Henry Cavill again out as DCEU's Superman (formerly "exits" then "returns")

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

He also rescued a little girl. So yeah, you need to watch the movie again.

There was the dog. But it was more about the little girl.

****, man, I didn't remember a kid at ALL. So I rewatched a clip.



It's not about the little girl. Pa Kent hands her off to Clark and goes back for the fucking dog. Which Ma Kent (Martha!) locked in the vehicle.

Originally Posted by Leo656

Your Batman opinion is bluntly terrible, though. That's exactly what a Batman who's been fighting a losing battle for 20 years and saw his kid sidekick get murdered would behave like. Maybe that's not the guy you wanted, but there was nothing "poorly written" about it. It's another case of "not being what you would have done" doesn't equal "a bad take".

It's okay, we can't all bat 1.0.

I already accept that my Batman opinion is "terrible" because I'm a huge Red Hood fan. Also Damian.

But no, when the majority consensus is "Batman shouldn't have been done that way", you can't just say I don't like it because it's not how I would have done it.

Actually, I'm curious. Have any major Batman writers commented on Batfleck? I know some Superman writer claims to have screamed at the theater screen during Man of Steel because he hated it so much...

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

It's not about the little girl. Pa Kent hands her off to Clark and goes back for the fucking dog. Which Ma Kent (Martha!) locked in the vehicle.




I already accept that my Batman opinion is "terrible" because I'm a huge Red Hood fan. Also Damian.

But no, when the majority consensus is "Batman shouldn't have been done that way", you can't just say I don't like it because it's not how I would have done it.

Actually, I'm curious. Have any major Batman writers commented on Batfleck? I know some Superman writer claims to have screamed at the theater screen during Man of Steel because he hated it so much...

Whew, lots to unpack here! Hope you brought your pillow. It's gonna be one of my Extra-Special Two-Parters! Everybody just loves those!

- What do you have against dogs? I have a dog, I'd absolutely go back and try and save my dog if I were in his position. Starting to question your values altogether.

- I'd actually rather say it's "terrible" because you actually like "The Dark Knight Rises". Now THAT is a bad take on Batman. Real shame, first two movies were great! That one sh*t the bed so hard it was coming through the basement ceiling.

Entertaining action movie. Fun to watch, hits some good emotional beats. But as for Batman and every other character in the movie, every choice they made from A-to-Z was wrong, wrong, WRONG. It's pretty much only acceptable if you forget everything you know from the comics about these characters, which I simply refuse to do. That isn't who Bruce Wayne is. That's not who Bane is. That's not who Alfred is. That's not who ANY of them are, or how they behave, not in ANY canon that exists except Just That One. And that's where the "questionable choices" in DKR differ from the ones in BvS; the ones in BvS at least have some strong basis in the historical canon of the character(s), whereas in DKR they literally just made stuff up.

So yeah, we can talk Bad Takes In Batman Movies, but my gun's got a lot more ammo. I can do this all week!

- I disagree that it's "majority consensus" that the Affleck portrayal was wrong, because for one thing Internet Rage Nerds Who Like To Repeat Themselves aren't actually the majority of people in Real Life. The people who say "Batman shouldn't act that way" have the same problem with Batman that Chris Reeve fans have with Superman. Too many people think DCAU Batman is "The Real Batman", and he isn't. He's a cartoon character, immune to lasting change or actual human emotions or behavior. They have a hard time accepting or imagining a version of the character that... y'know... behaves in emotionally appropriate ways in response to the situations he finds himself in. And that's really all that movie presented, in the case of both Superman AND Batman. "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

If Batman had been Batman for 20 years, watched Robin die, and wasn't "damaged" by it all, then he would be another cardboard cutout, and not a human being. If this guy who already felt powerless and impotent because he couldn't save his parents, couldn't save his partner, and couldn't save Gotham, suddenly found himself in a world where "the gods hurl thunderbolts" and didn't feel even MORE powerless, impotent, and angry, as well as determined to do whatever it took to impose his will on such a world by any means necessary... then again, he wouldn't be behaving in a realistic manner.

So again, you (and others) can say it's not what you wanted to see. You can say it wasn't to your taste. But you can't say that it was "poorly written" or even poorly executed, because it was completely natural and valid for the story they chose to tell and because it has roots in the comic book canon. We can argue all day long about whether "broken, damaged Batman" was what you or they wanted to see, but if he wasn't in such a dark place when we find him at the start of the movie and for most of the running time, then his eventual redemption through Clark's sacrifice wouldn't be as meaningful. He had to have completely given up all faith in humanity for his "Men are still good" soliloquy to have the appropriate weight behind it. He had to be wrong, in order to learn any lesson. He had to be the villain of the story in order for him to ultimately be redeemed. He had to be faithless and hopeless in order to find his faith and hope again. In short, he had to have an arc.

With all respect, these ultimately ARE "You Problems". As in, not being willing to take the material for what it's trying to be and not what you'd rather see. And as you pointed out, others do feel the same way. BUT, they also can't get over silly sh*t like "OH MY GOD he shot at people (who were shooting at him with bazookas!)" and "How DARE he try and kill Superman (who he ONLY knows as an alien menace who knocked over half a city and isn't privy to things about Clark's character that we the audience knows)" and all that kinda thing. Believe me, I'm well aware of what "they" say, and most of it comes off as very ignorant. I pay very close attention, and I know who "they" are. They wanted a flawless, always-right, all-knowing Batman just like they wanted the same exact thing from Superman. They wanted their cartoon heroes played by real actors; they didn't want the characters behaving as "real people". And I know that's not exactly how YOU feel, but that's who you've chosen to align yourself with by citing "consensus". So sure, feel free to disagree about the take, but don't do it "Because Consensus"; those people are extremely ignorant and you're frankly smarter and better than they are.

