenter 42

07-18-2015, 09:54 PM

Lol I'm not trying to start any type of argument, just being curious here.

My best guess? DC doesn't own the rights to Jesus™, and drawing Mohammed isn't a great idea.

Superman could be a Buddhist. Pretty sure the monks don't own him.

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-18-2015, 11:06 PM

Ok, I don't understand why you brought up the morality, because that wasn't my point, but I guess?

My point is that when I think of Superman, he's perfect, to a fault. His Perfection, in an imperfect world is a handicap. It makes him an outsider.

I brought it up because you said he should be perfect in every way. That means making morally perfect decisions, such as killing Zod or not killing Zod.

You said he should be perfect. That just doesn't really make sense to me. How can he MENTALLY be perfect. You said a lot about him having that teenage angst and moodiness, I don't think if he grew up on Krypton he would've been acting any different. He IS human except for the fact he was born in another galaxy. He still grows, and matures like a human does. I think that's an interesting take on Clark, growing into what Superman becomes. I think Mr. Perfect, what you want to see, would turn a lot of people off. I have a few friends who hate Superman, because he's "perfect". "What's the point of caring if he can't get hurt or never has any struggles?" that's what I've heard from a lot of people. Those people saw MoS and actually really enjoyed it. There are things you can take away from this type of origin story, like no matter how badly you are treated, made to feel left out etc... there is a place for you to do some good.

I just watched MoS again, all this talk had me wanting another view of it. A few things I noticed.

Jonathan isn't preaching to Clark about being good. He's basically saying "hey hold onto these powers until you feel like you know what you want to do with them. Whether it's good or bad, you are going to change the world." His ultimate hope was that Clark would use them for good. But during that car scene before Jonathan dies, he sees Clark is still immature, still has some anger. He's not ready to be the savior the world needs.

Clark has gone his whole life avoiding fights. He has used some of his powers but never in a fight, and never to the extent he ends up using them by the end of the movie. This goes with my argument of him being Superman for 24 hours. There is a scene when he's fighting Zod and Zod launches a few cars up in the air and one of them falls on Superman right before he hits Zod. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say he's inexperienced. He doesn't know these things, he's never been trained. He's done everything on his own.

" I was bred to be a warrior, Kal. Trained my entire life to master my senses. Where did you train? ON A FARM?!" This again helps my point. I cannot wrap my head around Superman being able to control where Zod is throwing him, or when Zod breaks the Wayne Satellite in half and throws it towards Earth, Superman tries to stop it, and Zod hammers him, stopping him. This foe in particular would not allow Superman to just bat him away then go save a few people, then come back and beat him up a little. It's not even that even of a fight because Zod IS a fighter.

The most destruction in this movie is NOT from Superman, but from the terraforming while Superman is trying to stop the World Engine. There are two scenes in which Superman goes through a building on his own. All the other destruction is from the US Military BOMBING Smallville, or when the Kryptonians are throwing things, and throwing Superman.

Zod tells Superman that he has nothing left, and he is going to kill every person in the world so Superman has nothing left either. He then replies "NEVER" to when Superman is begging him to stop. How can you complain about this death? How can you call it needless or that Superman is completely willing to kill Zod? (Commenter 42 this isn't directed at you, but others who says the death was not needed.)

Why exactly would superman be an atheist?

I mentioned it in my post originally, but I'll try and explain it again. Superman never states he's fighting in the name of any God. He never claims to be a part of any religion. I'm sure his parents were religious, but so were mine, and I'm an Atheist. I believe that a lot of people are only good because they fear going to hell. I don't believe in Hell or Heaven, but I do believe in treating people right. I do believe in being nice to each other, because it's the right thing to do. Superman fights for good, because he simply wants to be....good. In religion, Earth is said to be created by God, well he's not from Earth, and he's actually from another Galaxy. So was his planet created by the same God?

Leo656

07-19-2015, 02:45 AM

I'unno if Superman technically "can" be an atheist... in the comics, he's been to Hell more than once and several times fought demons. And Gods, Angels, Demons, Heaven and Hell are all an established part of DC lore. Nobody knows if these things exist in real life, but at least in DC comics mythology, all that stuff definitely exists (as do the ancient Roman Gods, Norse Gods.... and let's not even get started on the New Gods of the Fourth World, or the Old Gods of the Third World, etc. etc.).

So yeah, someone who's actually fought The Devil probably can't be an atheist. :lol: I doubt he has a specific religion at all - they'd never do that for editorial reasons - but even just the fact that he was on the JLA with Zauriel kind of makes the "atheist" theory complicated. Just throwin' that out there. :tgrin:

But yeah, I definitely agree Superman's more a "good for goodness' sake" type more than a religious or spiritual type. "There's a right and a wrong in the universe, and the distinction is not hard to make" is one of my favorite Superman quotes. You don't have to necessarily believe in a higher power to have that point of view, it's something people should just believe because it's right.

Candy Kappa

07-19-2015, 03:55 AM

Well, you can still be an atheist in a world where gods are real, even in Dungeons and Dragons you can have atheist Clerics that get their powers from ideals rather then getting their powers from deities.

You simply don't worship any deities.

As for Superman, personally I don't really care. At one point he's a kryptonian, why would he worship earth deities, but. On the other hand, the Kent's where probably God-fearing farmers, so he may have been raised with Sunday Church stuff or whatevers, and as an adult knowing wo he is he might still pay some lip service as tradition.

Similar to Dungeons and Dragons, where most settings/worlds gods do exist, even walks among people for funsies, mortals can achieve godhood. It's not uncommon to pay tribute to a deity even if you don't worship them or any deity, you just do it for good luck or not to piss off that specific deity.

Commenter 42

07-19-2015, 02:26 PM

http://crossover.bureau42.com/DCPresents67.jpg

10characters

Slade

07-19-2015, 03:06 PM

Wouldn't say Superman is atheist, just not religious.

CyberCubed

07-19-2015, 05:08 PM

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-19-2015, 05:59 PM

Ok, maybe Superman is Agnostic. I'm Atheist and celebrate Christmas, so that comic w/ Santa means nothing.

Commenter 42

07-19-2015, 09:21 PM

Ok, maybe Superman is Agnostic. I'm Atheist and celebrate Christmas, so that comic w/ Santa means nothing.

Holy f*ck dude. That was a joke. As an athiest, you should get it.

RE f*cking LAX.

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-19-2015, 09:31 PM

Holy f*ck dude. That was a joke. As an athiest, you should get it.

RE f*cking LAX.

Um...maybe you have anger issues? I wasn't saying that in an angry way at all...If you read in anger, that's your prob.

Commenter 42

07-19-2015, 11:16 PM

Um...maybe you have anger issues? I wasn't saying that in an angry way at all...If you read in anger, that's your prob.

Yeah, I'm the hostile one. :lol:

Hey, are you an Atheist? Remind me again, I can't remember.:lol::lol::lol:

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-20-2015, 12:50 AM

Yeah, I'm the hostile one. :lol:

Hey, are you an Atheist? Remind me again, I can't remember.:lol::lol::lol:

Uh yeah you do come across as hostile, angry, and insulting.

CyberCubed

07-20-2015, 02:08 AM

Can we please get back to discussing the actual movie rather than taking jabs at each other over religion?

Candy Kappa

07-20-2015, 03:00 AM

Ok, maybe Superman is Agnostic. I'm Atheist and celebrate Christmas, so that comic w/ Santa means nothing.

But can a person be agnostic if they live in a world where you can travel to Mount Olypos and wine and dine with Zeus, then hand wrestle with Ares while Thor is cheering on?

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-20-2015, 10:11 AM

But can a person be agnostic if they live in a world where you can travel to Mount Olypos and wine and dine with Zeus, then hand wrestle with Ares while Thor is cheering on?

Agnostic - a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

07-20-2015, 10:20 AM

Agnostic - a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Candy's statement still stands.

"Thor, just because you can lift that damn hammer and pound ales all night, that doesn't mean I have to believe you exist!!!"

Cure

07-20-2015, 10:32 AM

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

EDIT:

What the Hell? That's not what I typed.

Anyway, maybe it's like Tilda Swinton told Constantine: there's a difference between knowing and having faith.

plastroncafe

07-20-2015, 10:52 AM

All superheroes celebrate Christmas though unless they're specifically said to be Jewish. I don't think its about confirming their religion, its just that Christmas is popular with kids and selling stuff and everyone likes holiday specials so they make that.

Also the United States is a default Culturally Christian.
It's the only religious holiday recognized by the Federal Government.
That it's popular with kids is thanks to that more than anything.

Bry

07-20-2015, 11:02 AM

But can a person be agnostic if they live in a world where you can travel to Mount Olypos and wine and dine with Zeus, then hand wrestle with Ares while Thor is cheering on?

Hmm. What if one accepted they existed, believing they're a different but long-living and powerful species, but not as "gods"? Or is that splitting hairs? :lol:

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

07-20-2015, 11:22 AM

Hmm. What if one accepted they existed, believing they're a different but long-living and powerful species, but not as "gods"? Or is that splitting hairs? :lol:

Agnostic implies not knowing/believing they even exist, one way or another. I believe.

Heh, I made a pun.

CyberCubed

07-20-2015, 01:09 PM

Also the United States is a default Culturally Christian.
It's the only religious holiday recognized by the Federal Government.
That it's popular with kids is thanks to that more than anything.

Its especially noticeable because most of the creators of comic characters are Christian. Like why do the Turtles celebrate Christmas in the Mirage comics and cartoons? Splinter wasn't raised Christian in Japan, its just because Laird/Eastman are Christians so they had the Turtles celebrate it as well.

plastroncafe

07-20-2015, 01:14 PM

Its especially noticeable because most of the creators of comic characters are Christian. Like why do the Turtles celebrate Christmas in the Mirage comics and cartoons? Splinter wasn't raised Christian in Japan, its just because Laird/Eastman are Christians so they had the Turtles celebrate it as well.

I think it's a stretch to say that most comic creators are Christian, almost as much of a stretch as it is to say that everyone who celebrates Christmas is Christian.

Christmas is a Federal Holiday, which makes it a Secular Holiday.
One need not be Christian to observe it.

Commenter 42

07-20-2015, 02:32 PM

Agnostic implies not knowing/believing they even exist, one way or another. I believe.

Heh, I made a pun.

Yep. You couldn't be agnostic presented with verifiable proof.

You are very pun-ny, :lol:

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-20-2015, 03:44 PM

Hmm. What if one accepted they existed, believing they're a different but long-living and powerful species, but not as "gods"? Or is that splitting hairs? :lol:

This is exactly how I think they're viewed, just like Thor in Marvel.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

07-20-2015, 03:49 PM

This is exactly how I think they're viewed, just like Thor in Marvel.

You mean how...

Captain America has met two Norse gods, but still believes in only one God?
Iron Man has met two Norse gods, but still doesn't believe in gods?
Bruce Banner has met two Norse gods, and punched the s!!! outta both of them?

Candy Kappa

07-20-2015, 04:57 PM

Its especially noticeable because most of the creators of comic characters are Christian. Like why do the Turtles celebrate Christmas in the Mirage comics and cartoons? Splinter wasn't raised Christian in Japan, its just because Laird/Eastman are Christians so they had the Turtles celebrate it as well.

Except Yule(Christmas) is very popular in Japan, even though only 2% off the population is Christian. After WWII and in the 60's its popularity boomed. Valentine's Day is also big there.

And, Rat!Splinter grew up as a humanoid in USA, where he and the Turtles easily would be influenced by the human holidays and celebrations.

Purse Grabbin Puke

07-20-2015, 05:05 PM

You mean how...

Captain America has met two Norse gods, but still believes in only one God?
Iron Man has met two Norse gods, but still doesn't believe in gods?
Bruce Banner has met two Norse gods, and punched the s!!! outta both of them?

In Marvel, they are aliens. At least that's what I'm getting from it...I don't like Thor AT ALL so, I might be speaking out of my ass.

Candy Kappa

07-20-2015, 05:15 PM

I don't think they are aliens in 616 mainstream universe. Although Marvel seems to be a bit wiffy waffy about it, guess not to "offend" anyone. I mean, they did once insinuate that other gods worshipped the Christian God Yhaweh :lol:

That was a awkward and stupid moment.

Commenter 42

07-20-2015, 06:02 PM

I might be speaking out of my ass.

The first step is admitting you have a problem. :lol:

Leo656

07-20-2015, 10:31 PM

Who the heck doesn't like Thor? C'mon. That cape is bananas. Verily.

Jester

07-20-2015, 10:39 PM

This just makes me sad that Marvel never made a Thor movie and cast Kevin Nash as the God of Thunder.

Leo656

07-20-2015, 10:54 PM

He would'a killed it.

Although he DID play Odin in the straight-to-DVD film "Almighty Thor", by Asylum.

See?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yNKQnsdw6iI/U1KAq7QA8iI/AAAAAAAAUbs/goLVs0tUm3E/s1600/kevin_nash_odin.jpg

I haven't seen it, but by all accounts it's aaaaawwwwwful. :lol: NOT that it's HIS fault. I'm sure he's perfect in it, as he is in everything. There's only so much you can do with garbage, even if you're as Almighty as Oz.

That silver mullet, though. Sigh.

OH. And Rikki Roxx is the God of Thunder.

JakeSully

07-21-2015, 05:09 AM

I think it's a stretch to say that most comic creators are Christian, almost as much of a stretch as it is to say that everyone who celebrates Christmas is Christian.

Christmas is a Federal Holiday, which makes it a Secular Holiday.
One need not be Christian to observe it.

Todd Mcfarlane was a catholic when he did Spawn then became an atheist yet used some christian mythology into his Spawn stories.

JakeSully

07-21-2015, 05:18 AM

Jester

07-21-2015, 05:24 AM

Leo656

07-22-2015, 01:28 AM

Every last bit of cinema that magnificent bastard's face has touched has SOME watchable value.

...except that Oz vs. Bill Kazmaier fiasco at Halloween Havoc '91. Ooooof.

Turo602

07-23-2015, 06:02 PM

You know he was Gordon in Year One, right?

I thought he was a pretty great Gordon in this:

lcEMFte9-ag

Yeah, I'm aware of that but I mean live action.

I think either extreme can be equally blinding -- ignoring nostalgia can mean completely rejecting anything "old", and that can mean ignoring or dismissing a lot of the essential elements that make something work.

I think it's best to have a healthy balance. Don't necessarily cling to everything from older/nostalgic versions, but don't completely throw it all out, either. Some of it still works. Some of it is necessary.

Ignoring nostalgia doesn't mean rejecting all that is old. Nostalgia is just a sentiment associated with something from one's past. That kind of thing can be blinding because it could cloud one's judgement based purely on how special that thing is to them. For instance, the Spider-Man game from Playstation is a nostalgic game to me, but I'm not going to say it's still a great game today, no matter how much it means to me. The game has aged poorly and that's my honest judgement of that game, nostalgia aside.

Leo656

07-29-2015, 12:30 AM

New pics.
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150728-super-wayne-manor.jpg
Look who finally learned how to comb his hair properly... on the wrong side. :lol: Ah well, they've done that before.
People are speculating that he's standing in the charred and burned remains of Wayne Manor.

http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150728-batsignal.jpg
Just like in the comics, It's Always Raining In Gotham. :lol:

Commenter 42

07-29-2015, 10:42 AM

It's the small things that make all the difference.

http://i.imgur.com/OZTh8oe.gif

Bry

07-29-2015, 10:55 AM

Commenter 42

07-29-2015, 07:18 PM

See, that's the thing. I get why some people don't like the trunks, but without them it just looks like a big blue skin-tight onesie. It looks worse. And they've got these ridges and lines slapped onto his hips to try to add some detail and make up for that, but they just look stupid and pointless. They need to break up the blue. If it's not trunks, then go with a red belt. Something. The suit just looks kinda awkward without it.

I'm not a fan of the red belt look, so I gave him briefs, but I agree with you. A blue onesie is off putting. It legit looks better. The briefs are toooooo Iconic. F*ck Hollywood.
I flipped the hair just for Leo, and the first comment on the pic was "why is his hair flipping?"

I just hate Snyders color pallet. HATE! It's so heavy handed, and dated. Reminds me of the foggy lens used in th Reeve movies. It instantly dates a movie to a time and place.

No Snyder, desaturation does not eaqual awesome. Stop. Stop, F*CKING STOP!!!

Bry

07-29-2015, 08:00 PM

I'm not a fan of the red belt look, so I gave him briefs, but I agree with you. A blue onesie is off putting. It legit looks better. The briefs are toooooo Iconic. F*ck Hollywood.

Hey, I'm with you. Between a solid blue onesie and a red belt, I'll take the red belt, but neither work as well as the trunks. That costume is the very image of "iconic". Messing with that is dumb, dumb, dumb.

I just hate Snyders color pallet. HATE! It's so heavy handed, and dated. Reminds me of the foggy lens used in th Reeve movies. It instantly dates a movie to a time and place.

No Snyder, desaturation does not eaqual awesome. Stop. Stop, F*CKING STOP!!!

It's gonna age a lot worse, I think. Aside from the fogginess, the Reeve movies have colour. And simple as it sounds, the real world has colour, and anything that doesn't mostly match that palette is going to look like a dated gimmick many years down the road. IMO, Snyder's desaturation is going to look even dumber than the staggering number of movies uniformly colour-graded orange and teal in the past 10 or so years. And nobody's gonna be defending that once it falls out of style.

Even 37 years from now, I think the overall look of the Donner/Reeve movies will hold up a lot better than Snyder's. (But will the best-looking one be... Superman Returns?)

Leo656

07-29-2015, 10:29 PM

The "fix" definitely looks better but it's fine. No, it's not how I would've done it, especially color wise. I agree. But I wasn't in love with the Returns costume, either, and I still love the movie. It's not like being afraid to make the suit look right is a sin unique to Snyder and the current team. Every single time they've done it, going back to Lois & Clark's early concepts, they've tried to change it somehow (and it's funny how that suit was much loathed by many at the time, and has since remained the most faithful version ever since). At least it's not straight-up black with no cape like they've been trying to force on us for 25 years. At this point, with how aggressively WB has tried to f*ck over this project since f*cking 1991, I'm grateful for the little things. I've seen the sh*t they've tried to do; I'm grateful what we're getting is as close as it is.

Even though I totally agree with how and why it could and should be better. I just don't care enough to complain anymore. Maybe I'm just picking my battles more carefully in my old age. :lol: I totally agree, though; just do the suit! Why be afraid of it? It works. it's iconic. Just do the suit. But they never will, because "people who know better" (read: make a lot more money) say it doesn't work. So whatever. He doesn't have a jetpack, I'm fine. I'll compromise, to a point, even though I don't like it. :lol:

Definitely needs the goddamn trunks, though. Anyone who thinks they don't fit has never worn spandex, or a version of that suit specifically. They're absolutely necessary, seriously. :lol:

New pics! http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=16769

Couple favs:
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150729-DailyPlanet.jpg
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150729-Batsuit.jpg
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150729-zack2.jpg
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150729-zack1.jpg
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/150729-AngrySup.jpg

Good stuff. He's awesome as Reporter Clark.

