Batman V. Superman: Dawn Of Justice

[Leo656]

I prefer it when his parents are alive.

I'm a sucker for all that sh*t where after he punches out Metallo, he goes home to pick up a new cape from Ma, who always has a bunch already made... him and Pa fix a fence and throw some new tires on the old truck, and then they go have a slice of Ma's apple pie while they talk about what a rat bastard that Lex Luthor fella is, and boy how he's gonna get it one'a these days.

They used to do that stuff all the time, and it was always so great seeing him just decompress and relax. "Hey, Dad... nothing's blowing up right now, why don't we sit on the porch and watch the sunset. Y'know I was on the moon this morning? True story!" That stuff is so great, and they don't do it as much when one or both of his parents are dead. He gets all "alone" and angsty and I don't like it.

I like that he at least hangs out with his Mom a lot in the new movies, apparently. It's nice.
-------------

And calling the Reeve film trash is totally wrong (the first one, anyway... it's arguable about the rest). It's fine as its own thing and it's probably the best singular and self-contained Superman movie that ever will be made. I just don't like that aside from Him, everything else is light years away from the comic it's supposedly based on (which I'm easily forgiving of, by the way... they wanted to do the comics, and they tried to very early on in the scripting of it, it just would've cost a billion dollars back then, so they made the movie they made, and That's Fine). It's a really great movie and if you just ignore the sequels and the fact it's a total departure from the source - kinda like Keaton's Batman - then it's really good and (clothes aside) it's not that dated. It's not my personal favorite overall, but it works far better as its own complete film, way more than anything they've done since. There's no arguing that. I mean, I'll defend MoS all day long, but the fact is that a movie that's overly-reliant on its sequels to tell its story did NOT do ALL of its job.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I prefer it when his parents are alive.

Oh god, me too. It grounds him. The loss of Krypton is enough tragedy already, and keeping that connection to his folks and Smallville helps humanize him a ton. I like a Superman that can fit in as a global superhero, a big-city reporter and a humble farmboy.

But if you have to do the "Pa dies" thing, it should be meaningful and have purpose. And I think the point made with the heart attack is easily the best way that's been done.

[Leo656]

Aww... Not when he heroically rescues Ma from Brainiac?

Sometimes comics accidentally make certain moments "bigger" than they ought to be.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Bry

The "it's trash now" modern snobbery is hilarious, too. Does anyone think Man of Steel will have aged anywhere near as well by 2050?

Probably not but who knows? What's hilarious is how blinded people are by nostalgia.

[Bry]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Aww... Not when he heroically rescues Ma from Brainiac?

Sometimes comics accidentally make certain moments "bigger" than they ought to be.

Or certain movies.

That's kind of my major preference there -- if Pa has to die, then make it in as "human" a way as possible. "All those things I can do. All those powers. And I couldn't even save him" holds up for a reason. And compared to him being killed by a freaking tornado, it's downright subtle.

We definitely disagree on Man of Steel. That's okay! I pretty much hated it, but I can see how it could have turned out more to my tastes if certain creative decisions went a different way. I felt like it was way too dour (in tone and colour palette) and there were those key sequences that just didn't jive with "my" Superman. But... fix the Pa Kent stuff, brighten the colour scheme, inject a little more lightheartedness overall and tone down the disaster porn, and I'm all in.

Superman Returns had its share of problems, but if Snyder showed some restraint with the mass destruction and injected some more of this kind of stuff to balance things...



...that would have gone a long way for me.

(Or, hell, even further back -- Superman II had Superman stop his fight with Zod to save civilians from falling debris!)

And maybe find a way to not have Superman straight-up murder a dude. He can still die -- but they could have been more clever than a neck-snap. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Turo602

Probably not but who knows? What's hilarious is how blinded people are by nostalgia.

And others can be just as blinded by a need to reject all "nostalgia". Times change, styles and tastes change, but there are some things just always work. IMO, Snyder's need to be as tonally distinct as possible from previous Superman movies was throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Bry

And others can be just as blinded by a need to reject all "nostalgia". Times change, styles and tastes change, but there are some things just always work. IMO, Snyder's need to be as tonally distinct as possible from previous Superman movies was throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

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.

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

[CyberCubed]

I'm mostly watching this movie for Batman anyway, and I imagine most are. Whatever they do with Superman is secondary to me.

[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?

Also why isn't anyone upset about the rumored

Spoiler:

Doomsday introduction? The way he was brought into the Death of Superman in my opinion is way better than having Luthor create him...

[Turo602]

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?

Also why isn't anyone upset about the rumored

Spoiler:

Doomsday introduction? The way he was brought into the Death of Superman in my opinion is way better than having Luthor create him...

Because people don't care for change. They want the same old Superman with no build up or challenge.

As for the spoiler, I don't mind the change. It's fine for a different take. That is, if it's even true.