There's not a single thing invalid or out of character for that portrayal Batman as long as the person watching the movie decides to accept, "This is Batman who's been through a ton of awful sh*t by this point." Not a single thing. Just like most of people's issues with the portrayal of Superman can be dismissed with, "It's Year One Superman who isn't perfect at this stuff yet." And again, if you or any other viewer insists that it's NOT valid or well-done because "They shouldn't have Gone There"... well, that IS a You/They Problem.

Batman in BvS is simply the Batman from "A Lonely Place of Dying", except in a universe where there was no Tim Drake to reverse the downward spiral after Robin's death. Nothing more, and nothing less. Read that story again, particularly at the very beginning, and imagine That Batman in another 15 or so years if there was nothing to pull him out of his despair, and then tell me that the Batman in BvS isn't the absolute natural evolution of that same guy. Just a few weeks after Jason's death, Batman was beating bad guys to a pulp for the sheer hell of it and almost had a full-blown death wish already. Tack on another decade-plus? Yeah, do the math, you get BvS Batman.

What I suspect is that a lot of people didn't like it because as huge Batman fans, they couldn't accept him being that level of asshole, not even if it made sense within the context of the story. I've seen people say as much, more than once. "He shouldn't be that mean, he shouldn't be that vicious or bloodthirsty of a guy"... but I think that if he was pushed there over a long traumatic period of time then yeah, he actually should be. Because 1. It's canon, 2. It fits the character, and 3. It makes logical sense within the story's context.

I think if the Affleck "The Batman" prequel movie had actually happened, then a lot of peoples' take on how his Batman was presented in BvS would have been a bit more understanding. Maybe people needed to be spoon-fed more of his downward spiral before they could buy or accept him being in such a dark place. But I simply won't accept that it's out of character, badly written, or any of those things. Those are opinions - misinformed or dismissive ones - not factual statements. People who pay attention know better.

I mean, if you disagree then you disagree, but I'd like to see your homework, is all I'm sayin'.

(Cont.)

[Leo656]

- I don't know what any Batman writers have said or thought. I respect their opinion on the matter but in the end, people are very nitpicky about whether or not it even matters. John Ostrander essentially created the Suicide Squad, and he loved the Squad movie, saying it was like his original vision brought to life, and everybody just turned around and told him he was an idiot because they didn't like it, therefore his opinion was invalid. So if Jeph Loeb or Grant Morrison liked (or disliked) BvS... would it matter? The only honest answer is, "Only if the person citing them as a reference agreed with their opinion."

Mark Waid, however, is an idiot, and his takes on Superman are as awful as his takes on Flash are brilliant. His favorite version of the DC characters are the goddamn Super-Friends. Which automatically means he's got a 6-year old's brain in a 60-something year-old's body, because Super-Friends was absolutely godawful trash before the "Super Powers: Galactic Guardians" revamp. I don't know if his claim is true, but he CLAIMS that he stood up in the theater and screamed at the movie screen when Superman snapped Zod's neck... because that's how a well-adjusted grown man behaves.

F*ck Mark Waid. The best thing he ever wrote with Superman in it was "Kingdom Come", and while that's a great story in and of itself, the entire plot hinges on Superman being a crybaby first, a quitter second, and then an oblivious moron for the entire second and third act. It's a great story, but I resent that the guy who wrote THAT thinks he's any kind of authority on Superman, or what's appropriate for his character. The entire plot of his "best story" only got to happen because of Superman doing something he would never, ever do, which is quit being Superman because someone hurt his feelings.

So yeah, the movie theater story probably IS true, because Mark Waid certainly is "special".

BUT, he writes a damn good Flash, and I will readily admit that. 1993's "Return of Barry Allen" is, was, and will remain the single greatest Flash story ever told, period. But he also wrote "Birthright", which means that when it comes to Superman he should keep his goddamn mouth shut.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by Leo656

You're 100% wrong on that idea. Snyder and Goyer have both repeatedly explained that all the way up until they started filming, the ending was written as "Zod gets sent back to the Phantom Zone with everyone else", but they decided very late in the game that they needed to do something else. For one thing, it's entirely predictable, and for another, him killing Zod is about as literal as it gets in displaying Clark severing his last ties to his homeworld. The entire film's premise was about Clark rejecting his "alien" heritage in favor of his "human" side. "Krypton had its chance." He's Kryptonian by birth, "human" by choice. That's the message the movies were trying to put over - "This is my world..." - but again, a lot of people watched them wrong. They didn't notice, apparently, how the guy cooks his breakfast on a stove, cooks his fiancee dinner from scratch, rides a bicycle to work or takes a ferry to Gotham City, even though he doesn't NEED to do any of those things. He CHOOSES to do these things, because he sees himself as human. He quite notably only uses his abilities when he's "on the clock"; when he's "Just Clark", he's just Clark.

The premise of "the focus being on the Man more than the Super" was illustrated repeatedly. People just needed to get over themselves and actually let themselves see what was on the screen in front of them. There's a REASON why he never calls himself "Superman" even once, except to say that it "was never real". He doesn't see himself as "Superman", he sees himself as "Clark."