Bry

07-29-2015, 10:46 PM

See, this is what this thread is doing to me. I hated Man of Steel. Like, hated it. Makes me angry even thinking about it. But the mere concept of a movie starring Batman and Superman that also isn't bending over backwards to exist in its own pocket universe completely separate from a wider DCU... is something I want very badly.

I hated Man of Steel, I think David Goyer's largely a hack, and I'm not a fan of Zack Snyder... but I'm still kind of quietly rooting for this to be good, deep down. (And I'm very hopefully taking Chris Terrio co-writing to be a good sign here - he wrote Argo and I know Affleck's an old-school comic fan, so I know he had to have some sway there.)

Also - if the thick, kinda-too-large jacket on Clark is a specific choice to cover his physique (like a toned-down version of Frank Quietly's Clark wearing baggy suits and constantly hunching over) then... hey, good choice!

Andrew NDB

07-29-2015, 10:47 PM

Even 37 years from now, I think the overall look of the Donner/Reeve movies will hold up a lot better than Snyder's.

But even 30 years from when they came out, today... they don't hold up at all.

Leo656

07-29-2015, 10:52 PM

Given what we know of the story I'm not sure how it can miss. I don't exactly know what people want. It's a comic book style story with comic book style visuals, with scenes arranged, framed and shot as comic book panels are. People are complaining that it's dark out and raining a lot, and that nobody seems to be cracking jokes. I don't see why those are problems. I like that the DCU takes itself more seriously; that's what I want.

If the leaked plot synopsis was real - and months later they still haven't proven it's not - then it mathematically has to be awesome. I don't know what else people want. "Everybody's frowning. It's raining out." Big f*cking deal! :lol:

When the most cynical guy in the room says relax, people ought'a relax. Everything's Gonna Be Fine.

Bry

07-29-2015, 10:57 PM

But even 30 years from when they came out, today... they don't hold up at all.

So my statement seems especially damning of Snyder's style, I guess? ;)

People are complaining that it's dark out and raining a lot, and that nobody seems to be cracking jokes. I don't see why those are problems. I like that the DCU takes itself more seriously; that's what I want.

I'm fine for that for some of the DCU. Batman, Wonder Woman (to some extent), maybe a Peter David-era-inspired Aquaman... sure. But the last thing I want is a "dark", serious Flash movie. Or Superman, honestly. :)

DC has a great opportunity to have some variance in tone and style and still tie it all together as a cohesive universe. That's the best possible thing they can do. The current leadership at DC Comics is just now getting the idea that their whole universe shouldn't be "grim and gritty", so I really hope that carries over to the movies. But I don't think Zack Snyder's the guy to understand that.

Leo656

07-29-2015, 11:42 PM

Believe me, I have no doubt they will. I think the entire reason they're doing it this way, is to simply use the "Trinity" and the JLA to present the broad strokes of the DCU, and the individual movies from Suicide Squad to Flash and Green Lantern, will all be very different types of movies while being consistent within the same universe.

There's no reason to believe the entire DCU in film is going to have the exact same feel as these first two movies and the Batman movie. It's a symbolic thing being done on purpose. I understand it's not to everyone's taste but that's kind of besides the point. Not every movie is gonna look or feel the same. Snyder is just the overseer, he's not guiding every individual DC film project. They just have to branch off from the same base, the JLA films, but the entire point behind the solo films is for each one to be its own thing in both story and tone. They've said that a thousand times and people accused them of having "no direction" because they weren't going to all be the same thing by the same guy. Then you can just pick a random day, and people will be complaining the opposite, that they think it's all gonna be too much of the exact same thing in every movie, after they already said it's not gonna be.

I don't know. It's like a lot of people just woke up one day and decided they were gonna be mad at this movie, and all future DC movies We've had one so far. :lol: I'unno, guys. Here's how I see things:
1. I generally hate everything.
2. I'm right about everything.
3. I don't hate this. :lol: I am very chill thus far.

Commenter 42

07-29-2015, 11:50 PM

Leo656

07-29-2015, 11:57 PM

So weird. The suit (formal suit not superhero costume) on Affleck doesn't hang right. The tailoring in the back is really odd. So many things in these pics jump out and scream at me.. lol.. sorry...

I'll calm down the bashing. It just seems like these guys love to **** up the obvious things.

Leo man, after watching all the extended stuff and behind the scenes of the Superman lives doc, one thing is clear: I finally understand the hype for Batman V Superman. It's not that Batman V Superman is SOOOO amazeballs; it's that it's miles closer than what anyone wanted to do since Superman II. These people HATE Superman. They hate comicbooks. They even hate each other. What a stew of ****.

You'll lose your **** watching it man. Seriously.. get on it - buy that bad boy!

BINGO, buddy. I've been obsessed with the film franchise since I saw Superman IV as a kid, because I wanted Superman V more than a hundred Christmases. I know so much of what they tried to do, a hundred failed attempts, and I look at all this stuff we're getting now, and I'm able to relax and say, "Close enough", because for 15 years, the people at WB making DC movies f*cking hated the fact that that was their job and did everything they could to ruin it for everyone. What we're getting now ain't perfect. We are still well and truly blessed! :lol:

I've read a ton of books and articles about that abortion but I can't wait to see the doc. I mean, I'm sure I'll want to slit my wrists the entire time, but seeing it in living color should be quite the horror show! :tgrin:

Commenter 42

07-29-2015, 11:59 PM

Here's how I see things:
1. I generally hate everything.
2. I'm right about everything.
3. I don't hate this. :lol: I am very chill thus far.

We may have the same problem.

1. I hate half-assed things.
2. I'm right about everything.
3. I hate this movie - so far.
4. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Leo656

07-30-2015, 12:06 AM

Commenter 42

07-30-2015, 12:07 AM

I'm able to relax and say, "Close enough", because for 15 years, the people at WB making DC movies f*cking hated the fact that that was their job and did everything they could to ruin it for everyone.

I've read a ton of books and articles about that abortion but I can't wait to see the doc. I mean, I'm sure I'll want to slit my wrists the entire time, but seeing it in living color should be quite the horror show! :tgrin:

Oh... man, no, that's the revelation. Lol, no...I mean they hate Superman as an idea. You'll understand once you watch the doc. I know, i read **** tons asbout it as well, but it's... it's just different. They've all dropped their guard. Theres very little pretense (aside from Smith, the eternal carnival barker), it's strange. Sympathy for the devil comes to mind...

The extended package is the best - you get all the un-edited interviews. Usually, that would be like, meh - but as i watched them, i realized the director was shaping what people said. he put a slant on things, intentional or not. watching Peters in the interview, vs in the movie...I don't know, it's like they're not seeing the real guy...

I'm dying for you to watch it!

Leo656

07-30-2015, 12:12 AM

I'm hoping to pick it up next check. I've already spent more'n a few bucks on other Superman-related things I'm not prepared to go into detail about. :trazz:

Commenter 42

07-30-2015, 12:15 AM

In the time they're taking to do this one movie, there's been 47 Marvel movies. [citation needed]

I'm not sure where the "half-assing" part comes in exactly. :lol: They're trying to do a lot, yeah, but from where I'm sitting it all looks pretty straight.

Taking this long to make it happen had NOTHING to do with getting it right. Not in the slightest. It had everything to do with gambling, and hesitation.

I mean half ass, as in, in doing the research they should. half ass as in, no heart. It's a job, not a vocation. As in, choosing to take a point of view and starting with "how do we change this into x". Who the **** asked them for their ideas? This is the fundamental problem with hollywood. IDEA's...lol. Everyone thinks they're bringing something to the table, and that's the big problem.

Seriously, WATCH THE DOC! Go download it (http://www.tdoslwh.com/)man...man of steel is chock full of **** from Superman lives, conceptually. WB never lets go of anything they've ever paid for. It all shows up some how. good or bad, they find a way to use everything. It's so stupid.

I'm hoping to pick it up next check. I've already spent more'n a few bucks on other Superman-related things I'm not prepared to go into detail about. :trazz:

Overshare?

http://41.media.tumblr.com/e593268f6d0edd2a3219bc36debf4205/tumblr_nrg4l13Oda1qfvvfxo1_250.jpg

Leo656

07-30-2015, 12:19 AM

Oh, you're not wrong there's a lot of recycling going on. They're still using a lot of the same pieces they've been trying to use for a while now. They're just being better at it.

Nothing ever gets thrown away, and nothing's ever "new"; they just staple old sh*t together and make new sh*t. At least they're being close to the books this time.

Commenter 42

07-30-2015, 12:58 AM

Meanwhile, Marvel looks to be screwing up their one shot at Spider-man

http://img14.deviantart.net/c787/i/2012/139/c/c/spidey_concept_by_spikesdm-d50crht.jpg

Confusing To say the least.

Look, I get it, a literal translation immediately conjures up ideas of Cosplay. Sure. I get the impetus to create something that's never been scene before. But come on! Just because he made the suit himself, doesn't mean it should look stupid, or homemade. The guy built web shooters, I'm sure he could figure out a sewing machine.

Andrew NDB

07-30-2015, 01:00 AM

Meanwhile, marvel looks to be screwing up their one shot at Spider-man

http://img14.deviantart.net/c787/i/2012/139/c/c/spidey_concept_by_spikesdm-d50crht.jpg

Confusing To say the least.

Not confusing in the least. He's proto-Spider-Man. And there won't be an origin story. It'll be a glorified cameo at best in Cap 3, and a full on Spider-Man with proper costume in the actual Spider-Man movie in couple years.

Neither the Maguire or Garfield costumes seem like they'd be something he'd come up with in his apartment with his aunt. They're finally doing that for real.

Commenter 42

07-30-2015, 01:08 AM

F*ck Proto-Spider-man

I'm not confused by what their going for, I confused as to WHY. You finally get the rights back, and deliver this? If that's the case, give him back to Sony. :lol:

Andrew NDB

07-30-2015, 01:37 AM

F*ck Proto-Spider-man

I'm not confused by what their going for, I confused as to WHY. You finally get the rights back, and deliver this? If that's the case, give him back to Sony. :lol:

A very strange standpoint. The why is ridiculously easy... they've yet to establish Spider-Man in the Marvel cinematic universe, and aren't going to delve in to an origin story (which everyone and their mom is afraid of them doing). By virtue of when the deal with Sony and Marvel, Marvel is only able to actually utilize Spider-Man now, here at the beginning of "Phase 3" of their films. So here we are. Had they been able to utilize Spider-Man the whole time, I'm certain it'd be a whole different ballgame, but Marvel is doing the best they can with the truly awesome opportunity presented to them because Amazing Spider-Man 2 absolutely sucked and bombed critically. But yes. Even origin story aside, they have to kind of massage this new Spider-Man into things and I'm sure Sony wants to save the biggest broadstrokes for the actual Spider-Man relaunch movie.

Commenter 42

07-30-2015, 01:52 AM

Spidey can pop in and unmask himself in civil war wearing his red and blues just as easily. The "proto" look is a studio add on, it gives them something to save (The "real" costume) for the Spiderman solo film. You didn't get that bicycle for Christmas, but if you're a good boy, maybe you'll get it next Christmas.
They love dangling that carrot....boy do they love it. I blame Schumacher! :lol:

Since we all know the story, stop trying to re tell the same story. It's like the Marvel version of How I met your Mother.

MikeandRaph87

07-31-2015, 05:25 PM

Reports suggest third string Bat Rogue The KGBeast will be Lex Luthor's right-hand man. Its odd considering the Cold War ties of the character and being obscure for the most part.
http://news.yahoo.com/batman-v-supermans-callan-mulvey-to-play-classic-121154144.html

Leo656

08-09-2015, 10:33 PM

MikeandRaph87

08-09-2015, 10:50 PM

So I don't have a link, but rumor is that there was a screening of the rough cut for WB executives a few days ago and it blew them away, especially Ben, who they called "The Definitive Batman". Allegedly, they now want three Affleck solo Batman films to spin out of this, and Batman to have a strong presence in the cinematic DCU as a whole.

Not really surprised. Can't complain.

Remember how we thought the first Spier-Man series could have been at least five installments and the second was planned for four? Let's take it one film at a time. I am curious what characters would be used in a Affleck centered Batman series. Suicide Squad characters perhaps? Clayface or Hugo Strange?

The odd pair of Geoff Johns and Ben Affleck were scheduled to have submited the first draft of a script to Warner Bros. for a Batman film the end kf tbe week after SDCC.

Electric

08-09-2015, 10:52 PM

never doubted affleck as Bman, to me he just looks the part, unlike christian bale, who to me, had something to prove, which he certainly did. Hoping for that trilogy of solo batmans, because it means more villains: lets see a riddler, a catwoman, a red hood, a deathstroke, and a new ivy (with CG nowadays, she could be epic), plus, they finally have harley so keep using her!

I can see what theyre doing with that spidey suit, not a fan, but love one thing: fingerless and toeless gloves and shoes! This makes sooooo much sense if they use the whole stick to walls like a spider ability

Leo656

08-09-2015, 10:55 PM

TurtleTitan97

08-09-2015, 10:59 PM

IDK about anyone else, but I'd love it if they took another shot at Mr. Freeze.

Electric

08-09-2015, 11:04 PM

oooooh, clayface didnt cross my mind but thatd be good.

im really praying they dont choose ras. hes great and all, but with his heavy presence in the previous trilogy, then an entire season of arrow, im kind of bored of him. adds a lot of dynamics, which are great, but require a lot of time away from gotham.

I just think riddler would be good with the whole "figuring out who batman is" arc. shouldnt be the main baddy, nah, but pair him with, i dont know, Ivy taking over the city or something, and he could have a place.

im probably just trying to see him in this new universe after we missed him in nolanverse. i get why he didnt, but really, in his realistic trilogy, riddler fit PERFECTLY. the whole mental effect on bruce, with his inner need to prove his intelligence, couldve led to some great plots, all within staying in the realm of realism.

you know what, ill settle for just more joker and harley

turtletitan: like ivy, with new CG, he could be pretty great too. not a huge fan of him as a villain, but thats just me

MikeandRaph87

08-09-2015, 11:07 PM

I'd be down for either Clayface or Hugo Strange, truthfully. You know Joker's gonna get one of them, so I wonder who'll get to be in the other two. You gotta figure they'll have to be "big" characters since this is Batman later in his career; I can't figure they'd "waste" time on smaller guys like Riddler, they'd pretty much have to use some iconic types who could be more of a "real" threat to Batman or else it wouldn't feel right.

I feel like they might have another go at Ra's. I can really see them doing that for some reason.

Clayface and Hugo Strange could make an interesting combination especially if it will have a psychological layer to the plot. Now, if you want big names then why not Riddler? He is my favorite Bat Rogue. The studio wanted him in The Dark Knight Rises. As for Joker I would rather be stick to just appearing in Suicide Squad. Enough of The Joker has already been seen without appearing in anoter solo Batman film. Yet to be adaped villians or Riddler and Penguin would get my vote.

Leo656

08-09-2015, 11:08 PM

Yeah, we've gotten a lot of Ra's, but he's a pretty big deal in the Batman mythos so I can see him getting one more big-screen go-round. It's not the character's fault they stuck him in Arrow despite it not making sense; Green Arrow just has no decent Rogues Gallery so they had to raid Batman's. Makes me ask, "Why do the show, if you don't have a decent rogues gallery?" but I don't get paid to make those decisions, sadly. :lol:

I think there's a way Riddler can work in a movie but I think Carrey went and ruined that for everyone. Who knows, though. I just think for an older Batman, they'll go with "tougher" bad guys, for some reason. Guys like Riddler and Penguin are interesting, but more like pests. I can see them being involved but not "main" villains.

Electric

08-09-2015, 11:11 PM

Clayface and Hugo Strange could make an interesting combination especially if it will have a psychological layer to the plot. Now, if you want big names then why not Riddler? He is my favorite Bat Rogue. The studio wanted him in The Dark Knight Rises. As for Joker I would rather be stick to just appearing in Suicide Squad. Enough of The Joker has already been seen without appearing in anoter solo Batman film. Yet to be adaped villians or Riddler and Penguin would get my vote.

Firstly, there can NEVER be enough joker:D haha, sorry, im a total joker geek. personally enjoyed him being very present in all 4 arkham games, to the annoyance of others, have posters of each live action incarnation, and can quote any line of his from any media, and most comics. luckily for me, theres slim to no chance he wont be present in some form for a solo batman movie. i dont think theyd do that

but i do love riddler, and again, sooooo perfect in the dark knight trilogy! and you brought up the other one: Penguin! it would have been easy to drop him in the universe somewhere, hes the most realistic one!

Riddler, i swear could fit in there, if nothing more than a nuisance. Have Ivy holding the city hostage with toxic plants? and right when batman goes to stop her, eddy jumps in and says "lol, know who you are, going to tell world" or something. IT COULD WORK, i swear

Leo:

Yeah, i was fine with them taking dollmaker, and firefly, and deadshot, and bronze tiger, but ras was a bit overstepping. Granted, Dark Archer and Count Vertigo are fantastic villains in GA comics, and they still have few good ones left, but yeah.

MikeandRaph87

08-09-2015, 11:35 PM

Firstly, there can NEVER be enough joker:D haha, sorry, im a total joker geek. personally enjoyed him being very present in all 4 arkham games, to the annoyance of others, have posters of each live action incarnation, and can quote any line of his from any media, and most comics. luckily for me, theres slim to no chance he wont be present in some form for a solo batman movie. i dont think theyd do that

but i do love riddler, and again, sooooo perfect in the dark knight trilogy! and you brought up the other one: Penguin! it would have been easy to drop him in the universe somewhere, hes the most realistic one!

Riddler, i swear could fit in there, if nothing more than a nuisance. Have Ivy holding the city hostage with toxic plants? and right when batman goes to stop her, eddy jumps in and says "lol, know who you are, going to tell world" or something. IT COULD WORK, i swear

Leo:

Yeah, i was fine with them taking dollmaker, and firefly, and deadshot, and bronze tiger, but ras was a bit overstepping. Granted, Dark Archer and Count Vertigo are fantastic villains in GA comics, and they still have few good ones left, but yeah.

http://cdn.ymaservices.com/editorial_service/media/images/000/076/323/preview/ezgif-600447460.png?1418986115

Joker, Lex Luthor, and Dr. Doom need to be limited and give others a turn. I prefer both Riddler and Mr. Freeze over Joker, but he is m third favorite Batman and DC villain. Lex would be fourth. New villain or redo another for a second onscreen appearance not counting Batman 1966 into this.

Clayface, Hugo Strange Mad Hatter, Man-Bat, Black Mask, and Hush are left unused. I can see Killer Moth and Firefly used in throwaway roles. Then a redux of Riddler and Penguin could be good if done well.

Leo656

08-09-2015, 11:38 PM

Mad Hatter... :lol: I'm sorry... I'm sorry...

I can see the rest, though. Man-Bat'd be interesting.

Electric

08-09-2015, 11:39 PM

http://data2.whicdn.com/images/48673540/large.gif

The Stryker

08-09-2015, 11:44 PM

Leo656

08-09-2015, 11:50 PM

Yeah, not a bad point, but at the same time, Darkseid's been a traditional JLA villain for a really long time now and it'd be a waste not to use him in that role for an actual film. I mean if you don't do him in JLA, he's too big to use anywhere else. Like he's more a Superman villain than anything, if we're going all the way back, but he's usually too much for Superman to handle by himself. It's been done, but it's almost too good of a fit not to use.

