Pattinson/Reeves Batman Movie (Formerly Affleck Stand-Alone Film)

[Sumac]

Snyder talks about his vision of DC heroes:

I'm like ****.. really. Like... like .. like .. like I'm like wake the **** UP. It's like ya know that's all. That's what I'm saying about like once you've lost your virginity to this ****IN' movie and then you come and say to me something about like 'oh my superhero wouldn't do that.' I'm like I'm like down the ****in' road on that, you know what I mean? And it's a cool point of view. Like I'm 100% fine .. it's a cool POV to be like 'My heroes are innocent. My heroes didn't like ****in, ya know, LIE to America. My heroes didn't ****in' ya know embezzle money, my heroes didn't ****in' commit any atrocities. I'm like that's cool but you're livin' in a ****in' dreamworld. And I guess, ya know, so the cool thing is like mythologically-speaking I'm 100% fine and by the way I love anything more than Superman and Batman, but in the same way that Alan Moore was fed up with the ****in' like OK 'no ya know .. they do THIS.

Source

This is the guy who DC wanted to be a visionary for their DCCU...

P.S.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Snyder talks about his vision of DC heroes:


Source

This is the guy who DC wanted to be a visionary for their DCCU...

P.S.
https://media.giphy.com/media/D5Ag2k5CwYrF6/giphy.gif

**** that talentless hack. Dude is Micheal Bay 2.0. best part is there are people on his vero/twitter who think he is like a god

[Leo656]

He is not a good public speaker and does not explain his ideas very well. Which is probably why he doesn't give many interviews. As a fan of his films, I can say that I've never seen him give a decent interview.

His ideas aren't incorrect, though. "Super-heroes only work if they're 100% pure and innocent" is childish and juvenile. It was true in 1940 when the only people reading comics were children. But children haven't been the audience for several decades, and the material is supposed to reflect its audience.

It's also a disingenuous idea, because society loves nothing more than tearing down its "heroes" and celebrating their fall. Every one of Snyder's movies reflect that upon the audience, and surprise, they don't like that. People don't like being called hypocrites, even if it's provably true. Never mind the fact that we put Jesus on the cross for no reason other than he was a Good Guy.

Actually, Snyder himself is a great example of this very phenomenon; he was a "genius" when he made "300" and that zombie movie, and everyone loved him. Then, he "forgot" to make Superman a grinning simpleton, and now he's "a talentless hack". There it is, plain as day: We create "heroes", we celebrate them, and then, when they displease us, we rip them to shreds and desecrate the corpse. It's almost humorous that his very career has been a metaphor for his favorite type of story to tell.

Thus, he was a very good choice to adapt a medium like super-hero comics, which for at least 35 years have been about flawed, imperfect but godlike beings who endeavor to "save" a world that isn't sure if they want "heroes" or to be "saved" in the first place. There have arguably been more (and better) stories within the medium about what the role of these characters even IS, both within the stories and meta-fictionally from the philosophical angle, moreso than simple "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys" fare.

Super-hero fiction hasn't been about simple Good vs. Evil in ages. It's been deconstruction and "shades of gray" for almost 40 years. He's not lying about any of that, and he's not somehow "wrong" for trying to present the material that way in film.

But no, if you still think of "super-heroes" as mostly giving heroic speeches in between getting cats out of trees, then no, those movies (and the comics themselves) probably aren't for you. That SHOULD be okay, and I'm not sure why it isn't. There's an entire series of super-hero films that are already kiddie fare and doing quite well at it, that do nothing at all but present Good Vs. Evil in the simplest and most one-dimensional terms, without even a hint of nuance or "deconstruction". People would do well to spend more time enjoying what they like rather than wailing against something that isn't made for them in the first place. If a person can only "handle" super-hero stories that are one-dimensional, even aside from movies they have many, many cartoon shows to choose from that are still very good while being limited to never having any actual "weight".

