Official Justice League Movie

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

I have very little issue with Batman saying fvck.

Dick Grayson saying "fvck Batman", I'm still pissed over.

I mean, there's definitely been times he THOUGHT it... especially at that time in his life... I think we're just not used to him saying it out loud.

[CyberCubed]

Has Batman ever cursed in canon before? And I don't mean things like, "Damn," "Bastard" or stuff like that.

[Leo656]

How important is that to whether or not he curses in a live-action movie, really?

One could probably have a hard time finding an example in the comic books of him saying "Ah, sh*t...!" as well. But when he was about to get annihilated by Doomsday's laser blast in BvS, that was indeed the appropriate human response to that situation. It doesn't matter if that's what a person in a comic book or cartoon show would say. That's what a real person would say. And that's ultimately more important to my enjoyment of a movie. "Does this feel real? Or is it contrived bullsh*t?" Doesn't matter the genre, if it feels "fake" or watered-down, I'm out. If it's legit, then I'm fine with it.

I frankly find "Oh yeah... something's definitely bleeding!" way more offensive coming out of Batman's mouth.

[Galactus]

I'm wary of starting of starting another debate on these Snyder DC movies but since this is going off already here goes:

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter of Batman lets off a swear word or two but it is yet another sign that Snyder just doesn't get these characters or their world. Batman has always been presented as much too controlled to swear or mow people over with the Batmobile. I get that this is a 'new' version and he is grisled and hardened like the Dark Knight Returns but even that version didn't swear or kill. The whole idea that this is a new take so anything goes didn't wash with any of us when it was Michael Bay and TMNT so it shouldn't with Batman. This isn't an Elseworlds story this is supposed to be the definitive take on the DC characters Snyder shouldn't be dicking around with the fundamentals. Particularly when his defenders talk endlessly about how well he gets the characters.

It's only natural to compare Snyder's DC movies with the MCU and I'll reiterate again that despite their light tone we still have consequences for the characters actions and despite not being panel for panel retellings of the comics no liberties are taken with the characters and their world to the extent Snyder has with these characters. But hey let's not compare them Marvel anymore how about comparing them to other DC movies. Say the Nolan Batman movies. They were dark, realistic and mature without turning Bruce Wayne into something he's not.

The thing that gets me is that there isn't really a point to it. We've discussed the objectivist undertones of Man of Steel and while I don't think Supes was the right character to try and examine objectivism through a superhero story and the result was completely muddied at least there was some kinda point to what Snyder was doing. Everything after that was just Snyder doing dark for the sake if it. It's a teenage edge lord's idea of what a mature take on the superhero genre is. Like all those people who read Watchmen and saw it as a how-to guide for superheroes as opposed to a warning of how it should not be done. I guess we should be thankful that we got spared Batman being raped in prison he teased us with when he was promoting Watchmen.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Has Batman ever cursed in canon before? And I don't mean things like, "Damn," "Bastard" or stuff like that.

He called Dick Grayson retarded over in Miller's All-Star title.

[CyberCubed]

I think the thing is Bruce Wayne is an educated billionaire with an air of sophistication around him. When he's wearing the Batman costume he should portray himself above the petty criminals he's fighting. If Batman goes around dropping "F-bombs" and cursing, he's no better than the criminals he's beating up. Batman isn't a thug, he's a portrayal of justice.

That's why I asked if Batman ever cursed regularly in the mainstream comics, because I don't think he really has? Maybe said "Bastard" a few times I guess. Batman should not use foul language because then he's just as bad as the villains.

[sdp]

Snyder isn't the best with story or characters, he's good at making cool moments and memorable action scenes. I don't expect Snyder's Justice League to be the best JL movie I can imagine but I expect it to be a fun movie to watch, with cool moments, lots to talk about, lots to disagree with, anything but a boring movie.

It would sound weird to have batman say **** but I also dislike more Batman killing or Grayson being dead, so it's not as offensive. It sounds to me like they're trying to get an R rating just to differentiate it from the other JL movie, I don't think saying **** makes him a bad guy.

[AquaParade]

I tend to think of Batman having more composure than that, typically speaking. That said, I can imagine Batman using language as an intimidation tool.

[Shark_Blade]

Batman killed in all the movies except Batman & Robin. Cursing is not even a problem.

[CyberCubed]

I like when Batman is the "Caped Crusader" over "The Dark Knight."

If Batman curses and kills he might as well be locked up in Arkham with the rest of them. Batman is supposed to be a symbol of justice. He can break their legs, smash their teeth and push their heads into the pavement, but there's one line he can't cross or he's not Batman anymore.