Whether or not the movies "failed the Kents" is a matter of opinion, but it's one I don't agree with. Jonathan quite clearly says that one day Clark is going to "change the world", but he also doesn't want him to try and do so until he's ready, because "the world isn't ready". And the world WASN'T ready, and that was more or less the entire point: Jon Kent was right. I mean, look at the world we live in; if Jesus Christ came back tomorrow, he'd be right back up on that cross by next weekend, because that's the world we live in. And when Martha says "You don't owe this world a thing," she was speaking as a mother who'd rather see their child happy more than anything. Any parent I know would let the whole world burn so long as their own kid was safe and happy. I saw nothing offsides in how the Kents were portrayed; they were just maybe more protective of their son than they're sometimes presented as being.

But even THAT fit the concept Snyder was trying to put over, which is that Clark is Superman mostly because he WANTS to be, not because anyone TOLD him to be. Because "Superman" is the missing piece insofar as "What am I supposed to do with myself and these things I can do?" In a lot of other versions, it comes off like he does it because Jor-El told him to, or because Jon and Martha told him to; in this version, he takes their input but ultimately makes it his OWN decision to put on the cape and present himself to the world. And that's important; it's important that he have agency. Some people claim that Cavill's Superman was "too passive", but again, I have no idea what movies they watched; Cavill's Superman is constantly doing what HE wants to do, openly ignoring what other people say he ought to do. It's a VERY proactive version of the character. The entire point of BvS was that maybe he's TOO proactive; that was literally the entire plot.

So yeah, I don't know. The things you personally profess to like best were all right there in the movies quite clearly. Like, they went out of their way to present those themes. Perhaps you simply need to see it again and look closer. "Too dark" is a matter of opinion, but one can't honestly say that those themes and ideas weren't presented in the movies; they were.

I honestly enjoyed it right up til the end where he snaps Zod's neck. That one scene pulled me from the movie & I hated it with ever fiber of my being. Still do. Its out of character in 80 years of Superman. With exception to Doomsday & the pocket universe Kryptonians from Superman v2 #21 or #22, I think. I've rewatched it quite a few times & do own most of the DCEU movies on bluray... MOS is better than BVS, which was terrible. Martha! Yeah, I get in the real world, it would be dark & 4 people fighting with those powers would probably damn near destroy the world, but its possible for a movie to be light hearted & entertaining & remove itself from how crap the real world is today. I'd also rather they stop doing origin movies. Do an opening montage of Krypton going boom, the rocket in space, crashing in Kansas, two old folks, baby pics & maybe Lana & high school football sequences then flash the logo & open up with Perry White yelling "Lane! Kent! Get in here!" Or Superman doing something simple or whatever. Helping put out an apartment fire. Hell, a cat in a tree as a call back to Reeve's Superman. Then let the film play out with 100 more minutes of action.

A live action Red Son would be kinda fun to see too but maybe thats just me.

[Leo656]

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that this isn't a scenario someone wrote, let's pretend that "Superman" isn't an "icon" with 80 years of history and his face on kids' pajamas. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the characters and scenario that took place at the end of MoS was actually really happening, exactly as it did up to the point where the fight with Zod ended.

There's no way to send him back to the Phantom Zone. There's no way to take away his powers. He's stronger, a better fighter, and more ruthless. This person has promised to kill every last man, woman and child on your adopted planet, just to make you suffer, and he 100% means it. He has sworn that this only ends one way, "Either YOU die, or I do."

You've taken the fight across the city, across the globe, into outer space and back, and he simply won't stop. Beating him up hasn't worked. Reasoning with him hasn't worked. Begging him to stop didn't work. He is going to kill everyone, unless you do something, and do it Right Now. And you've chosen to prevent that from happening, you've decided it's your sworn duty to protect this world and everyone in it from situations Exactly Like This.

So again, if you're Superman, and this is not a movie, not a drill, not make-believe, and this is REALLY HAPPENING... tell me, then... What Does Superman DO? Remember, you're not a kids' cartoon character with an editorial mandate that says "You can't ever kill anyone because it will hurt the sales on those kids' pajamas," you're actually the last line of defense against literal global genocide.

The correct answer is: You Kill Space-Hitler. That's it. That's the only right answer. Forget the kids' cartoon character stuff. Lest we forget that back in 1939, before he became a "kids character", Superman frequently did stuff like throw bad guys in front of their own bullets that they'd shot at him. And those guys were a lot less dangerous than Zod was, so he probably could've/should've handled it better. "Early-Installment Weirdness," I get it.

I'm just saying, that "Rule" only exists because someone decided that it was a bad look for him to be using lethal force once he was doing cereal commercials. It was a business decision, not a storytelling decision. "Superman Never Kills" didn't become a thing because the writers were sincere about making him "a better person" or "a better hero" any of that... it was because they could sell more dolls that way. That makes the "rule" disingenuous, even if it's well-intentioned or even noble. It was still a "rule" they invented for the sake of selling toys, and nothing else. Certainly not for the "integrity" of the character.

And he should sincerely not WANT to kill anyone, sure. But in a situation like the MoS situation, there's absolutely nothing offsides or vulgar about what he did. It was the correct move for the scenario he was in. Now, if someone wants to say, "Putting him in such a No-Win Situation was a bad way to showcase the character just in general", that's a conversation. But there really wasn't any other way to get out of that, and if he didn't kill Zod, the alternative would be Everyone Dies.

One to save millions? Billions? That's a forgivable act, even if you're Superman. To NOT have killed Zod would have been wrong.