I just find it very telling that Zack Snyder as a filmmaker is considered a genius and a visionary by two groups of people who carry a lot of weight - people who actually read comics, and more importantly given his actual job (since he doesn't just do CBMs, after all), people who actually make movies. Other directors, in particular, seem to love his movies and often cite him as someone who "raises the bar" for others in the field. And every single actor who's ever worked for him says nobody works harder, and that they'd do a movie with him tomorrow if he asked. In a Hollywood full of scumbags and horror stories, people genuinely LIKE Zack Snyder (those who've met him). That says a LOT about the man, to me. You don't often hear about someone in that business who's almost universally liked, directors especially.

BUT, he's a "talentless hack" in the eyes of people who predominantly consume cartoons and other such fare as their main source of entertainment, whose only knowledge of filmmaking is heckling from the cheap seats.

Again, it's all very telling. I've never met the man, but I recognize where his ideas come from (even if he's very bad at explaining them out loud), and furthermore, in regards to his talent I'll defer to people who would know - those being his contemporaries - rather than people who simply didn't get what they wanted because a movie based on a comic book didn't look more like a cartoon show, and are SO MAD about it many years later they still feel like they're owed reparations.

Bottom line, if some people didn't like "Watchmen", they should've stayed home for everything after and avoided all the heartburn completely. Whining about MoS and BvS many years removed from them says a LOT more about Those People than it does anyone or anything else:

-It says they don't read comics.
-It says they lack the ability to entertain any opinion or viewpoint that challenges their own.
-It says facts don't matter if they're inconvenient to one person's personal narrative.
-It says they lack the ability to handle not getting their way.
-It says they really love to complain.
-It says they lack the ability to move on with their life and actually find something to Enjoy rather than Condemn.

I wouldn't want to be that kind of person, regardless of what the topic of discussion is. But, that's The Internet. "If we're not tearing someone down, why are we even here?"
-------------------

I will, however, agree that Zack Snyder gives a terrible interview. He does not explain things well. At least not out loud; his typed responses to people are much more coherent, possibly because he isn't "on the spot" in those situations. Some people just don't speak well. It says very little about them aside from that. Trying to "prove" someone is an idiot because they don't do well in front of a microphone, once again, says a lot more about the person throwing shade than anything else.

[Candy Kappa]

with a wreck Watchmen was, we should have seen it coming. At least MoS was fun, but I don't dare giving it a rewatch, I'll stick to youtubing the best bits in correct colors. And it looks so good, so ****ing gorgeous without the "Snyder-vision", like Superman actually looks blue and red instead of... washed-out maroon and grey.

Luckily WW, Shazam and Aquaman is making DCEU palatable as complete movies and not just YouTube-able bits. Warner Bros is still cowards about embracing capes and tights despite superhero movies are popular, so the foundation is still shaky as ****, like WW was great, but it was still low on the Superhero feel. At leas WB gives the heroes superhero costumes unlike Fox did with most of the X-Men

[Leo656]

I agree that the colors in MoS were a bit off, and that FoX-Men were silly for being afraid of costumes. They even teased them a few times, then retreated. Terrible. Cowardice.

Watchmen was everything it could have been within the constraints of film. It was the book re-told, albeit chopped up for length (and they lost a lot of the best connective tissue along the way). Any other approach would have been blasphemous. "Watchmen" as a live-action Saturday morning cartoon? Absolutely not. Never, ever.

The only thing that could have improved it, would be to do a six-hour cut that removed nothing from the book at all, but that would never happen. You change anything and it's not "Watchmen" anymore. There's no reason to "adapt" such a seminal work, that means so much to so many people - including and especially people who don't otherwise read comics - if you're going to dumb it down into populist drivel. Watchmen is so completely ANTI-populist, and even Objectivist, that watering it down to make it "fun" and "sunny" would ruin it.

It is what it is, and if people didn't like the book or film, that's their prerogative, but wishing for it to be the complete opposite of what its creator intended is supremely disrespectful.

Watchmen's themes are very clear: There are no "Good People", and anyone who wants to "Save the World" is a lunatic, hypocrite, or both. It's all there in the material. People can choose to disagree with the philosophy that the work is based on, but I would ask what color the sky is in their fantasy world.