I definitely could see a Legion of Doom style movie, but it could also be a tough juggling act with all those characters. I'unno, there's lots they could do yet. Still early.

MikeandRaph87

08-09-2015, 11:51 PM

See I'd rather Joker show up in Justice League over a solo Batman movie. Do Legion of Doom (Injustice League whatever you prefer).

Darkseid and the paratroopers are alittle close to the Avengers formula of hordes and hordes of goons the team fights in a large populated area.

It would be cool to use Justice League's final episode "Destroyer" as a template for a plot of a Justice League film.

Leo656

08-09-2015, 11:54 PM

I wanna see Max Lord and the OMACs. I hope they have Max in the movies as like a go-between for the JLA and the U.S. gov't, and then things take their natural course across later films. I could totally see them doing that in this universe, what with the gov't mistrust of super-humans and all that. And since this Batman is a super-paranoid guy, it wouldn't be out of the question for the Brother Eye satellite to show up in the future, either.

That'd be some neat stuff.

Leo656

08-13-2015, 12:20 AM

Latest spoilers, this time concerning Wonder Woman and The Big Bad Guy... (Link title contains spoilers)
http://screenrant.com/batman-v-superman-wonder-woman-fight-scene-doomsday/

Basically, there's a scene where Wonder Woman confronts Doomsday during The Big Fight, she cuts off his hand with her sword and a blade made of sharpened bone grows back in its place, allowing Doomsday to try and respond in kind. Neat touch, very much to the monster's traditional ability to adapt and evolve beyond anything it gets hurt by. I like that Wonder Woman's gonna be showing off her value right off the bat, not being pushed off to the sidelines but being an important part of things right away. As far as Doomsday goes, between his ability to hyper-evolve and allegedly being programmed by LexCorp to cause maximum collateral damage, it sounds like he's definitely gonna live up to his name in this.

MikeandRaph87

08-20-2015, 10:12 AM

Plot point involving Martha Kent. Possible spoilers of course.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Lex-Luthor-Evil-Scheme-Batman-v-Superman-Apparently-Involves-Key-Side-Character-77917.html

Also, related article in the link discusses General Zod's role form beyond the grave.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

08-20-2015, 10:28 AM

Is it 2016 yet? :tsad:

LeotheLateBloomer

09-11-2015, 01:03 AM

Zack Snyder confirms the rumors of Batman getting more focus rather than balancing screen-time between both title superheroes are true. Also, he simply says "You just had a whole Superman movie". Can't say that I'm surprised since this has been DC's marketing for the past decade.:roll:

http://comicbook.com/2015/09/10/zack-snyder-addresses-amount-of-batman-in-batman-v-superman/

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-11-2015, 07:50 AM

CyberCubed

09-11-2015, 04:34 PM

Good. Everyone is seeing this movie for Batman anyway. Superman can take a backseat.

TigerClaw

09-11-2015, 05:36 PM

Remember back when we all thought we'd get Man of Steel 2? :tlol: Sigh...
I remember when we thought were getting Man of Steel 2 with Batman being in it... then they announced the other characters.

LeotheLateBloomer

09-11-2015, 07:00 PM

Remember back when we all thought we'd get Man of Steel 2? :tlol: Sigh...

Yuuuupppp!:tlol:

Good. Everyone is seeing this movie for Batman anyway. Superman can take a backseat.

Like all of DC's other heroes.:trolleye:

I remember when we thought were getting Man of Steel 2 with Batman being in it... then they announced the other characters.

Poor Supes....

CyberCubed

09-11-2015, 07:10 PM

If anything Batman should get as much screentime as possible. I actually wish they held off on Wonder Woman for a future film rather than forcing her into this one, simply because she'll eat up screentime when its obvious she'll have a smaller role than Batman and Superman.

This incarnation of Superman isn't even that interesting, so I'd rather see as much Batman as possible. The more Batman, the better.

MikeandRaph87

09-11-2015, 10:14 PM

I will always prefer Batman over Superman, but this is a spinoff of Man of Steel which is a Superman film and he is the top hero of the top comic company so Superman should get the most screentime. Its only fair and credit to the greatest caped avenger of all even if Batman surpassed him in popularity over time.

CyberCubed

09-11-2015, 10:25 PM

They're still making a Man of Steel 2 anyway, so its not like Superman isn't getting another solo movie.

Coola Yagami

09-11-2015, 11:42 PM

Remember back when we all thought we'd get Man of Steel 2? :tlol: Sigh...

We went from Batman is gonna cameo in Man of Steel 2 to this is basically a Batman movie. And Superman is kinda/sorta int it.

MikeandRaph87

09-11-2015, 11:55 PM

They're still making a Man of Steel 2 anyway, so its not like Superman isn't getting another solo movie.

Actually it is on indefinite hold while Superman will be the centerpiece of the DC Cinematic Universe and Dawn of Justice may as welll be considered the sequel.

Slade

09-12-2015, 12:03 AM

Good. Everyone is seeing this movie for Batman anyway. Superman can take a backseat.

Go sit down...

LeotheLateBloomer

09-12-2015, 01:30 AM

And considering that we're already getting Batman in the Suicide Squad movie, how much more will we get of him in DC's Bat-a-matic Universe?

CyberCubed

09-12-2015, 01:35 AM

If anything Batman has been in too few movies over the last decade. Don't forget there was a 4 year gap between the last two Nolan Batman films which DC saw as too long a hiatus.

Ideally the new Batman should have debuted in a movie right after Man of Steel, but since that didn't happen they're using this movie for this new Batman's debut. I want to see this new Batman in about 5 movies or so before they recast again.

Foombamaroom

09-12-2015, 01:31 PM

sdp

09-12-2015, 01:42 PM

Well MoS didn't do amazing numbers and Batman guarantees this will be a hit. I'm a bit disappointed since I wanted 50/50 screen time, I mean Batman was already going to bring a lot of people so it'd be a great way for people to grow into superman and they stop untrue/outdated comments like "he's boring/too powerful" since everyone thinks of silverage superman as the superman. While this movie began as MoS2 with a Batman cameo, it evolved into what it is today and at least they no longer call it MoS2 and said that was also in development, it's not like Captain America where it became a Civil War crossover movie but it still counts as "his" movie. I love Batman but I hope he's not shoved into everything in this Universe.

Anyway, I think my hype for this movie can wait a bit, I'll go into SW mode and in january I can begin getting hyped for this movie, I'll be re-watching MoS and watch ArrowS3/Flash/Gotham/TDK Trilogy etc. Until outright contradicted I'll think of all the live action shows in continuity, but I'm guessing they'll be contradicted fairly quickly, Suicide Squad has a different Deadshot for one thing. I'll do the same with TDK Trilogy and that can act as batman's first years, of course some retcons needed.

Turo602

09-12-2015, 09:46 PM

I don't get the big deal. Didn't Snyder say that by the end of the film the focus on both characters evens out? I don't mind that the movie has more Batman in the beginning seeing as this is a brand new iteration that we're going to have to get used to. Until I hear that they started cutting Superman scenes in favor of more Batman then I'll be concerned. Even then, I'd hate to see Superman take a back seat as the grand focus of this universe as it was originally stated. Batman being in Suicide Squad doesn't really worry me either as it makes tons of sense for him to be in it and we're still very early into this universe to notice such a shift. I just hope WB doesn't start putting their nose in these movies and changing what Snyder set out to do.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-12-2015, 11:08 PM

Turo602

09-13-2015, 02:31 AM

If I might gently remind you, Snyder set out to make Man of Steel 2 way back when. :tlol:

Yeah, but Man of Steel 2 was always going to have Batman in it and I even recall Snyder saying that he had an idea for MoS to end with Wayne Manor and a crate of Kryptonite. Honestly, Dawn of Justice feels like a natural evolution of a film that only existed by name.

But that's besides the point. What I mean to say is that Snyder's comments don't worry me because it sounds like having more Batman in the beginning of the film was necessary from the get-go. It's what Snyder intended and not something that WB wants him to do after viewing the film like rumors have been suggesting. At least that's how I feel. I know WB can and will most likely screw with stuff in the future, but like I said, I can only hope they don't alter this film, given the fact that it's already done filming.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-13-2015, 01:53 PM

Yeah, but Man of Steel 2 was always going to have Batman in it and I even recall Snyder saying that he had an idea for MoS to end with Wayne Manor and a crate of Kryptonite. Honestly, Dawn of Justice feels like a natural evolution of a film that only existed by name.

But that's besides the point. What I mean to say is that Snyder's comments don't worry me because it sounds like having more Batman in the beginning of the film was necessary from the get-go. It's what Snyder intended and not something that WB wants him to do after viewing the film like rumors have been suggesting. At least that's how I feel. I know WB can and will most likely screw with stuff in the future, but like I said, I can only hope they don't alter this film, given the fact that it's already done filming.

I don't think you're right when you say MoS2 was always going to have Batman in it. But I wasn't hugely paying attention to Man of Steel and its future plans back when it first came out, so I readily admit I could be absolutely wrong.

I feel a little divided; I loved the MoS trailers but when I tried to watch the movie, I turned it off when Pa Kent died. I never went back and gave it a second shot until "Batman V Superman" was announced.

On the one hand, I think they sold out on Superman by making it a team-up road-to-Avengers-sorry-Justice-League movie. On the other hand, I didn't get on board with the current DC slate UNTIL said team-up. :tlol: Honestly, I'm mainly in it for Wonder Woman, Harley Quinn, and Robin. That's what's got my butt in an opening night theater seat. Looking forward to it all, but those are my draws.

Leo656

09-15-2015, 12:33 AM

I don't get the big deal. Didn't Snyder say that by the end of the film the focus on both characters evens out?

Yes they did. And since then other people working on the movie have further clarified that. Superman is the singular reason every single thing in this movie happens. Batman obviously has to get a lot of screen time to "catch up", but everything happening in the movie revolves around Superman. His character is the central character of the entire story. They've also gone back again and said they'll probably do another Superman solo film, but not until around 2019... which is exactly what they mumbled a year or so ago. So nothing's really changed there.

People are just very, very selective in their reading comprehension. Then again, they're probably not following this thing as closely as I am.

LeotheLateBloomer

09-21-2015, 11:43 AM

http://comicbook.com/2015/09/21/zack-snyder-says-batman-v-superman-is-man-of-steel-2/

Just as I thought.

TurtleTitan97

09-21-2015, 02:45 PM

http://comicbook.com/2015/09/21/zack-snyder-says-batman-v-superman-is-man-of-steel-2/

Just as I thought.

I don't buy that at all.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-21-2015, 02:53 PM

I don't buy that at all.

Nope. Nope nope nope.

You don't bring out the Batman except when your non-Batman DC character is failing.

CyberCubed

09-21-2015, 04:29 PM

Good. I am satisfied with this news.

TheSkeletonMan939

09-21-2015, 08:11 PM

Good. I am satisfied with this news.

Agreed; I didn't like Man of Steel, so if I'm gonna watch a Man of Steel sequel there might as well be some Batman in there to lessen the pain.

CyberCubed

09-21-2015, 08:29 PM

There hasn't been a good Superman movie since Superman II. And even that is cheesy but I'm letting it slide because its from over 30 years ago.

Meanwhile Batman has a hot-streak for movies with the only laughably bad one being Batman and Robin, but now that movie is infamous because its so bad that people love to watch it and make fun of it. The whole movie feels like a parody of Batman as a whole rather than a genuine Batman movie.

sdp

09-21-2015, 10:44 PM

I really enjoyed man of steel for me outta the best superman movie yet. Sure it's not perfect but it's easy better than any previous one. If you don't like MoS then I don't see you liking BvS much more.

Leo656

09-21-2015, 10:49 PM

You're nuts Cubed, Returns was awesome. It was a great Superman story. Nerds just judge their comic book movies by how many guys get punched or what blows up or whatever.

I'm not sure what people are confused about. The story of BvS is quite directly following and continuing the story from MoS... which is what they're supposed to do. I mean, just because it's not a solo movie, that doesn't make it any less of a "direct sequel" to MoS. It picks up the story and moves it to the next logical beat.

"Super beings suddenly arrive on Earth. Stuff gets wrecked. People get nervous. Batman feels he has to take control of the situation because he's Batman. Superman and Batman confront each other and realize they're on the same side and confront the real, much larger danger. Wonder Woman shows up. Other super-beings emerge and rally behind The Trinity."

That's fine. That's how the story goes in the comic books; it makes sense to be a "bigger" movie with more characters in it, that actually moves the greater story of the DC film universe forward. Does it HAVE to be Iron Man 2 (or 3), which were completely pointless, useless, and solely designed to kill time (and pad the studio's profits) until the Avengers movie came out? "Just give him another solo movie or two because that's the traditional thing to do." But they didn't move the larger Marvel Universe story forward one bit. You can see Iron Man 1, or Thor 1, ignore the sequels and skip right to Avengers and it doesn't matter. Not bad movies, but completely useless in the big picture.

That said, I'd love a "solo" Superman movie more than anyone, but it's clear we have to get all the pieces on the board sooner rather than later. This movie is going to move us closer to Justice League a LOT smoother, and quicker, than a movie about Superman all by himself fighting Bizarro or Metallo would. Impatient as I am for "Man of Steel 2" or whatever it will eventually be called, people really need to step back, look at the big picture, and realize the story is bigger than the individual characters. And even then, the entire story of BvS revolves around Superman, he's the reason EVERYTHING in the movie happens in the first place... so yes, thematically it IS a direct sequel.

MoS 2, if it came out right now, would just be wasting time. I can't wait for the next solo film, I'm sure it'll be great when the time comes for it. Oddly, I'm perfectly fine with that time not being Right Now. I've seen 6 Superman solo films, but zero starring Superman and a bunch of other huge DC characters co-existing in a shared universe. I'm ready for all this. It's fine.

sdp

09-21-2015, 11:10 PM

Leo656

09-21-2015, 11:19 PM

Semantics and details. Literally, it's not a direct sequel. As in, it's not the next solo movie that's all about Superman.

Thematically and story-wise, it is a direct sequel. It's the next page of the larger ongoing story, in which there's a bunch of other characters and other things happening but it's all because of Superman directly, and follows up directly from the last movie.

You can say it is or it isn't and still be technically correct. I say it kind of Is more than Isn't, from a story perspective.

Commenter 42

09-21-2015, 11:40 PM

Returns is boring. Still I find or more watchable than many of the Reeves films.

Anywho. I thought they had already announced a MoS2 was in the works. They had also mentioned how BvS was not MoS2. I remember reading both those things.

Reeve remains the only believable Superman to don the cape. Every other actor pales in comparison.

It's a shame you can't appreciate the Donner films. It's crazy when I hear people talk like this. It would be like eschewing the first Star Wars trilogy while touting the virtues of the prequels.

MOS is a goddamned abortion. It's fad filmmaking. Remember when everyone was riding Nolans dick, preaching his godliness? Who the **** cares now.

Can't wait for the heaps of negative reviews, and a ****ton of I told you So's.

Ben Affleck, is Batman. Bennifer. Have you really forgotten? He made 1 good film. ONE. And he's not directing, he's acting here - you know, the thing he's not so good at? Yeah...not getting a cent from my pocket.

Leo656

09-21-2015, 11:44 PM

Story's golden and that's what should matter. People don't know what the hell they want. Except some hologram of 40 years ago. They already got that, and cried about it.

Commenter 42

09-21-2015, 11:53 PM

Story's golden and that's what should matter. People don't know what the hell they want. Except some hologram of 40 years ago. They already got that, and cried about it.

If you mean golden, as in shower, then bingo.

No, we got the discount store look-alike that made Singer cream his skivvies. We got bad theater, nothing more.

I know what I want. It's not this.

LeotheLateBloomer

09-22-2015, 10:48 AM

Reeve remains the only believable Superman to don the cape. Every other actor pales in comparison.

It's a shame you can't appreciate the Donner films. It's crazy when I hear people talk like this. It would be like eschewing the first Star Wars trilogy while touting the virtues of the prequels.

MOS is a goddamned abortion. It's fad filmmaking. Remember when everyone was riding Nolans dick, preaching his godliness? Who the **** cares now.

Can't wait for the heaps of negative reviews, and a ****ton of I told you So's.

Ben Affleck, is Batman. Bennifer. Have you really forgotten? He made 1 good film. ONE. And he's not directing, he's acting here - you know, the thing he's not so good at? Yeah...not getting a cent from my pocket.

It's not the first time I've heard people dislike the older films of a superhero. I knew a few people that disliked the first few Superman films and save they haven't aged well. At the same time, they didn't grow up with those films and weren't even born yet. Hell, I wasn't even around when the first three Christopher Reeves films were released (I was born when the fourth film came out but that's besides the point) and I liked the first two films. I fell asleep on the third one, not because I didn't like it, but I marathoned the Superman movies when they were airing on G4 TV since it's been a while since I watched the first film. I never watched the fourth film but I hear it's not very good, lol. I watched Returns and I didn't think it was that bad. To me, it fit the tone of a Superman movie way more than Man of Steel did. Also, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor for the win!

There hasn't been a good Superman movie since Superman II. And even that is cheesy but I'm letting it slide because its from over 30 years ago.

Meanwhile Batman has a hot-streak for movies with the only laughably bad one being Batman and Robin, but now that movie is infamous because its so bad that people love to watch it and make fun of it. The whole movie feels like a parody of Batman as a whole rather than a genuine Batman movie.

Depends on your taste and how big a fan you are of Superman.

You're nuts Cubed, Returns was awesome. It was a great Superman story. Nerds just judge their comic book movies by how many guys get punched or what blows up or whatever.

I'm not sure what people are confused about. The story of BvS is quite directly following and continuing the story from MoS... which is what they're supposed to do. I mean, just because it's not a solo movie, that doesn't make it any less of a "direct sequel" to MoS. It picks up the story and moves it to the next logical beat.

"Super beings suddenly arrive on Earth. Stuff gets wrecked. People get nervous. Batman feels he has to take control of the situation because he's Batman. Superman and Batman confront each other and realize they're on the same side and confront the real, much larger danger. Wonder Woman shows up. Other super-beings emerge and rally behind The Trinity."

That's fine. That's how the story goes in the comic books; it makes sense to be a "bigger" movie with more characters in it, that actually moves the greater story of the DC film universe forward. Does it HAVE to be Iron Man 2 (or 3), which were completely pointless, useless, and solely designed to kill time (and pad the studio's profits) until the Avengers movie came out? "Just give him another solo movie or two because that's the traditional thing to do." But they didn't move the larger Marvel Universe story forward one bit. You can see Iron Man 1, or Thor 1, ignore the sequels and skip right to Avengers and it doesn't matter. Not bad movies, but completely useless in the big picture.

That said, I'd love a "solo" Superman movie more than anyone, but it's clear we have to get all the pieces on the board sooner rather than later. This movie is going to move us closer to Justice League a LOT smoother, and quicker, than a movie about Superman all by himself fighting Bizarro or Metallo would. Impatient as I am for "Man of Steel 2" or whatever it will eventually be called, people really need to step back, look at the big picture, and realize the story is bigger than the individual characters. And even then, the entire story of BvS revolves around Superman, he's the reason EVERYTHING in the movie happens in the first place... so yes, thematically it IS a direct sequel.