[Shark_Blade]

Batman isn’t really a symbol of justice. He’s a vigilante and taking matters into his own hands. He can break into places without a warrant, kidnap people and send them to the police, and beat people up to a pulp.

If he wanted to do justice the proper way he would’ve ended up as a police, judge or lawyer - the proper legal system way and that’s boring.

Batman can do what he pleases and the police tolerated him because he can help in ways they couldn’t.

[Leo656]

You people get hung up on the absolute silliest things.

"He said a bad word!" Good Lord.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

Batman isn’t really a symbol of justice.

He sort of is. Unwittingly. Many "superheroes" became superheroes because they looked up to Batman, or Batman inspired them.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I think the thing is Bruce Wayne is an educated billionaire with an air of sophistication around him. When he's wearing the Batman costume he should portray himself above the petty criminals he's fighting. If Batman goes around dropping "F-bombs" and cursing, he's no better than the criminals he's beating up. Batman isn't a thug, he's a portrayal of justice.

That's why I asked if Batman ever cursed regularly in the mainstream comics, because I don't think he really has? Maybe said "Bastard" a few times I guess. Batman should not use foul language because then he's just as bad as the villains.

Certainly during the creative renaissance of Denny O'Neil there was very James Bond vibe to the character that lasted a long time. Even after Miller's The Dark Knight Returns became a huge deal it took some time to work in thuggish Batman into DC's main books and even then he rarely became as bad as that in the proper continuity.

I wouldn't go as far to say swearing makes him as bad as the villains it's a small thing to complain about. If it was just that I'd shrug my shoulders and accept that in the context of this universe Bats is a bit looser with his vocabulary hell I could even give a pass on him killing if this was golden age inspired Batman but it isn't. These are just signs that Snyder is just doing shock value for the sake of it whether it fits the characters or not.

Originally Posted by sdp

Snyder isn't the best with story or characters, he's good at making cool moments and memorable action scenes. I don't expect Snyder's Justice League to be the best JL movie I can imagine but I expect it to be a fun movie to watch, with cool moments, lots to talk about, lots to disagree with, anything but a boring movie.

That's why Warner Bros hired him. His eye for action and after Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy they thought dark n' gritty was the way to go for all their heroes. I don't think they anticipated that they'd get Snyder trying to turn the Superman story into an examination of objectivist philosophy or that he would go overboard with the shock value.

Originally Posted by Shark_Blade

Batman isn’t really a symbol of justice. He’s a vigilante and taking matters into his own hands. He can break into places without a warrant, kidnap people and send them to the police, and beat people up to a pulp.

If he wanted to do justice the proper way he would’ve ended up as a police, judge or lawyer - the proper legal system way and that’s boring.

Batman can do what he pleases and the police tolerated him because he can help in ways they couldn’t.

That depends. For most of his history Batman has worked with James Gordon and Gotham PD ans usually plays with nice with them. Throughout most of the silver age he was officially deputised. I think Batman Begins as a movie gave convincing reasons why Bruce didn't go down the route of being a police officer or a judge or a lawyer and that took inspiration from The Man Who Falls which showed what happens when he does go the legitimate route.

Batman killed in all the movies except Batman & Robin. Cursing is not even a problem.

The movies have long fudged the whole no killing thing. Certainly Bats has inflicted injuries on henchmen that it's hard to imagine them surviving. However I tend to think we're supposed to think that Batman doesn't kill and these poor schlubs inexplicably survived. Heck the Nolan movies outright say he doesn't kill.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Heck the Nolan movies outright say he doesn't kill.

They say that in the same movie where he blew up Ra's compound and killed a bunch of people in the process. "They don't show the bodies, though, so nobody got killed and it's NOT a plot hole, definitely." It's laughable. Some'a the cops in that car chase absolutely bit it, too. Alfred saying "It's a miracle no one was killed" doesn't change the fact that logically a few of those cops - who were just doing their jobs, by the way - either died or are paraplegic.

At least all the guys in the BvS Batmobile chase scene were villains, and therefore "had it coming". What Nolan had him do was technically way worse.

As for the rest of your hangups... what you call "Shock Value", I call "Keepin' it Real" and I appreciate it. It's only "shocking" because we're all so used to comic book movies treating the collective audience like they're 5-10 years old. Otherwise there's nothing "shocking" about any of it.

"Ohmigod, people got killed, someone said a bad word!" Uh... Good? That's good. That's what would/should happen in these kinds of situations. "Realistically".