It was the first piece of fiction to look at the entire childish "Good vs. Evil" trope as the candy-colored farce it had become. Again, if people want childlike simplicity, they'd be best to stick to cartoons. Some people above a certain age don't like being talked down to.

I don't go so far as Alan Moore and insist that they just shouldn't have made the movie at all - although I absolutely respect his opinion since he created it - but I think if he ever watched it, he'd be amazed that it's as faithful as it is. Frankly, it's the only film based on literature I even count as an "adaptation" rather than a "reimagining".

Movie's ending is also better than the book. I think Moore would actually agree with that, though. He always hated his own ending. "Giant Space Squid.". Blech!

[Candy Kappa]

We must have seen different Snyder Watchmen cause a good adaptation it was not, sure, Moore is hard to adapt to the screen. But just after the first viewing and the rose-tinted glasses flies right off after getting over "they did a Watchmen movie"

It's such a flat lifeless adaptation, and no not cause it's not "cartoony" enough. Like a styrofoam cake, it looks nice but there's nothing of value inside.

[Andrew NDB]

Dawn of the Dead remake: Great.

300: Very good.

Watchmen: Very good.

Sucker-Punch: BAD.

Man of Steel: Great.

BvS: Good. Mostly. With some BAD in there.

Justice League: We'll never know.

So... not a terrible batting average.

[Leo656]

Kappa: I Disagree. Haley WAS Rorschach. Everyone else was "serviceable" but to be fair I wasn't really caring about that. The book is mostly people monologuing at each other, after all.

Visually and tonally, nobody would have done a better job.
------------

To the actual thread, I sincerely wonder if any scene in "The Batman" will reach the heights of the Warehouse Fight from BvS. I know that they're trying to market it as more of a "detective" film, but that has me wondering if - like Nolan - they just don't think they can hack the fight scenes properly.

I liked Nolans Bat-films but the fight scenes were abysmal. Zack is still the only director to frame a Batman fight scene properly. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Leo656

He is not a good public speaker and does not explain his ideas very well. Which is probably why he doesn't give many interviews. As a fan of his films, I can say that I've never seen him give a decent interview.

His ideas aren't incorrect, though. "Super-heroes only work if they're 100% pure and innocent" is childish and juvenile. It was true in 1940 when the only people reading comics were children. But children haven't been the audience for several decades, and the material is supposed to reflect its audience.

It's also a disingenuous idea, because society loves nothing more than tearing down its "heroes" and celebrating their fall. Every one of Snyder's movies reflect that upon the audience, and surprise, they don't like that. People don't like being called hypocrites, even if it's provably true. Never mind the fact that we put Jesus on the cross for no reason other than he was a Good Guy.

Actually, Snyder himself is a great example of this very phenomenon; he was a "genius" when he made "300" and that zombie movie, and everyone loved him. Then, he "forgot" to make Superman a grinning simpleton, and now he's "a talentless hack". There it is, plain as day: We create "heroes", we celebrate them, and then, when they displease us, we rip them to shreds and desecrate the corpse. It's almost humorous that his very career has been a metaphor for his favorite type of story to tell.

Thus, he was a very good choice to adapt a medium like super-hero comics, which for at least 35 years have been about flawed, imperfect but godlike beings who endeavor to "save" a world that isn't sure if they want "heroes" or to be "saved" in the first place. There have arguably been more (and better) stories within the medium about what the role of these characters even IS, both within the stories and meta-fictionally from the philosophical angle, moreso than simple "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys" fare.

Super-hero fiction hasn't been about simple Good vs. Evil in ages. It's been deconstruction and "shades of gray" for almost 40 years. He's not lying about any of that, and he's not somehow "wrong" for trying to present the material that way in film.