MoS 2, if it came out right now, would just be wasting time. I can't wait for the next solo film, I'm sure it'll be great when the time comes for it. Oddly, I'm perfectly fine with that time not being Right Now. I've seen 6 Superman solo films, but zero starring Superman and a bunch of other huge DC characters co-existing in a shared universe. I'm ready for all this. It's fine.

Well, I don't think any of DC's live-action films coincided with others yet. In fact, Marvel only started doing it in their own cinematic universe. But I am interested to see where Synder will handle it in this universe. I just hope he isn't directing every DC movie in this series.

chrisdude

09-22-2015, 12:09 PM

Candy Kappa

09-22-2015, 12:22 PM

Reeve remains the only believable Superman to don the cape. Every other actor pales in comparison.

Alyn was a pretty good Superman.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-22-2015, 12:50 PM

For what it's worth, there was talk of a Batman Superman crossover between the Dark Knight Batman and the Returns Superman. WB launched the reboots back to back, Gotham is referenced in Superman Returns, they slipped a Batman-Superman logo in I Am Legend...

Except everyone loved Batman Begins, but no one liked Superman Returns.

(Yes, yes, yes... not literally "everyone" and "no one." But in terms of the public opinion and feedback that Warner Bros. received.)

CyberCubed

09-22-2015, 02:02 PM

Batman is loved and cherished the world over because people relate to him and his tragic backstory as well as his loved rogues gallery. Every man wants to be Bruce Wayne and Batman.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-22-2015, 02:19 PM

Batman is loved and cherished the world over because people relate to him and his tragic backstory as well as his loved rogues gallery. Every man wants to be Bruce Wayne and Batman.

I'm sure some people out there don't like Batman. No idea who, though.

I actually always wanted to be Dick Grayson when I was a kid... when I grew up, THEN I wanted to be Batman. :tlol:

Slade

09-22-2015, 02:48 PM

Batman is loved and cherished the world over because people relate to him and his tragic backstory as well as his loved rogues gallery. Every man wants to be Bruce Wayne and Batman.

No, I'm pretty sure I'd rather walk around like nothing could touch me and could basically do whatever I wanted then be a billionaire/vigilante. Of course that's not saying I wouldn't still be a billionaire. :lol:

Commenter 42

09-22-2015, 04:37 PM

Batman is loved and cherished the world over because people relate to him and his tragic backstory as well as his loved rogues gallery. Every man wants to be Bruce Wayne and Batman.

I'm sure some people out there don't like Batman. No idea who, though.

Batman's an A$$hole. Always has been. He's a crazy person with issues, if you relate to that ... well good for you.

I'd pick Superman over Batman every time. Who needs a batmobile when you can fly? A cave when you can chill in Space? Bat-a-rangs when you have heat vision.

Batman isn't everyman. He's Donald Trump who knows Karate.

I'd also choose to be Shazam, Flash, and even Aquaman over Batman. Actually the list is pretty long.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-22-2015, 06:03 PM

Batman's an A$$hole. Always has been. He's a crazy person with issues, if you relate to that ... well good for you.

I'd pick Superman over Batman every time. Who needs a batmobile when you can fly? A cave when you can chill in Space? Bat-a-rangs when you have heat vision.

Batman isn't everyman. He's Donald Trump who knows Karate.

I'd also choose to be Shazam, Flash, and even Aquaman over Batman. Actually the list is pretty long.

I didn't mean specifically as in "I want to be Batman." I meant "who doesn't enjoy a good Batman story?" and not in comparison to other heroes. Do you like Batman Y/N kinda thing.

Turo602

09-22-2015, 08:17 PM

So I was watching Man of Steel again the other day and I had a really cool idea for what they should have done with Jor El. Anyway, there's a part in the film where Superman destroys the world engine and people say he looks like Christopher Reeve. I don't know whether this was intentional through CGI or if it's just a coincidence that Cavill looked just like Reeve in that moment as I've yet to find any sort of confirmation on the subject other than people including it as an easter egg. With that said, I think it would have been cool if Cavill had also played the part of Jor El with a Reeve face CGI'd over his face.

Leo656

09-22-2015, 09:47 PM

Eh. Nah.

Y'know at one point in the 70s, they briefly wanted to have the same guy play both Jor-El and Superman in the first movie, mostly for budget reasons. That was way early on, though, they didn't have a script or a single person cast yet, was just an idea they were tossing around. Your suggestion made me think of it.

Batman's an A$$hole. Always has been. He's a crazy person with issues, if you relate to that ... well good for you.

I'd pick Superman over Batman every time. Who needs a batmobile when you can fly? A cave when you can chill in Space? Bat-a-rangs when you have heat vision.

Batman isn't everyman. He's Donald Trump who knows Karate.

On this, we agree. I mean, I love Batman. Out of my all-time favorite super-heroes, he's not even number 2, more like number 1.5 or something. I love the character almost as much as Superman from a different direction.

But holy sh*t, people who say Batman's the character they relate to more, the guy they actually want to be... holy sh*t, those people are cracked! :lol: Batman's life is AWFUL and the guy is MISERABLE. I've noticed a ton of people who say that are already pretty miserable themselves, and I guess they figure at least their own world would be better if they could wear a mask and beat up muggers and drug dealers as a way to force some small measure of control over their depressing life circumstances... but holy sh*t, no sane person wants to be Bruce Wayne.

I love Batman; but he IS an overly-cynical, depressing asshole. "More people relate to him", supposedly, because... well, look at society. That doesn't make it a good thing. It's actually a pretty sad indictment of the human race, frankly.
-----

Meanwhile, "nobody" liked Returns. $400 million (which, pre-"Avengers", was fairly huge). #1 DVD and Blu-ray when it came out and one of the top-selling that whole year. From Wikipedia: Superman Returns was a box office success, receiving positive reviews from critics praising its story, visual effects and style. Even as a broad generalization type of statement... the math doesn't add up. It was a big picture and lots of people liked it.

Until The Internet told them not to and everyone started gradually submitting to The Spin. The f*cking internet ruins everything; it erases people's actual opinions and replaces them with some "consensus" made up of whatever the "clever" Meme of the Day or "Everything Wrong With..." video tells them is The Right Opinion. It's f*cking sick.

Don't worry Cylons, I knew you were generalizing. Even then, factually, it's a grievously false statement. Lots of people liked it; lots of people won't admit they like it now, which is completely different, and stupid.

CyberCubed

09-22-2015, 10:00 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-22-2015, 10:06 PM

Meanwhile, "nobody" liked Returns. $400 million (which, pre-"Avengers", was fairly huge). #1 DVD and Blu-ray when it came out and one of the top-selling that whole year. From Wikipedia: Superman Returns was a box office success, receiving positive reviews from critics praising its story, visual effects and style. Even as a broad generalization type of statement... the math doesn't add up. It was a big picture and lots of people liked it.

Until The Internet told them not to and everyone started gradually submitting to The Spin. The f*cking internet ruins everything; it erases people's actual opinions and replaces them with some "consensus" made up of whatever the "clever" Meme of the Day or "Everything Wrong With..." video tells them is The Right Opinion. It's f*cking sick.

Don't worry Cylons, I knew you were generalizing. Even then, factually, it's a grievously false statement. Lots of people liked it; lots of people won't admit they like it now, which is completely different, and stupid.

You actually inspire curiosity within me, old chap... perhaps I shall pluck a copy of this blacklisted CBM out of the dollar DVD bin at Walmart and give it the ol' eyeball once-over. After all, I like a handful of movies you guys would probably crucify me for. (And no, Leon the Professional ain't one of them. Hell no!) :tlol: Sorry, had to keep that thread alive. It still cracks me up, continually eliciting amused WTF's whenever I remember it.

Anyway... if X-Men Origins: Wolverine can have shining moments of badass Sabretooth, who's to say I won't like Superman Returns?

... Dammit, I didn't want to namedrop that movie. Now I'm gonna have to repent in sackcloth and ashes before you guys beat me to death with Halloween strap-on plastic Wolverine claws. :teek:

Leo656

09-22-2015, 10:09 PM

People like Batman because he takes tragedy into his own hands and trys to make the world a better place. Since he has no powers he is mortal and realistic and his Bruce Wayne persona is what every man wants to be, a millionaire with endless women.

That and Batman has cool gadgets, Batmobile, and punches criminals.

To be read as: Bruce Wayne reacts to "tragedy" in the same manner a frightened, angry, spoiled child would and does. True, there's a huge heroic angle to who he is and what he does. But underneath all of it, he's an angry child acting out, and that's the prime motivation for everything he does and is.

I mean, even the comics point this out, constantly. Characters constantly remind Bruce that he has enough money to start his own country, and instead of trying to cure AIDS or feed the hungry or house the homeless - we've repeatedly seen, he actually IS rich enough to at least make a dent in even the most serious social justice problems... guy built himself a f*cking satellite - he spends all his money on "Those Wonderful Toys" and beating the crap out of people it's way too late to save. And since storylines dictate that all of those bad guys eventually escape to sell more comics and more merchandise, he's not even really "saving" anyone, or doing all that much good! He merely perpetuates an endless cycle of violence that he doesn't even really try to escape from or put an end to. How much positive impact he has on his world is constantly up for debate, and it could go on forever.

I forget who, but someone really put him in his place in a comic from like, ten years ago. I forget who, and the exact quote, but it was something like, "A LOT of people lose their parents, Bruce... they don't all try and cope by jumping off rooftops and beating up poor people."

But again, society sees itself reflected in this guy. Yay? I'm not sure that's a Yay.

You actually inspire curiosity within me, old chap... perhaps I shall pluck a copy of this blacklisted CBM out of the dollar DVD bin at Walmart and give it the ol' eyeball once-over. After all, I like a handful of movies you guys would probably crucify me for. (And no, Leon the Professional ain't one of them. Hell no!) :tlol: Sorry, had to keep that thread alive. It still cracks me up, continually eliciting amused WTF's whenever I remember it.

Anyway... if X-Men Origins: Wolverine can have shining moments of badass Sabretooth, who's to say I won't like Superman Returns?

A lot of the criticisms are valid, just overblown. It's really long, extremely talky for a super-hero flick, and the middle section drags under the weight of all the character stuff. To me, none of that RUINS the movie like some people swear it does. I'm still waiting for a live-action super-hero scene that's more on-point and just plain terrific than the plane-saving scene. It also has a sense of humor and fun about itself that, much as I can like and defend the movie, Man of Steel clearly did not have. Beyond that, the colors, cinematography and the music are just plain amazing. I can see why some people might think it's kind of a slog and too much of a Valentine to the first flick, but so much of it just sizzles and pops and does just so much right. It actually fixes a ton of mistakes the Reeve film made, and avoids a ton that Man of Steel made.

It's good. To me, it's great, but I swear anyone who says it's not at all even Good just has an agenda.

CyberCubed

09-22-2015, 10:18 PM

Leo656

09-22-2015, 10:32 PM

Like, a couple times versus the couple hundred thousand times Superman did it? :lol::lol::lol: Wait, it was Batman that knocked Imperiex and Brainiac 13 back to the beginning of the universe and triggered the Big Bang? You mean it was Batman that destroyed Darkseid's ethereal form, stopped Mandrakk the Dark Monitor and used the Miracle Machine to rebuild the entire infinite Multiverse during Final Crisis? Cuz I could'a sworn that was all Superman that did that. :lol: This is fun. We could keep this going forever.

Dude, I love Batman. But the dude's broken; anybody who would really want to trade places with him would also have to inherit all his baggage, and the dude's perpetually unhappy. Why would anyone want that for himself, really? That's the point I was making. That's why it makes no sense when people say they can relate more or would want to be Batman. I can see it, but it's not necessarily something anyone should aspire to.

To your question, I can't recall any scenarios like the ones you put forth but I haven't read every single Batman story like I mostly have with Superman. I mean there was the time after he came back and beat up Bane that he almost gave it to Dick for a while, the "Prodigal" storyline, but that wasn't really supposed to be a permanent thing. I honestly forget what was going on with that, it's been forever since I read it.

Commenter 42

09-22-2015, 11:30 PM

People like Batman because he and punches criminals.

That's the part that blows. It's elitist, folks who think that "criminals" exist.

People only rob banks and steal because they're "evil". They never commit crimes out of necessity or circumstance. They're faceless nameless "thugs" who should be taught a lesson by a guy with more money than brains.

Billionaires don't amass wealth by being swell folks. The world doesn't work that way.

People love Batman because he's vengeful and Batman gives them permission to live out revenge fantasy by proxy. It's the same reason everyone cheers when the Hulk trounces Loki in Avengers. The vindictive 5 year old in us gets it's wish.

Superman on the other hand, shows more restraint. Today though, that's not good enough for John Q Beercan. They're sick of "taking it" and want vengeance. This of course goes hand in hand with millennial entitlement, so no real surprise there. Kids today don't slug it out at a crappy job flipping burgers - they have a start up. They have a kickstarter/blog/vlog/blah blah. They 're making a living without leaving the house. They're all going to be baby billionaires - they're all on track to Bruce Wayne.

It's a different time.

EDIT: sorry Leo, didn't read you last two posts...covering the same ground. Appologies

Slade

09-22-2015, 11:55 PM

I'm loving reading this. Now if only the rest of the world would wake the f*ck up and realize this stuff too.

Commenter 42

09-23-2015, 12:05 AM

Gotham would be a lot worse if Bruce didn't do what he does. Aren't there several stories where he actually tries to give up the cape and "retire" from being Batman just to see if crime would go down? And yet the same criminals continue to kill and steal so he has to don the costume again.

Yeah, but maybe, just maybe If he spent more time as Bruce Wayne, working to redistribute his personal wealth, and less time flying his bat plane, Gotham wouldn't need or want Batman.

Economics are at the heart of most of the worlds problems, while overzealous cops (Batman) who take it upon themselves to dish out justice, are a growing problem, not a solution.

I rest my case, Batman is an billionaire A$$hole, not a hero. He's clearly not the worlds greatest detective either, seeing as he's never figured any of this out.

CyberCubed

09-23-2015, 02:55 PM

People who rob banks and kill people are criminals. Who cares if they are hungry or poor? Tell them to suck it up.

Batman deserves to smash their faces in, break their bones, and leave them unconcious for the police. I wish Batman were real to clean up all the gangster scum in New York and the criminal filth. The world needs a Batman.

Commenter 42

09-23-2015, 03:20 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-23-2015, 03:25 PM

lol. Do you live in a comicbook? Gangster scum and criminal filth?

You watch your damned mouth, pal, or he'll sock you in the teeth with a kevlar gauntlet. :tlol: He is justice, he is the night... he is CyberCubed.

Commenter 42

09-23-2015, 03:30 PM

You watch your damned mouth, pal, or he'll sock you in the teeth with a kevlar gauntlet. :tlol: He is justice, he is the night... he is CyberCubed.

Sweet jesus. I got under cubed's skin. I think that get's me a prize.

ToTheNines

09-23-2015, 03:33 PM

lol. Do you live in a comicbook? Gangster scum and criminal filth?

Lol, it certainly isn't our reality.

CyberCubed

09-23-2015, 03:43 PM

The criminals in Batman's universe deserve to have their faces smashed into the pavement and beaten to a bloody pulp. Its Batman's no-kill policy that they keep getting out of jail and Arkham and then come out to do the same thing over and over again.

If Batman really was nuts, he would have killed Joker, Scarecrow, Penguin, Two-Face, etc. all after their first encounter so he could be done with them. He doesn't, so then they all keep getting out and causing more chaos over and over again.

It would be the same for real life. All those gang bangers and criminal scum that infest the underworld of our fine city should be dealt with. If you actually bother to look up crime statistics each year you would see how often this happens and its sickening. Criminal scum deserve no mercy.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-23-2015, 03:51 PM

chrisdude

09-23-2015, 04:21 PM

Plus, if he were real, he would probably wear his knees out. And what fun is that?

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-23-2015, 04:32 PM

Plus, if he were real, he would probably wear his knees out. And what fun is that?

For real, chrisdude... the cartilage would be totally gone. :tlol:

CyberCubed

09-23-2015, 05:05 PM

I always wondered why Batman doesn't cover his chin. Like his whole armor can be bullet proof but one shot with a gun in the chin and he's done.

TheSkeletonMan939

09-23-2015, 05:24 PM

I always wondered why Batman doesn't cover his chin. Like his whole armor can be bullet proof but one shot with a gun in the chin and he's done.

:lol: That's what I always thought about with Iron Man. In the earlier comics he didn't have any sort of protective eyepiece, so I guess he was pretty lucky no one ever tried to shoot him in the eye.

Commenter 42

09-23-2015, 06:56 PM

I always wondered why Batman doesn't cover his chin. Like his whole armor can be bullet proof but one shot with a gun in the chin and he's done.

Your logic:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4ju4mImRB1qcb58yo1_500.gif

chrisdude

09-23-2015, 08:54 PM

I always wondered why Batman doesn't cover his chin. Like his whole armor can be bullet proof but one shot with a gun in the chin and he's done.So the character can show emotion, maybe? Spider-Man covers his face, and he takes his mask off every chance he gets.

Leo656

09-23-2015, 10:04 PM

Y'know how the government is always trying to prove a correlation between kids absorbing a ton of cartoons and comic books when they're kids and their behavior later on as full-grown adults?

If they ever decide to check this place out we seriously need to lock Cubed in a closet for the day. :lol: I love how he talks like the Punisher. That's amazing.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-23-2015, 10:11 PM

CyberCubed

09-23-2015, 10:19 PM

Everything I ever learned about life I learned from TV, movies and videogames.

Leo656

09-23-2015, 10:21 PM

No kiddin'.

TurtleTitan97

09-23-2015, 10:28 PM

Everything I ever learned about life I learned from TV, movies and videogames.

Somehow, that explains a lot...

LeotheLateBloomer

09-24-2015, 08:45 AM

Who cares if they are hungry or poor? Tell them to suck it up.

- CyberCubed, 2015.

Batman as he is just does not fit in the real world... the analogy breaks down very quickly.

Nolan missed the mark, there.:lol:

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-24-2015, 09:21 AM

- CyberCubed, 2015.

Nolan missed the mark, there.:lol:

I think Nolan came the closest that anyone can, and for the record, it took Christopher Nolan to make me a Batman fan again.

Still... I wish I could have gotten the movie WB wanted him to make, with the Riddler. But David Tennant instead of Leo DiCaprio.

Commenter 42

09-24-2015, 11:07 AM

I think Nolan came the closest that anyone can, and for the record, it took Christopher Nolan to make me a Batman fan again.

Still... I wish I could have gotten the movie WB wanted him to make, with the Riddler. But David Tennant instead of Leo DiCaprio.

Christ no.

No no...no.

No, Nolan is Garbage.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

09-24-2015, 11:34 AM

Christ no.

No no...no.

No, Nolan is Garbage.