I look at any super-hero - even Superman and Batman - just like cops and soldiers, when it comes to that sort of thing. Their job is ultimately to try and minimize the loss of life, but sometimes the only way to do that is by killing someone. You don't WANT to do it, you shouldn't LIKE to do it, and you shouldn't take pleasure in it... but there's sincerely times when you have no choice, and it doesn't "pervert your values" or "make you any less of a hero" if you do.

It would have been different if killing Zod clearly wasn't a painful act for him. That would have been bad, if he was all glib about it like it didn't matter. But that guttural scream and that "Why did this have to happen...?" look he gave Lois puts it all into perspective. He clearly wasn't happy about what he did, and he sincerely wished there had been another way out... but there wasn't.

Sometimes, there isn't any other way. Sometimes, You Have To Kill Space-Hitler.

If it hadn't been handled as well as it was - and he hadn't killed Zod in the comics for the exact same reasons - I'd have had a bigger problem with it. But contextually, it made perfect sense, and while "codes of honor" are fine and all, at the end of the day it's MORE important to stem the loss of further life by any means necessary. A "hero" who'd let more people die just because HE didn't want to kill anyone... is honestly not much of a hero.

Again, I know the debate rages eternal about whether or not it was even "fair" to script Superman into a no-win scenario like that, but that's kind of where the drama happens. His whole life is pretty much making the best out of bad choices. This was just a very extreme example of that.

...He (and Lois) also blatantly kill Zod and Co. in the theatrical cut of Superman II... and then they laugh about it. But nobody ever talks about that! Goes to show you how much people are willing to forgive and ignore when your movie is scored by John Williams and not Hans Zimmer.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by Leo656

So let's do a thought experiment. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that this isn't a scenario someone wrote, let's pretend that "Superman" isn't an "icon" with 80 years of history and his face on kids' pajamas. Let's pretend, for a moment, that the characters and scenario that took place at the end of MoS was actually really happening, exactly as it did up to the point where the fight with Zod ended.

There's no way to send him back to the Phantom Zone. There's no way to take away his powers. He's stronger, a better fighter, and more ruthless. This person has promised to kill every last man, woman and child on your adopted planet, just to make you suffer, and he 100% means it. He has sworn that this only ends one way, "Either YOU die, or I do."

You've taken the fight across the city, across the globe, into outer space and back, and he simply won't stop. Beating him up hasn't worked. Reasoning with him hasn't worked. Begging him to stop didn't work. He is going to kill everyone, unless you do something, and do it Right Now. And you've chosen to prevent that from happening, you've decided it's your sworn duty to protect this world and everyone in it from situations Exactly Like This.

So again, if you're Superman, and this is not a movie, not a drill, not make-believe, and this is REALLY HAPPENING... tell me, then... What Does Superman DO? Remember, you're not a kids' cartoon character with an editorial mandate that says "You can't ever kill anyone because it will hurt the sales on those kids' pajamas," you're actually the last line of defense against literal global genocide.

The correct answer is: You Kill Space-Hitler. That's it. That's the only right answer. Forget the kids' cartoon character stuff. Lest we forget that back in 1939, before he became a "kids character", Superman frequently did stuff like throw bad guys in front of their own bullets that they'd shot at him. And those guys were a lot less dangerous than Zod was, so he probably could've/should've handled it better. "Early-Installment Weirdness," I get it.

I'm just saying, that "Rule" only exists because someone decided that it was a bad look for him to be using lethal force once he was doing cereal commercials. It was a business decision, not a storytelling decision. "Superman Never Kills" didn't become a thing because the writers were sincere about making him "a better person" or "a better hero" any of that... it was because they could sell more dolls that way. That makes the "rule" disingenuous, even if it's well-intentioned or even noble. It was still a "rule" they invented for the sake of selling toys, and nothing else. Certainly not for the "integrity" of the character.

And he should sincerely not WANT to kill anyone, sure. But in a situation like the MoS situation, there's absolutely nothing offsides or vulgar about what he did. It was the correct move for the scenario he was in. Now, if someone wants to say, "Putting him in such a No-Win Situation was a bad way to showcase the character just in general", that's a conversation. But there really wasn't any other way to get out of that, and if he didn't kill Zod, the alternative would be Everyone Dies.

One to save millions? Billions? That's a forgivable act, even if you're Superman. To NOT have killed Zod would have been wrong.

I look at any super-hero - even Superman and Batman - just like cops and soldiers, when it comes to that sort of thing. Their job is ultimately to try and minimize the loss of life, but sometimes the only way to do that is by killing someone. You don't WANT to do it, you shouldn't LIKE to do it, and you shouldn't take pleasure in it... but there's sincerely times when you have no choice, and it doesn't "pervert your values" or "make you any less of a hero" if you do.

It would have been different if killing Zod clearly wasn't a painful act for him. That would have been bad, if he was all glib about it like it didn't matter. But that guttural scream and that "Why did this have to happen...?" look he gave Lois puts it all into perspective. He clearly wasn't happy about what he did, and he sincerely wished there had been another way out... but there wasn't.

Sometimes, there isn't any other way. Sometimes, You Have To Kill Space-Hitler.

If it hadn't been handled as well as it was - and he hadn't killed Zod in the comics for the exact same reasons - I'd have had a bigger problem with it. But contextually, it made perfect sense, and while "codes of honor" are fine and all, at the end of the day it's MORE important to stem the loss of further life by any means necessary. A "hero" who'd let more people die just because HE didn't want to kill anyone... is honestly not much of a hero.

