|
02-12-2016, 01:18 PM
|
#1461 | |
|
Overlord
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 43,883
|
Quote:
At least they're not doing day 1 Batman again. We've seen that too many times. They are finally giving us exactly what we want. Its the year 2016 and we're finally getting what should have happened in the late 90's or early 2000's. We waited 15 years for this. |
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 02:37 PM
|
#1462 | |
|
Banned
 Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
It is just like TMNT, except that inplace of goofy juvenile humour, it's depressing and morose. Both companies have cherry picked from source, and so far, as much as I hate PDMT, the sequel might be fun, if all kinds of wrong. If PDMT is cotton candy, BVS is the resulting cavity and root canal. Not saying I want a Cotton Candy WB, but they could ease off the emo grunge by a factor of 10. I know you hate my soapboxing Leo, but if you and friends can grandstand and tell dissenters we're "wrong", then meh, the field is open. I'm predicting a massively negative response to BVS. I haven't convinced myself of it, the trailers and marketing have. Save this post, and feel free to rub it in my face forever if i'm wrong, but i'm calling it now...reception will be no better than 50% positive, with a decay rate of three months until the overwhelming majority is nonplussed. Come September, the common response to the DCEU will be: I didn't love BVS, but that one scene was cool; I really enjoyed suicide squad, and i think Justice league will be awesome! Can't wait for Affleck to Direct Batman, did you see Argo? Calling it now. If I'm wrong, I'll carry a picture of Affleck in my underwear for a week. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 02:39 PM
|
#1463 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: West-Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 02:52 PM
|
#1464 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,703
|
Quote:
 All because you can't get over Reeve, and don't think (for some reason I'll never agree with or understand) that making a comic book movie based on the source material is the correct way to go. You're hung up on all the wrong things, like trunks on costumes or the exact facial resemblance of a character, or how closely one version of a character represents a NON-CANON version of a character from another movie 40 years ago. The reasons for your angst are the most shallow and nonsensical imaginable when the whole thing looks exactly like it should. That's my problem. It started three years ago with "It's not like the Reeve movie, I hate it and everything connected with it going forward." And that's a really shaky foundation to build your platform of hatred on. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 02:56 PM
|
#1465 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 6,129
|
Quote:
 Anyway, the last rumor about WB retooling their whole movie schedule to center it around Batman are probably just rumors, however, I believe, there are indeed could be concerns about BvS. And its easy to see, why people believed this information: the whole thing looks like a mess, if you look at it from the side. With Snyder at the helm, I doubt, I will like it much, even if it more than a solid movie. His style-over-substance approach is just something that I don't appreciate. Anyway, it will be interesting to observe resulting fallout. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 06:37 PM
|
#1466 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
I've moved on from the Reeve thing. I think I agree, having spent some time re-watching the old movies, and looking over my collection of superman stuff, that Reeve isn't really my definition of Superman today. I'll be honest; he's kind of goofy. I know i went apeshit previously, but that was a whole bag of nostalgia talking, and yeah, i think i was a little off base. i can admit that. On the flipside, you've reduced my argument to a whole lot less than what i said in those pages a few months back, and that's not fair. My BIGGEST issue wasn't really the underwear - I just think if you're going to go with "he wears a cape and red boots and spandex...welll, underwear isn't a huge ****ing stretch mate. On the flip side, after watching MOS, YOU, yes, You opined exactly what I did... Here on this site no less. Spoiler:
So you've changed your mind - point is, we once agreed, that this Superman doesn't feel like Superman... but people change, over time... we grow distant... tears. |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 07:02 PM
|
#1467 |
|
Overlord
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 43,883
|
You guys stalk each others visitor messages? I find that interesting. I don't even use visitor messages as I've turned the option off.
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 07:06 PM
|
#1468 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
No ...
I stalked his messages... Leo doesn't even know I exist  I keep hanging round his locker after school, and he just ignores me, (even after that one time under the bleachers.) Anyways... BVS needs more Bollywood. I'm asking for just a smidge more dancing. a pitance of dancing is all i ask. That's it. from alex luthor. The watusi. The watusi in a tutu. Ok fine, The watusi in a tutu and a bolo. That's all.... Last edited by Commenter 42; 02-12-2016 at 07:11 PM. |
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 07:20 PM
|
#1469 | |
|
god status
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,291
|
Quote:
Welcome to the dark side! On a side note, I actually think Cubed is an imp now..