But no, if you still think of "super-heroes" as mostly giving heroic speeches in between getting cats out of trees, then no, those movies (and the comics themselves) probably aren't for you. That SHOULD be okay, and I'm not sure why it isn't. There's an entire series of super-hero films that are already kiddie fare and doing quite well at it, that do nothing at all but present Good Vs. Evil in the simplest and most one-dimensional terms, without even a hint of nuance or "deconstruction". People would do well to spend more time enjoying what they like rather than wailing against something that isn't made for them in the first place. If a person can only "handle" super-hero stories that are one-dimensional, even aside from movies they have many, many cartoon shows to choose from that are still very good while being limited to never having any actual "weight".

I just find it very telling that Zack Snyder as a filmmaker is considered a genius and a visionary by two groups of people who carry a lot of weight - people who actually read comics, and more importantly given his actual job (since he doesn't just do CBMs, after all), people who actually make movies. Other directors, in particular, seem to love his movies and often cite him as someone who "raises the bar" for others in the field. And every single actor who's ever worked for him says nobody works harder, and that they'd do a movie with him tomorrow if he asked. In a Hollywood full of scumbags and horror stories, people genuinely LIKE Zack Snyder (those who've met him). That says a LOT about the man, to me. You don't often hear about someone in that business who's almost universally liked, directors especially.

BUT, he's a "talentless hack" in the eyes of people who predominantly consume cartoons and other such fare as their main source of entertainment, whose only knowledge of filmmaking is heckling from the cheap seats.

Again, it's all very telling. I've never met the man, but I recognize where his ideas come from (even if he's very bad at explaining them out loud), and furthermore, in regards to his talent I'll defer to people who would know - those being his contemporaries - rather than people who simply didn't get what they wanted because a movie based on a comic book didn't look more like a cartoon show, and are SO MAD about it many years later they still feel like they're owed reparations.

Bottom line, if some people didn't like "Watchmen", they should've stayed home for everything after and avoided all the heartburn completely. Whining about MoS and BvS many years removed from them says a LOT more about Those People than it does anyone or anything else:

-It says they don't read comics.
-It says they lack the ability to entertain any opinion or viewpoint that challenges their own.
-It says facts don't matter if they're inconvenient to one person's personal narrative.
-It says they lack the ability to handle not getting their way.
-It says they really love to complain.
-It says they lack the ability to move on with their life and actually find something to Enjoy rather than Condemn.

I wouldn't want to be that kind of person, regardless of what the topic of discussion is. But, that's The Internet. "If we're not tearing someone down, why are we even here?"
-------------------

I will, however, agree that Zack Snyder gives a terrible interview. He does not explain things well. At least not out loud; his typed responses to people are much more coherent, possibly because he isn't "on the spot" in those situations. Some people just don't speak well. It says very little about them aside from that. Trying to "prove" someone is an idiot because they don't do well in front of a microphone, once again, says a lot more about the person throwing shade than anything else.

I cannot give Snyder credit for 300 for the sole fact that Frank Miller was heavily involved in that movie. 300 is the only movie I liked that he directed and I have suspicion that it was as good as it was bc the actual source material (Frank Miller) was there helping him.

As far people not reading comic books I doubt if Snyder has ever picked up a Batman comic bc he was not faithful to that character what so ever. Snyder broke the two golden rules of Batman: No killing and No guns. Batman was just so poorly portrayed in these movies that it was a joke.

That being said I still wish we could have seen his complete version of the Justice League, an actual trilogy. Kevin Smith talked about where Snyder was going to go with the trilogy and it sounded interesting, but unfortunately we will never get to see it.

I hope Snyder is doing well after the tragedy that struck his family. I don't think Snyder deserves any blame or criticism for Justice League after what happen especially sense Joss Wheadon was brought in and also put his two cents in.

A man, can be seen as a genius or visionary, but it does not mean that he can make a product the masses wanted. I think the problem with Snyder is that he does not stay faithful to the characters he is portraying.

[Leo656]

Redeemer: You've never read "A Lonely Place of Dying". BvS pretty much just explores what Bruce would have become after Jason's death if Tim Drake never came along. Very simple.

Batman has killed and he has used guns, and no, not just in the 1940s. Those are guidelines, not "rules". And the only people he killed died via "accidental vehicular manslaughter". After shooting at him with a bazooka.