[MikeandRaph87]

Spoiler:

It would actually be taking a cue from Justice League because Star Labs created Doomsday. Before he could be controlled rouge scientist Professor Milo unleashed him as revenge due to being fired for ineptitude. So Doomsday being created in a lab using krytonian DNA to fight Superman is not an entirely new concept. I do welcome it as it looks like an interesting angle.

[Commenter 42]

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?

Also why isn't anyone upset about the rumored

Spoiler:

Doomsday introduction? The way he was brought into the Death of Superman in my opinion is way better than having Luthor create him...

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.

Originally Posted by Turo602

Because people don't care for change. They want the same old Superman with no build up or challenge.

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.

[Leo656]

Spoiler:

Doomsday's origin is kind of screwed up, anyway. Me, I like the whole "he was an ancient Kryptonian experiment gone awry" angle... and actually, that would fit really easily with all that stuff they talked about in the first movie, all the genetic manipulation stuff. Huh. Ah, well, they probably just wanted to simplify and streamline things, same as they've done with most of what they've borrowed. Plus, one of the most consistent complaints about Doomsday's origin and his defeat of Superman, among fans, has always been that Luthor had nothing to do with it, when Luthor always has something to do with it, and the general feeling that if Superman was ever to "die", it would be just the poetic thing to do to have Lex involved. So this was probably one of those, "Hey, why don't we 'fix' that here?" kind of things. I have always had a feeling that if DC had a do-over, they actually would have had Lex be responsible for Doomsday. This way of doing it in the movie actually makes perfect sense, so it's a change I can live with. I prefer the comic book origin, but the fact is, most people were never really satisfied with it to begin with, so it's open for tinkering.

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.

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.

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.

[MikeandRaph87]

Spoiler:

Wait....James Gordon AND Dick Grayson are dead? Barbara Gordon is Commissioner? Why can we not just have Dick Grayson as an effective Robin and Barbara Gordon as an effective Batgirl on their own and still a team? *sigh* I am not happy they are my two favorite DC heroes!

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

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.

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...

[Leo656]

Spoiler:

Did we get confirmation on Jim Gordon being dead? And Babs being the commissioner? I remember the rumor, but I wasn't sure if it was confirmed.

Only reason I could see for them doing that, is if they want to keep the Bale trilogy as "Loose backstory". They were so popular, DC/WB may be nervous about outright contradicting any of it, so they may be saying these new movies are "a few years later" and hand-waving it away for the people who just won't let go of the Nolan films.

Eh. It's a way to go. Not sure that's what they're doing but I couldn't blame them.

[MikeandRaph87]

The headstone in that case could be John Robin Blake if that is the case. He is expendable.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Spoiler:

Did we get confirmation on Jim Gordon being dead?

I read another story today...

Lots of people are thinking this, if Facebook is any indication.
WARNING could be a massive spoiler of all the Spoliers to spoil! The ultimate Spoiler of spoilering spoil.
Possibly not true at all...but it has a certain logic to it.

Spoiler:

Jason Todd is the Robin who died - not Dick - only he didn't die. He became red hood, and then, the Joker in Suicide Squad. It's why he has the tats and the ****ed up teeth, as an homage to the original Joker that killed him.
One of the many sources that popped up on FB today

[Leo656]

I read that too but I don't buy it. I was wondering how many other people heard that one. I'unno, just don't feel it in my gut.

[CyberCubed]

I seriously doubt that is going to be the case. I can definitely see them want to use Nightwing eventually. He's never been exposed in movies and I can see him being handled better than a young kid Robin in serious movies like these.

[Turo602]

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.

That image has been floating around for months now. I didn't know how legit it was but the latest trailer pretty much confirms it.

Spoiler:

I don't know how to feel about it but it does kind of make sense to simplify it. I mean, I've always thought it was weird for Batman to adopt so many young sidekicks. I forgot where it was, but it was one of the Batman cartoons where Gordon sees Robin, probably Tim Drake, and says something along the lines of "they keep getting younger." In the comics and cartoons it's all fine and dandy but in real life, shouldn't people be concerned? Batman can say whatever bullsh*t he wants but it's bad parenting. He essentially makes child soldiers. So sticking to just one Robin seems fine, especially if he's a little older but what bothers me is that Dick Grayson is likely going to take the mantle of Red Hood. At the same time though, I don't think that rules him out as Nightwing either. He could become Red Hood but what if down the road, after Batman has "saves" him he becomes Nightwing?

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

I read another story today...

Lots of people are thinking this, if Facebook is any indication.
WARNING could be a massive spoiler of all the Spoliers to spoil! The ultimate Spoiler of spoilering spoil.
Possibly not true at all...but it has a certain logic to it.

Spoiler:

Jason Todd is the Robin who died - not Dick - only he didn't die. He became red hood, and then, the Joker in Suicide Squad. It's why he has the tats and the ****ed up teeth, as an homage to the original Joker that killed him.
One of the many sources that popped up on FB today

Yeah, my sister showed me that yesterday and I don't buy it either. Would be lame if it's true though.