__________________
Do not concern yourself with what I've already done: rather tremble at the thought of what I am about to do. Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth. http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=48140 |
|
|
|
|
02-12-2016, 07:32 PM
|
#1470 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
I'm not saying BVS is good...I'm not crazy...
I am saying Reeve was great in his day, but my nostalgia was working overtime. It's possible to build a better Superman... My best guess is that Cubed really is Scott Baio, whose pulled a Brian Wilson, but instead of dreaming he gained 300lbs, actually did, and now he can't leave the house... ever. That, or he's secretly HRC. or Scott Bakula, and this next leap, might be his leap home.. |
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 12:53 AM
|
#1471 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,703
|
The thing is, I *did* completely change my mind, on a lot of things about MoS, the more times I saw it, and the more times I saw it shortly after reading some of the comics it borrowed from, along with seeing it with different people in the room and absorbing more people's honest opinions on it. The first time I saw it on opening night, I made a HUGE mistake: I spent a week watching the Reeve movies and "Returns" to get all hyped up... and I got something completely different. My brain couldn't handle the disconnect. I liked a lot of the movie but lots of it left me with mixed feelings. There's still things I wouldn't have done. Jon Kent, almost not at all. The ONE thing they take from "Birthright" (I'd prefer they take NOTHING from "Birthright", that book was terrible, BUT I truly feel Zack was trying to borrow from ALL the comic book versions to some degree, so anyway, if you "have" to...), and it's one of the worst things. The scene in the barn, and the scene after the bullies were picking on Clark... those were perfect. That whole "You're going to change everything just because you exist" stuff, that's exactly the kind of mindset you have to look at Superman with, that level of awe. His existence, given his power and potential, WOULD be a world-changing event. And I truly appreciate a movie that examines ALL the angles if that, good and bad, from "You're going to inspire people to greatness" to "...Yeah, some people might be afraid of you." That's exactly how you have guys like Luthor exist in the first place and be credible, if they're not the only ones who think that way. So yeah, address the insecurity and paranoia that some people might feel when faced with a guy like this. Good for the story.
...But that "maybe you should'a let those kids die" bit, and the tornado... I'unno WHAT that was about. Honestly? I think the former, was them trying to stick a piece of "Birthright" where it didn't fit simply because they felt they had to, and that's the kind of nonsense Jon Kent would say in that version. But "Birthright" is a sh*tty Superman origin story and I wish they didn't do that. The tornado, I feel was studio pressure for One More Big SFX Moment, along with the misguided idea that Jon's death be part of some kind of "event" (frankly, I don't think you need to kill him off, period, but that's my preference) rather than a quiet moment. But really, the more I watched the movie, the more I realized that those two things were the only things at all I didn't like. A lot of things I didn't like, I came to love, and some things I thought I felt would have been "better" didn't make sense upon introspection. That "just cover Zod's eyes" thing for example... I was wrong. I really had to think about that, but it's like, then what? He was NEVER going to stop. He couldn't send him back to the Phantom Zone. Kryptonite doesn't exist yet that they know of. They'd already fought into space and back. People were dying by the second. Every single other thing Superman could have done, wouldn't have stopped anything. They still could have put that over way, way more than they did - and immediately cutting to a "jokey" scene was just bizarre and out-of-place... I strongly suspect a studio-mandated edit for time, there, because it feels like there should be some kind of scene in between - but anyway, he DID have to kill Zod. I had to really think about it, and hear a lot of other people's opinions that by then