Batman killed a LOT more people in Nolan's films, and I am genuinely amazed that people don't like to talk about it.

Also, the fact that you give Frank f*cking Miller credit for anything is very suspect. That Guy shows up next to the word "hack" in the dictionary. He's truly, truly awful. Always has been, too. Real Talk: Dark Knight Returns ain't that good.;. Year One was good, but nobody ever mentions it.

I'm always amazed at what people mean as far as "faithful". Because I read a lot of comics and I recognize where these versions of the characters were adapted from. It's Miller and Starlin Batman and Byrne/Jurgens Superman. Anyone who has read any comics between 1985 and 1995 can tell exactly what was adapted for the films.

Thus, how can it not be "faithful"? I've never gotten an answer on this. They're the MOST faithful version of either Batman or Superman insofar as the way they were presented in the comics, specifically during the decade when they had the highest sales and readership.

You had it right that it wasn't a "populist" approach, but it was indeed a faithful one. I wish people wouldn't say "unfaithful" when what they really mean is "not crowd-pleasing enough". I can see merit in that argument but "unfaithful" is simply a lie.

In summation: "Zack Snyder wasn't sure what The Audience wanted to see from these characters" is a fair statement. "Zack Snyder doesn't stay faithful to the comics" is a provably-false one.

Thus, his "problem" would be that he cares more about telling his story than he does about being a crowd-pleaser, and I honestly think he'd agree with that. I, personally, don't see that as a "problem", however, but then I usually do defer to Author vs. Audience, in general.
-------------

Andrew: Ever seen "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole"? I was surprised to find that it is actually quite good, if a bit intense for a kids' movie.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Kappa: I Disagree. Haley WAS Rorschach. Everyone else was "serviceable" but to be fair I wasn't really caring about that. The book is mostly people monologuing at each other, after all.

Visually and tonally, nobody would have done a better job.

Sure, Haley was great, I liked all of the actors but it still wasn't enough. They where the real icing on my styrofoam cake analogy.

It's a shame about Haley, he got to be The Edgy Question in a bad adaptation, and could have been a legit scary Freddy Krueger had it not been for that movie also just be eye candy with no filling.

Originally Posted by Leo656

To the actual thread, I sincerely wonder if any scene in "The Batman" will reach the heights of the Warehouse Fight from BvS. I know that they're trying to market it as more of a "detective" film, but that has me wondering if - like Nolan - they just don't think they can hack the fight scenes properly.

I liked Nolans Bat-films but the fight scenes were abysmal. Zack is still the only director to frame a Batman fight scene properly. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon.

As bad as BVS was, that scene is mighty fine to rewatch on YouTube. But it's not hard doing a good Bat fight scene, Aaron Schoenke done a ton of them by now on shoe-string budgets.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

To the actual thread, I sincerely wonder if any scene in "The Batman" will reach the heights of the Warehouse Fight from BvS.

All of the technical and physical and cinematographical merits of that scene are immensely undercut by how super murderous Batman is made to be there.

Which isn't to say that Batman has never killed in anything ever before. Most people just don't want or expect a murderous Batman.

[Candy Kappa]

The fight in the building, isn't that murderous, like the grenade scene was "me or them" and the last Frank Miller reference bit... yeah... okay.

But movie Batmans have a disturbing death toll *eyeing Keaton's Batman*


The chase scene though.... it's full on AsBaR nonsense... exploding rubber bullets, I swear.

[Leo656]

I only saw Grenade Guy and "Not KGBeast" explicitly die in that scene.

If more people - including innocent civilians and police officers - didn't die during the Batman Begins chase sequence, I will eat a shoe. Saying "Nobody was killed" isn't a good enough mitigator. Looking at YOU, Alfred!

And again... Going by the comics... I can't even count how many Bad Guys die during Batman Chase Scenes. It's altogether pretty constant. Bad Guys really need to avoid the goddamn Batmobile. Otherwise it's their own damn fault.

