Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[Slade]

I remember reading that "spoiler" a while back. It didn't sit well with me then. I'm not sure I actually buy it though. I feel like there's going to be a twist to it. Which, is probably nothing more than he's alive, but they faked his death. Idk.


As far as that FB rumor. Nah, doubt that.


Though, sounds interesting.

[MikeandRaph87]

They did that already in Batman The Dark Knight so its hard to think WB would do that again with Jim Gordon.

[CyberCubed]

Didn't they originally try to get Christian Bale back for this film before he turned it down? Seems like they were trying to make it have a loose continuity with the Nolan trilogy at first.

[Slade]

Originally Posted by MikeandRaph87

They did that already in Batman The Dark Knight so its hard to think WB would do that again with Jim Gordon.

They didn't go as far as having an actual grave for Gordon though.

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Didn't they originally try to get Christian Bale back for this film before he turned it down? Seems like they were trying to make it have a loose continuity with the Nolan trilogy at first.

From everything I've ever read. No. The Nolan trilogy is done. It's it's own thing. Nothing to do with the DCCU.

[Leo656]

There was some loose talk way back when that they offered Bale somewhere between (rumored) $40-$50 million to play Batman again in A movie, not specifically this one. But he completely didn't want to do it and WB really can't make any money at all on a deal like that, so they all figured it would be a colossal waste of time to spend 1/4 of a movie's budget on a guy who didn't even wanna be in the damn thing.

So there was talk he might be Batman again but that was all pretty much given up before this specific movie was confirmed, I believe.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Slade

They didn't go as far as having an actual grave for Gordon though.

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

Originally Posted by Slade

From everything I've ever read. No. The Nolan trilogy is done. It's it's own thing. Nothing to do with the DCCU.

It is now but before I totally read that they offered Bale tons of money to return and that he'd only do it if the story made sense of him being Batman again.

[CyberCubed]

I don't get why Bale turned it down, its not like he hated playing Batman either. All he would have to do was a few months of filming and he'd be done. I mean you're offered damn near $50 million dollars for a single movie and you turn that down?

That's more money than any of us will see in a lifetime.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

I don't get why Bale turned it down, its not like he hated playing Batman either. All he would have to do was a few months of filming and he'd be done. I mean you're offered damn near $50 million dollars for a single movie and you turn that down?

That's more money than any of us will see in a lifetime.

As far as I've read, it never happened. I think there is an article where he (Bale) shoots it down as gossip. But then again, he's a psycho, so who knows.

There was a ton of scuttlebutt around Ben getting the part. Some, er, interesting things were happening at Warners prior to him "landing" the Role. If you ask me, he simply took it.

This article makes it clear that Affleck has been in the background at Warners for years

He owes everything to Robinov.

http://deadline.com/2013/06/yet-anot...umvira-521215/

[Leo656]

I, for one, had no interest in watching Bale sleepwalk through the part again after his heart clearly wasn't in it anymore. He was barely in the last one. He had his day and he was great for a while; those movies still had a bunch wrong with 'em, give someone else a turn.

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by Turo602

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



It is now but before I totally read that they offered Bale tons of money to return and that he'd only do it if the story made sense of him being Batman again.

You know he was Gordon in Year One, right?

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Turo602

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.

Originally Posted by Turo602

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.

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

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.

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Leo656

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Leo656

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...

Spoiler:

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.

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. 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.

Originally Posted by CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy

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.

Originally Posted by Turo602

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:

[sdp]

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]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

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

I agree with your opinion in the spoiler.

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...

Spoiler:

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.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

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.

Originally Posted by Bry

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]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

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]

Originally Posted by Purse Grabbin Puke

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

Why exactly would superman be an atheist?

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Xiewin

Why exactly would superman be an atheist?

Lol.

Great. Here. We. Go.

[Xiewin]

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

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Xiewin

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]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

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.)

Originally Posted by Xiewin

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]

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. 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.

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.