he just had to stop the fight. I still believe they did want to show that this was a Superman who was willing to "go there", because of the modern trends and yadda yadda, BUT, since it's directly being addressed in-story as being part of his ongoing growth, personal narrative, and Hero's Journey as something he learns from, I can't find fault with it anymore. It was a good decision. it kept to the spirit of the comic book story where he did it, even though the scenario was entirely different. "Zod won't stop, threatens to kill everyone, Superman kills one person to save billions, and it tortures him because he still wishes he DID have another way but he didn't." Thematically, it was the same; scenario-wise, entirely different. But you need to keep the spirit of the story, not the literal footprints. Anyways, all that "cover his eyes and fly him away" stuff was nonsense. I had to see the movie a bunch to realize, "Wait, they DID keep doing all that kind of stuff and none of it worked." Some people will never accept ANY scenario where Superman kills someone, and I get that, and I also get "It's a movie, they could have written anything," but I still think it was a good decision. For one thing, it creates a valid reason for some people to wonder what his principles are, who holds him accountable, what's going to stop him from doing it again, or worse... and those are things that the Superman comics have ALWAYS addressed, even without getting luthor and Batman involved, although that too is Simply Obvious. The comic book journey of Superman has always been, "Arrives on Earth, throws his weight around according to his own personal code of Justice, is considered a hero to some and a menace to others, BUT, through his consistent actions as a hero, protector, and defender, is eventually beloved by all but a vicious and petty few." And that's a journey I find interesting. So, sure, in the first movie, literally the first DAY he's Superman, you have him get in over his head, knock over a city, be forced to publicly execute someone... all that isn't a huge stretch for the imagination, y'know?  The guy literally has no idea HOW to be "Superman" yet, after all, and that story, again, is as old as the character. And it fits the usual "Year One" stuff the comics do with him. THEN, when you pick the story up again, you ostensibly try to show that he ISN'T that same guy anymore, that he's grown and been changed by those experiences, and is well along the path to becoming the "established" Superman character.Spoiler:
Part 2 comin' up.  I want to touch on a few other things, but this sums up a lot of why I changed my mind about MoS over time and repeat viewings.
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 01:46 AM
|
#1472 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,703
|
Moving on, I appreciate that you've reconsidered how much a role nostalgia may have played in earlier points of disagreement. And frankly, Reeve, in and of himself, was fine! He had so much charm and charisma in that role, it's no wonder people hold on so tightly. BUT... that means they also overlook how much was wrong with the movies he was in, and how out-of-character he had to act due to the ridiculousness of the plots. Because like it or not, the comic book Superman, the "real canon" Superman... he does occasionally knock over a city while fighting bad guys, but he would NEVER give up being Superman for p*ssy. "I love her too much, f*ck my responsibilities". The movie creates an artificial "no-win" scenario where he CAN'T have BOTH. You can't be a super-hero AND get the girl? You're Superman, dude! And then 3 and 4 had their own problems. But HE was fine, they just disregarded comics canon entirely for stories that were, objectively, pretty sh*tty, and had him occasionally behave rather un-Superman-like. Which I also hear people say about MoS, but my main problem is that some folks pretend the old films weren't equally guilty if not moreso. I mean, not only CAN'T he go back in time to save people from dying, he WOULDN'T, because that makes him God and he's well aware he isn't. So right there, the "best" Superman movie ever is turned inside-out by its own ending, which has the guy do something he cannot and would not do, simply because... "We had no other way to end the movie." Their own admission. That. Is. TERRIBLE.