Batman himself never seems to care about that kinda thing either, so... Again, nothing inconsistent about it. Funny thing about Batman... He's never really given a sh*t at all when people who are actively trying to murder him get killed in the attempt. Can't say as I blame him.

And no, not JUST Miller comics, which I outspokenly am not a big fan of. But it's a consistent character trait whether he's written by Starlin or O'Neil or Dixon or whomever. Batman is NOT a "preserve human life no matter what" character. If they're bad guys he kind of doesn't care if they die, he just PREFERS not to do it himself.

The "no guns/all life is sacred" stuff came from the cartoons for merchandise reasons. Bruce Wayne absolutely doesn't care if bad guys die. Mostly.

[Candy Kappa]

The No Kill rule certainly is a relic from the Comic Code era, but personally I think it suits Batman to vow not to actively kill someone.

Of course self preservation comes first. If a idiot throws a grenade at the DARK BROODING DARK KNIGHT, and the pointy eared guy deflects it with his impossible cape and the grenade comes back and blows the idiot up, that's on the idiot.

But, in Begins when Batman does his "I don't kill, but I don't have to save you either" to justify getting rid of Ra's is a poor cop-out. And there so many that want to be that edgy-grim-dark cool writer that have Batman finally kill. Batman who laughs, Grim Knight, it's dumb and uninteresting. Ooooh, Batman's over the edge, he kills people, so kewl. It's the same as people saying Superman is boring cause he's all-powerful, you're missing the point.

And if you're steering hard the other way, you get that masterpiece of a video game where you had to beat up the bad guys and cuff them before they woke up ready to beat you again. That was FUN!

[Leo656]

We agree on a lot of this.

I don't think Batman should actively seek to kill people. But "Sh*t Happens" Batman, where if people who are trying to kill him or kill innocent people get killed along the way? That's collateral damage at worst. I've never once seen him lose any sleep over that kind of thing, nor should he.

I can find some wisdom in the "explanation" of, "If I start actively killing the bad guys, I'll never stop, and I'll be just as bad as they are." But only slightly. I do enjoy that Bruce Wayne acknowledges that he's both a damaged person AND a hypocrite, through this line of reasoning, but it still unravels under scrutiny. At the end of the day, Batman never kills the bad guys because they need to sell more action figures, and NO other reason. Thus, I find it a very silly "rule" to get bent out of shape over. I find it hard to believe that he would NEVER kill someone if it would save someone else's life.

And aside from the "I don't have to save you" line from "Begins"... he burnt the entire League Of Shadows compound to the ground with everyone inside! Like, come ON. This is why I don't worship Nolan's films the way some people do; they're very good, but you can't have the hero say, "I Refuse To Kill", and then kill EVERYONE in the building to prove his goddamn point. Those movies would have been much better if they'd avoided the whole "Kill/No Kill" conversation altogether, at least as a plot point. Because the movie itself undoes the entire argument with what it presents onscreen.

He killed the League of Shadows. He killed Ra's. He killed Harvey Dent. He "probably" killed a lot of people in the car chase scenes. Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne has a STAGGERING Kill Count, but hey, that soundtrack was KICK-ASS so we just don't talk about it. And that doesn't even get into the Keaton films, which were also pretty bad at this.

It's laughable. And again, it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't keep telling you, "This Guy NEVER Kills People." Um... are you even WATCHING the movie, movie?
-------------

Which game are you referring to? Was it "Batman: Vengeance"? That one's pretty good. The camera pisses me off but I thought on the whole it was very underrated. Having to handcuff the bad guys was an interesting mechanic rather than the typical, "They flicker and disappear" way it usually goes.

[Candy Kappa]

It's the only thing I remember about the game, that and it annoyed me to all heck.

Ninjas ain't people, they don't count when he's burning down the League, but didn't the guy he was ordered to kill stay inside the building? Oops.

[Redeemer]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Redeemer: You've never read "A Lonely Place of Dying". BvS pretty much just explores what Bruce would have become after Jason's death if Tim Drake never came along. Very simple.