Again, I know the debate rages eternal about whether or not it was even "fair" to script Superman into a no-win scenario like that, but that's kind of where the drama happens. His whole life is pretty much making the best out of bad choices. This was just a very extreme example of that.

...He (and Lois) also blatantly kill Zod and Co. in the theatrical cut of Superman II... and then they laugh about it. But nobody ever talks about that! Goes to show you how much people are willing to forgive and ignore when your movie is scored by John Williams and not Hans Zimmer.

Okay, yeah. In the real world what Supes does is called self defense (specifically in this case "of others") by killing Zod, he saves that family stuck in the corner. The theatrical cut of Superman II, Zod & co aren't killed, just depowered and then locked up. There is a shot of them being cuffed & stuffed into a police snow cruise thing. Unless I'm remembering that wrong & its only Lex being cuffed & stuffed. I'd have to go look at the Donner cut again.

And yeah, MOS feels like they wrote the situation as a no win, Zod dies or Superman/Earth dies event, which I find less entertaining because, lets face it, thats the real world today. Batman, either 89 or Returns, had Bats kill a few thugs. Never noticed that as a kid. But, I think in Returns, one of the thugs throws a bomb at Bats in the opening fight sequence, I think, and then he knocks it away and throws the thug after it and off screen it blows up. Killing someone is defense of self or others isn't murder. Again tho, I want to be entertained not flash-banged with fictional space Hitler when we have actual literal Hitler types in charge of locations across the world, actively locking people up and or killing them for speaking out against their tyranny. And with MOS, I was quiet entertained until Zod attacks those people. That point in the film just took me out of it but maybe it was also the entire audience freaking out too. I'll dig it out today & watch it again. I've got nothing going on and its snowing. Lol

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Originally Posted by Leo656

- I disagree that it's "majority consensus" that the Affleck portrayal was wrong, because for one thing Internet Rage Nerds Who Like To Repeat Themselves aren't actually the majority of people in Real Life. The people who say "Batman shouldn't act that way" have the same problem with Batman that Chris Reeve fans have with Superman. Too many people think DCAU Batman is "The Real Batman", and he isn't. He's a cartoon character, immune to lasting change or actual human emotions or behavior. They have a hard time accepting or imagining a version of the character that... y'know... behaves in emotionally appropriate ways in response to the situations he finds himself in. And that's really all that movie presented, in the case of both Superman AND Batman. "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

You callin' me a dog hater? I wouldn't have left the dog in the vehicle! Martha closes the door, runs all the way to the overpass, and then remembers "oh yeah, I left Sparky in the back seat." Come on.

Okay, you say:

"He's a cartoon character" ... "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

But that's exactly what Bruce Wayne does in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan tried to do a realistic take on Batman, someone crazy enough to dress up in an armored Bat suit but still has real relationships beyond "this Robin will be a good sacrificial soldier in my eternal war against evil." It's a quasi-realistic take on Batman, so at some point, it's going to diverge. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both do a much better job of being REAL Batman movies.

I think my opinions on both TDKR and BvS have sort of settled and morphed to be about equivalent. Both very flawed movies with great performances and some really great material, both hamstrung by some pretty terrible problems. On the one hand, Jesse Eisenberg's acting. On the other hand, Marion Cotillard's death scene. On the one hand, John Blake. On the other hand, Lex Luthor. Batman acts out of character in both movies. And so on.

Anyway, back to BvS specifically, I agree that Batman has to have an arc. I really like the points you make about him being the villain of the story who finds redemption. But a homicidal Batman is just as much a departure from "canon" as is "Rachel died so I think I'm done now" Batman.

As to what Batman writers opinions might be, knowing their opinions wouldn't change my own opinion, at least not by much. But I'd still be very curious. They've written lots of Batman stories (hopefully well received stories, not dreck like Batman Odyssey or some such) so they've got cred; they've got history.

And for the record, I'm totally fine with Clark killing Superpowered Space Hitler. There's really nothing else he can do unless he wants more blood on his (Clark's) hands. It's the guy's first ever fight with a fellow Kryptonian (and a lauded war hero and combat specialist, FFS), and everyone thinks he's gonna pull a magic rabbit out of Zatanna's hat and just put Zod in an armbar or something? Clark has no idea if it's even possible to access the Phantom Zone, and in the meantime, people are dying. Snap the neck, suffer the guilt.

...

$hit, I just realized Superman and Batman go through the same moral quandary when fighting a superior foe to protect Earth. Dammit.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

The theatrical cut of Superman II, Zod & co aren't killed, just depowered and then locked up. There is a shot of them being cuffed & stuffed into a police snow cruise thingl

You clearly grew up on the international cut they ran on television, which has never had an official DVD release outside of fandom circulation. Such a scene exists, but it was never in either the theatrical Lester cut or the official Donner cut, in the latter, it was available only as a deleted scene

[Leo656]

Yeah, the "Arctic Police" bit from Superman II was in the International and later the Donner cut deleted scenes, but not the "real" movie. In the movie MOST people watched for 20+ years, Superman depowers Zod and Co. and then he and Lois knock them into a bottomless abyss in the Fortress and laugh about it while triumphant music plays. Alternate Cuts and deleted scenes don't count when 99% of the audience is not privy to such information, and can only go by what they saw in front of their own eyes.

Ergo, some of the exact same people who took great issue with Superman snapping Zod's neck - an act of war to save lives which is treated as a seriously regrettable act that tears Superman up inside - were perfectly fine with Superman (and Lois!) killing three people and the whole thing literally being played for laughs. And this is why I don't take a lot of people's criticisms seriously.