So yeah, great depiction of the character himself, certainly... in movies that got every detail wrong but the origin and the costume. But the persona and visuals, well, he was IT, for sure. The way he carried himself, all that. But those few out-of-character moments were HUGE to the point where I'm amazed they get ignored so easily. It shows you how much people can accept when your lead is so charismatic. It's not his fault, he didn't write the movies. Except the fourth one. That was all him. C'MON, Chris! Anyways, here's a few things that I love about the comics from 86-onwards, and what that means for the movies since they're borrowing so heavily from that specific period of the books: Clark finally got to be happy and well-adjusted, eventually. Forget being "Superman", that was his job, but "Clark Kent" became a Pulitzer-winning journalist, an award-winning novelist, at one point became managing editor of Newstime Magazine, did as much to shut down Luthor and Intergang through his exposes by day as he did by beating them with his fists at night, AND he got to be married to Lois (at which point it was implied they got freaky alllll the time, and good for them, I say! ). But not only that, but it was "Clark the good person" Lois fell for, not, "Superman the flying god who could literally move mountains if I asked him to", and that is SO much better for both of those characters.Now, clearly, we are still going to see Clark "working things out" in this movie, because for one thing people are still kinda mad at him. And he's trying to do what he can to win people over, but it's hard, and he's still trying to weight what he Can Do vs. what he Should Do, and that's all very interesting. BUT. We also see Clark who's a very proactive investigative journalist; the job isn't just a "disguise", it's one of his tools. That's very nice, because I enjoy a Clark who isn't just a put-upon louse when he has the glasses on. We also see Clark sharing a naughty little bathtub frolic with Lois, which, again, shows that it's not all "doom n' gloom" for the guy. He's in a good place in his life, for the first time EVER, in fact, he's just not sure why some people won't stop yelling at him and it's kind of a bummer, since he just wants to help and people won't let him. I been there. I feel you, Clark! You're just misunderstood, guy! Hang in there! But no, the script goes to lengths to establish how much Clark has grown in the interim since MoS. Finally seeing him in a real relationship with Lois, especially, intrigues me. Some may not like Amy and she wouldn't have been my first pick but she's the best movie Lois so far, and she's good enough for me. They're finally making her Clark's support system and not a f*cking brat, in a movie, so frankly, she could be played by a broomstick and it'd be an improvement over Kidder and whatserface. Meanwhile, I also love the world-building for this universe, both big and small. No other comic book movie has put as much work into their shared universe, and they're exactly two movies in. But between the Easter eggs, the viral marketing, the fake in-character interviews and "news articles", we already know a lot of things. We know Kord Technologies exists, which hints to Blue Beetle. We know that at least part of the Robin mythology is intact. We know Jason Todd may or may not be out there somewhere, waiting. We know at least SOME of the Titans exist in some form or fashion. We know Joker and Harley are visually different but their stories are heavily based on the comic book origins. We know that Superman and Batman and Wonder Woman cast a shadow over everything that happens everywhere else, and that things they do in one movie will trickle over into movies they're not even directly involved in (such as characters in Suicide Squad mentioning Superman in the first trailer). We know that superhumans emerging is changing the world's entire geopolitical landscape and that people like Luthor are taking advantage of that. We know Darkseid and Apokolips exist, which means New Genesis, the New Gods, and the Source Wall all probably exist in these movies too. Again, I'm a comics fan first, and this stuff... this is the most exciting stuff to happen in comic book movies for me, ever. All my life it was, "Movies can't be like the comics, it costs too much." And I made peace with that. Then comes a guy like Snyder, and you may not dig his personal style towards colors and angles, but when he says, "NOTHING is too big, we want to embrace everything that makes DC Comic Books great, distill it, and turn it into movies"... That right there is a guy telling me exactly what I want to hear. Maybe some people who weren't weaned on comic books don't like it. He says "Time to go big or go home", I say "F*ck yeah, about time." I see Batman f***ing guys up and it's shot-for-shot from the comics AND the games, how can anyone NOT be thrilled with that? All the little framing techniques where he has the shots look exactly like comic panels - it's subtle, but it's entirely on purpose. And that's what they SHOULD do! Comics panels are storyboards! It's so simple, blow up what's on the page, make it 40 feet tall, and make it real. That's all they're doing. Works for me! F*ck it, man, I just can't get why some people aren't just "Not my thing", but SO sold on how bad this is supposed to be. It's not. At all. It looks, to me, like what every comic book movie so far didn't figure out how to do properly yet. And it has me super-excited for everything coming up, from Wonder Woman to the solo Batman flicks to Green lantern Corps, and even Shazam. I just can't help but be bewildered by the possibilities that Snyder and Co.'s approach to this shared universe presents. I mean, just consider... what if they did a Shazam!/Superman movie?!  Again, people who don't get comics wouldn't get why that's a big deal, but, that would be a HUGE deal! And it might happen! Maybe not, but we at least might see them interact in live action, which is still a big deal even if it's in a JLA movie or whatever.Anyways, I'm happy. I just want it to get here so some people can be pleasantly surprised and the ones who were never gonna like it anyway can move on to the next thing. I did read an article about the "WB nervous" rumor, but every single user comment under it said "Bullsh*t, this looks amazing". And that IS the majority opinion, so honestly, if WB did get nervous and throw out the baby with the bathwater before they even see the receipts... well, that's foolish. I DO think they will do a solo Batman movie sooner than originally planned, though. I just doubt they'll bump Justice League and heavily shift gears on everything else just to make it happen. If anything they'll bump something like Cyborg or Flash that they don't have solid plans for yet and are easier to move. I honestly think everything's gonna be fine. Wait's been excruciating, can't lie. I'm out.