You and I will NEVER agree on that. But as long as we agree Platinum Dunes is shite, I can live with it. :tlol:

Leo656

09-24-2015, 11:43 PM

There's some stuff in 'em I didn't care for. Not so much the first one, but definitely in the third one. It's neat, it was a blast opening night but once the adrenaline wears off it's really not good for much except tying a ribbon on that particular Batman universe.

I mean there's stuff in Burton's Batman I really hate, too (especially the second one). I'm like that; there's stuff I love and hate in just about anything and everything. :lol:

Re-watching the first season of the Adam West Batman, I think it holds up a little better than it's gotten credit for. I never get sick of the recurring opening scene, where all the Gotham City cops (all 5 of them :lol:) are sitting around like a pack of helpless, whimpering puppies until Gordon picks up the Bat-Phone. :lol: "Saints preserve us, Commissioner! It's Sneakers O'Toole, out there refusin' ta take his sneakers off in the courtroom! That rapscallion!" "You're right as usual, Sgt. O'Hara! God knows there's only one man alive who can stop this dastardly villain!" :lol: Seriously, man. And how come Gordon never realizes that Batman has a f*cking Butler? He's casual friendly acquaintances with Alfred, for God's sake! :lol::lol::lol: Good stuff, man.

I know that was just a random tangent, I just couldn't stick it anywhere. Shut up, it's still my Birthday in a couple more time zones. I'll do what I f***in' wanna do, ya heard? :trazz:

Commenter 42

09-25-2015, 12:46 AM

Shut up, it's still my Birthday in a couple more time zones. I'll do what I f***in' wanna do, ya heard? :trazz:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/glenniebun/kevinnash.png

I got you a cake!

http://cdnstatic.visualizeus.com/thumbs/dd/a6/gateau,tomselleck-dda63b00eb4643851aafa6869a77c923_h.jpg?ts=93246

Leo656

09-25-2015, 01:02 AM

'Zat Tom Selleck? :lol:

Commenter 42

09-25-2015, 01:29 AM

The one and only. I may have spelled your name wrong. I was 2 martini's in.

Leo656

10-05-2015, 10:22 PM

http://fortune.com/contentfrom/2015/10/05/lex-luthor-jr/ntv_a/3dsBA58oDAfxgFA

Kord Industries gets a mention! Neat! :tgrin: Nice little piece of world-building, subtle as it is.

Neat little article altogether. I dig this kinda thing, helps set things up. Lots of nice foreshadowing and subtle wordplay in "Lex's" quotes.

I and others find it interesting that he's clearly Alex Luthor, Jr. in this version, whereas in most other versions, most recently Smallville, his father's name was Lionel. Lex's family history has always been super sketchy anyways, it's one of the most-tinkered with bits in the whole mythology, so it's a minor note in the grand scheme of things. I won't be surprised one bit if it turns out Lex Sr.'s "sudden and unexpected" death was in some way Jr.'s fault.

Leo656

10-10-2015, 06:53 PM

Costumes and action figures on display: http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=17046
"Knightmare" Batman lends credence to the theory that the scenes with Batman in the desert fighting "Superman Soldiers" (and snapping one's neck) are part of a brief "dream" or "hypothetical" sequence. Probably shown, I'm guessing, as a backdrop to Bruce talking ominously about how Superman "has the power to wipe out the entire human race" and all that.

Also, you can now visit the official LexCorp website, although there's not much to it yet: http://www.lexcorp.io/#/home

That "scaly" background design for LexOS looks suspiciously like the standard "shorthand" design for Brainiac. :lol: That's neat.

TurtleTitan97

10-11-2015, 12:15 AM

I and others find it interesting that he's clearly Alex Luthor, Jr. in this version, whereas in most other versions, most recently Smallville, his father's name was Lionel. Lex's family history has always been super sketchy anyways, it's one of the most-tinkered with bits in the whole mythology, so it's a minor note in the grand scheme of things. I won't be surprised one bit if it turns out Lex Sr.'s "sudden and unexpected" death was in some way Jr.'s fault.

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a good explanation as to why this Luthor looks younger than other versions. But on the other hand, I'd rather have the "real" Lex then just his son. This just kinda feels like a back door to have the real one step in just case this version is well received.

We'll see.

Slade

10-11-2015, 01:37 AM

so basically, we're getting this guy:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/1975c2df79e3aa2d1db1adbaf973b765.jpg

Instead of this guy:

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/3f4814110ce5b854abdbc316f7d6166c.jpg

Or, I'm over thinking things

Leo656

10-11-2015, 02:01 AM

Most likely option B. They just changed Lex's Dad's name. It happens.

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 02:25 AM

Most likely option B. They just changed Lex's Dad's name. It happens.

It's really interesting how far out on the ledge you're willing to go for this film, while I couldn't be less interested in it. Lex jr? Come on!

Nothing's going to shake your confidence, I know, but as with Marvels impending Spider-man reboot, the scuttlebutt reeks of infuriating equivocation.

Leo656

10-11-2015, 02:57 AM

Seeing as the beginning and end of Lex's Dad's importance to the mythology is, "Lex killed him," does it f*cking matter what the guy's name is? Before Smallville established it as "Lionel", did anyone ever know, or care? No, they didn't. It completely doesn't matter one bit what Lex's dad's name is. He's a footnote, completely inconsequential to the grand scheme of things. That's the truth. BUT, to one or two people looking for anything and everything to rant about, "OH Noes! They got it wrong again!" :roll: Talk about tilting at f*cking windmills. I mean, even Lex's own name... "Lex" has either been short for "Alexis", "Alexei", or "Alexander" depending on who was telling the story that particular day. And even aside from his Dad's name, Lex's entire backstory has been retold so many times with so many contradictions and deviations that it's very, very fluid. Some things simply aren't quite as set in stone as other things. This is a case of a very select few really, really reaching deep for things to be pissy about. Of all the things they could change that would actually hurt anything, this is such a non-issue.

Converse to your statement, the amount of things you're willing to pick nits over in your unwarranted hatred of the movie is infinitely more f*cking ridiculous by this point than anything I or anyone could say in defense of it. I suggest moving on with your life. I don't have to "go out on a ledge" for anything in defense of the movie; people who actually read the comics they're borrowing stuff from can recognize what they're doing and are for the most part pleased with it, a few minor and inevitable nitpicks aside. Now that stuff's actually been seen, and we more or less know what's going to happen story-wise, more people are in favor of what they're doing than against it. Literally the only people who are all "doom n' gloom," are people whose only experience with the characters are from kids' cartoons and a dated fairy-tale film from 40 years ago. None of that should have any bearing whatsoever on anything being done in the here and now.

Everything is fine. For f*ck's sake already. We already have a CyberCubed to tell us everything is terrible for completely silly made-up reasons, isn't one enough? :lol:

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 03:22 AM

No. No it's not.

Everyone isn't "fine" with it. I'm hardly f*cking nit picking. Every damn time they take a step into Snyder's world - away from source, everyone nods and claps and smiles.

Change the costume, change the tone, change the history, change change change.

You want to get angry at me, that's helpful :roll: - but at best this is a reimagined version of a great anthology, period. Dark, angry, morose and militaristic, words that don't usually conjure and s shield.

Shock me, shock me, shock me, with the millennial post 911 angst. This is "Superman" apparently represent'en for a generation of shoot first, bible tote'n, hyper-sensitive, fear-filled-emasculated bitch tits that thrive on psuedo-cool.

Oh, and feel free to hypocritically hate on my nostalgia. Thats totally fair.

But I digress. I thought we were cool, but this right here was kinda weak sauce.

I baked you a cake FFS.

Leo656

10-11-2015, 04:02 AM

No, we're cool, you just have a thing where you see things that aren't there sometimes, and alternatively either fall in love with them or go to war against them. Or you over-sell bits you don't like that have less to do with the bigger picture. In this case, you by your own admission have an issue with the director's style and hate everything he'll ever do, including these movies.

That's fine. But I could still sit here for the next two hours, and list several hundred things that this movie and MoS either borrow from or lift directly from the comic books, which means they are in my opinion doing a lot more right than wrong. Frankly, it doesn't matter if we agree on it, we don't have to; you've admitted that you can't embrace anything that goes away from Your Favorite Version, while I much prefer something that actually pays a little attention to the stories it's ostensibly adapting. Yes, there's a lot of change, but a ton of it is extremely superficial, and a lot of stuff that is superficially changed is still thematically accurate. I don't love the costume, either, for example, but I'm over it. There's too much else going on and a lot of it's pretty good. WB tried to put Superman in black pleather with blades all over him for almost 10 years; count your blessings and pick your battles.

The reason I can "hate on" your nostalgia, is because the Reeve movies pretty much wiped their ass on the comic books - not because they wanted to, but because budget-wise they had to - but you can't complain about "change" and still defend those movies, when all they actually got "right" was what the main character looked like. I mean, hey, great for what it is, it's a good little fairy-tale take on a super-hero, but it isn't fair at all to play that movie up like it's perfect, and meanwhile sh*t all over what Snyder is doing, when all he's doing is actually taking from the books where the 70s movies made up their own story. It's not "wrong" because it contradicts what you grew up with. It's "right" because it actually borrows heavily from the source material. I understand, the comics aren't your preference. We've discussed that at length. They still deserve credit for doing the work, even if it's a little more self-serious than you'd prefer.

That's really what the disconnect is. You repeatedly claim they're half-assing the whole project, and not doing the work. Well, that's false, sir, I'm sorry. The insane amount of obscure details they've put in and the overwhelming number of things they've borrowed from the comics both visually and story-wise actually means they're doing a lot more homework than anyone ever has with these characters. I get that it's not your taste. But as you've often seen elsewhere, I get a little annoyed when people say things that are provably untrue. MoS by itself has an exhaustive amount of attention to detail, and skillfully merges recognizable plot points and story beats from at least six different semi-major comics stories I could name off the top of my head, and tons of really obscure stuff only someone like me would notice, and probably a lot more if I sat with a notepad and kept track of it all as I was watching it. And I can't even keep track of all the stuff referenced just in the BvS trailer alone. But having read the synopsis, there's plenty more to come if even 2/3s of it is true.

There's enough stuff in there that's deliberate, to show me that they at least read the goddamn books when they were making the thing, which is more than Burton or Singer or Nolan or even Donner bothered to do with their beloved super-hero opuses. None of those guys read the books, they looked at covers and made stuff up. The results were great, but come on, everyone says they want comic book movies that actually take from the books. Are they doing it 100%? No, more like 90-95%. That's still closer than most, some stuff you gotta let go of. Especially the tone. I mean, man, god forbid a movie where the entire fate of Earth is at stake, people don't keep stopping to crack jokes. That's fine sometimes, but I'm over that, too. Those Marvel flicks do more than enough self-reverential "wink wink" stuff. I can handle a little tonal diversity in my super-hero flicks.
I mean Doomsday's in it. It absolutely should NOT be like "Avengers", where everyone's making puns and cracking wise, in that kind of situation. Maybe the DC movies will get to some "lighter" fare later on. I'm personally just fine if they don't, but it's fine if they do. But meanwhile, between the Zod invasion and the upcoming Doomsday scenario, I genuinely don't see the room or the need for a lighter tone or abundance of humor. That would be inappropriate for the kind of story they're trying to tell.

I mean, again, it could be fine, and we could just agree to disagree. Because it's not new to me; nobody who primarily likes the Reeve films ever likes any other version of Superman and you can't really argue it with them, and that's a whole other issue. But you just keep going on about it like this movie f***ed your sister, and I'm pretty sure it didn't. :lol: It's literally just that it's more like the comics than the Reeve movies. That's all that's "wrong". I'm sorry, that's not enough for it to be a federal case. You gotta relax, guy.

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 05:29 AM

But, Leo, it feels like this movie ran a train on my sister.

I'm not completely blind to Superman comics. I've read my share, like I said. If this were All-star Superman, I'd be down, as goofy as some of the story was. If this was more fantasy sci fi, I'd be all in. It's not all Reeve's man, it's the tone. It's way off key.

You continue to hammer me with the little Easter eggs and nods and winks and a$$ slaps it's giving the comic reader. Ok, that can be fun, admittedly, but just owning a dictionary doesn't make you literate. I don't actually give a damn about comic accuracy if they tell a good story, truth be told. but MOS was not in anyway a good storey, and though it made references to comics, it didn't matter because I was ten miles from careing.

So if you're just going to steal from here and there, 'cause you're paying homage, do that, but have something to say. Even Singer had something to say.

You're not willing to admit that this is no different than any other reboot, because you're sherlocking each market researched, intentionally leaked crumb, and that suddenly justifies all the pointless changes? You're right of course, most of the changes they've made DO NOT MATTER, except, I find that beneath the bravado of BS, alterations, there isn't anything worth seeing or hearing.

When you have to reinvent Doomsday, one of the biggest, most idiotic sales tools ever devised, and retcon his only redeeming quality (his mildly interesting origin) so you can shoehorn in Michael Shannon? What's interesting about cloning Zod? to make it more "real" uh, the shark, she is a jumped.

And God dammit man, this sh!t is personal. Maybe the Donner films weren't comic accurate, but so what? They're solid stories, about a man, who is Super.

I don't dig WB's style of animation, but for the most part, those adaptations often start kind of lame, but you soon get why they're popular and interesting. They have a way of twisting the knife just right, they're somehow bigger than the screen.

To suggest I'm seeing things that aren't there? If this was any other film, you'd be first to lay the smack down. You jumped all over Jem! I mean it sucked, but, Jem!!

I'm confused is all. What's so awesome about BVS. I just don't get it.

Also the answer can not be "Punching".

And Snyder did an amazing job with 300 and Watchmen. Sucker punch gets a 6 because the trailer was great, and he had the balls to go there with such dark Subject matter.

He s#*t the bed with MOS, but I blame Nolan for most of it.

Turo602

10-11-2015, 08:20 AM

If you can't get why BvS is "awesome" it's simply because you're not a Superman fan. Honestly, all your opinions regarding this film are completely irrelevant to the majority of the people who want to check this film out. None of it is valid. You're sickly fixated on one version of the character that nothing will ever live up to it because it's not Reeve Superman. Your attitude is selfish and we've heard enough. If the movie doesn't appeal to you, why keep blasting it and the makers over such deluded selfish bullsh*t? You're not right so stop acting like you have meaningful criticism towards the film or anything Superman related that isn't Reeve.

sdp

10-11-2015, 11:10 AM

Ironically his preferred version of Superman wouldn't actually figh't against batman

CyberCubed

10-11-2015, 01:13 PM

I guarantee that 90% of the people who watch this movie are doing it for Batman. 10% are watching for Superman. There's a reason they said there's more Batman scenes in this movie than Superman.

sdp

10-11-2015, 01:22 PM

I think you're wrong there, many people are getting interested because Superman is fighting Batman, not because it's a Batman film with Superman. People like Superman and think of him as an icon, a solo movie just didn't excite them, I know this because most of my friends are non-geeks and they care not about superheroes but they're all intrigued by Superman vs Batman. He's that iconic. This movie has potential to be much bigger than the first Avengers since these are much more known characters. Marvel might be on a role and very popular now but DC has always had more iconic characters.

CyberCubed

10-11-2015, 03:33 PM

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

TurtleTitan97

10-11-2015, 04:23 PM

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

Oh brother. :roll:

sdp

10-11-2015, 05:15 PM

Batman V _______. Any other hero (DC, Marvel, etc) would not make as much money as this is going to make however Superman V _____ would always make money as long as the other hero is relatively popular. People want to see Superman, he is that iconic they're not interested in his solo movies because people think he's boring which is actually not true but that's another topic. Think of Superman as the Boxer who always wins so his fights are no longer fun to watch but when they see him fight another opponent who they love they'll definitely go watch the match. That's why Iron Man V Captain America is going to be crushed by this movie. Superman is what makes this movie be in people's radar.

Casual fans love Batman but it's the nerds who worship him.

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 05:27 PM

If you can't get why BvS is "awesome" it's simply because you're not a Superman fan.

Ok, I'll bite - I must not be a "real fan". Go on and enlighten me.

It's like Cubed just said - people are only excited to see Batman punch Superman. I guess that's the part I just don't get. That's not a story, it's an action. It's a movie, not the WWE.

Y'all can scream bloody murder if you want - but you're the sycophants here, not me. This is EXACTLY the same BS as every other reboot. The Hype has convinced you otherwise. There's no difference between this and TMNT 2014. None.

I've had this conversation with kids like you before - when Nolan was untouchable as the king of movies, just before DK rises. I knew that was garbage, just like I know this is garbage. Nolan has always been a terrible filmmaker - but he understood how to market himself. This is more of the same. This isn't GD Superman. It's Hollywood cosplay.

I'm not a Marvel fan bashing DC. I'm a Superman fan sick of TPTB right now, thinking there clever re-imagings are interesting. More to the point, I've actually been a Superman fan longer than ANYONE in this conversation, so STFU with the insults. I've spent money same as you, and probably more on DC - I get a say in the quality, or lack there of, and I don't need your permission to criticize the product they're schlepping right now.

I'm not minimizing you, so try and show a little courtesy to someone who has a difference of opinion.

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

And there you have it - like I said, y'all want Batman to punch Superman in the face. And that's fine, but it's not interesting. It's tabloid entertainment at best, marketed to the same minds that enjoy tractor pulls and deep fried chocolate bars.

The deeper issue, is the reason everyones so keen to see Batman beat Superman. It says a lot about this generation.

Ironically his preferred version of Superman wouldn't actually figh't against batman

You're right. My preferred version of Superman is actually a man, not a petulant child like MOS, or an emo stalker like in Returns.

Leo656

10-11-2015, 06:56 PM

I doubt the majority of people actually hope or think "Batman beating down Superman" is what they're going to be seeing. :lol: The fight's part of the movie, it's not the entire movie. Cubed, I can tell, is going to be pretty disappointed with how things eventually play out. That kinda tickles me. :lol: Might wanna stay home that day, if that in particular is the draw for anyone.

It's also not a Batman movie, nor does he have "more scenes". He has a lot of establishing scenes in the first half since we haven't seen him yet in this movie universe, but it's not his movie, it's a Superman movie. Batman is a reactionary character in the plot, the movie isn't about him. Again, if Batman is the biggest reason anyone's going, they might be a little disappointed. Not in how the character is played, because it's going to be great, but because a lot of things they're expecting or hoping for - "Batman's gonna whoop Superman because he's Batman!" or the entire movie centering around Batman - simply isn't going to happen.

My wife really hates movie spoilers. Not me, because I like knowing what I'm getting into before I spend money. What's neat for me this time, is that I already have a really good idea as far as who's going to be pleasantly surprised, who's going to be disappointed, and who's never going to change their minds from what they already think a year in advance. :) That's all gonna be a lot of fun come March.

Anyways, I'll be back later, I'm busy. Cubed's silliness is always worth a little something though, I couldn't stay silent. :trazz:

Xav

10-11-2015, 10:07 PM

Batman's an A$$hole.Well he has to keep up with that dick Superman.

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 10:15 PM

Well he has to keep up with that dick Superman.

You win, I laughed.