As for the rest of your POV, mczaps; I get it, personal preference. You'd rather have escapism. That's your prerogative. I want things to be "played straight" or "kept real" as much as possible. In a movie that was TRYING to be escapist fantasy, I'd definitely accept a different ending. But in a movie where the entire point was to be "realistic", I want them to stick to that and not waver.

For better or worse, they stuck to the "mission statement" with MoS. It can be a conversation about whether that take was "necessary" or not. But what I don't like, is someone arguing that it was poorly executed simply for being exactly what it set out to be. Not that that's what YOU are saying, I just mean in general. Someone is within their rights to say, "That's not the take I'd have done, or prefer to see." But I will forever argue that for what they were trying to accomplish with that movie, they succeeded masterfully.

I like what I like, and I want what I want, sure. But I'm also perfectly willing to defer to authorial intent sometimes. From a different direction, I'm sure that "Thor: Ragnarok" succeeds brilliantly at what it sets out to be. I have no interest in seeing it, I don't care for that type of humor in my super-hero movies, generally, but I'd never say it's "bad" at doing what it tries to do, or being what it tries to be. The most I can say is, "That's not what I would have done, it's not what I want to see." I'm willing to believe that for what it aims to do, it succeeds.

And I think that's what it comes down to, sometimes. Being willing to meet the creator(s) halfway.

Oh, FYI: In my neck of the woods we never saw the "Arctic Police" scene on TV. I watched that movie religiously every single time it aired on TV after 1983 until like 1993 and I saw that scene for the first time on the Donner Cut DVD. Other countries or parts of the U.S. may have showed it, but not in my area.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

You callin' me a dog hater? I wouldn't have left the dog in the vehicle! Martha closes the door, runs all the way to the overpass, and then remembers "oh yeah, I left Sparky in the back seat." Come on.

Okay, you say:

"He's a cartoon character" ... "What if these characters actually behaved like human beings in response to the things happening around them, and not static archetypes?"

But that's exactly what Bruce Wayne does in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan tried to do a realistic take on Batman, someone crazy enough to dress up in an armored Bat suit but still has real relationships beyond "this Robin will be a good sacrificial soldier in my eternal war against evil." It's a quasi-realistic take on Batman, so at some point, it's going to diverge. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight both do a much better job of being REAL Batman movies.

I think my opinions on both TDKR and BvS have sort of settled and morphed to be about equivalent. Both very flawed movies with great performances and some really great material, both hamstrung by some pretty terrible problems. On the one hand, Jesse Eisenberg's acting. On the other hand, Marion Cotillard's death scene. On the one hand, John Blake. On the other hand, Lex Luthor. Batman acts out of character in both movies. And so on.

Anyway, back to BvS specifically, I agree that Batman has to have an arc. I really like the points you make about him being the villain of the story who finds redemption. But a homicidal Batman is just as much a departure from "canon" as is "Rachel died so I think I'm done now" Batman.

As to what Batman writers opinions might be, knowing their opinions wouldn't change my own opinion, at least not by much. But I'd still be very curious. They've written lots of Batman stories (hopefully well received stories, not dreck like Batman Odyssey or some such) so they've got cred; they've got history.

And for the record, I'm totally fine with Clark killing Superpowered Space Hitler. There's really nothing else he can do unless he wants more blood on his (Clark's) hands. It's the guy's first ever fight with a fellow Kryptonian (and a lauded war hero and combat specialist, FFS), and everyone thinks he's gonna pull a magic rabbit out of Zatanna's hat and just put Zod in an armbar or something? Clark has no idea if it's even possible to access the Phantom Zone, and in the meantime, people are dying. Snap the neck, suffer the guilt.

...

$hit, I just realized Superman and Batman go through the same moral quandary when fighting a superior foe to protect Earth. Dammit.

To the bold: Because YOU UNDERSTAND THE MOVIES! Like I've said before, nothing Snyder does is by accident and every scene parallels another scene or event from a previous film. He does this A LOT. Watch "Wonder Woman" again, and pay attention to the Diana/Ares scene; it's a DIRECT rip from MoS, right down to Diana saying "I can't be a part of this!" None of that was by accident.

See, this is why I like you, man. We don't have to agree on everything, but at least you UNDERSTAND things.

There's ALSO a bit of subtext that most people didn't pick up on, in where "Dark Batman" represents what Superman MIGHT one day become if he ever abandons his own faith in humanity. Alfred's whole "turns good men cruel" soliloquy. It foreshadows the Knightmare scene where in the Dark Future it's Superman who's become a tyrant. So that's another reason why Batman was in such a dark place; he's kind of a "cautionary tale" for Clark. "Don't Ever Become This." Clark, in the film, is tested but still hopeful and optimistic, whereas Bruce has already given up on everything and in turn become a vicious and bloodthirsty individual. When Clark sees Batman, he sees what he MIGHT become if he ever abandons his own ideals the same way Bruce did.

Just a little tidbit not everybody picked up on. You might've, I don't know.

To address a couple of other points in this Very Awesome Conversation we're having:

- But see, I still maintain that Batman WASN'T out of character in BvS. He was in-character for a Batman who's been pushed too far for too long. And we've seen a lot of hints of that in the comics for years and years and years. Bruce Wayne's own grip on sanity has been shown to be quite tenuous, at times. I've read comics where (in-canon) he crippled people when he didn't have to just to prove a point, or blow off steam, so I can absolutely see him branding criminals or some of the other stuff he does in that movie. Part of why I'm a Robin fan is because it's long been established that without Robin, Bruce can get pretty f*cking unhinged and it doesn't take much to push him there. So yeah, I will never honestly feel like his BvS portrayal was out of character. Maybe it was out of character for "25-year old, In-His-Prime Batman", but definitely NOT for "PTSD 40-something Batman."