I'unno. Really, really seems to me like some people are just plain better off watching cartoons, where they won't have anything to clutch pearls over.

((Shrug))

[Andrew NDB]

I only get my wires crossed with Snyder when it went from, WB: "Let's let Snyder do like a 4 or 5 movie saga, whatever he wants from beginning to end," to WB: "OK, let's still let Snyder do that... but it also has to dovetail into creating the DCEU!" Because it turns out those two things really aren't compatible with one another, at all. You get Superman and (an old, post-Robin dying) Batman both dying in their first movies and other stuff (Jimmy Olsen dying, etc). Not exactly the way to ROLL OUT your DCEU, at all.

I mean, I'd have been all for Snyder just doing Man of Steel 2 and then Man of Steel 3, while others develop the DCEU Batman movies and Jenkins rolled out the WW movies and so on. When all of those were out they could probably be in a better place to figure out where to go with a JL movie or whatever.

[Leo656]

They were always gonna do spin-offs, though, and they were always going to be more of "their own thing", they just had to sort of be consistent with Zack's basic framework.

The other day Jenkins said in some interview that working with Zack on the first Wonder Woman movie was great, and that working with him on Justice League was also great, and that by contrast working with Joss Whedon on HIS Justice League was awful because there was no consistency all of a sudden.

I think it all would have worked out Just Fine if WB didn't demand SUCH a sharp 180-degree turn in style and tone after the BvS backlash. If the "main" story were allowed to play out organically then the spin-offs could have just as well. The whole "We have to make everything goofy, now" mandate is what hurt the overall project(s). The way they spun Wonder Woman out of BvS with Zack mostly just being an overseer and them working together to make sure things fit well could have easily been done across the board. WB just caved to the anti-Snyder people banging their drum, and then we get sh*t like "Birds of Prey".
----------

Unrelated, but I love how people keep citing the Jimmy Olsen thing like it's a huge blasphemous thing to do, as if one f*cking person ever gave a sh*t about Jimmy Olsen until they did that. This is what I mean, people just love to cherry-pick inconsequential things to complain about because what they really love more than anything is complaining.

Nobody gave one f*ck about "Jimmy Olsen" until they decided to drop that name on a random character who got killed. People can say that's not an absolute fact, but it IS.

All the other nitpicky stuff people go on about? Ugh.

- They just as well could have said that guy was the "real" Jimmy Olsen's older brother, like that awful Smallville show did. Would've been dumb, but if you HAVE to have "Jimmy Olsen", you could just as well say the CIA guy was using an alias. Simple.

- We never SEE "Dick Grayson" getting killed, and WB could easily have talked Zack into saying it was "Jason Todd" who got killed instead if they had ended up making a firm decision to have Nightwing be a thing in this universe. Again, easy fix. The only reason it was ever "Dick Grayson" on paper was at the time WB had zero plans to do a Nightwing spin-off and the idea of Batman having had three or four Robins in this universe was considered unwieldy and unnecessary. Which one has to admit, it kinda is. But again, the only thing that was important to this version of Batman was that he'd had Robin get killed. WHICH Robin wasn't really important. But again, if they decided they wanted to do Nightwing in the same universe? Literally NO reason why you "couldn't", and that's probably why they were smart enough not to namedrop the dead Robin and kept it vague. They probably decided halfway through that they might want to keep the Dick Grayson character in-play, "just in case". But on this one, people are whining about what was essentially a rough-draft plot point.

- Batman gets "killed" fighting Darkseid? Who cares? Like they couldn't just go right back to the comics and say two movies later "He wasn't killed, just zapped Somewhere Else" and then bring him back (probably with a non-Affleck actor).

It's just so much nitpicky bullsh*t that even if it HAD gone through had so many back doors that they're hardly even things worth getting annoyed over. If Jimmy Olsen had any point to existing in this story, they could have brought him back. If they thought they could get any money out of a Nightwing movie, then they would have easily been able to use him. They could have easily brought Batman "back from the dead".

It's just dumb to whine about things that 1. Didn't end up happening as planned, and 2. Could just as well have been "undone" anyway.

At some point, "Plot needs to happen".

[Shark_Blade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

He sort of is. Unwittingly. Many "superheroes" became superheroes because they looked up to Batman, or Batman inspired them.

“Sort of” I can agree with. Purely justice? absolutely not.