Leo656

10-11-2015, 11:21 PM

Batman is an asshole, though, that's a huge part of his entire appeal. :lol: By design, he appeals to the part of us that wishes we could solve every problem with our fists. I love Batman, he's my second-favorite fictional character, but all his heroic motivations are ultimately very selfish and he's much more a tragic figure than a purely heroic one.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-11-2015, 11:31 PM

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

Batman does not dirty his feet by walking on unholy ground. That motherf***er FLOATS. :trazz:

But yes, we worship the ground upon which his holy shadow falls.

Commenter 42

10-11-2015, 11:59 PM

Turo602

10-12-2015, 05:41 AM

Ok, I'll bite - I must not be a "real fan". Go on and enlighten me.

It's like Cubed just said - people are only excited to see Batman punch Superman. I guess that's the part I just don't get. That's not a story, it's an action. It's a movie, not the WWE.

Y'all can scream bloody murder if you want - but you're the sycophants here, not me. This is EXACTLY the same BS as every other reboot. The Hype has convinced you otherwise. There's no difference between this and TMNT 2014. None.

I've had this conversation with kids like you before - when Nolan was untouchable as the king of movies, just before DK rises. I knew that was garbage, just like I know this is garbage. Nolan has always been a terrible filmmaker - but he understood how to market himself. This is more of the same. This isn't GD Superman. It's Hollywood cosplay.

I'm not a Marvel fan bashing DC. I'm a Superman fan sick of TPTB right now, thinking there clever re-imagings are interesting. More to the point, I've actually been a Superman fan longer than ANYONE in this conversation, so STFU with the insults. I've spent money same as you, and probably more on DC - I get a say in the quality, or lack there of, and I don't need your permission to criticize the product they're schlepping right now.

I'm not minimizing you, so try and show a little courtesy to someone who has a difference of opinion.

The fact that you take anything Cubed says as the opinion of the general public is alarming and only further proves that you don't get it. Just because people are guaranteed a good time with this movie simply because they're finally witnessing the clash of two icons on the big screen for the first time in history doesn't mean that's all the movie offers. So far, everything you've said about this movie is false. Your blind child-like hate is pathetic and is clearly getting in the way of you seeing and comprehending what everyone else already has about this movie.

This is the equivalent of ignorant TMNT fans bitching about 2k3 for not following the source material which they wrongly believe to be the original cartoon and then sh*tting all over the people behind the show by claiming they have no idea what they're doing.

As Leo has stated time and time again, these movies clearly get Superman. Just because it isn't like the Superman you like doesn't mean it isn't staying true to the character beyond the Reeve films. It's like a Smallville fan claiming everything else Superman related got it wrong because it's not like Smallville.

Oh, and calling me kid and trying to claim some sort of seniority as a fan of Superman doesn't make you a credible judge when discussing the quality of all things Superman. You're free to criticize but don't expect anyone to take you serious when you act like the Reeve films are the definitive source for Superman.

ZariusTwo

10-12-2015, 10:09 AM

My main worry about the movie is that both characters are in a somewhat damaged place stemming off of both unseen events (from Bruce's perspective), and events from MOS. I like it when there's contrasting styles and attitudes, marred with a slightly murky cloud. Duel-Deconstruction can be good if handled right, so I remain invested in what they can offer with the story.

It's funny how the books have sort of flipped the switch lately, with DC trying to make Superman more like a brooding and alienated vigilante, and making the Bat-books a bit chirpier and light-hearted, with even Bruce getting some much needed time off and replenishment as a likeable human being.

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 12:44 PM

GThe fact that you take anything Cubed says as the opinion of the general public is alarming and only further proves that you don't get it. Just because people are guaranteed a good time with this movie simply because they're finally witnessing the clash of two icons on the big screen for the first time in history doesn't mean that's all the movie offers. So far, everything you've said about this movie is false. Your blind child-like hate is pathetic and is clearly getting in the way of you seeing and comprehending what everyone else already has about this movie.

This is the equivalent of ignorant TMNT fans bitching about 2k3 for not following the source material which they wrongly believe to be the original cartoon and then sh*tting all over the people behind the show by claiming they have no idea what they're doing.

As Leo has stated time and time again, these movies clearly get Superman. Just because it isn't like the Superman you like doesn't mean it isn't staying true to the character beyond the Reeve films. It's like a Smallville fan claiming everything else Superman related got it wrong because it's not like Smallville.

Oh, and calling me kid and trying to claim some sort of seniority as a fan of Superman doesn't make you a credible judge when discussing the quality of all things Superman. You're free to criticize but don't expect anyone to take you serious when you act like the Reeve films are the definitive source for Superman.

Feel free to answer the previous question at anytime. You're banality is aggravating. Read a post, and respond accordingly.

The fact that you THINK I'm taking cubed seriously shows how literal minded you are. A literal mind is a dangerous thing.
And when did we all suddenly all decide that Superman the movie and Superman2 don't adhere to the source? Where do they so drastically deviate? The cellophane S shield? Again, feel free to actually answer the question.

Name the comics BVS is pulling from so faithfully. Go on big boy. And be specific. Here's a hint - It's not Frank Miler.

If you want a true TMNT comparison, MOS is the Platinum Dunes version of Superman. I agree, it is a bit like 2k3, in that 2k3 was often awkward and boring, but Superman the movie is not FW, maybe the MWS miniseries...in that it's fun, but that's all.

Also help me understand what the deep meaningful story was to MOS. Explain how it's anything more than a patchwork hack job. I kep arguing it's not a GOOD FILM, and you keep responding with, well it's just like the comics. So, are we to assume Superman can't be adapted into a good film?

And lastly, do you want to argue, or sh!t talk? If it's **** talk, let's get on with it; if you have a point, make it, or shut the f*ck up. Leo I can debate - you, you're just chirping from the sidelines, and you add nothing to the conversation.

I called you a kid because you act like a kid. MOS is SH!T BVS will be SH!T. Snyder is a Hack. Cavel is short and balding, Batfleck is a joke, and Lex Luthor JR, is played like he's a tech start up kid.

NONE OF THIS IS SOURCE! Get over yourself.

sdp

10-12-2015, 03:37 PM

I think Zack Snyder knows how to make entertaining movies and while MoS has a ton of flaws it is still the best interpretation of the character we have seen in live action to date.

GoldMutant

10-12-2015, 03:57 PM

Well, been meaning to post in this, but man this arguing is fun to watch. :lol: Anyways, about the movie...

I'm personally skeptical on the whole thing. Man of Steel was not a good movie, far from the worst superhero movie I've ever seen. (Quest for Peace anyone?) I will say Henry Cavil is very good at the role of Superman. Heck, I think that at least a reasonable number of live action Supermen actors have been good, Reeve and Cavil obviously and Brandon was alright, though the weakest of the movie guys.

My main concern is the movie is jamming way too much stuff into it, we barely know how Cavil's Superman acts with his character and now they are throwing a new Batman plus the live action debuts of Wonder Woman and Aquaman. Considering they are making a Justice League movie near the end of 2017 possibly for release, that's very concerning. Feels like they should have waited and gave each of these guys a movie, or a sequel for Superman alone first before doing this film. With the tone of Man of Steel, the two iconic heroes aren't easy to contrast as they are one in the same. I'm not a comic reader, but isn't Superman often the positive hope of a role model while Batman is this interesting, complex hero that many go gaga over? Stripping one or flipping the other of what made them who they are feels... offputting to me.

Now, I can assume Ben Affleck is getting bashed on for being this new Batman. Well, needless to say, I think he can be decent. Sure, he starred in Daredevil, but he did show potential as a brooding character even if that was one of the low points Marvel movie wise. Remember, you can't be worse than George Clooney. ;) Ben has some potential in the role, probably won't be the best, but he can do a good job. Remember, every person who portrays a hero like Joker, Batman, and others will be compared, best to play safe.

Overall, I might plan on seeing the film, though I am worried personally. Also, if anyone is wondering on reasons that Man of Steel wasn't excellent, I would recommend watching Sam's Channel on Youtube. (shameless advertising someone I like, I know. :P) The man does a very good job addressing the film plus the original Donner and Superman Returns. Needless to say, let's see how it goes.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-12-2015, 04:08 PM

Well damn! I didn't know the excrement was so badly on the fans in here.

To me, brethren of the Popcorn-Munching Spectator Brigade!!! :tcool:

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 04:48 PM

I think Zack Snyder knows how to make entertaining movies and while MoS has a ton of flaws it is still the best interpretation of the character we have seen in live action to date.

That's nice. You're wrong, but you're entitled to your opinion, wrong as it may be.

The BEST Superman film to date are the Donner Films. Any argument to the contrary is WB propaganda.

Could they make a better film than Superman the Movie? Absolutely! Does it have to be Reeve in the suit? No, of course not. Did Snyder make a Superman film? Nope, not at all. He made an popcorn flick about an alien invasion. Could have been any alien. It wasn't special, it was actually damned boring. It wasn't impressive, it was exciting. It's about as entertaining as TMNT 2014 was.
The codex. the damned codex. Seriously. NOT FROM THE COMICS!!!!!!!!!

sdp

10-12-2015, 05:00 PM

Haha, so my opinion is wrong? Yeah there goes all your arguments. Have fun watching your outdated movies. The Snyder movie will also be outdated the same way but at least it is now relevant. The movie you want already exists and it was called Superman Returns and it bombed because no one wanted to watch an old movie in 2006. In your opinion the Donner movies are better and you can't be wrong in that because it's your opinion, but that opinion is only shared by old people who grew up with that film. Most comic book fans consider it an outdated movie.

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 05:09 PM

I'm personally skeptical on the whole thing. Man of Steel was not a good movie, far from the worst superhero movie I've ever seen. (Quest for Peace anyone?)

This is the hard truth no one wants to admit to here. God damned echo chamber.

With the tone of Man of Steel, the two iconic heroes aren't easy to contrast as they are one in the same. I'm not a comic reader, but isn't Superman often the positive hope of a role model while Batman is this interesting, complex hero that many go gaga over? Stripping one or flipping the other of what made them who they are feels... offputting to me.

PREACH!!!!!!!!

Now, I can assume Ben Affleck is getting bashed on for being this new Batman. Well, needless to say, I think he can be decent. Sure, he starred in Daredevil, but he did show potential as a brooding character even if that was one of the low points Marvel movie wise. Remember, you can't be worse than George Clooney. ;) Ben has some potential in the role, probably won't be the best, but he can do a good job.

I'm torn on Affleck. Dude is a class A1 a$$hole. He's smug and aloof, condescending and egocentric.

Sometimes, Batman is all of these things, so in a way it's a great fit - However, Batman can also be a quiet intellectual - going against the grain, working for the greater good while refusing to apologize for his actions. Contemplative isn't Affleck. So it really depends how they play Batman. If they choose to portray him as a gregarious patriarchal bigshot, which is what it appears they are doing - then Affleck could very well suck all the air out of the room. I hate the guy, but he could be perfect, or the worst thing ever.

Also, if anyone is wondering on reasons that Man of Steel wasn't excellent, I would recommend watching Sam's Channel on Youtube. (shameless advertising someone I like, I know. :P) The man does a very good job addressing the film plus the original Donner and Superman Returns. Needless to say, let's see how it goes.

The reality, is that those who dismiss Superman 1&2 are snubbing it based on unfair criteria - the effects work, the re-written Bryne arc that came almost a decade after the Puzzo wrote the script, or some misplaced Millennial hatred for Superman in general - namely that heroes need to be bada$$ or they suck.

It's all nonsense, and frankly immaterial. You can bemoan the lack of plot points derived from the comics, maybe, but you really can't compare an opus like The Donner Cut, to the paltry tuba fart that is MOS.

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 05:12 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-12-2015, 05:32 PM

It's funny how this thread has derailed to a point where CyberCubed is a voice of reason among vicious warring clans of "My opinion is fact and none other shall be held in all this land!"

Cubed, if I offer to share my popcorn with you, will you step in and say something to quell the fearsome roar? Or, even better, incite it to new heights of fury?

GoldMutant

10-12-2015, 05:53 PM

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-12-2015, 05:54 PM

Can you pass the popcorn dude? I got some candy and drinks to share all around. :lol:

Absolutely, but I warn you, fear of diabetes hath no hold upon my soul. This popcorn gots butter an' salt! :twink:

But you can compensate with diet soda.

GoldMutant

10-12-2015, 05:57 PM

Absolutely, but I warn you, fear of diabetes hath no hold upon my soul. This popcorn gots butter an' salt! :twink:

But you can compensate with diet soda.

A little light on butter and we're gold!

MsMarvelDuckie

10-12-2015, 09:40 PM

You know, if I actually cared about this movie beyond a mere curiosity, I' chime in with something about how the only Superman comics I've liked were closer to the Donner movies in tone and story than to the more recent films, and 42 is right that Supes really should be the lighter-toned beakon of hope compared to Bruce's perma-brood. That was one of the things that put me off of Returns, and MOS seemed like more of the same, so I passed. Apparently, it was a godd decision.

Hey, CKD, pass some of that popcorn my way! Only thing I ate all day was two cheese sticks and a half slice of pizza!

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 10:04 PM

MsMarvelDuckie

10-12-2015, 10:14 PM

Mind you, I'm not saying this is going to be a bad movie, I just don't think it's going to be my cup of tea.

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 10:18 PM

Mind you, I'm not saying this is going to be a bad movie, I just don't think it's going to be my cup of tea.

Well, I'll take what I can get.

MsMarvelDuckie

10-12-2015, 10:23 PM

Commenter 42

10-12-2015, 10:55 PM

Well, I DID say I really don't have much interest in it beyond the casual bit of "wonder how that will do at the BO?" Really, though, I feel like just because Bats is in it, it's going to turn into an angst-fest, and that's not really something I want to see in a mainly Supes-centered movie.

The world is what it is. Superman has always been a reflection of our values as a society, in every iteration.

The current reflection is what it is; fearful, hostile and angry.

Leo656

10-12-2015, 10:56 PM

Which is funny, because a buddy of mine who's also a huge Superman fan said the same thing - didn't bother to see MoS because he "heard from people" that it was bad. So we watched it two weekends ago, and he liked it a lot. Wasn't in love with it, in particular thought the fight scenes were a little overdone, but didn't see anything wrong with it and definitely agreed that a huge chunk of the negativity was entirely overblown. When pretty much the biggest "complaint" anyone has about a movie is, "It was too different from something someone did 40 years ago", that's pretty silly.

So, again, once in a while it pays not to let the internet write all your opinions for you. Everybody gets their own, but it weighs a little more when it's really your own.

42, you're definitely right that MoS was a completely different approach to the story. That should be fine, honestly. Superman '76 was a fairy tale. It was a good one, but that was the entire angle they were going for. You hit the nail on the head, MoS focused on it as an "alien invasion" story... because when stripped of the "flight of fancy" aspect, that's exactly what Superman's story is! It's realistic! It's okay if that's not your preference but it doesn't make it "BAD". It's a perfectly valid approach to the material.

In continuing along that point, I'll partially answer one of your many questions about "What is it they're taking from the source that makes MoS so comics-faithful?" Anyone else can read along if they want to. There's several particular important arcs and plotlines that have shown up in almost every version of the comics, from he Golden Age up through a couple years ago. For example:

- Kryptonian villains, usually led by Zod, arrive on Earth some time after Superman does and try to take over. Their stated goal is to wipe out all humanity, terraform the planet, and repopulate it as New Krypton. That storyline goes back to as long as Zod's existed, and sort of even before. It's a little different every time they tell it. Sometimes the alien invasion happens years after Superman's been around, sometimes it's very shortly after. Sometimes it's not Zod and they all have different names (there were stories of Evil Kryptonians invading Earth many years before they made Zod the regular recurring one). Sometimes it's two or three Kryptonians, sometimes it's an army. In "Birthright", they were fake Kryptonians and the entire invasion was staged by Luthor (and I'm SO glad we did NOT get THAT take in this universe, because "Birthright" was terrible on the whole, despite a few neat moments). Also in "Birthright", this was an example where the "alien invasion" angle was, like MoS, pretty much the first Big Event they had Clark get involved with, and stopping the "alien" invaders was what led to him becoming Superman and the world embracing him as a hero. I didn't love that take on the story, but mostly because as I was reading it, it seemed like having it be Zod and the real Kryptonians instead of Luthor's drones would have made a ton more sense. I'm not sure if Waid was told specifically not to use Zod in that story, or what, but it was a mistake not to.

All MoS did, was borrow from "Birthright" and have the Kryptonian Invasion happen early on, and furthermore fixed what the comic did wrong by actually using Zod and his army instead of fakes. A case can certainly made for not using Zod as soon as they did, but hey, it's been done before. And if MoS was a reboot, why not Go Big if you want to get people's attention right away? I really can't find any problem whatsoever with making the Invasion the first story. You have to tell that story eventually. And they did a good job with it. It was definitely "big on action", but you do have to establish the destructive potential of these beings and their powers. It was an excessive amount of destruction, yes, but it was still par for the course in what I'm used to seeing when these things happen in the books. When Superman and Zod fight in the comics, it's a Big Deal. Cities fall. There's repercussions for years. Again, one can argue it was Too Soon, but that's a debatable point at best.

- Superman killing Zod. This was something a lot of people hated, too, but again, it's always bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think they did their best at making it seem like Clark truly had no other choice in the moment, honestly. But it's always pretty inevitable. So, again, I don't have a problem with getting it out of the way early. In the Byrne comic, his execution of Zod, Faora and Quex-Ul was directly what led to his steadfast code against killing, and it was an event he never fully got over, so I'm frankly happy to see it put to film.

- This one's more of a combination of things, but in addition to "Turn Earth Into Krypton" being a standard Zod angle, MoS also borrows heavily in several places from "Day of the Krypton Man" by Dan Jurgens. It's different in a ton of places, but what they borrowed most specifically was in the comic a Kryptonian artifact creates the Fortress of Solitude, then immediately begins trying to terraform Earth into Krypton. Clark in turn is caught between saving Earth and preserving what's left of his Kryptonian heritage. Again, it's more of a thematic homage than a literal translation, but the scenario is very similar in broad strokes. The slave/servant robots like Kel-Ex and Kel-Or are directly from those comics, also. I always loved those guys, so it was neat seeing them get into the movie.

- The theme of Superman not being a sunshine-y "symbol of hope" or "everyone's favorite Good Guy" right out of the box. This is controversial for some reason, and I'm not sure why. Because yes, there's a few versions, particularly the Reeve film, where Superman shows up and he's perfect and everyone immediately loves him. BUT, just as often they tell the story from the other side! Starting all the way back in Action Comics #1, Superman was an adventurer and a do-gooder, but he was by NO means the "Shining Knight" character we all think about when we generally think of Superman. He was aggressive, arrogant, careless with his powers, recklessly caused a lot of property damage, and was considered equally to be a hero or a public menace depending on which character was talking about him. For several years he was little more than a vigilante, and while he was on the side of good he wasn't on particularly good terms with the government, the military, or the police. THAT character evolved over several years through several events to become the more straightforward, purely heroic character. When Byrne did his revamp, he borrowed a little bit from this as well. Not everyone jumped on the Superman Bandwagon just because the guy could fly. People thought he was dangerous. Not everyone trusted him right away. Everyone, on some level, questioned who the hell gave this guy in the cape the authority to do whatever he felt like, and who was going to ever STOP him from doing, potentially, whatever he felt like.