- On the other hand, I see Dark Knight Rises Bruce as being SEVERELY out-of-character, because 1. They have Bruce behave in ways that are completely contrary to established canon, and 2. It's not even consistent with the first movie in the series, which did a GREAT job of establishing Bruce and who he is and what he believes in.

He becomes Batman because "Your system is broken." Cops and politicians are corrupt and can't be trusted to do what is necessary to enforce "true justice". "Batman Begins" makes it a point to stress this motivation. Bruce sees himself as the Only Sane Man in a world that's corrupt, and he gets to "break the rules" because he knows he's incorruptible. Awesome! That's not only valid, that's canon.

"Dark Knight Rises" blasts this all to hell, however. First of all, he quits being Batman, something I'm on record as saying Bruce Wayne would probably never do. His paranoia, sense of duty, and inherent mistrust of the broken "system" would NEVER allow him to just walk away and let the corrupt cops and politicians carry on without him. Their incompetence and greed was the entire reason he became Batman, so HOW could he ever walk away?! Those things are NEVER going to go away, and so long as Bruce was breathing, he'd be "fighting the war". That's who he is. He doesn't have it in him to turn a blind eye to injustice, or else he wouldn't even BE Batman.

Further, he quits for awful reasons. For one, as stated, he trusts that the cops and politicians are gonna do a better job this time, which is... yeah, I already explained why that's total bullsh*t. For another, he keeps chasing pussy! He wants to quit for Rachel, he wants to quit for Talia... what the F*CK is WITH this guy? Again, this is NOT who Bruce Wayne is as a character. This isn't just "a realistic take" or "a different take"... this is some COMPLETELY made-up nonsense that either misunderstands or disregards WHO Bruce Wayne is and why he's Batman in the first place.

"Begins" got Bruce so, so RIGHT. And that's why "Rises" rings so terribly false to me; it's not only wrong for Bruce in general, it's not even consistent with his motivation from the same series of films. It's like he's a totally different GUY all of a sudden and it doesn't even make any sense.

I can buy a Batman pushed too far who's become bloodthirsty and cruel, as in BvS. Those things are consistent with his character, even if it requires an understanding that he's been pushed over time to become this because of a series of traumatic events. I can NOT buy a Batman who trusts cops and politicians to be honest and noble and therefore he isn't needed anymore, or a Batman who quits his job to chase beaver. I can not and will not accept those things.

- We won't agree on Jesse's Lex, and that's fine. But one thing I've noticed, and chosen to incorporate into my own headcanon, is that he becomes more "unhinged" and off-kilter only AFTER he interacts with the Kryptonian ship. Whether that was intentional, I have no idea, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that his "communion" with the ship drove him temporarily mad, which in turn explains some of the more severe "twitchiness" and verbal tics. If a person REALLY doesn't like it, that's their own prerogative; but it's worth pointing out, to me, that there may at least be an in-story reason for it, intentional or otherwise.

For me, it was about the script, and the character was scripted well. Performance... eh, that's a conversation. For once, I liked that Lex was written to be as completely Pure Evil as he was in the comics they were pulling from. The whole "kindap and torture Clark's Mom" bit, for example, was right out of one of Byrne's early issues, albeit executed much differently in that case. But it's a thing Lex would do and has done, so I loved that. I can see why some people didn't like the performance, but for me the scripting made up for that. So I really don't mind it at all. But we can agree to disagree on it, sure, I get why it bugs some people.
-------

But yeah, man, you and I have just, like, THE BEST conversations, man. This is why you're one'a my favorites!

[AquaParade]

Both those movies are just different interpretations of Batman. He's nigh unbreakable and works in both contexts. It's not like either one is on some Adam West high.
And hell, even that sort of works for what it is.

[Leo656]

I mean, the fact that it was the Silver Age gives Adam West Batman a lot more leeway. Bruce Wayne had an entirely different relationship with police and established authority back then, and became Batman for slightly different reasons.

Pre-1980s, Batman was more of a "super-cop", and he worked openly with the police. Fully-deputized, all of that. "The police and authorities are all corrupt or incompetent" was not an essential part of the narrative yet, at that point in time. It wasn't as much of a reason as to why he became Batman.

But once that BECOMES part of the narrative, it changes the story, it changes his motivations, and you have to remain consistent with that.

If in the story, Bruce becomes Batman BECAUSE the authorities are all corrupt or incompetent or both, and he has no faith in anyone but Gordon, and his relationship with the police and the government is mostly-adversarial... then it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever for him to ever one day up and decide, "Y'know... we locked up a bunch of bad guys, so now I feel pretty 'safe' in giving up this Batman gig. I'm quite certain all the bad cops are gone and that nobody's ever gonna be on the take in Gotham City again. I can just step back and let the regular law and order types handle it from now on, they got this." He also didn't end up with Rachel at the end of "Begins" because of how much Gotham needed Batman more than Bruce needed a normal life.

So again, Bruce's motivations in quitting in between "The Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Rises" makes zero sense at all within the narrative presented in the first two movies and his already-established motivation. That isn't just "a different take", it's quite simply bad writing and inconsistent characterization. It's got slightly less to do with not being consistent with comics canon, and MORE to do with the fact that his character wasn't even consistent within the canon of the films themselves.