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 02:33 AM
|
#1473 | |
|
40 Years of TMNT
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shell-Ri-La
Posts: 26,956
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 04:12 AM
|
#1474 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,703
|
In re-watching the new trailer a bunch, I really love the acting Cavill does with his face, and the way his Clark interacts with Lois. There's a closeness and a warmth between them that's been absent in other versions.
You hear more of it in the other trailers, but I like the authority in his voice as well. It adds a lot to his portrayal. When I was a kid, in addition to the comics, I read a few Superman novels, and they always described him as having a deep, strong baritone voice, and Cavill sounds a lot like how I used to hear Superman in my head when I used to read those comics and novels. It's also reminiscent of a few record albums and books-on-tape I had as a kid. Like the way he puts all the bass in his voice when he's yelling at Batman. And the way he yells at him to "Stay DOWN!", and is all annoyed visually, that is SUCH a George Reeves take, like from the cadence in his voice to the facial expression and everything. The way his Superman would get all frustrated and shout at people. He had authority, I always dug that.Seeing all this stuff really has me feeling nostalgic. When I was like, 5, a typical weekend would be like this: I'd watch cartoons, and I'm pretty sure Super-Friends was still on at that point (It would have been Super-Powers: Galactic Guardians by then, which was sentimentally always my favorite version of that show), so I'd watch cartoons and run around in my Superman costume and everything. And then a lot of times one of the Reeve movies would be on Channel 11 or something. And then either later that day, or sometimes early on Sunday, stations would run blocks of the old Fleischer Superman cartoons from the 40s, and afterwards, blocks of episodes of the George Reeves show. And in between I'd listen to my records and read comic books, acting them out. That was a regular weekend cycle for years as a little kid.  Weekdays, though, they'd have hour-long blocks of the Adam West Batman show, and occasionally he'd show up on reruns of Scooby-Doo. So I also had a Batman outfit, although less-snazzy than my Superman one, I think subconsciously on purpose. I initially had some resistance to the Keaton version, but completely changed my mind once I saw the first trailer, and soon begrudgingly traded my blue and grey sweatshirt for a black one - although I still rocked the blue outfit on weekday afternoons at 5 and 5:30pm while watching channel 11, that was still mandatory. It was impossible to find suitable Batman masks back then.This is exactly the movie I used to wish for when I was 5-6-7-whatever, watching all the old movies and TV shows and cartoons and wanting just One More Awesome Thing to fill in the hours in between all those other things. It seemed impossible we'd ever see all of this, with this level of detail. Rather spoiled, we are. I mean good god, that IS Batman, man. Batfleck or Stuntfleck, I don't care, the guy moves like a beast, the way he takes those guys out. And that guy's knife sparking off the base of Batman's neck when he swipes at him? Kevlar-reinforced armor around the neck, like in the comics? Nice touch. It's the little things. Like when Batman blocks Superman's punch, his hair falls into the iconic spit-curl, finally. I love how even the tiniest details in this thing are so elaborately and decadently on-purpose . But yeah, this stuff takes me back. Wish I could read a bunch of my old comics but they're in storage. 