In those versions of the story, it takes a couple years for planet Earth to fully embrace Superman. It's fine that the Reeve movies and a couple other versions simplified things. BUT, that's not to say it's the "right" or "only" way to do it, because half the time, they do it the other way where he has to earn everyone's trust and it works out fine. These particular movies are just telling the story the way the comics have told it, several times, and in this case, "different" doesn't by default mean "worse". I'm not sure why some people have a huge problem with them taking the "slow burn" approach. It's just a different way of doing it, but it's fine.
By the end of BvS, he's officially "SUPERMAN" in all caps and everyone loves the guy, just like everyone wants. I mean, is that soon enough for everyone? He gets to be Earth's "Beacon Of Hope", but he had to earn it once and for all by publicly saving the world from an impossible threat like Doomsday. That's what finally proves he's a hero and not a menace, and why everyone who doubted him at the beginning of the movie loves him at the end. That's good! That makes sense to me and it's a good way of telling the story.

There's a hundred other things I like that I can and will go into in detail later on, but this is long enough for now. But again, it seems like most of people's "problems" with MoS are fundamentally rooted in how "different" they are from what they themselves expect, and I'm pointing out how "different" in this case doesn't by default mean "bad", because in this case "different" is simply updating and condensing what came before many, many times.

Once more, a lot of these are being represented in broader strokes, rather than literally re-created, but I think I've adequately explained some of what they've borrowed, how they've streamlined it, and why it fits together. Meanwhile, I'll further point out that "Tone" is largely a matter of personal taste, and wishing a movie had a different tone is more a matter of opinion and hardly reflects upon the quality of the film itself. It's neither right or wrong; I'd personally argue that the tone they're going with so far, is appropriate for the particular stories they're telling.

Leo656

10-12-2015, 11:03 PM

A ton of things are new and uniquely their own, sure, like the Codex, but they're always gonna just plain make up at least one or two things for a movie, I'll get into that kind of thing another time, and that part frankly didn't bother me very much at all, goofy movie "science" aside. Also, I'm looking ahead and thinking that it was just a convenient story excuse for them to need, and then get, a sample of Clark's blood, for a story in a later movie. Because you notice how they made a big deal about getting Clark's blood, then nothing happens with it once they get it because they all get sucked into the Phantom Zone. In a series where they're making a huge point to follow up on every tiny detail from one film to the next, I'm sure we haven't seen or heard the last of that blood sample, or the Zone villains. Or Hamilton. In the comics, Hamilton having access to Phantom Zone tech is very significant, so him getting sucked into the Zone with the villains intrigues me and I wouldn't doubt it was on purpose.

See, that's part of what I like about this series, there's so MUCH they've borrowed from the comics that even though they've changed or simplified a few things, the potential things that can unfold in future films branching from this point is positively tantalizing, to anyone who reads a lot of the comics.

As for all that "brooding, fearful" stuff, I still absolutely think you're projecting. The guy knows he can punch out a mountain by accident, and he's still, at this point, kind of grappling with that. I understand you'd rather they speed up and "get to the good parts", where he's all-powerful and confident and everyone loves him. He is. They will. Relax. :)

Like I'll said, I'll return to this another time.

EDIT: Spiffy stuff from the BvS display from NYCC this past weekend. http://supermanhomepage.com/news.php?readmore=17050
http://supermanhomepage.com/images/batman-v-superman06/151010-Superman3.jpg

Yeah, the electric royal blue and the floor-length scarlet cloak just screams "Angst!" :lol:

Xav

10-13-2015, 12:36 AM

Remember, every person who portrays a hero like Joker, Batman, and others will be compared, best to play safe.Since when is the Joker a hero?

Commenter 42

10-13-2015, 03:43 AM

Man, I love it when some fool suggests I don’t get Superman. Y'all need to to be educated! DAMN!

Whew! If sdp and Turo even remotely got Superman, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Polly wanna cracker? Lawdy Lawdy LAWD. Why bother typing at all, just drop the links to other peoples opinions, and call it a day.

Some folks need to wear warning signs or.. or at least a bell... wandering around spreading the stupid.
It's contagious, cover your damned mouth!
__________________________________________________ ___

Anyway... Leo ->

"Lot's of words"
Like I'll said, I'll return to this another time.

:lol::lol::lol:

I FINALLY think I understand your point of view... Let's see if i get this right:

(1st, Just want to point out that Donner had Zod arrive on earth, obviously. Donner had Zod try to rule earth. Zod succeeds. maybe you can help me understand why you think Snyder did it better. I like the floating compact mirror over the giant flying black dildo brigade, but we can argue those semantics another time)

Obviously we both know the 78 films front to back, so I don’t need to go into detail - except to say that the parts your claiming were important in MOS, also took place in Donners version. One of the main points in Superman 78 that I love, is that Superman's arrogance, through 1 and 2, is actually the cause of most of his problems, just like he often is in the comics. It’s one of the most important tenants of Superman (to me), that he pays for his hubris time and again. I'm also a huge fan of the time travel at the end of The Donner cut (where it belongs) But more on that later -

But here goes.

Despite some of the broader strokes of MOS’s loose plot being more or less the same as the comics :roll: (Sure, if merely including Zod is what you mean, or that Pete Ross was included or, the terraforming?) I’m not sure what your saying is so much more comic accurate, other than you think Brynes version is the definitive Superman over all other Supermen.

So, let’s get this straight - you’re eschewing Donner films as fairy tales, because they don’t match up with your preferred version, which is the Bryne comic, because you think that Superman would be feared and not loved? Is that the jist? And since this film followed that logic your on board? a reboot of the source material that happened a decade after the Reeve film, that we’re drawing direct comparison to?

So, Superman wasn’t the definitive Superman until 1986, because Superman wouldn’t be universally loved because people in real life would be freaked out? And if they had taken the material to heart in 76/78, it would have been a serious film, because Superman is only about an alien invasion? But it's okay, because eventually he'll earn our trust?

Jesus...I think that series exists - dealing with fear of super powered people... I think it was called X-men. They made a few movies too, If I recall... :lol: :lol:

Yeah, that’s kinda fudged logic man. In no way are you proving that MOS is more Superman - it’s simply more Byrne, from your point of view. It aligns with your opinion is all. Fine, I can’t argue that opinion, but it is not, in any way, closer to who the character is as a result.

Now, we can back and forth over the requisite number of source ideas in MOS - but the bottom line, is that a feature film is so much more than a collection of referenced data. You know this, and i know this. The film we're discussing, beyond these "neat" nods to easter eggs, is a crappy, boring slog. It's not a great experience at all, and the reason it's difficult for most people to endure, is thatit's in love with a singular idea "In real life, Superman would be a scary thing". This idea is the sort of thing that some geeks might get off on sitting around the D&D table late at night while trying to one up the other on how dedicated a fan they are (:o) and maybe it could be an interesting film. But the film That I watched, couldn't compel me to care. I not the only one. Trust me, it's not that we have a big problem with dark stories, I love heavy material - I'm a disciple of fincher - it's that it wasn't done well. It is very, very boring. it is slow. It is stupid. It's insults the intelligence of anyone above a 5fth grade reading level. Inshort, it is not a well made film. Even if it had been bright and clean and fun, The quality of the dialogue, acting and effects were laughable. Having comic accurate data, in today's CBM rich environment is just not enough anymore. To shoot some green screen flying sequences, isn't impressive. Superman needed to impress. Even Singer knew this. Snyder is trapped in 90's.

Brass Tax, I’ve mentioned before that I’d written a huge yearend thesis on “Superman”. I read Niche, researched Indian, Roman, Egyptian and Greek myths, Easter Island to the Inuit tribes, searching for all incarnations of the übermensch.

Thing is, at the age of 21, I also thought “being Superman" would absolutely mean you’d be feared, and hated…and in turn you yourself would be something akin to Dr. Manhattan due to your enormous power. As a god, you’d find it difficult to relate to others ... all the tropes we've read or heard before.

Anyway, at the edge of adulthood - I agreed with that, all of it.

It's still true, that people are fearful, and close minded; selfish and hateful. I agree that humans have a huge issue with trust. We live in a world that screams the horrors of humanity in our face everyday, with constant vigilance over the food we buy, that might actually make us sick; the water in the tap that might harm our kids; the rainbow of bias peppered through the news networks, our social presence/instagram/optics to our "followers", lying politicians, greedy corporations, on and on and on…a cacophony of worry and stress...

But Superman? He’s supposed to make things okay. Not later, when he learns who he is, or when he get's around to it, rigt now, in the next two hours I've found in my day to try and escape reality. He shouldn't be struggling with the same things as I am, 'cause that’s just a bit too much reality for the metaphor.

This is a magic man. He can fly. He’s invulnerable, he’s basically what you need him to be, when you need him. He’s the thing that destroys the darkness, without becoming darkness. You should feel the hope, not wait for him to point at himself and clumsily spell it out. That's just lazy film making.
The first rule is show it don't say it. First rule.

Your reading of him as having problems with government and military etc..well, Superman fights for the people. He’s our escapist fantasy, because he is the best of us. We want to be that perfect and good - or at least, we’re supposed to. That's how I read him. This character is the solution, not yet another problem.

He’s not an alien invader, because he’s not meant to be taken as a literal alien -man! -he’s mythical, he’s alien as in he’s more than human. Yeah, he's from Krypton, but it might as well be never never land. (big wink..big...)

Yes there are comics in which they play what if, and there are comics that explore the darker side - because it’s fun to play the opposite number game, but you said it yourself - Every thinks of Superman as Sunshine…

And in my 20’s I was right there with all of you, - Superman should be more muscular, more bad a$$, tougher, more severe - with his little finger he could...

yadda yadda yadda...

But these days? Man, we sure as hell could use a Superman…a guy with no real agenda, a guy we could trust. Some one to swoop in, and literally/figuratively save the damn day. And because that is the appeal of the character, so it's a given that the tone actually matters.

Yes, he can struggle along the way, but the struggles shouldn’t be dark psychological problems… it’s really not the damned point of a hero in primary colors who can fly. That isn’t to say the character couldn't hypothetically endure some mental anguish, etc, but he isn't defined by them, the way some long eared moppy grumpy gussies are.

I’m not advocating for a 2 dimensional character - I’m saying, if the “S” that stands for hope seemingly has none, and can’t fix the problems without massive disasters, then the idea of Superman falls apart, he becomes too human and ordinary. Superman, is not just a version of Ubermensch, or the ultra man, but also above, both literally (flying) and figuratively (beyond the grasp) of man. He is more than we are -while simultaneous an example of what we could strive to become.

All of this - you know ALL of this. which begs the question, why are you so in love with the idea of the world rejecting hope?

Siegel didn’t dream up a hero who would fail to save his father from dying. Superman was the invisible friend he wished had been around to stop the bullet/heart attack. With Superman, Siegel could turn back the clock and make it all okay. That was the entire point. Somebody who would save his dad, because losing your father is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid. The helpless feeling - if only there was someone who could fix it. This is why he resonates with so many people. He is untapped potential hidden in all of us, who answers to no one, rights wrongs and most importantly faster than a speeding bullet, fast enough maybe, to even change the past.

Donner's film underscores that father-son relationship in a way that Snyder overlooked. His quiet nod to Siegel with the inclusion of the Jonathan Kent heart attack is the biggest easter egg you could possibly hide. It echoes back before DC had even heard the name Superman. I could go deeper, but I think for now that's enough.

Bottom line, MOS isn't any more "Superman" than Donner's Superman. I wouldn't even argue it's a very good version of Bryne's world, but we can debate that another time.

Leo656

10-13-2015, 04:24 AM

In brief, for what has to be the hundreth time:

It's fine that you prefer something lighter and more fantastical. Lots of other people just as well like something more realistic and down to Earth. Whether or not the Superman character should be "played that straight" is simply a matter of taste and opinion.

Face facts: If a guy showed up tomorrow, who could fly, shoot fire from his eyes, and crack the planet in half, the world would NOT react the way they did in the Donner films, the world would react the way they did in MoS. That's reality, and that alone gives them the right to take that approach in telling the story. Again, you can argue all day long that Superman, as a character, should be "greater" than or "above" all that, that we shouldn't bother with "reality" and the stories he's in shouldn't waste time dealing with the consequences of his actions, or exactly how complicated his very existence suddenly makes everything for everyone, but that's your hang-up.

He SHOULD have to prove himself a hero first. It's not about "rejecting hope", it's about "Maybe we should actually be sure someone deserves that amount of faith and trust before we just declare them our savior because they come from the sky." That's a really inarguable point. The world should NOT just bow down and accept him because he's "magic", until they see for themselves that he has their best interest at heart. A being with that level of power is frightening, and we the audience only know he's a "Good Guy" because WE know how the story turns out. To the people living in this world, all they know is that suddenly there's a demigod in their midst and he has the power to potentially do a lot of damage if he felt like it. He's not going to be that symbol of hope until he earns it. Well, that's how it usually goes, in most versions of the story. Not the Donner one, but most versions. It's all perfectly fine and logical. And frankly, I personally enjoy seeing heroes grow into being heroes, rather than arrive all "Perfect" and infallible right out of the box. The former is realistic, the latter isn't. And I prefer a little reality in my stories. Even about guys who can fly. Sorry, hopefully we can just agree to disagree on that. I get it, you think lighter is better and you're not a huge fan of comic books. You're looking at the whole thing more symbolically, some of us are looking at the story as if it were actually happening in real life, and how the characters in these situations would actually behave. Opinions. Quit shouting at people.

There's more, but this is all long and ridiculous enough for one day. To summarize, there's more than one "Right" way to tell this story, regardless of how you personally feel about it. In the 70s, they made Superman as a fantasy-adventure movie. Now, they're doing Superman as an action-adventure movie with a heavy bit of sci-fi. Gee, I'm perfectly fine either way because I like all those things. Those are both perfectly valid ways to tell the story, and both are exactly the kind of movie they should be for the version of the story they're individually trying to tell.

And in case it doesn't come through, I do like a lot of what's in the Reeve movies. It's not like I hate them. As a self-contained story that tells a viewer everything essential they'd need to know about the very basic mythology, the first movie is pretty hard to ever beat. BUT, they never fully satisfied me, and for all the things they did right there's still a ton of things wrong, big and small, with each and every one of them. It's never been "my version", even though I always loved them for what they are, and Reeve himself did a great job with the increasingly insipid material he was given, but they're in no way sacrosanct and that's a huge reason why I'm fine with a more modern and completely different approach. Old stuff is fine. New stuff is also fine. People need to relax, for f*ck's sake.

MsMarvelDuckie

10-13-2015, 12:46 PM

Which is funny, because a buddy of mine who's also a huge Superman fan said the same thing- didn't bother to see MoS because he "heard from people" that it was bad. When pretty much the biggest "complaint" anyone has about a movie is, "It was too different from something someone did 40 years ago", that's pretty silly.

So, again, once in a while it pays not to let the internet write all your opinions for you. Everybody gets their own, but it weighs a little more when it's really your own.

The theme of Superman not being a sunshine-y "symbol of hope" or "everyone's favorite Good Guy" right out of the box. This is controversial for some reason, and I'm not sure why. Starting all the way back in Action Comics #1, Superman was an adventurer and a do-gooder, but he was by NO means the "Shining Knight" character we all think about when we generally think of Superman. He was aggressive, arrogant, careless with his powers, recklessly caused a lot of property damage, and was considered equally to be a hero or a public menace depending on which character was talking about him. While he was on the side of good he wasn't on particularly good terms with the government, the military, or the police. THAT character evolved over several years through several events to become the more straightforward, purely heroic character. Not everyone jumped on the Superman Bandwagon just because the guy could fly. People thought he was dangerous. Not everyone trusted him right away.

Meanwhile, I'll further point out that "Tone" is largely a matter of personal taste, and wishing a movie had a different tone is more a matter of opinion and hardly reflects upon the quality of the film itself.

No, that wasn't what I meant at all. I SAW Returns, and didn't like it- too dark, gloomy, and Lex and the kid and practically everything in it just felt WRONG for a Supes film. Especially that whole ending with the giant Kryptonian rock or whatever; I just didn't like it. When I saw the trailers for MoS, I sighed and decided (along with the word-of-mouth when it came out) that it wasn't for me- more of the same of what I already KNEW I didn't like in the previous film! And you've since confirmed all of what I'd heard and seen in the trailers as being not for me. That's all I was saying. And it's not because it's "different", it's more a case of this feels more like it belongs in Batman's world than Superman's. Combining the two, but only taking the tone of ONE, is exactly the wrong way to go, here, IMHO.

(1st, Just want to point out that Donner had Zod arrive on earth, obviously. Donner had Zod try to rule earth. Zod succeeds. maybe you can help me understand why you think Snyder did it better.

Obviously we both know the 78 films front to back, the parts your claiming were important in MOS, also took place in Donners version. One of the main points in Superman 78 that I love, is that Superman's arrogance, through 1 and 2, is actually the cause of most of his problems, just like he often is in the comics. It’s one of the most important tenants of Superman (to me), that he pays for his hubris time and again. I'm also a huge fan of the time travel at the end of The Donner cut (where it belongs)

So, let’s get this straight- you’re eschewing Donner films as fairy tales, because they don’t match up with your preferred version, which is the Bryne comic, because you think that Superman would be feared and not loved? Is that the jist?

So, Superman wasn’t the definitive Superman until 1986, because Superman wouldn’t be universally loved because people in real life would be freaked out? Superman is only about an alien invasion? But it's okay, because eventually he'll earn our trust?

Jesus...I think that series exists - dealing with fear of super powered people... I think it was called X-men. They made a few movies too, If I recall... :lol: :lol:

The film we're discussing, is a crappy, boring slog. It's in love with a singular idea "In real life, Superman would be a scary thing". But the film I watched, couldn't compel me to care. I'm not the only one. Trust me, it's not that we have a big problem with dark stories, it's that it wasn't done well. It is very, very boring. it is slow. It is stupid. It's insults the intelligence of anyone above a 5fth grade reading level. In short, it is not a well made film. Even if it had been bright and clean and fun, The quality of the dialogue, acting and effects were laughable. Having comic accurate data, in today's CBM rich environment is just not enough anymore. Even Singer knew this.

Brass Tax, I’ve mentioned before that I’d written a huge yearend thesis on “Superman”. I read Niche, researched Indian, Roman, Egyptian and Greek myths, Easter Island to the Inuit tribes, searching for all incarnations of the übermensch.

Thing is, at the age of 21, I also thought “being Superman" would absolutely mean you’d be feared, and hated…and in turn you yourself would be something akin to Dr. Manhattan due to your enormous power. As a god, you’d find it difficult to relate to others ... all the tropes we've read or heard before.

It's still true, that people are fearful, and close minded; selfish and hateful. I agree that humans have a huge issue with trust. We live in a world that screams the horrors of humanity in our face everyday, with constant vigilance.… a cacophony of worry and stress...

But Superman? He’s supposed to make things okay. Not later, when he learns who he is, or when he get's around to it, rigt now, in the next two hours I've found in my day to try and escape reality. He shouldn't be struggling with the same things as I am, 'cause that’s just a bit too much reality for the metaphor.