I am willing to forgive Nolan and Co. for this to a point because he has admitted that he made DKR with a figurative gun to his head and a hard deadline to meet, which means certain creative choices probably weren't thought through as much as they were on the first two films. But it is, indeed, a giant gaping hole in the story if you're still remembering the first movie by the time you watch the third.

[AquaParade]

I see it as Bruce just reacting to all the trauma. Nolan's trilogy being as grounded as it is, you can only expect a man to keep it up for so long. Awful **** went down, Joker stole Harvey's soul, he lost the love of his life. I think that is justification for him to retreat into his shell for a while. I don't think it contradicts anything we saw earlier in the trilogy.

[Leo656]

So he suddenly just doesn't care anymore? The system isn't "broken" anymore? So he goes and cries in his room for eight years because the job was a lot harder than he thought it would be?

That's... a way to go, I guess. But that's not who "Bruce Wayne" is. That's some guy some writer made up and called "Bruce Wayne". And it IS contradictory with the first two movies, which portrayed him as a particularly driven and focused individual.

Bruce Wayne processes trauma into motivation and only becomes further entrenched in his personal "war" the more things go bad. That's the only version of the character I recognize. I am not okay with him being a "quitter". The "love of his life" didn't even wanna be with him anyway. I have a huge problem with those movies even being primarily driven by a romantic subplot to begin with. That was some tacked-on studio nonsense that felt very out of place in a Batman movie entirely.

It's the same problem I have with "Kingdom Come", and Superman quitting being Superman to go mope on his VR farm because someone called him "old-fashioned". He's not a big crybaby like that, not ever. The story only works by twisting the character into something he isn't and would never be. Like, he literally didn't even quit being Superman because Metropolis blew up or Lois got killed; he was fine still being Superman until people made fun of him for not killing the Joker, and THEN he took his ball and went home. Not because he was "traumatized", which would have made sense in that context. He most directly quit because someone made fun of him. Dumb! Good story, bad characterization/motivation.

I mean, ultimately, you and I have very different criteria for this sort of thing, and I get that. You've kind of said or implied over time that there's no "rules" to this sort of thing, sometimes, and any "new take" can do whatever they want to do. Whereas I firmly believe that SOME things are part of a character's bedrock and can't be changed or else they're now an altogether different character.

For me, Bruce Wayne cannot be a quitter, a crybaby, or a poon-chaser who abandons his mission for every pretty face that catches his eye. Those things have never been canon anywhere except in this one movie. And that's why I don't think DKR is a very good Batman movie, and why it betrays the character in some pretty fundamental ways. That trilogy got off to a fantastic start with a movie that completely nailed everything, and then as it went on they kind of forgot what they had started off with. Bruce is not the same guy in Part 3 as he was in Part 1; he got a lot dumber, weaker, and harder to root for. And in this case, I don't think "he saw some sh*t" is quite good enough.

It's not a terrible movie, I just see a mile of difference between the guy in the first movie and the guy in the third, and that all of his "character development" was for the worse.

You CAN write it that way, sure. You can write anything that you want. I personally just think that it makes Bruce Wayne look really, really weak and impotent when he's supposed to be the guy you're rooting for. I'd rather see a "damaged" Batman who does bad things for (what he thinks are) the right reasons, like in BvS, rather than a "damaged" Batman who makes nothing but bad decisions because the plot demands that they happen and comes out of the movie looking like a complete idiot, like in DKR. To me the former makes infinitely more sense than the latter.

But. To-may-to, To-mah-to.

[Andrew NDB]

All the delays in WB's DC slate of movies are to accommodate new Cavill material, says another article:

https://geekositymag.com/henry-cavil...vnhM9YLzGZTjJE

[Vegita-San]

couldn't get a justice league with reeves and keaton. keaton and cavill maybe?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Vegita-San

couldn't get a justice league with reeves and keaton. keaton and cavill maybe?

Not really interested in that. I WAS interested in Keaton sharing scenes with Affleck in Flash... but apparently that didn't happen.

[Leo656]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Cavill's Superman is more entrenched in peoples' minds as a "Zack Snyder Creation" than any of the other JL members, even though he handpicked all of them. But only Cavill starred in a Zack-directed solo film, so he's more "Zack's Guy" than the others. And we know how WB feels about anything Snyder-affiliated.

Discovery merger or whatever literally just happened so there's no way that's a factor this soon in. Their people wouldn't be involved in this stuff yet.

I guess there's a chance that WarnerMedia decided to flex on WB and force the issue. But again, I'll believe it when I see it.

Be nice if it does happen, but still. His fate is to be a guest star in a bunch of other guys' movies, while Michael B. Jordan gets an HBO Max Val-Zod Superman show and someone else gets the Black Superman theatrical movie series? That's a bummer. Cavill deserves way better than that, but I guess it's better than nothing.

IF it's even true. Which I don't believe it is. Why not? Because I want to see Cavill play Superman again, and if I want something the universe makes it a point to do the opposite.

We'll see. I don't buy it.

[Autbot_Benz]

I hope that rumor is true too I wanna see Cavill Finally get to play Full on Confident Superman now that he is done finding himself dying and being reborn. Always liked him as Superman.

[ZariusTwo]

Zaslav has reportedly made the call to scrap all Superman film projects in the works at Warner and make a concerted effort to get Caville back.

https://www.supermanhomepage.com/rum...-henry-cavill/