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 09:23 AM
|
#1475 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
Of course it should be big, but that's where I feel Snyder keeps failing. Not big enough, not "grand", not rich, not extensive. Watchmen had more gravitas in many ways; with Sucker Punch, it felt like he took one step backward ( there's a lot in that movie I love, but a lot that feels just awkward...But the overall, the ideas and themes, were kind of amazing conceptually. Part of me wonders just how much of it was really him, and how much was a brilliant team around him....) towards his 300 days, which, while a cool visual style in the early 2000's, is pretty damned dated looking today. If We're being completely honest, no, actors don't deserve 1/3rd of a budget. not at all, never, nope, not a chance. That money should be spent on creating the world. That's the big problem. The other problem is the media budget. It's stupid. if you're total budget for a film is 150 million, that's a TON of money. That's stupid money. If 90% of the movie is VFX driven, then 90% of the money should be spent on getting those VFX to mind **** you.. I don't need Affleck to play Batman, because that means a huge chunk of money is going to a "star". Not in a CBM. If this were a straight drama, Then fine, but the star of the movie should be the impossible world of DC, in all it's glory. Star Wars does that. Avatar does that. The Matrix does that. Fifth element does that. the Wizard of Oz does that. Dune, 2001, Lawrence of Arabia, Legend, The Never Ending Story; they all have that one thing in common; a satisfying visual language that over delivers on the auteurs bargain with the viewer. These days, most don't, and the ones that do, have been doing it for long enough that they still remember how to impress (George Miller). Epic is what I demand. I've never accepted that a CBM should be anything less. Last edited by Commenter 42; 02-13-2016 at 09:43 AM. |
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 11:39 AM
|
#1476 |
|
Annalist
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,435
|
I freely admit two things: I'm quite well versed in Batman though hardly the top expert in here, and I'm not at all well versed in Superman.
But I had no problems with Superman killing Zod--it's his first day as Superman, he's fighting an extremely outmatched fight against General Zod, and Zod will NEVER stop killing humans to hurt Kal-El. Not much else an inexperienced Supes can know to do in that split second. My main two problems were and still are: #1. Pa Kent. That guy was an idiot with the "Was I supposed to let those kids die?" "Maybe!" Um, no. No decent human being would have ever said that. Ever. Completely terrible and out of character. And dying for a dog. That was idiotic... just make it a child in its carseat instead--THAT'S a worthy sacrifice. #2. The destruction porn at the end of the movie... with the World Engine dubstepping and so much smash-crash-bash. It's not destruction I have a problem with, but the camera angles and transitions and crap were so quick and erratic that I could not follow the action except "two Kryptonians really wreck sh!t." Maybe when I rewatch before BvS I'll feel differently as I'll have a better expectation for what's coming, but when I watched it, it really took me out of the experience. But NOTHING will change Pa Kent. That's ENTIRELY on the script.
__________________
ALL THEIR DAYS ARE NUMBERED
|
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 12:05 PM
|
#1477 |
|
Detoxed Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Tokio, Italy
Posts: 11,222
|
I need to re-watch MOS but I remember liking it. I don't think Pa Kent's death was bad like most people say, to me it made sense that he preferred to protect his son than having his life saved. And I would definitely go back for my dog as well. My problem is that for Superman it's not necessary for him to have a dead parent, his whole planet is already destroyed. I like Clark being able to visit old pa and ma Kent, I was also mad when they did it in Smallville and when they try to do it in the comics. We have enough superheroes without parents.
As to Superman killing Zod I have no problem either because of the way that it was done. You could tell Superman didn't want to kill Zod, he was so conflicted but it came to a simple killing him or letting Zod kill a mother and her child. I was really bothered by Batman not saving Ras in BBegins since the whole "I don't have to save you" was no excuse but here Superman had a reason. I do think the battle went overboard in the first film and reached DBZ levels of destruction. I understand they were trying to prove a point after the snoozefest that was Superman Returns but they overdid it. I feel people just like to poopoo Superman in general and nitpicked MOS from the ground up. But now we can have a movie about how Batman is so much better than Superman and everyone will be happy as long as the DCU is all about Batman...great. |
|
|
02-13-2016, 01:16 PM
|
#1478 | ||
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
You're a writer - tell me, doesn't this reek of an agenda? "I want to see Superman kill Zod, now how do we do that?" "Everyone thinks he's a boyscout...focus groups suggest...he's too clean, too much of a marty sue...." all that BS. Grant Morrison seems to do just fine writing the character, without resorting to crutches of that lineage. Also, absolutely no reason to set the world up this way at all. It wasn't imperative to make it the his "first day" ...like **** off. That's interesting for a minute...but like Hitchcock said, a movie is "like real life, but with all the boring bits cut out". I paid 15% to be impressed and wowed, not watch a GD tryhard. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
02-13-2016, 02:25 PM
|
#1480 | |
|
Annalist
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 16,435
|
Quote:
__________________
ALL THEIR DAYS ARE NUMBERED
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