Batman has killed and he has used guns, and no, not just in the 1940s. Those are guidelines, not "rules". And the only people he killed died via "accidental vehicular manslaughter". After shooting at him with a bazooka.

Batman killed a LOT more people in Nolan's films, and I am genuinely amazed that people don't like to talk about it.

Also, the fact that you give Frank f*cking Miller credit for anything is very suspect. That Guy shows up next to the word "hack" in the dictionary. He's truly, truly awful. Always has been, too. Real Talk: Dark Knight Returns ain't that good.;. Year One was good, but nobody ever mentions it.

I'm always amazed at what people mean as far as "faithful". Because I read a lot of comics and I recognize where these versions of the characters were adapted from. It's Miller and Starlin Batman and Byrne/Jurgens Superman. Anyone who has read any comics between 1985 and 1995 can tell exactly what was adapted for the films.

Thus, how can it not be "faithful"? I've never gotten an answer on this. They're the MOST faithful version of either Batman or Superman insofar as the way they were presented in the comics, specifically during the decade when they had the highest sales and readership.

You had it right that it wasn't a "populist" approach, but it was indeed a faithful one. I wish people wouldn't say "unfaithful" when what they really mean is "not crowd-pleasing enough". I can see merit in that argument but "unfaithful" is simply a lie.

In summation: "Zack Snyder wasn't sure what The Audience wanted to see from these characters" is a fair statement. "Zack Snyder doesn't stay faithful to the comics" is a provably-false one.

Thus, his "problem" would be that he cares more about telling his story than he does about being a crowd-pleaser, and I honestly think he'd agree with that. I, personally, don't see that as a "problem", however, but then I usually do defer to Author vs. Audience, in general.
-------------

Andrew: Ever seen "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole"? I was surprised to find that it is actually quite good, if a bit intense for a kids' movie.

In the Nolan films they explicitly say Batman refuses to kill. I cannot recall an incident where he killed someone directly. The closest thing was him not saving Ra's Al'ghul. Thats all I can think of.

As far as the comment I must admit that you are more knowledgeable from the sounds of it. From what I read Batman only used guns during his golden age and I believe in infinite crises ounce as well. Correct me if I am wrong with a specific issue please.

As far as Batman v Superman I thought/ believed it was a loose adaptation of Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. Is there a specific arc that the movie is based off besides this or are you simply saying the tone of character is simply being used from this period??

Also I actually have no problem with Snyder's Superman. I thought MoS was an interesting movie, but I am simply not a super-man fan.
Also I was not born in the 80's so yeah I didn't read that run of Batman

My sole point was that I thought Batman v Superman was suppose to be adaptation of Dark Knight returns, but I didn't think it was a good adaptation.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

It's the only thing I remember about the game, that and it annoyed me to all heck.

Ninjas ain't people, they don't count when he's burning down the League, but didn't the guy he was ordered to kill stay inside the building? Oops.

He sure did! Even the guy Bruce refused to kill in order to make his belabored point about Not Killing was an "acceptable sacrifice", apparently. He died worse than most, trapped in that cage as he was. Not even the CHANCE of escape. Terrible.

They clearly just wanted us to get swept up in the excitement and Zimmer's soundtrack, and not actually notice ANY of that. Suffice to say, such sleight-of-hand nonsense doesn't work on me! Bruce Wayne arguably killed more people in Nolan's movies than The Joker did, and FAR more violently, to boot.
-------------------

I still play Vengeance sometimes. It's pretty good. Not "great" (and definitely not Arkham Series "great") but a pretty good game for being based on the cartoon, which sadly had few really good games.

The "Batman Begins" game was definitely the best pre-"Arkham" Batman game ever made, though. Combat was clunky, but it was supposed to be a stealth game, so that's acceptable I guess. Very linear but it's a fun weekender. The unlockable classic costumes and the very fun Batmobile sections give it some good replay value. I'd check that one out if you haven't.

[Candy Kappa]

It wasn't Vengance, it was Dark Tomorrow. That one had a cuff your baddies gimmick as well.