Hence who cares if he curses, and he can to certain extent even kill enemies just like police do in raids and it is regarded as casualties. The police never did issue a warrant for Batman for killing countless goons and rogue galleries.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Leo656

They say that in the same movie where he blew up Ra's compound and killed a bunch of people in the process. "They don't show the bodies, though, so nobody got killed and it's NOT a plot hole, definitely." It's laughable. Some'a the cops in that car chase absolutely bit it, too. Alfred saying "It's a miracle no one was killed" doesn't change the fact that logically a few of those cops - who were just doing their jobs, by the way - either died or are paraplegic.

At least all the guys in the BvS Batmobile chase scene were villains, and therefore "had it coming". What Nolan had him do was technically way worse.

Like I said the movies have long fudged the whole no killing rule.

Technically Bruce didn't kill any of the League of Assa...uh Shadows. He just set into motion the chain of events that led to their base catching fire but yes as incredulous as it seems I do think we're supposed to buy they all got away before the building blew. Heck he didn't even really kill Ubu that was the building falling on him.

Like I said if this was something of a Golden Age version of Batman I could get behind it. The Burton movies clearly took a fair amount of inspiration from that era but likewise I think we're supposed to buy no body means no body count. I think Batman not being a killer is how the majority of the public like him unless there's some point to it. Trying to use Batman mowing down people with the Batmobile to show how gritty and real that universe is isn't not much of point.

As for the rest of your hangups... what you call "Shock Value", I call "Keepin' it Real" and I appreciate it. It's only "shocking" because we're all so used to comic book movies treating the collective audience like they're 5-10 years old. Otherwise there's nothing "shocking" about any of it.

"Ohmigod, people got killed, someone said a bad word!" Uh... Good? That's good. That's what would/should happen in these kinds of situations. "Realistically".

I'unno. Really, really seems to me like some people are just plain better off watching cartoons, where they won't have anything to clutch pearls over.

((Shrug))

Is it keeping it real though? The depiction of cities being destroyed is more gritty than how Marvel presents it sure but we don't really see anyone we care about get hurt.

Jimmy Olson gets shot dead but since we didn't get to know that version at all we don't care. The whole thing is done to show that Snyder means business by murdering the character that symbolises the childlike innocence of the Superman mythos but it doesn't land because we don't know or care about that version. The only death of a major character was Superman and even the dumbest person in theater knew he wasn't going to stay dead and even then they had to do that thing with the soil to let you know he would definitely be back in Justice League.

At least Avengers (2012) killed off Coulson and since the Agents of SHIELD show is no longer canon to the movies at least he is technically dead. They did eventually kill of Tony Stark and both those deaths meant something because we got to know and care about them. Heck I think I cared more about Quicksilver dying than I did about Superman.

[Leo656]

Or - more likely - they decided to kill Some Rando, and then someone said "Hey! Remember how people whined that Jimmy Olsen wasn't in MoS? We should call the guy who gets killed 'Jimmy Olsen', that'd be funny." I'd put money on that being the exact conversation. Not "Let's symbolically murder 'Innocence' as a concept by killing Jimmy Olsen." That's you projecting/overthinking, I think. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Look, it's not what *I* would've done. But nobody gives a sh*t about Jimmy Olsen, anyways. Like Zack said, "Where would he even fit" within this story? There's already too many characters taking up space. Even in "Superman Returns", the only conversation people ever had about the character in the lead-up was "I heard he's gonna be gay!", and then after the movie came out it was "He hugged that one guy, d'ya think that was them confirming that he's gay?" That was literally it.

I like Jimmy Olsen. But you don't NEED him in everything Just Because. And this particular story is already very crowded. If he's just pointless window dressing, then who cares if he's there at all, let alone if he gets shot? At least that had some semblance of purpose. But again, I very much doubt he was even "Jimmy Olsen" at all until way later on.

And it's not like it matters even a little bit. It doesn't.
---------------

Sigh. It wasn't ABOUT "nobody believes Superman's gonna stay dead." Obviously they don't.

The point IN-STORY was that even though the whole world was afraid of him, he was willing to give his life to protect them because it was the right thing to do. It was to establish that's how committed he was to doing the right thing, not to try and "swerve" people into thinking he's going to stay dead when obviously he was not going to.

If you truly felt nothing for the character, then you yourself most likely have never been in a position where the more you try to do "the right thing", the more people obstruct you, and furthermore try and blame/shame you for things going wrong instead. And if someone sacrificing their own life to protect a world that feared and hated them, for no reason other than pure altruism, meant nothing to you and you think it would have "meant more" with three or four or fifteen movies of build-up, that's a You Problem. You missed the entire point.

I swear people watched these movies one time, half-drunk, barely paid attention, never looked at them again, and base all their awful "criticism" forevermore on those half-formed opinions. Ugh.