This is a magic man. He can fly. He’s invulnerable, he’s basically what you need him to be, when you need him. He’s the thing that destroys the darkness, without becoming darkness. You should feel the hope, not wait for him to point at himself and clumsily spell it out.

Your reading of him as having problems with government and military etc..well, Superman fights for the people. He is the best of us. We want to be that perfect and good- or at least, we’re supposed to. That's how I read him. This character is the solution, not yet another problem.

He’s not an alien invader, because he’s not meant to be taken as a literal alien -man! -he’s mythical, he’s alien as in he’s more than human.... But you said it yourself - Every thinks of Superman as Sunshine…

But these days? Man, we sure as hell could use a Superman…a guy with no real agenda, a guy we could trust. Some one to swoop in, and literally/figuratively save the damn day. And because that is the appeal of the character, so it's a given that the tone actually matters.

Yes, he can struggle along the way, but the struggles shouldn’t be dark psychological problems… it’s really not the damned point of a hero in primary colors who can fly.

I’m saying, if the “S” that stands for hope seemingly has none, and can’t fix the problems without massive disasters, then the idea of Superman falls apart, he becomes too human and ordinary. Superman, is not just a version of Ubermensch, or the ultra man, but also above, both literally (flying) and figuratively (beyond the grasp) of man. He is more than we are- while simultaneous an example of what we could strive to become.

All of this- you know ALL of this. which begs the question, why are you so in love with the idea of the world rejecting hope?

Siegel didn’t dream up a hero who would fail to save his father from dying. Superman was the invisible friend he wished had been around to stop the bullet/heart attack. With Superman, Siegel could turn back the clock and make it all okay. That was the entire point. Somebody who would save his dad, because losing your father is one of the worst things that can happen to a kid. The helpless feeling- if only there was someone who could fix it. This is why he resonates with so many people. He is untapped potential hidden in all of us, who answers to no one, rights wrongs and most importantly faster than a speeding bullet, fast enough maybe, to even change the past.

Donner's film underscores that father-son relationship in a way that Snyder overlooked. His quiet nod to Siegel with the inclusion of the Jonathan Kent heart attack is the biggest easter egg you could possibly hide. It echoes back before DC had even heard the name Superman.

This is why I am in agreement with you, man. It's exactly how Superman was all through my childhood, and much of what came before. He's the ultimate "savior", and even the films state (in Jor-El's narration) that's Kal-El's true "purpose"- to lead/save Earth and humanity from the mistakes of Krypton. I've always seen that as his reason for being, and what made him so iconic and such a great hero. You just said it far better than I could, with my limited knowledge of him.

But EVERY Superman comic I've ever picked up, that I enjoyed, was in that vein. My favorite Supes book? "Superman: Man For All Seasons". I also read the Death of, book, and THAT was the beloved hero that I knew, and who he SHOULD be. When he "died" (and I've watched the animated movie version of it as well, and loved it, too) everyone mourned him as if he'd been Elvis. He was THAT loved. I don't like the idea that he'd be hated so much for just existing, no matter HOW much more "realistic" it might be. That's territory for an X-Men story, if it's anything. Nice job pointing that out.

MsMarvelDuckie

10-13-2015, 12:47 PM

Leo, I get that you're well-versed in the comics and other media, but you're in the minority on how he's viewed (or should/would be) and MOST people are going to see him and go "Who is this guy? Superman's is supposed to be the HERO!" Though I think there's some merit to Cubed's statement that a lot of Bat-fans will just want to see him punching the snot out of Clark, so there's that, too. However, I think 42 said it best about how this version is really just a reflection of our ultra-cynical, untrusting times, where people are paranoid about every d@mn thing. Honestly, in this day, we NEED that other "sunny" Superman more than we need some angsty, emotionally conflicted, "dark" version. We need the beacon of hope, not "Batman 2.0". We don't need TWO dark broody heroes in the movie, we need the dark AND the light.

CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

10-13-2015, 12:59 PM

The world is what it is. Superman has always been a reflection of our values as a society, in every iteration.

The current reflection is what it is; fearful, hostile and angry.

Wow, that's a very insightful point you've made. I never made that connection.

And thinking about it, seeing two broody dark guys fight each other IS a step down from what we could otherwise be getting.

I'm not a Superman fan at all, and I prefer my Batman completely divorced from aliens and gods. Down-to-earth, street-level vigilante with an extended family of Robins and Batgirls fighting a losing war of attrition against the crazies of Arkham Asylum and a decaying twisted city called Gotham itself.

But if this movie will give me Wonder Woman and "A Death in the Family", I'm mostly all for it.

Just PLEASE... don't lump all of the Robins into one "Dick Grayson" character for the sake of non-comic-reading fans who come to see the movie. Give me Jason Todd, Dick Grayson, Tim Drake, AND that little shite Damian, not just one "all-in-one" Robin.

Commenter 42

10-13-2015, 02:00 PM

In brief, for what has to be the hundreth time:

It's fine that you prefer something lighter and more fantastical.

Jesus man...I'm for a good movie. I'm for good film making. Dark is fine, but it needs to be executed well. You can have reality in a film without boring the audience, because at every turn you point out how un real your reality is. I'm not shouting, I'm just being clear. If Snyder or Nolan want reality, they need to fact check their scripts, for glaring errors in logic and physics.

Face facts: If a guy showed up tomorrow, who could fly, shoot fire from his eyes, and crack the planet in half, the world would NOT react the way they did in the Donner films, the world would react the way they did in MoS. That's reality, and that alone gives them the right to take that approach in telling the story. Again, you can argue all day long that Superman, as a character, should be "greater" than or "above" all that, that we shouldn't bother with "reality" and the stories he's in shouldn't waste time dealing with the consequences of his actions, or exactly how complicated his very existence suddenly makes everything for everyone, but that's your hang-up.

My Hang up? Lol, sure, you can play Superman as reality. What a novel approach. Next we can have Barney the dinosaur as a freaky purple T-rex, and Kermit the frog as an bonafide amphibian. In Real life Barney wouldn't sing songs, he'd eat you, and Kermit's intrets in Ms Piggy wouldn't end well. If you Play the reality game to it's logical conclusion, it's no longer interesting, because a flying man isn't realistic, and the world engine isn't either. It's all psedo science and macguffins. So wanting a realistic Superman is actually your hang up, which is fine, and I get it, but this entire blow out was all about how I don't "get" Superman, as if I was missing some huge secret. Turns out, it was just your preference for setting Supes in the real world driving the argument - which I'm totally okay with, but again, doing it well is another matter.

A being with that level of power is frightening, and we the audience only know he's a "Good Guy" because WE know how the story turns out. To the people living in this world, all they know is that suddenly there's a demigod in their midst and he has the power to potentially do a lot of damage if he felt like it.

Again, which is why Donner has him catch a helicopter and save a woman mid air, then later rescue a kitten out of the tree - the pet the dog moment - which works really well, you must admit. When he arrives, he's a rock star, not a scary alien. If the Helicopter scene happened today, it wouldn't be a "fear" it would be a bunch of people trying to explain how he pulled it of - that it was a publicity stunt, or a social media campaign - "didn't you se the wires?" "it was all green screen man!" "was that a commercial for xbox?" etc. Conspiracy nuts would totally go to aliens right away, and people would mock them as usual.
Somebody would try to make a buck off him - or begin a crusade against him, which I think is what Luthor will do in BvS - but still, in reality, Superman wouldn't last much more than 2 news cycles. We just found Water on Mars, and people already don't care. Scientific research may have found the first evidence of actual alien life on earth - honest to goodness aliens - creatures so different from us genetically and morphologically that they may not actually have originated on Earth. You'd think that would b headline stealing news right? Nope, 'cause cephalopods aren't all that interesting to humans. "Octopus might be aliens? panspermia? for real? ok. neat-o."

I get it, you think lighter is better and you're not a huge fan of comic books. You're looking at the whole thing more symbolically, some of us are looking at the story as if it were actually happening in real life, and how the characters in these situations would actually behave.

Dude, I love comics. I really do. But they really are a different medium. You can do so many things in a comic that is hard to do on the screen - and vice versa. It's true though, as Duckie pointed out, if we're looking for Superman, the guy most of us think of - Superman for All Seasons, for me, is pretty great. All star Superman is another. I love the bravado of the newspaper strips, with Superman being all dickish to Lois, and Lois being b*tchy as a result. Some of the animated films are fun. I love more than the movie - I'd like to see more of that. I also love the scene in Elite Squad when Superman goes berserk. It's done really well, and it echo's the "minute steak" scene in S2 (not that they are linked or it's derrived from S2 - just that even being an ass, it still feels like Superman.)

2c_tCsLwlf4

seriously though, you can't continue to say MOS is more like the comics...you really can't, cause that's simply not true (unless we get a huge dose of super-narration throughout BvS, then maybe :lol:) You can say this is more like Byne's Superman run, I guess, but even that, I'm feeling is a bit of a stretch. I'll agree he is a millennial Superman, and mark my words - when you go to the theater on opening day, or whatever - I'd put the odds at 20 to 1 that the first punch Affleck lands on Cavil is met with cheering and possibly applause.

They're really excited to tear down Superman - the embodiment of patriarchy, compliance, servitude, and white male privilege.

You want to know what Superman in reality would be, it would be him against us.

Leo656

10-13-2015, 10:26 PM

Sigh. I'm glad we all unanimously agree there's only one way to do things. :roll:

That's the last I have to say about any of this until March. Someone else can post updates, photos, news, and whatever else about the movie, for the majority of people who actually are looking forward to it. I'm sick and f*cking tired of people being so f*cking myopic when they don't even have the slightest f*cking idea what they're talking about to begin with. And you don't. I swear to f*cking Christ, you don't, and I've wasted too much time already going over it with you. You know a lot about one movie series, you know a lot about mythology and symbolism and all that jazz, but frankly, I don't give a f*ck in the end, because whether you like it or not, there's more than one f*cking way to tell stories with the character and they've been doing it like that for 80 f*cking years. The character of Superman is SO much bigger than the tiny little box you put him in. It's sad. It's sad that you don't think the stories can or should be any "bigger" or more "dramatic" or have actual consequences. Frankly, in my honest opinion, and the opinion of several other people who are openly avoiding talking about the movie just because of this kind of sh*t, your view on the character is far too narrow for you to actually call yourself an "expert" on it, when you openly disregard about 90% of the greater mythology as tripe, and only your precious Reeve films have any merit, the only valid interpretation, the one and only way to tell the story because you say so. That honestly takes some brass balls, my friend.

If I watched f*cking X-Men, and read like 5 comic books based on them, and maybe watched a couple episodes of a cartoon show... I wouldn't have the audacity to declare myself a f*cking expert on the subject and go around screaming at everyone else that they're wrong, because I liked one of those things and was ambivalent about the rest. That's my position.

I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm in no way a "minority", based on the PMs I get from people who feel the same exact way on the subject and just don't have the energy to waste doing this d*ck-waving sh*t in public. Well, someone else can have a turn. I might actually start posting on Superman Homepage again instead, where people actually look forward to things and aren't so closed-minded. Might be some people who actually want to have a conversation instead of just bitch about every goddamn thing. Sometimes people even change their minds or admit they're wrong once in a while. Night and day from this f*cking sh*thole.

Later.

MsMarvelDuckie

10-13-2015, 10:49 PM

Man, no one is saying it's the only way to do it, and I'M certainly not claiming to be any kind of expert on Superman or DC in general (gods know I avoid DC for just this reason) but honestly it's just AN OPINION, and just as YOU have yours, we have our own ideas about what he should be. And it's not "Batman lite". Everything since Returns (or maybe Batman Begins, it's up in the air, really) has been so dark and gritty and full of realism and consequenses, that it just sucks all the fun and meaning out of the character. He's a literal frigging "savior", fer Chrissakes! You've even said it yourself! Yet in the new movies, that "best of us" savior is nowhere to be found, instead we get an emo angsty mess who doesn't really even know who he is anymore. How are we (as an audience) or the people in that universe supposed to have hope and faith in the character when the movie itself doesn't portray him in that light? The tone and direction are fine for a Batman film, but we don't need "dark and darker", we need "light and dark"- they are supposed to contrast each other, not be near duplicates tonally or emotionally. Clark is the light to Bruce's darkness. Always has been. Just as Metropolis is NYC day to Gotham's NYC night.

Leo656

10-13-2015, 11:01 PM

I swear to f*cking Christ, like 8 people see it that way. :roll: "Mopey" and "Angsty". I'm pretty sure I spend a lot more time talking to people who would identify as Superman fans than most of you, and you'd be shocked how overblown that sh*t is outside of the f*cking stupid internet, how few people actually see it that way. People who DO read the comics are used to him having to pay his f*cking dues because he always does. WHY is this such a f*cking problem?! There's nothing wrong with seeing the Greatest Hero of All Time learn how to BE that f*cking guy. That doesn't make it "dark" and "mopey", that's your own projection. That's some people going, "Well, TO ME it's too dark." Well, again, that's an individual thing, and it's honestly not how most people feel. It's ONLY the feeling of people who are romantically in love with the Reeve films and think there's only one way to do Superman stories.

It's just a different way to tell the story. For the millionth time. And I'm done. People who have my email can have at it if they want to, but I rarely check it, so good luck. Later.

Slade

10-13-2015, 11:54 PM

Yes, but people want to see Batman vs. Superman because they're rooting for Batman to win. Batman is God and Batman can do anything. People worship the ground Batman stands on.

I haven't even read the rest of the thread, though I will, but got damn son, chill the f*ck out with this. Are you seriously one of those kind people?

Commenter 42

10-14-2015, 12:40 AM

Hunh.

Well okay then man. Could have sworn I said different in my last post - but what eves. You're actually angry? At me? I don't think I said anything too incendiary in my last post, but it's nice to know your bitching about me with the other guys in PM's.

Well okay then. See ya round, or something.

Leo656

10-14-2015, 01:46 AM

To clarify because as a friend you deserve a response:

There are more than a few people here who do tell me they'd rather talk about the movie and look forward to it, than either be condescended to and scolded for liking it OR have to wade through pages of debates and flat-out lecturing about what is and isn't "correct Superman storytelling procedure". But no, your name, or anyone's name specifically, hasn't come up in any of those conversations.

It doesn't take much to figure out why those people don't want to talk more, though. It's absolutely why I myself only post half the stuff I find about the movie. I find stuff every day, and I'd share a lot more of it, but every single time, like clockwork, one new article or one new picture turns into three pages of you, specifically, telling everyone everything is terrible, and insisting so even after they've acknowledged you and moved on.

I know I've been just as guilty of it regarding other things; I've personally been trying to be better about it.

But as far as this specific thread is concerned, nobody likes it and I don't want to enable it anymore. I, personally, think it's odd that someone who actually likes the thing that's being discussed should be the one to walk away, but like I said, there's really no point in contributing anything further to it. Meanwhile, if you really want to stomp around in here and break everyone's toys every time you hear them having a good time, be my guest. You'll get no interference from me going forward, so whenever anyone gets excited about a picture or a trailer or a spoiler about the movie, by all means, tell them how stupid they are and make sure to go heavy on the details, just to be sure they "Get It". I think it's silly and selfish, and it murders conversation when people are afraid to even talk, but if it makes you feel better, rock on.

And if it's not just about getting your rocks off by insistently telling people they're wrong (even when they're not), then maybe just let them like what they like and let them talk about it. Just an idea.

Less about you specifically. More about, "this is what passes for 'conversation' in this sh*tbox of a forum anymore", and it's tiresome. You and I both know this whole place sucks. Remember? Last week you had enough, this week I had enough. But I've been here longer, and I had enough way, way before you had enough. You can have it.

You're a smart guy, buddy, and I like you. Honest. But, you might want to at the very least consider , that the most hated guy on the entire forum is politely telling you that your condescending attitude is a little bit overbearing to more than a handful of people who might otherwise have more to say, and that your outbursts and speeches are strangling conversation rather than enriching it.

You don't have to consider it, but it's out there. Don't say I never gave ya nothin'.

Turo602

10-14-2015, 05:10 AM

Gotta agree with Leo. I have my own sh*t going on right now so I couldn't get around to contributing to this sh*tstorm. But honestly, this is tiring. This movie is such a big deal for lots of people and rather than sharing the excitement we have to constantly see Commenter42's ignorant and delusional bitching about it with his false superior act. There's nothing wrong with hating Man of Steel and disliking this movie. Anyone is free to share their disdain for anything but staying around to tell everyone they're wrong for appreciating something for not matching their preference is annoying. I mean, I hate the new TMNT movie to no end yet I don't hang around those threads just to talk sh*t and call everyone out. It's not worth it.

plastroncafe

10-14-2015, 08:50 AM

The temptation to copy/paste the last couple of posts in this thread to the Ghostbusters Movie Thread is strong. OH SO STRONG.

But instead I will add this, far more productive IMHO, vid instead:
0la5DBtOVNI

Commenter 42

10-14-2015, 12:50 PM

Ya'll will have to try harder, I got plenty thick enough skin.

Seriously Leo - the last two comments from those two clowns and you wonder why I dress people down. "Superior attitude" - coming from Mr. King of Kings. Lol. Easy buddy, easy.

It's nice of you to call me out for doing precisely the same damned thing you've done here for as long as I've been on the board. You tell people their opinion is wrong, you shout people down when you don't agree - all of it. You just told some one that you're sick of everyone getting a blue ribbon for showing up, and the SWJ b*llshit etc. (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showpost.php?p=1509255&postcount=65)

And now I get a knife in the ribs to the hilt, telling me I'm breaking peoples toys, and I'm a big meanie. You know I'm not that guy - I'm just ticked off, I know you understand - but for some reason, you've vilified me, instead of backing me up, the way I've done for you more than once.

It's pretty clear I started out slamming just the stupid movie. People went and got personal, so I retaliated. But hating what they're doing to Superman doesn't mean I'm wrong. Keep telling me I'm wrong, you're prolonging the fight, not me. You don't actually know me man, and all of this shows me I really don't know you. I'm not here to piss on the party; I'm here to try and get why we disagree, and why the kids are so hyped for this.

The discussion got heated, but for me it was all in good fun - who knows more about big blue, yadda, yadda, you're wrong no you are, all taht stuff - I wasn't taking any of it seriously - because I never really do. (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showpost.php?p=1509290&postcount=77)

I DO take exception when people are dicks - and I give back. Plastron routinely crusades against men in general, and it drives me bloody mental - so I say something. It's all well and good if she's got beef with men in general - but I'm
really not her enemy - she just assumes I am, 'cause I've got a swinging pair.

Turo's just taking pot shots - so I don't respect anything he has to say.

You wanna tuck tail and run, go for it man, but you're being a bit childish, for real. I get it - you're tired of me hating, so okay, I'll calm it down, but the slights and insults from the others turned it nasty, not me. you want to make a no speech rule? great, this is the last lengthy post in this thread from me.

I like reading you're posts, and actual still think you're a good dude, smart, funny, all that jazz, but this blow up threw me some, but you leaving the board makes no sense.

My vote? You stick around, and we get back to having a few laughs.
I even went and bought a few back issues of Superman today, just to educate myself on the stuff i apparently don't know.

That's an olive branch man. Your move.